Garmin Cervelo Dismiss Matt White

[AussieGoddess]

I dont buy it that Garmin didnt know about the prior contact.

Even if they didnt notice it at the time .... when Lowe first revealed he had been sent to Del Moral ... the VERY FIRST thing any team doctor would have done is looked up ALL of that riders medical records. Gone through EVERYTHING with a fine tooth comb.

Especially a rider that was sick.

Not gonna fly at all.

Secondly - if Prentice Steffen worked on USPS ... who had a team sponsored program I am a bit curious as to how he got a job at 'ultra clean team' slipstream at the first place - but secondly, how he would not notice the doctors name on a health check of a rider who was not performing because he was sick? If the guy is sick - the team doctor would be taking particular notice of the health checks. Its not something that is just routine ... for a sick rider its going to have numbers and details that are reviewed regularly.

 

[Martin318is]

If Garmin really thinks that, then why not maintain some confidentiality and hand all the threats over to the police. If not,then just pretend you are a professional employer and pass Lowe off as a disappointed young bloke feeling really upset, angry, and naive when expressing his disappointment.
.

Well, one reason would be that at roughly the same time that you are writing this, there are a lot of other people accusing JV of not being transparent and hiding facts (for a variety of claimed reasons).

Lesson is that you can't keep everybody happy.

Regarding the handling though I think it has been very professional. They had a policy - the policy was breached - the penalty was applied in a timely fashion. They haven't gone into the press and beaten up on anyone, they have just presented the facts (as we know them so far). Its up to Loewe etc to say something if there is an inaccuracy in the statements made so far.

 

[Martin318is]

Oh please, I would fire you for such a comment if you worked for me.

You search your e-mails for "Lowe" and then yes you OBVIOUSLY better open any attachments on the e-mails that come up. Otherwise you are not being thorough and display zero attention to detail. The fact that I have to explain this to you at all annoys me which is another reason why you're fired.

And you'd get fired by me for being a terrrible manager. Jumping down people's throats may work for you (according to you) but I would rather keep someone that questions obviously flawed logic than someone that bullys staff.

Regardless, As RR pointed out, the clinic (Performa) does not have Moral's name in it. So what you are actually asking is for people to do an email search to get Loewe's emails, open all the attachments manually and then do a records search to find the link between Moral and the clinic. Obviously all this is possible - the question is whether you would have considered going to that level of detail prior to the knowledge of the the link to Moral.

 

[Topangarider]

Yes, becuz' JV had nothing better to do than make a search for a two year old email attachment that he didn't know existed ....until TL told him.

Again, the team press release stated:

"The PDF was not discovered in our original investigation as that investigation was focused on the referral made by Matt White."

They did an investigation that focused on the referral and claimed not to find it! This has nothing to do with memory or not opening every attachment as they hit the in-box. In this case he/the team truly had nothing better to do as they had launched an investigation.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I think the issue has been well discussed but a few items remain.

1. How was it that the team failed to notice that a regularly submitted UCI medical check had been performed by a lab or practice that was one that had not been approved?

2. If Slipstream is to represent a strict adherence to policy, one where violating the policy could result in employee dismissal, how did such a fact go unnoticed for such a long period?

3. If Mr. Lowe took direction from his superior, Matt White, to have his UCI medical check done at a specific clinic, under what circumstance is it his obligation to question that authority and verify that the clinic he is being sent to is within team policy?

4. If Mr. Lowe had known his visit was to the unapproved facility, would it have been his obligation to inform his employer that White had directed him there?

5. If by visiting the unapproved facility, submitting documentation to the team for the purpose of the UCI medical check, thereby giving the team notice that at White's direction they both violated team policy and the team took no action, could they reasonably assume there would be no repercussion given the amount of time that had passed?

These, to me, are significant unanswered questions.

It looks like there is more to the story because much of the info (and answers to questions like these remain) is still in the dark, and the longer it remains so the more speculation building as to what else had been missed or overlooked by team management. This then places team management in the tough position of having their credibility under fire and all items hereafter be viewed with skepticism and doubt.

I think JV owes it to his supporters to FULLY explain the details, including the disputed pay to Mr. Lowe and explain what corrective steps will be taken to prevent such a policy violation from happening again.

At this point, this is still a live situation and transmitting poorly written press release alluding to some type of extortion without any basis of fact, but then further detailing the extent of the negligence of the team in reviewing and managing the important medical records of the team riders tells me there is much more to this and Slipstream is ill-equipped to handle this type of crisis.

Topping all of this, you have the sacking of Matt White, a very final and decisive action, when perhaps a more prudent management approach would have been to suspend him while they conduct an audit of the records and activities, so as to more diplomatically handle the findings of the situation. If it was a one-time mistake, a simple oversight in the handling of Mr. Lowe's medical check where no one notice an unapproved clinic had been used, they could have taken steps to fix it, emphasize and train on proper procedure and possibly re-instate White. Instead, it looks very reactionary and drastic, leading one to consider something is being buried.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I can't help but think that somewhere old LA is just sitting around and being totally amused by all this.....
that is if he isn't 'sound' asleep

 

[BroDeal]

Topping all of this, you have the sacking of Matt White, a very final and decisive action, when perhaps a more prudent management approach would have been to suspend him while they conduct an audit of the records and activities, so as to more diplomatically handle the findings of the situation. If it was a one-time mistake, a simple oversight in the handling of Mr. Lowe's medical check where no one notice an unapproved clinic had been used, they could have taken steps to fix it, emphasize and train on proper procedure and possibly re-instate White. Instead, it looks very reactionary and drastic, leading one to consider something is being buried.

The suspension option disappeared as soon as White was linked to GreenEdge. Slipstream cannot have a Kim Andersen in their midst hollowing the team out from the inside, especially not with rumors of GreenEdge making secret contracts with riders and Australians saying that because the team is not yet offically a team it does not have to follow any rules.

 

[Nearly]

New story from CN expanding on Vaughters' reasons http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-baffled-by-lowe-situation

 

[Elagabalus]

I think the issue has been well discussed but a few items remain.

1. How was it that the team failed to notice that a regularly submitted UCI medical check had been performed by a lab or practice that was one that had not been approved?

2. If Slipstream is to represent a strict adherence to policy, one where violating the policy could result in employee dismissal, how did such a fact go unnoticed for such a long period?

3. If Mr. Lowe took direction from his superior, Matt White, to have his UCI medical check done at a specific clinic, under what circumstance is it his obligation to question that authority and verify that the clinic he is being sent to is within team policy?

4. If Mr. Lowe had known his visit was to the unapproved facility, would it have been his obligation to inform his employer that White had directed him there?

5. If by visiting the unapproved facility, submitting documentation to the team for the purpose of the UCI medical check, thereby giving the team notice that at White's direction they both violated team policy and the team took no action, could they reasonably assume there would be no repercussion given the amount of time that had passed?

These, to me, are significant unanswered questions.

It looks like there is more to the story because much of the info (and answers to questions like these remain) is still in the dark, and the longer it remains so the more speculation building as to what else had been missed or overlooked by team management. This then places team management in the tough position of having their credibility under fire and all items hereafter be viewed with skepticism and doubt.

I think JV owes it to his supporters to FULLY explain the details, including the disputed pay to Mr. Lowe and explain what corrective steps will be taken to prevent such a policy violation from happening again.

At this point, this is still a live situation and transmitting poorly written press release alluding to some type of extortion without any basis of fact, but then further detailing the extent of the negligence of the team in reviewing and managing the important medical records of the team riders tells me there is much more to this and Slipstream is ill-equipped to handle this type of crisis.

Topping all of this, you have the sacking of Matt White, a very final and decisive action, when perhaps a more prudent management approach would have been to suspend him while they conduct an audit of the records and activities, so as to more diplomatically handle the findings of the situation. If it was a one-time mistake, a simple oversight in the handling of Mr. Lowe's medical check where no one notice an unapproved clinic had been used, they could have taken steps to fix it, emphasize and train on proper procedure and possibly re-instate White. Instead, it looks very reactionary and drastic, leading one to consider something is being buried.

Good points. A couple of answers (maybe)

1)The press releases are indeed poorly worded and it's not at all clear whether the lab itself or just Dr. Del Moral was on the "non approved" list. It might have escaped attention because even though del Morel is employed at this facility the attending physician to TL was somebody else. There's differing stories about whether Del Moral was on the letterhead or not.

3) TL wasn't being dismissed for going to the non approved clinic he was being docked wages etc.because he was seen riding another sponsors bike in breech of his contract with Garmin.

I agree that JV should further explain how events unfolded.

 

[webvan]

New story from CN expanding on Vaughters' reasons http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-baffled-by-lowe-situation

Thanks, this makes sense at last.

Still, why it's the racer's responsibility to find a place to get tested is a bit odd to me given the permanent suspicion around cycling, the team doctor should approve of the places that can be used and if the racer needs to change that should be approved too.

On that account the VO2 testing that White had Lowe do is testing too, like the blood testing.

 

[Cooper]

It seems odd that it is up to the rider to select a clinic to get the mandated testing without some direction from team management like:

1. A list of pre-approved clinics;
2. Get pre-approval of the rider's clinic of choice in advance of such testing.

With such loose team policies, it seems hypocritical to fire White for recommending a particular clinic.

I don't understand. There is much more to this story.

 

[Sanitiser]

Not really. White directed Lowe to del Moral directly. Lowe was complying with UCI policy and left it up to the UCI to do due diligence.

 

[Cooper]

Not really. White directed Lowe to del Moral directly. Lowe was complying with UCI policy and left it up to the UCI to do due diligence.

Did White "direct" or "recommend" a Clinic. If he directed TL then I can understand somewhat. But if he just gave out a reference, then I'm not getting it.

What was White suppose to say to TL, "I can't give you any advice. Good luck with that. I hope you don't pick a place with a sketchy background". White is probably just trying to help.

If the Garmin rider has no restrictions then it seems like a recipe for failure for both the DS and rider.

I would perhaps suspend White for a month or so but JV has got to admit that their policy of allowing a rider to go to any clinic is weak. It puts the rider and DS in a bad spot.

 

[webvan]

Actually it's a bit more subtle than that, a bit TOO subtle I think...JV is saying it's ok for TL to have his blood tested anywhere he wants, including Del Moral's shack, because nothing is being prescribed (so no doping products), but not for White to send TL to that same place for Vo2 testing...although that doesn't imply any prescription either...confused yet?

I think he's saying you need a doctor to prescribe the Vo2 testing, but not for the blood testing required by the UCI.

 

[Sanitiser]

I think more to the point a rider who should know better but a directeur sportif must know better.

I think what has happened is Lowe and Hardie have tried to implicate Garmin as being complicit in doping activities by 'turning a blind eye' when if we believe Vaughters they were just negligent.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

But wait, there's more!

The contradictions now start flying:

Number 1: Approvals

Jan 23: Slipstream Team Press Release

“Slipstream Sports has an explicit internal policy that all medical referrals are approved by our medical staff. In this instance, this vital rule was broken. As a result, the Board of Directors has dismissed Matt White,” the team said in a press release.

Jan 27: Slipstream response to Lowe demand for renumeration.

"The quarterly health check does not require you to go to a doctor - it doesn't require any interaction with a doctor who could prescribe medicines or a treatment to you," explained Vaughters.

"It's simply that the rider, of his own volition, can go to any clinic and he simply gives them a list of different elements that need to be tested for in his blood that is required by the UCI - that clinic then sends those results to the rider and then he would send those to [Slipstream Sports doctor] Prentice Steffen and Prentice then sends it onto the UCI.

"We make absolutely no requirements [regarding the choice of doctor to conduct the health check]," continued Vaughters. "Is it annoying that he went to del Moral's clinic? Sure. But that was his choice and since there's no interaction with the doctor or medicines being prescribed as a result of that, we're not going to require that the rider goes to a certain clinic because they're just going for a quarterly blood test - as is required by the UCI."

