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

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Je ne sais quoi said:
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.
IMO - the $125k was to the UCI - the $500k was to Heins own bank account.

The $125k was 2 separate payments, again my opinion, a sysmex machine was purchased by the UCI for the Lausanne laboratory and to cover the cost of the Vrijman report. Thats why they are public.
The rest Hein & co. just trousered.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Sarcastic Wet Trout said:
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.
Really? Wow, I thought that TUE was legit :rolleyes:. No sh!t it was backdated, backdated exemptions were/are used all the time, with great success. So why would a $500,000 payment be at all necessary?
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Altitude said:
Really? Wow, I thought that TUE was legit :rolleyes:. No sh!t it was backdated, backdated exemptions were/are used all the time, with great success. So why would a $500,000 payment be at all necessary?
The cut.

You think Hein asked for the dough at the Tour? Of course not. He would remind Lances people of the UCIs role in maintaining the win and they did a gather around for the old man.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
The cut.

You think Hein asked for the dough at the Tour? Of course not. He would remind Lances people of the UCIs role in maintaining the win and they did a gather around for the old man.
I wouldn't put it past Nike making a "donation", but it couldn't have been for that test in 99. The test result and subsequent exemption were common knowledge, so how could there have been a cover up? If it was swept under the carpet then the TUE wouldn't even have been necessary. Ya know?
 
Oct 2, 2012
152
0
0
Altitude said:
Really? Wow, I thought that TUE was legit :rolleyes:. No sh!t it was backdated, backdated exemptions were/are used all the time, with great success. So why would a $500,000 payment be at all necessary?
Very successful for the UCI.

Ok, smartypants. What is the standard bribe to get the UCI to accept a backdated TUE?

Nike didn't know either, so they just pulled out some spare change to make sure it was accepted.
 
Jul 28, 2010
139
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
IMO - the $125k was to the UCI - the $500k was to Heins own bank account.

The $125k was 2 separate payments, again my opinion, a sysmex machine was purchased by the UCI for the Lausanne laboratory and to cover the cost of the Vrijman report. Thats why they are public.
The rest Hein & co. just trousered.
Yes, I agree that it might be a bit to-good-to-be-true to find the balance of the payments just sitting there in the UCI's accounting records. But perhaps we can nurse the naïve hope that someone wanted to make it tax deductible (not that a payment to an outside source wouldn't be expensed anyway...sigh).
 
Jun 15, 2012
193
0
0
It's not terribly hard to see how this thing evolved. Everybody was making money off Armstrong, from sponsors to journalists, to riders, tv announcers, you name it. It would not surprise me if Hein or Pat was looking around and realized they could cash in as well.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
For the umpteenth time it was a backdated prescription not a TUE. You cannot backdate TUEs.

The media had previously asked Armstrong at the 99 TdF at a press gathering if he had any TUEs. He answered in the negative.

If the alleged Nike payment to Verbruggen of $500,000 was made in the corticoid cover up environment I would offer that the amount covered that wrong doing plus future protection.

Floyd claimed that Armstrong told him that the 2001 TdS coverup for a positive EPO cost Armstrong a payment of $100,000 to Verbruggen. This statement by Floyd formed part of the recent Swiss defamation proceedings.

The alleged $500,000 payment by Nike had Verbruggen on side to protect Armstrong in future skirmishes.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Je ne sais quoi said:
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.
YES. There is still time to donate. Only 8 weeks to the trial, and flying in witnesses not cheap, so need the funds...
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Sarcastic Wet Trout said:
Very successful for the UCI.

Ok, smartypants. What is the standard bribe to get the UCI to accept a backdated TUE?

Nike didn't know either, so they just pulled out some spare change to make sure it was accepted.
There might have been a bit of a "future guarantee" in there also. As in 7 TdF titles... One could consider it a perfect hedge against the SCA contract...

Which would also explain why Lance was so sure (to Tyler) that the 2001 positive would not be a problem...
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Race Radio said:
When Armstrong tested positive for EPO in 2001 he was not worried, told his teammates it was no problem to take care of. The deal was already in place
Just re-read this. All makes perfect sense.
 
Oct 14, 2012
78
0
0
It seems inconceivable that a Company like Nike would pay a $500,000 bribe to the UCI to cover up a positive drug test. But then again.......
 
Jul 5, 2012
2,938
1
0
it has been alluded to several times, I will spell it out in black and white.

Corruption is a two way street - one party makes the bribe, the other party accepts the bribe. You can have a mark that has never taken a bribe, but is corrupted by the process of accepting the bribe. You can also have an already corrupt guy that demands the bribe.

In this case the guy (Verbruggen) might have been a virginal mark. Nike/LA corrupted Hein the moment he accepted the $500k bribe, and also made him complicit - they then have something over him. OR he was already corrupt and held out his hand but the moment Nike/LA put the $500k in it he is STILL complicit. Makes no difference, either way Nike/LA have Hein over a barrel the moment he accepts the bribe.

So yes, the best thing is get him to accept the bribe which is why its $500k which is not too be sneezed at, he would have taken it. And then they have him in their pocket forever.
 
Sep 6, 2012
65
0
0
^my guess would be that Nike was a party to the deal, but not on the hook for the whole amount.
The standard (and very UN-sophisticated) LA tactic is to convince your "friends" to do something that's just a little unethical and then after the event let them know that what they did was very very unethical and/or criminal but that he'll (nod-nod-wink-wink) keep their secret.
Nike may not even have been aware of the real reason for providing the money.
One man's "bribe" is another man's fee for service.
In the sales business it's generally referred to as "contra".
 
Jun 17, 2009
60
0
0
sittingbison said:
In this case the guy (Verbruggen) might have been a virginal mark.
This is inconceivable - Verdruggen was mentored by Juan Antonio Samaranch, who was as corrupt as one could possibly be. Not to mention an unrepentant Fascist.

Otherwise, your analysis is spot-on.
 
Jul 5, 2012
2,938
1
0
fishtacos said:
...Verdruggen was mentored by Juan Antonio Samaranch...
In that case the analogy is Hein is like one of the Nazgul from Lord of the Rings, corrupted the moment he accepts Sauronaranchs 'gift' :D
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
sittingbison said:
In that case the analogy is Hein is like one of the Nazgul from Lord of the Rings, corrupted the moment he accepts Sauronaranchs 'gift' :D
Frodo Wiggins must take the precious to Tenerife and drop it off Mount Teide.
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
0
0
Looks like Thom Weisal has some explaining to do. The money trail may have gone something like this...

Nike...Thom Weisel...Hein Verbruggen
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
sittingbison said:
In this case the guy (Verbruggen) might have been a virginal mark. Nike/LA corrupted Hein the moment he accepted the $500k bribe, and also made him complicit - they then have something over him. OR he was already corrupt and held out his hand but the moment Nike/LA put the $500k in it he is STILL complicit. Makes no difference, either way Nike/LA have Hein over a barrel the moment he accepts the bribe.
If it wasn't for the tiny issue of then having to explain how Hein became UCI president without being corrupt in the first you're hypothetically correct. But I like how you are allowing for benefit-of-the-doubt to such a generous degree :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS