Garmin Cervelo Dismiss Matt White

[Skandar Akbar]

Maybe the ghost of Buckwheat has shaken up JV so much that he is now sacking guys with no just cause.

 

[nevada]

Ryder Hesjedal, had a good TdF.

 

[Ney the Viking]

I must admit that I do not get what all the fuss is about.

In dec 2009, Vaughters and Steffens recieve a mail from Trent saying "hi guys, here is a copy the quarterly health check that I have sent to the UCI, cheers". They may have given it a quick glance to see if the numbers suggested he was ill, but why do more, its UCI buisness, and Steffen the team doctor is probably more than capable of telling wether he thinks Trent is in good health. It's UCI Bureaucracy they just need to check that the rider has complied and will be approven to go to races.

So far so good.

Then in 2011 they get told that White has reffered Trent to a "V02 Test" at a shady clinic. They then sack White, and decides to look into Trent, that appears to be in negotiations with another team, and they decide to sack him as well.

So far so good.

The team then recieves a mail from Trents lawyer demanding 500k or else he will tell that he went to a shady clinic for an UCI health check! At which point Vaughters decided to tell the press that Trent has gone bonkers.

I can see many things about Vaughters and Steffen that is shady, and not in line with the White Knight of Anti Doping, but this case is not one of them.

 

[mwbyrd]

I must admit that I do not get what all the fuss is about.

In dec 2009, Vaughters and Steffens recieve a mail from Trent saying "hi guys, here is a copy the quarterly health check that I have sent to the UCI, cheers". They may have given it a quick glance to see if the numbers suggested he was ill, but why do more, its UCI buisness, and Steffen the team doctor is probably more than capable of telling wether he thinks Trent is in good health. It's UCI Bureaucracy they just need to check that the rider has complied and will be approven to go to races.

So far so good.

Then in 2011 they get told that White has reffered Trent to a "V02 Test" at a shady clinic. They then sack White, and decides to look into Trent, that appears to be in negotiations with another team, and they decide to sack him as well.

So far so good.

The team then recieves a mail from Trents lawyer demanding 500k or else he will tell that he went to a shady clinic for an UCI health check! At which point Vaughters decided to tell the press that Trent has gone bonkers.

I can see many things about Vaughters and Steffen that is shady, and not in line with the White Knight of Anti Doping, but this case is not one of them.

+1

Very well said. Most of the repsonses are concerned with the visits to the 'good doctor'. They are ignoring the fact that TL and Hardie (according to JV) tried to Blackmail Slipstream. That in itself states they knew they did something wrong or got away with something they shouldn't have and are trying to leverage that. Especially since Pegasus went away!

 

[BotanyBay]

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.

I can understand JV blowing-through the email. Perhaps not even reading ANY of the email.

But Dr. Steffen... He should be reading the ENTIRE thing. He's a team physician, not a guy with a busy practice seeing 55 patients a day. Those riders on the team ARE his focus. The team is his entire medical practice.

Steffen knows del Moral well, as a former colleague at USPS. It should have set-off huge alarms. That is, if you've actually got a problem with your rider seeing a known doping doc.

Either Steffen was a negligent doc, or he was "fine" with del Moral being the physician that Lowe was seeing. Perhaps GarVelo is not the clean team we assume it to be?

 

[BikeCentric]

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.

Big thanks to you for writing that all up. What you did right there should be the job of the JOURNALISTS on this website but apparently you have to connect all the dots for them and point out the obvious inconsistencies in this story as charity work.

 

[BotanyBay]

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

Funny how they're so confident that it was for a Vo2 test. How would they know that if he was not an approved physician?

They're saying that they're firing White for sending a rider to an "unapproved" doctor without permission, yet (two years later) they're confident the trip had nothing to do with doping?

Sorry, there's managing your story, and then managing the details a "bit too much".

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Nicely done, Colm. Thanks.

As to the journos... Seems like everyone is too busy fauning over the beauty of JV's 'pedantry'. He's quite the politician...

 

[BikeCentric]

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.

Exactly. It's hilarious actually. We even have an Administrator of this website claiming in this thread that he'd fire me for "bullying staff" and "jumping down people's throats" because of my prior absolute insistence that e-mail attachments be read.

I'm also in a profession where it's considered absolute negligence and a firing offense for not reading one's e-mail attachments, so I guess we just have a lot of people on here who don't have any experience in the business world for grown-ups.

 

[Benotti69]

But wait, there's more!

The contradictions now start flying:

SNIPPED FOR BREVITY

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?

SNIPPED FOR BREVITY

.... 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.

excellent post on the situation and i fully expect this to appear in various disguised forms by lazy journos on other sites.

i hope JV reads it and prepares a carefully worded and transparent statement explaining the above if wants cycling fans to give slipstream the benefit of the doubt as to the validity Slipstream being what he claims it is.

 

[BroDeal]

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.

It certainly is relevant. This is not a court of law. There is no such thing as hearsay. It is speculation about why White was let go. My post was a response to the suggestion that White should have been suspended or something should have been worked out to keep White aboard. My assertion is that any chance of a compromise went out the door as soon as White began shopping himself around to a rival team that plans to poach riders from other teams.

The White issue is distinct from the Lowe (Life) issue. People get fired every day with reasons given that are different than the actual reason. If White is not employed by contract with Slipstream then he is an at will employee working for an American company that could fire him for almost any reason at all. They don't need a reason.

White seems okay with all this. He probably either he has another job secured or received some sort of compensation.

The White issue is pretty clear. He broke the rules. He publically agrees that he broke the rules. Whether that was the real reason he was sacked or just the ostensible reason given to the media is what the thread is about. So far the only thing you can b!tch about as far as White goes is Steffan or Vaughters not noticing del Moral's name on a perfunctory health check form earlier than they should have noticed.

 

[webvan]

The money aspects are a bit problematic yes, who paid for the "Vo2 test" and for the "UCI Checks"?

 

[Escarabajo]

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?

I have no idea what the actual process is, but I assume it is #2, the team.

 

[Elagabalus]

...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?...

To be fair, I would probably instantly trash a document that said "ATTENTION! THIS IS FROM THE FBI. YOU NEED TO DOWNLOAD AND READ THIS ATTACHMENT IMMEDIATELY!!!

 

[Colm.Murphy]

excellent post on the situation and i fully expect this to appear in various disguised forms by lazy journos on other sites.

i hope JV reads it and prepares a carefully worded and transparent statement explaining the above if wants cycling fans to give slipstream the benefit of the doubt as to the validity Slipstream being what he claims it is.

Since writing up my thoughts on the situation, the biggest thing of all, which i looked right past is this:

Lowe visited Del Moral TWICE.

1. Once in April 2009, for a purported "VO2 Max test" (JV and White's words)
2. June 2009 to meet requirements for completing the mandatory UCI Rider Health Check.

So, it begs even MORE questions. And the journalists who are PAID to figure this stuff out are simply sitting on their hands, waiting for the Contador news to fully pop so they can blow off the Garmin scandal ("that's SO last week, plus JV is a dapper fellow, he wouldn't lie about something so simple").

Rather than expound on the preposterous-ness of the clear lack of communications about the issue, and my own sense that there is a feigned effort to appear transparent, while quietly sweeping this all aside questions about internal processes that "should" have easily spotted the violation(s), as they are considered serious enough to warrant sacking an employee over.

Thus, JV, if you are out there, do you and your team a favor and address all of this, and quickly, and in a way that leaves ambiguity checked at the door. Otherwise, the tarnish from this incident won't be so easy to rinse from the lapel of your seersucker sportscoat (channeling some Bill Clinton here).

 

[BotanyBay]

Nicely done, Colm. Thanks.

As to the journos... Seems like everyone is too busy fauning over the beauty of JV's 'pedantry'. He's quite the politician...

Why do you think Pat chose him?

 

[BotanyBay]

White seems okay with all this. He probably either he has another job secured or received some sort of compensation.

Of course he's OK with this. Because he always could have said "You've known damn well for 2 years where I'd sent Lowe (more than once). del Moral's name was on the friggin letterhead!. Steffen WORKED with the guy AND SO DO WE!"

White is complicit in this smokescreen. And Lowe has only shown one of his cards so far.

JV, why are you sweating?

 

[Elagabalus]

Since writing up my thoughts on the situation, the biggest thing of all, which i looked right past is this:

Lowe visited Del Moral TWICE.

1. Once in April 2009, for a purported "VO2 Max test" (JV and White's words)
2. June 2009 to meet requirements for completing the mandatory UCI Rider Health Check.

I think you looked past it because of the poor wording of the Slipstream communique. However, I'll let Ingsve answer your question:

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.

Beyond that it seems as if TL was p***ed that he didn't receive his wages and bonuses for December and together with Hardie decided to put pressure on JV by using the ol' "ask for the sun, moon and stars and maybe they'll give you just the moon" trick! If anything I think JV's suggestion that they were trying to extort money was perhaps a tad overwrought. It also seams a bit anal of Slipstream not to pay TL's wages because he was photographed riding another teams bicycle. I know it's in the contract but it has a "let's see if we can get out of paying his salary" feel to it.

 

[BotanyBay]

I think you looked past it because of the poor wording of the Slipstream communique. However, I'll let Ingsve answer your question:



Beyond that it seems as if TL was p***ed that he didn't receive his wages and bonuses for December and together with Hardie decided to put pressure on JV by using the ol' "ask for the sun, moon and stars and maybe they'll give you just the moon" trick! If anything I think JV's suggestion that they were trying to extort money was perhaps a tad overwrought. It also seams a bit anal of Slipstream not to pay TL's wages because he was photographed riding another teams bicycle. I know it's in the contract but it has a "let's see if we can get out of paying his salary" feel to it.

Every dollar JV doesn't pay-out is another dollar he gets to pay to himself. Remember that.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I think you looked past it because of the poor wording of the Slipstream communique. However, I'll let Ingsve answer your question:



Beyond that it seems as if TL was p***ed that he didn't receive his wages and bonuses for December and together with Hardie decided to put pressure on JV by using the ol' "ask for the sun, moon and stars and maybe they'll give you just the moon" trick! If anything I think JV's suggestion that they were trying to extort money was perhaps a tad overwrought. It also seams a bit anal of Slipstream not to pay TL's wages because he was photographed riding another teams bicycle. I know it's in the contract but it has a "let's see if we can get out of paying his salary" feel to it.

I agree.

If it was White who had responsibility for sending Lowe twice to Del Moral, Lowe could have a claim that by White sending him, it "must" have already been approved.

Once the first visit goes by with no consequence, then going a second time (for the health check) seems all the more OK.

If Lowe then felt maligned by JV withholding his pay over a contract issue, and felt he could cite a previous, and more egregious, violation of contract or policy which had NOT been enforced, I can now see why Lowe would hold it out as selective.

IE, on one hand you won't pay me because I rode the wrong bike in the waning moments of my contract but you've ignored, or tacitly endorsed, a very significant contract/policy/team rule violation, so either pay me or I will explain the details of the inconsistencies with which you do/don't apply your own rules.

As Slipstream has publicized some rather large sum being asked for by Lowe, I can only imagine that this # is based on what Lowe might consider damages from having Slipstream implicate him in the firing of White, thereby tainting him with suspicion and "guilt by association" due to visiting Del Moral, furthering the assumption that Lowe felt he had reason to trust and believe White had obtained proper approvals for the visits.

That Lowe had been mentioned by name at all seems to be the root of his demand for money. In going back through, it probably was not fully necessary to specify which rider had been sent to Del Moral, unless they felt Lowe had a role to play in the decision for or the concealment of the visit. White could have been fired and the confidentiality of the details may not have needed to be disclosed.

If this is the case, Lowe could be feeling just a bit maligned by the affair, adding insult to injury while his pay was withheld.

 

[BikeCentric]

The other aspect of Slipstream mismanagement here is that due to their efforts to get in front of the story it seems pretty much guaranteed that we'll now publicly hear Lowe's side of the story (likely through his lawyer).

I mean, wouldn't it have been far more prudent to simply pay the rider his last months salary rather than withhold it over a minor technicality? Seems like this whole issue could have been resolved privately rather than airing more cycling dirty laundry in public, though to be fair it sounds like there is intransigence on both sides.

 

[BotanyBay]

I agree.

If it was White who had responsibility for sending Lowe twice to Del Moral, Lowe could have a claim that by White sending him, it "must" have already been approved.

Once the first visit goes by with no consequence, then going a second time (for the health check) seems all the more OK.

If Lowe then felt maligned by JV withholding his pay over a contract issue, and felt he could cite a previous, and more egregious, violation of contract or policy which had NOT been enforced, I can now see why Lowe would hold it out as selective.

IE, on one hand you won't pay me because I rode the wrong bike in the waning moments of my contract but you've ignored, or tacitly endorsed, a very significant contract/policy/team rule violation, so either pay me or I will explain the details of the inconsistencies with which you do/don't apply your own rules.

As Slipstream has publicized some rather large sum being asked for by Lowe, I can only imagine that this # is based on what Lowe might consider damages from having Slipstream implicate him in the firing of White, thereby tainting him with suspicion and "guilt by association" due to visiting Del Moral, furthering the assumption that Lowe felt he had reason to trust and believe White had obtained proper approvals for the visits.

That Lowe had been mentioned by name at all seems to be the root of his demand for money. In going back through, it probably was not fully necessary to specify which rider had been sent to Del Moral, unless they felt Lowe had a role to play in the decision for or the concealment of the visit. White could have been fired and the confidentiality of the details may not have needed to be disclosed.

If this is the case, Lowe could be feeling just a bit maligned by the affair, adding insult to injury while his pay was withheld.

Excellent analysis IMHO.

 

[TexPat]

I agree.

If it was White who had responsibility for sending Lowe twice to Del Moral, Lowe could have a claim that by White sending him, it "must" have already been approved.

Once the first visit goes by with no consequence, then going a second time (for the health check) seems all the more OK.

If Lowe then felt maligned by JV withholding his pay over a contract issue, and felt he could cite a previous, and more egregious, violation of contract or policy which had NOT been enforced, I can now see why Lowe would hold it out as selective.

IE, on one hand you won't pay me because I rode the wrong bike in the waning moments of my contract but you've ignored, or tacitly endorsed, a very significant contract/policy/team rule violation, so either pay me or I will explain the details of the inconsistencies with which you do/don't apply your own rules.

As Slipstream has publicized some rather large sum being asked for by Lowe, I can only imagine that this # is based on what Lowe might consider damages from having Slipstream implicate him in the firing of White, thereby tainting him with suspicion and "guilt by association" due to visiting Del Moral, furthering the assumption that Lowe felt he had reason to trust and believe White had obtained proper approvals for the visits.

That Lowe had been mentioned by name at all seems to be the root of his demand for money. In going back through, it probably was not fully necessary to specify which rider had been sent to Del Moral, unless they felt Lowe had a role to play in the decision for or the concealment of the visit. White could have been fired and the confidentiality of the details may not have needed to be disclosed.

If this is the case, Lowe could be feeling just a bit maligned by the affair, adding insult to injury while his pay was withheld.

This sounds eerily familiar.

 

[needasmoke]

martin hardie for as much as i know tweets as @newcyclingpath -- he had an interesting tweet last night http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2001/305.html -- internet defemation cases ..

 

[Colm.Murphy]

martin hardie for as much as i know tweets as @newcyclingpath -- he had an interesting tweet last night http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2001/305.html -- internet defemation cases ..

I see.

As suspected, there is more to this story (Like, duh!)

While Vaughters is talking up the blackmail bit, it looks like Mr. Lowe has looked into how he's been damaged in all this. I noted here that the entire Del Moral scandal could have been handled without disclosing who the rider had been (knowing that looping the "innocent" in would unfairly portray their role and intentions), and given what I just linked over and read, this telegraphs the course of action Mr. Lowe might be considering. Make of it what you will.

Still need more clarity but now I truly doubt that Vaughters will be the one providing it.

Funny, Vaughters mentions how they had 10 days, or 2 weeks to figure out what to do and what has transpired is the best they could come up with. **** poor in my estimation.