Well, which is it? Are all medial referral reqquired to be approved by the medical staff?

Indicting statement by Vaughters: "It's really unfortunate timing but our decision was based on policy and nothing more. It is pedantic of us to have to take that action. It's just that we have to live and die by the rules we make for ourselves."

So, here we have Mr. White, fired for cause (violating team policy) and then an immediate clarification directly from Vaughters to the contrary. What? Mr. White, you have just been scapegoated!


Number 2: Interactions

Jan 23: Mr.Lowe "...met with del Moral for a Vo2 test which contravened the team’s strict anti-doping and medical referral rules."

Jan 27: "Lowe took his third quarterly health check - which requires a blood test, as mandated by the UCI - in June 2009 and in December last year the rider told Vaughters via email that this procedure had taken place in del Moral's clinic."

Well, which is it? Did he take a VO2 test or submit to a routine blood check?

No one is syaing which it is, though the current Slipstream public statement indicates nothing about VO2 test, and focuses on the quarterly UCI blood/health check.

Keep in mind, at this point Mr. White is has now been publicly fired and is jobless, plus taking the brunt of the blame for sending Mr. Lowe to Del Moral, which is or isn't a violation of the teams policy and is or isn't an offense that requires immediate dismissal. (huh?)

Number 3: Awareness

Jan 23: "Cyclingnews understands that Garmin were notified of the meeting with del Moral after a contract dispute between the rider and team during the final stages of 2010."

Jan 26: "The PDF attachment was a copy of Trent's UCI quarterly health check blood test conducted in June 2009 and it contained the name of Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral in the letterhead of the results. Neither Dr. Steffen nor Jonathan Vaughters noticed del Moral's name on the letterhead in June 2009 and, at the time, neither Dr. Steffen nor Vaughters were aware that Trent had visited del Moral."

Ok, so now we THINK we understand that Mr. Lowe visited the Performa Clinic in April of 2009 to satisfy his UCI Quarterly Health Check. The team has clarified that the policy for which, according to a Jan 27 Slipstream statement says "We make absolutely no requirements [regarding the choice of doctor to conduct the health check]," and in hindsight it appears that Mr. Lowe, at the behest of Mr. White, adhered to the letter and spirit of the team policy by submitting the UCI Quarterly Health Check in a compliant fashion. Subsequently, as per normal mode of operation, Mr. Lowe forwarded the documentation to the Slipstream management team, including the labs and related billing (reasonable speculation) info to be handled by the team management. Incumbent on the team management is the review of said UCI Quarterly Health Check, to assure its compliance with UCI standards of reporting, and follow-up on any billing items that may be outstanding.

This leaves two pertinent questions:

1. Who reviews, approves and submits (send to the UCI) the required quarterly health checks?

2. Who reviews, approves and processes any invoices or billings related to official team business?

In answering question #1, it leads us to a dilemma I will point us back to contradiction Number 3: Awareness

Jan 26: "In fact, Slipstream was not made aware of any interaction with del Moral until Trent disclosed the information on January 6, 2011. The test results were forwarded to the UCI, as is protocol with quarterly health checks."

This is an entirely disingenuous statement which ignores the fact that Mr. Lowe, via Mr. White's direction, sought out, complied with and submitted with the requisite time period, the information necessary to meet the reporting standards as required for the UCI Quarterly Health Check. Mr. Lowe, in hindsight, as revealed subsequently by Slipstream, complied with the team policy, as outlined by Mr. Vaughters and his public statements regarding, specifically "We make absolutely no requirements [regarding the choice of doctor to conduct the health check]".

Further, Mr. White's dismissal was described by Mr. Vaughters in detail: “This was a hard thing to do, a very hard thing to do but was the only thing to do. Hard decisions need to be made and procedures and policies have to be adhered to. We don’t have a choice if we want the sport to go forward.”

Mr. Vaughters on one hand cites justification for firing Mr. White for an apparent failure to follow procedures, and then on the other exclaims that the team has no such policy related to the completion of mandatory UCI Quarterly Health Checks.... (HuH?)

