Did Nike pay $500,000 to Verbruggen to cover up Armstrong positive?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
As far as I can see from the statement from nike they do not deny the payment, nor that it was made to heir V, just that they did not pay 500,000 to cover up a positive drug test.Thats very different to not paying over the money at all, so I imagine there is more to come.
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
0
0
noddy69 said:
As far as I can see from the statement from nike they do not deny the payment, nor that it was made to heir V, just that they did not pay 500,000 to cover up a positive drug test.Thats very different to not paying over the money at all, so I imagine there is more to come.

Yep. Nike knows something about that money. Their opening statement they even talk about "insurmountable evidence". Think about that. Last week the were calling it "allegations". The other big kicker is this... Nike talks about being duped by Armstrong. Duped! Tricked! Conned! Nike has set the stage if the 500 thousand payment accusation gets leveled at them to point it right back to Armstrong.
 
Jul 10, 2012
200
0
0
Is Nike now off the hook for their transgression? Was the goal of the story to get them to drop Lance because they didn't do it initially?
 
Big Daddy said:
Yep. Nike knows something about that money. Their opening statement they even talk about "insurmountable evidence". Think about that. Last week the were calling it "allegations". The other big kicker is this... Nike talks about being duped by Armstrong. Duped! Tricked! Conned! Nike has set the stage if the 500 million payment accusation gets leveled at them to point it right back to Armstrong.
:D

This is getting inflated faster than the myth about how many tests Lance took.

Dave.
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
0
0
Yeah. Something is out of place here. Nike MUST know something about the 500 thousand. Why else would they abruptly terminate Armstrong's contract? Why wouldn't Nike just let the contrqct expire without such a drqstic change.

Nike called the evidence against Armstrong "insurmountable" and further adding insult to injury by saying that Armstrong "duped" Nike. Nike doesn't say stuff like this. Even when Nike terminate Michael Vick's contract there were no such speech like this.

If this 500 thousand funding and later Armstrong's "donation" helped Armstrong gain favor with the UCI to cheat the system, then the UCI has some serious explaining to do. You gotta wonder what Armstrong told Nke to get that money. Could this be the end of the UCI as we know it?
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Big Daddy said:
Yeah. Something is out of place here. Nike MUST know something about the 500 million. Why else would they abruptly terminate Armstrong's contract? Why would Nke just let the contrqct expire without such a drqstic change.

Nike called the evidence against Armstrong "insurmountable" and further adding insult to injury by saying that Armstrong "duped" Nike. Nike doesn't say stuff like this. Even when Nike terminate Michael Vick's contract there were no such speech like this.

If this 500 million funding and later Armstrong's "donation" helped Armstrong gain favor with the UCI to cheat the system, then the UCI has some serious explaining to do. You gotta wonder what Armstrong told Nke to get that money. Could this be the end of the UCI as we know it?
Ok I see we are getting ahead of ourselves...its five hundred thousand....thats thousand dollars, a five hundred million payment is a bit much for one test dont you think:D
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Big Daddy said:
Yep. Nike knows something about that money. Their opening statement they even talk about "insurmountable evidence". Think about that. Last week the were calling it "allegations". The other big kicker is this... Nike talks about being duped by Armstrong. Duped! Tricked! Conned! Nike has set the stage if the 500 million payment accusation gets leveled at them to point it right back to Armstrong.
Man that is a large payment.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Big Daddy said:
Yeah. Something is out of place here. Nike MUST know something about the 500 million. Why else would they abruptly terminate Armstrong's contract? Why would Nke just let the contrqct expire without such a drqstic change.

Nike called the evidence against Armstrong "insurmountable" and further adding insult to injury by saying that Armstrong "duped" Nike. Nike doesn't say stuff like this. Even when Nike terminate Michael Vick's contract there were no such speech like this.

If this 500 million funding and later Armstrong's "donation" helped Armstrong gain favor with the UCI to cheat the system, then the UCI has some serious explaining to do. You gotta wonder what Armstrong told Nke to get that money. Could this be the end of the UCI as we know it?
So after the "500 million payment" and then the Armstong donation was it then 500million500thousand dollar total?
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Why would Nike pay $500,000 to cover up a positive test that was easily taken care of with a TUE anyways? All to protect Lance who hadn't even won a Tour yet? Doesn't make any sense.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Altitude said:
Why would Nike pay $500,000 to cover up a positive test that was easily taken care of with a TUE anyways? All to protect Lance who hadn't even won a Tour yet? Doesn't make any sense.
They didnt deny the payment, just what it was used for. Why would they pay 500,000 at all?
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Big Daddy said:
Nike called the evidence against Armstrong "insurmountable" and further adding insult to injury by saying that Armstrong "duped" Nike. Nike doesn't say stuff like this. Even when Nike terminate Michael Vick's contract there were no such speech like this.
Dunno when they terminated the Vick contract, but might it be a case of timing? If they moved quickly enough on Vick, then it's obvious why they did it when they did it. I think for many people the time to act on the LA contract was a long time ago - today isn't that different from yesterday and won't be that different tomorrow, hence the speech laced with fake regret.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Yes, seems bigger. All the other cheaters on Nike payroll were allowed to finish the contract. I am looking forward the next weeks. There is more to come...
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
fluffkitten said:
That's quite interesting, wonder what they feel he misled them on. I don't think its the doping.
i don't care what he misled them with...i personally will never forgive nike his sponsorship unless they..........



...contributed 500K to paul kimmage fund :D
that statement would even placate lemonds:p
 
Mar 24, 2010
34
0
0
Nike vehemently denies that it paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test
Does that mean they paid $200,000 instead? Why not say they vehemently deny any payment to the UCI.

I'm glad Nike ended it's contract with Lance, but maybe it was also a way to stop people from probing about a possible involvement in the cover up.
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
0
0
menlo_guy said:
Does that mean they paid $200,000 instead? Why not say they vehemently deny any payment to the UCI.

I'm glad Nike ended it's contract with Lance, but maybe it was also a way to stop people from probing about a possible involvement in the cover up.

Exactly. Could not have said it better.
 
Oct 2, 2012
152
0
0
Altitude said:
Why would Nike pay $500,000 to cover up a positive test that was easily taken care of with a TUE anyways? All to protect Lance who hadn't even won a Tour yet? Doesn't make any sense.
There wasn't a TUE before he tested positive. Then Nike told the UCI that it was under the pile of $500,000 on their desk.
 
Jul 28, 2010
139
0
0
It is important that Kathy LeMond and Julien DeVries not be viewed as the sole source for this information. Sylvia Schenk said more-or-less the same thing in an interview with Sport1.de in 2005:

"Sylvia Schenk, ex-President of the Bund Deutsche Radfahrer and member of the UCI management committee... noted further that since 1998, much has been done to combat doping in cycling, "But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong...There is obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000. Now of course there is speculation that there are financial relationships to Armstrong as well as to the American market."
[Clipped from http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-criticises-uci-over-armstrong-case]

Remember that after some clown-like confusion, Verbruggen and McQuaid finally settled on "$125,000" as the amount Armstrong "donated". Clearly they referred only to the amount he paid in his own name, and the amount does not refer to any other entities associated with Armstrong.

Only an idiot (or a newbie to the world of international bribes) would make a payment like this in their own name (or even a partial payment), but I suppose Armstrong was compelled by his arrogance and unwillingness to give up the vestige of control as occurs with an anonymous bribe, and to preserve his leverage over the UCI.

The only reason we don't know more about this is that the UCI has never been compelled to back up their statements or open their records. Allez Kimmage.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY