Cancellara

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
Another one than the one on his arm?
Yes, photos of the new Sagan body-tattoo can be seen online already, on various websites
It's a self-portrait of Peter Sagan, as split-personality: "The Joker / Jesus Christ"
Since this thread was about Cancellara, I'll leave the description of Peter's artwork at that now
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
hrotha said:
This is the dumbest thing that has happened in pro cycling in a long while, and that says a lot.
Sagan's body tattoo was pretty bad.
But yeah, there is not much dignity remaining in this.
Gaimon's freak-show personality is insufferable, I don't think I could deal with having someone like that as a teammate
Sagan's tattoo? Huh.

ohhhhh - I shouldn't have Googled that...

Yeah, the Gaimon/Cancellara thing is really childish. As in playground level dumb. As far as cycling and dignity go, I still have flashbacks of Rock Racing rolling up to the start line. Nothing says class like paying women to dress in tight jeans, heels and dark shades to stand around a bunch of cyclists.

John Swanson
 
So, this isn't really related to Spartacus, but it ties in with the convo here about Cecchini and how Cecchini wasn't in it for the money and often worked pro bono (if some of his clients are to be believed and for a few peeps herabouts this isn't poss as those clients are clearly lying liars who lie about everything apart from the few bits that fit a particular narrative and so must be true). Anywho, the Aderlass trial is happening in Germany, and Mark Schmidt has just told the court that he never made a dime out of doping.
"I did not make a profit from doping," he said in a statement read by his lawyers in court.
Ok, so not making a profit is not the same as doing it pro bono, as Cecco is alleged by some of his clients to have done it. It's sometimes said that if you added up all the profits of the airline industry since the days of the Wright brothers you'd get a loss. Or look at the CEO of the US, with so many losses to write off he doesn't have to pay taxes. Not making a profit isn't quite doing it for free. But it's an interesting line to enquire about. If Cecco wasn't making any money and if Schmidt wasn't making any money, will we one day find out that Ferrari too didn't profit from it all? The whole of the way we think about doping would have to change...
 
Sep 29, 2020
6
2
35
I assume that if one were engaged in illegal activity and wanted to hide such activity, a key step would be to hide the proceeds from the tax man, and anyone else who might be trying to follow the money. Also, if one were caught, presumably one wouldn't want to give up the proceeds of said activity. Both of which would certainly lead one to claim, in court, that one hadn't made a profit from the activity in question.
 
I assume that if one were engaged in illegal activity and wanted to hide such activity, a key step would be to hide the proceeds from the tax man, and anyone else who might be trying to follow the money. Also, if one were caught, presumably one wouldn't want to give up the proceeds of said activity. Both of which would certainly lead one to claim, in court, that one hadn't made a profit from the activity in question.
Wait, are we talking about Trump now? ;)
 
Reactions: sworks
I assume that if one were engaged in illegal activity and wanted to hide such activity, a key step would be to hide the proceeds from the tax man, and anyone else who might be trying to follow the money.
Actually, I think it would depend on how you choose to launder your money. Many laundering activities push illegal earnings through legal businesses, where taxes get paid. Even without laundering, if Schmidt wanted to avoid doing an Al Capone he could probably have got away with declaring the income (many jurisdictions don't ask where your income comes from so long as you declare it). So, were we to believe Schmidt when he says he wasn't trying to make a profit (and while I don't see any reason to believe him I do think that what he claims makes for an amusing thought experiment) we could also believe he wasn't into tax evasion. And even if we don't believe him (which is where most of us stand, I suspect) there's ample reason to believe he would have paid taxes.
 
Reactions: Koronin
Also, it's fairly specific. If he is being truthful and didn't make any profit from the doping, how did that affect any other money he made?
The English-language reporting of the trial is pretty weak, currently, with repetitious boilerplate taking up about two-thirds of each report, but IIRC at the start of the trial the prosecution laying out their table said the case was about the business of doping. On that basis, we should probably see Schmidt's claim as a direct response to the specific charges laid against him.

Digging around a bit I found a bit more on what he is supposed to have claimed about his profitability:
He claimed he made no financial profit from the process but asked for 5,000 euros ($5,852) a year for his services and also asked for result-based bonuses.

"Why did I decide to practice blood doping, I don't remember anymore. Doping has to be done these days if you want to succeed," they said.

"In the end I never made money from it, I always saw it as a hobby," they added.
Given his results seem, in general, to have been pretty crap (certainly among the cyclists - where the skiers any better?), maybe he really didn't make a profit as those win bonuses are where the real money is at, no? So, more a case of an accidental philanthropist than the pro bono good deeds alleged by some to have been done by Cecco.

(I think the figures for what David Millar was paying Jesús Losa in 2002 for his doping are out there and from notes I have scribbled in a file they are some ways north of €5,000 a year, at €12,000 before costs and before performance bonuses.)
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2020
6
2
35
Actually, I think it would depend on how you choose to launder your money. Many laundering activities push illegal earnings through legal businesses, where taxes get paid. Even without laundering, if Schmidt wanted to avoid doing an Al Capone he could probably have got away with declaring the income (many jurisdictions don't ask where your income comes from so long as you declare it). So, were we to believe Schmidt when he says he wasn't trying to make a profit (and while I don't see any reason to believe him I do think that what he claims makes for an amusing thought experiment) we could also believe he wasn't into tax evasion. And even if we don't believe him (which is where most of us stand, I suspect) there's ample reason to believe he would have paid taxes.
Yes, sorry you're right. I guess what I meant was that he'd hide the illegal activities as legal ones (financially), and attempt to show that the money was earned through reputable channels.
 
Yes, sorry you're right. I guess what I meant was that he'd hide the illegal activities as legal ones (financially), and attempt to show that the money was earned through reputable channels.
I don't know how he was doing it but if he had a clinic for his normal medical work there's no reason not to run the money through there. I certainly don't think it was brown envelopes stuffed with cash exchanged in dark alleys.
 
Sep 29, 2020
6
2
35
I don't know how he was doing it but if he had a clinic for his normal medical work there's no reason not to run the money through there. I certainly don't think it was brown envelopes stuffed with cash exchanged in dark alleys.
Certainly not. You'd get a pizza delivery driver to pass it on.
 
The English-language reporting of the trial is pretty weak, currently, with repetitious boilerplate taking up about two-thirds of each report, but IIRC at the start of the trial the prosecution laying out their table said the case was about the business of doping. On that basis, we should probably see Schmidt's claim as a direct response to the specific charges laid against him.

Digging around a bit I found a bit more on what he is supposed to have claimed about his profitability:Given his results seem, in general, to have been pretty crap (certainly among the cyclists - where the skiers any better?), maybe he really didn't make a profit as those win bonuses are where the real money is at, no? So, more a case of an accidental philanthropist than the pro bono good deeds alleged by some to have been done by Cecco.

(I think the figures for what David Millar was paying Jesús Losa in 2002 for his doping are out there and from notes I have scribbled in a file they are some ways north of €5,000 a year, at €12,000 before costs and before performance bonuses.)
Poltoranin's results were pretty good but would tend to be peaking around specific events, but the guys like Hauke were midfield only really. Poltoranin being involved was a big disappointment for a lot of us as he was a real specialist in distance and in classic, which with FIS increasingly focusing on freestyle sprints was a bit of a throwback and he was a favourite of traditionalists as a result.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI

ASK THE COMMUNITY