As to the open question posed at item 2. Who reviews, approves and processes any invoices or billings related to official team business? The best guess that can be deduced from this affair is that NO ONE is tending to the wavering and supposed "policies" of Slipstream, as a requisite operational document from a Pro Tour Team rider, under the direction by the Team DS, clearly was passed on to the UCI and met their standard of reporting, thereby causing no circumstantial concern from the governing body and no immediate cause for concern at an internal level within Slipstream.

So, what can we draw from this?

It appears that Slipstream has:

1. Changed the description of the interaction between Mr. Lowe and the Del Moral related clinic, from one of a VO2 Max Test to one of a standard UCI mandated Quarterly Health Check (going so far as to qualify the latter as an interaction that “do not require an order or attendance from a physician and that there does not seem to be any violation of team policy by Trent Lowe in connection with the performance of the mandated UCI blood tests.”

2. Changed the cause for which Mr. White had been fired as a result of violating an “explicit internal policy that all medical referrals are approved by our medical staff. In this instance, this vital rule was broken”, despite quite the contrary as cited above.

3. It appears that Mr. Lowe, who had been photographed riding a bicycle that would appear to have broken his athlete agreement, disputed the issue of withholding his final paycheque of 2010, and illuminated the Slipstream management that this was an invalid claim, citing other riders who’d circumvented the letter of the soon to expire agreement (with the selective approval of the Slipstream management) and was feeling he was being treated unfairly.
As to any demand for payments above and beyond the amount owed from Dec. 2010, this is left to the barristers to decide, however what is now becoming clear is that Slipstream has played fast and loose with not only their policies but the underlying truth relative to collaborating with approved medical advisors, adherence to minimum reporting standards to the UCI and the causes for which contracts can be terminated and payments withheld.
Slipstream may be actively attempting to stay ahead of the story here, but this only work of the story stays consistent and the transparency matches up with reality.

 

[ingsve]

Did White "direct" or "recommend" a Clinic. If he directed TL then I can understand somewhat. But if he just gave out a reference, then I'm not getting it.

What was White suppose to say to TL, "I can't give you any advice. Good luck with that. I hope you don't pick a place with a sketchy background". White is probably just trying to help.

If the Garmin rider has no restrictions then it seems like a recipe for failure for both the DS and rider.

I would perhaps suspend White for a month or so but JV has got to admit that their policy of allowing a rider to go to any clinic is weak. It puts the rider and DS in a bad spot.

When it came to the referral then White should have tole Lowe to check with the teams medical staff for a referral rather than doing the referral himself, simple as that.

 

[ingsve]

So, what can we draw from this?

It appears that Slipstream has:

1. Changed the description of the interaction between Mr. Lowe and the Del Moral related clinic, from one of a VO2 Max Test to one of a standard UCI mandated Quarterly Health Check (going so far as to qualify the latter as an interaction that “do not require an order or attendance from a physician and that there does not seem to be any violation of team policy by Trent Lowe in connection with the performance of the mandated UCI blood tests.”

2. Changed the cause for which Mr. White had been fired as a result of violating an “explicit internal policy that all medical referrals are approved by our medical staff. In this instance, this vital rule was broken”, despite quite the contrary as cited above.

3. It appears that Mr. Lowe, who had been photographed riding a bicycle that would appear to have broken his athlete agreement, disputed the issue of withholding his final paycheque of 2010, and illuminated the Slipstream management that this was an invalid claim, citing other riders who’d circumvented the letter of the soon to expire agreement (with the selective approval of the Slipstream management) and was feeling he was being treated unfairly.
As to any demand for payments above and beyond the amount owed from Dec. 2010, this is left to the barristers to decide, however what is now becoming clear is that Slipstream has played fast and loose with not only their policies but the underlying truth relative to collaborating with approved medical advisors, adherence to minimum reporting standards to the UCI and the causes for which contracts can be terminated and payments withheld.
Slipstream may be actively attempting to stay ahead of the story here, but this only work of the story stays consistent and the transparency matches up with reality.

1. There has been no change at all. In april Lowe was sent to Moral by White for a VO2-test. This is a test that requires interaction with the doctor which is why it's called a referral. Two months later it is time for Lowe to get his health check blood work and he simply goes back to the same clnic he was 2 months earlier since it is in his town of residence.

2. The health check blood works is not something that requires interaction with a doctor. A nurse can simply draw the blood and the clinic does the required tests. This is not a referral and thus does not violate any internal policy just like stated.

3. Vaughters has stated that he requires written permission for riders to attend early-camps while the rider is still under contract. Lowe apparently had not gotten permission while others apparently has i.e. it's Lowes own fault.

I think to speculate is one thing but when doing so I think it's important to try and stick with the facts and not elaborate beyond them.

 

[sheenyp]

Apologies if this has already been answered, but does anybody know who pays for these UCI checks?

Is it the rider who receives an invoice and pays himself?
Is it the team that receieve an invoice from the rider or direct from the clinic?
Is it the UCI that receives an invoice from the rider or clinic or team?

 

[Bailey]

The suspension option disappeared as soon as White was linked to GreenEdge. Slipstream cannot have a Kim Andersen in their midst hollowing the team out from the inside, especially not with rumors of GreenEdge making secret contracts with riders and Australians saying that because the team is not yet offically a team it does not have to follow any rules.

That stuff, while all very possibly true, is not officially (legally) relevant any more and never will be. Why? Because Vaughters has been quite clear, on more than one occasion now, about why he gave White the sack.

He explicitly said his decision was nothing to do with GreenEdge. You should now pretend that issue didn't exist, just as Vaughters is. We can't just invoke the whole GreenEdge issue on behalf of Vaughters whenever we think he's not making sense on the other stuff.

Your other concern about "rumours" doesn't matter. Rumours are just that. Hearsay and irrelevant, now, anyway.

The contradictions now start flying:

Jan 23: Slipstream Press Release

"Slipstream Sports has an explicit internal policy that all medical referrals are approved by our medical staff. In this instance, this vital rule was broken. As a result, the Board of Directors has dismissed Matt White," the team said in a press release.

Jan 27: Slipstream Press Release

"The quarterly health check does not require you to go to a doctor - it doesn't require any interaction with a doctor who could prescribe medicines or a treatment to you," explained Vaughters.

"It's simply that the rider, of his own volition, can go to any clinic and he simply gives them a list of different elements that need to be tested for in his blood that is required by the UCI - that clinic then sends those results to the rider and then he would send those to [Slipstream Sports doctor] Prentice Steffen and Prentice then sends it onto the UCI.

"We make absolutely no requirements [regarding the choice of doctor to conduct the health check]," continued Vaughters. "Is it annoying that he went to del Moral's clinic? Sure. But that was his choice and since there's no interaction with the doctor or medicines being prescribed as a result of that, we're not going to require that the rider goes to a certain clinic because they're just going for a quarterly blood test - as is required by the UCI."

Well, which is it? Are all medial referral required to be approved by the medical staff?

I agree.

I tend to think this will be Vaughters most difficult contradiction to deal with.

He's going to need to fudge around it very carefully, and in a deliberately confusing manner, in order to throw off media attention as to why he instantly sacked White (after delaying the sacking for a full Pro Tour event so that White could continue to represent him as his fully endorsed employee). Because now it just doesn't make sense.

Either way, from purely a business perspective, Vaughters' brand is tarnished. Which misleading contradiction did he want us to believe again? Which of his email correspondence oversights must we overlook so that he can continue to demonstrate to us all just how pedantic and rigorous his due dilligence is when sacked someone instantly? Lastly, if he missed that instantly sackable offence a few seasons ago, what other stuff has he missed over the years?

It's a mess.

 

[Bailey]

I don't understand why people are saying poor Vaughters not reading his email pdf attachments is no big deal.

This is a bloke holding himself above all other teams when it comes to rigour and protocol. He's just told us he doesn't take much notice of his emails. Neither he nor his staff do. That's incredible.

Not reading emails or pdf attachments that you NEED to read and act upon is enough to send you to jail in certain circumstances. What if a federal police officer is contacting you with some vital warning that you fail to bother reading? An FBI cease and desist notice or something like that? THe only way you'll know if it's been sent to you is if you open the bloody thing and read it. If you're too busy, employ someone to read your emails and their attachments. If you receive a lot of spam, then get someone to go through it and at least demonstrate you're trying.

At the end of the Lance Armstrong trial, an overlooked email attachment could be the very smoking gun that serves to expose his empire and put him away. I wonder how many people who are now saying "Poor Vaughters didn't read his emails, but who the hell does!" will say the same if such evidence of business incompetence seals a conviction against Lance or one of his assistants?

As someone who happens to know a bit about how incredibly critical an inconspicuous business document such as an email attachment (and what it implies) can turn out to be during a trial, i can tell you Vaughters has some problems on his hands if he's already playing down how thorough he is about processing his inbox.

 

[LastRide]

The suspension option disappeared as soon as White was linked to GreenEdge. Slipstream cannot have a Kim Andersen in their midst hollowing the team out from the inside, especially not with rumors of GreenEdge making secret contracts with riders and Australians saying that because the team is not yet offically a team it does not have to follow any rules.

Vaughters is not stupid.

What would you think if you were throwing around two year contracts at new pros at crazy salaries and ALL the aussie riders and their director refuse and sign one year deals?

Not rocket science is it?

Green edge didnt have to be announced to make a connection.

 

[ingsve]

I tend to think this will be Vaughters most difficult contradiction to deal with.

He's going to need to fudge around it very carefully, and in a deliberately confusing manner, in order to throw off media attention as to why he instantly sacked White (after delaying the sacking for a full Pro Tour event so that White could continue to represent him as his fully endorsed employee). Because now it just doesn't make sense.

Either way, from purely a business perspective, Vaughters' brand is tarnished. Which misleading contradiction did he want us to believe again? Which of his email correspondence oversights must we overlook so that he can continue to demonstrate to us all just how pedantic and rigorous his due dilligence is when sacked someone instantly? Lastly, if he missed that instantly sackable offence a few seasons ago, what other stuff has he missed over the years?

It's a mess.

Except that there was no sackable offence two years ago that he could have known about. Even if someone had noticed the letter head that would not have been enough to sack Lowe. Lowe didn't break any rules or regulations by using del Morals clinic for his health blood test.

 

[AussieGoddess]

I do actually get the distinction.

The 'quarterly health check' is simply a blood test. He goes to a pathologist, gets blood withdrawn, tells them what to test for and leaves. The UCI demands it and slipstream says for that test you can go to your local friendly doctor or pathologist. Slipstream do not require any oversight of that.

Any actual testing or health issue that a rider has, must be done through a clinic ok'd by Slipstream. TL was living in Spain, and the Del Moral clinic was the only one in town that did that test. MW gave him the ok to go to that clinic instead of telling him he had to drive the 400kms to the nearest clinic that is actually approved by Slipstream. Hence why MW is in the doo-doo.


I do have issues with JV saying 'oh we have investigated and he has had no prior contact with this clinic ... and the test really was for a Vo2 max test' blah blah blah ... as that is blatently not the case.

I do have issues with Slipstream saying they didnt know about the supposed Vo2 test ... as surely if he was referred by the team ... undertaking a test for his benefit
- wouldnt the team have paid for that kind of test?
- and at the least, wouldnt the results of a Vo2 max test be on his medical records? so they would know which clinic did the test ... in 2009 not 2011.

 

[Willy_Voet]

So, did you all figure out if Vaughters was injecting the EPO, or just helping with the blood bags. I think both, $500,000 is lot of hush money for just one of those.

Did McQuaid cover up? Probably. Armstrong was in Australia when White was fired, so did he put pressure on Vaughters to take action? I have no idea, but I'll wager he did. Call in Novitsky, Garmin is going down. Good riddance.