Hein Verbruggen

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
DirtyWorks said:
Och managed(??) some of Hein's money at .....
...
...
...
wait for it
...
...
...
Thom Wiesel's retail financial broker operation!
...
...

How many business deals is Hein, Pat, Och, Wiesel, and the rest of the Tailwind/CSE organizations have together? Where there's smoke, there is definitely fire. Definitely.

What's wrong with the supreme ruler of a sports federation mixing personal matters in with Team managers and their sponsors? It isn't illegal, but what is it?

The journos reading these forums could break some scandalous news if they got to work on this. The only problem I see is it starts to reach into the IOC's politics.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-had-account-with-armstrong-backer-says-ochowicz

Original story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323783704578246001221628488.html

Finally! This is starting to get interesting.
Gach!

To your question, "What is it":

In a word, it is unethical. It creates the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Hopefully they lost all his money.

Dave.
 
Sep 7, 2012
25
0
0
D-Queued said:
Gach!

To your question, "What is it":

In a word, it is unethical. It creates the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Hopefully they lost all his money.
I doubt that was a normal account. I.e., the kind that has a chance of losing money.

At market close, when trades for the day were getting assigned to different accounts I'd bet Hein's account got a disproportionate amount of the winning ones. I would almost be willing to bet the returns Hein got were phenomenal, super-human even.

For those wondering how Lance and his team paid off the UCI, this would be a very good explanation.

That Hein would deny any association in his 2008 WSJ interview can only further suspicion.
 
Jun 15, 2012
193
0
0
Just when you think this **** couldn't get more unbelievable ....99% of leadership would suspend (at the very least) Hein's position..this is a joke and circus
 
delleErbe said:
That Hein would deny any association in his 2008 WSJ interview can only further suspicion.
Yeah, he's got a bad habit of doing that. Witnesseth:
-the "never ever ever" interview: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-says-armstrong-never-never-never-doped

-the denial of the "never ever ever" interview: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-on-armstrong-we-did-not-hide-anything-ever

That second one is pretty hilarious because he denies hiding anything "under the table." Hmm. Yeah.... This is what terrorists/tin pot dictators do. Lie, cheat, intimidate, inflict irrepairable damage and so on just to stay in power.

I'd be very interested to read about methods of assigning trades to Hein. Post more if you got it!
 
Sep 7, 2012
25
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
I'd be very interested to read about methods of assigning trades to Hein. Post more if you got it!
There are probably people on this board with hands-on experience who could describe it better but...

If one is managing accounts for multiple clients one isn't necessarily going to login to each client's account and make the trade directly from that account. That could be a headache during a hectic trading day. Instead one makes trades from a trading account and after the markets close, one can allocate those trades to differing accounts.

One could make it so trades are time-stamped as they happen and assigned to specific accounts at the time of the trade. This makes the allocation process straightforward.

Or one could give an average price for all the trades that took place over the course of the day.

Or one could selectively allocate favorable trades to favorite clients. (Unethical but seeing that we know we're dealing with unethical people...)

So say you bought 300 shares of stock X at the open for $10/share. At noon, X goes to $5, you sell 100. At 2pm it goes to $15, you sell 100, at the close it's back to $10, you sell 100. Using the third method, you give the loss to a client you don't like (or your own account), the break-even to whoever, and the profitable trade to your favorite.

Or you could have two trading accounts. At the open, in one account you buy X, the other you sell X. At the market close, you close both positions. One of these is going to show a profit. You assign that one to your favorite. The losing one to yourself. You've effectively transferred money.

While directly transferring $500,000 or a couple million to Person H's bank account would leave a very obvious trail that would be difficult for Person H to explain, allowing Person H's trading account to grow from say $500,000 to $2.5 million over five years would provide good cover. Even if one were to investigate his account, one would probably just see a bunch of profitable trades. It would take some legwork to compare that to all the other trades that took place (and were allocated elsewhere) to see that Person H's account was benefiting from cherry-picking.

Person H has a good excuse when he transfers his money from the brokerage account back to his bank. "I had a very talented trader working for me!"

The examples I gave were crude. There are probably more complex ways of doing this that are harder to discern as being out-of-the-ordinary.

Not saying something like this happened, but it would be a discreet way to pay a bribe and somewhat difficult to prove anything unseemly happened.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Interesting quote from BBC's Matt Slater -

@mattslaterbbc - Spoke 2 a senior UCI figure earlier, told me today's WSJ revelations re Verbruggen were last straw, he must go b4 whole place falls

The chinese hope is fulfilled - we live in interesting times...
 
Sep 29, 2012
422
0
0
If you are a favoured client at a house that is in the underwriting business, or that participates in IPO's, you are going to get allocated a share of the initial float on each and every one.

Then get told when to sell.

You can make a LOT of money that way, all seemingly above board. A LOT of money.

I would love for someone to get the trading records to see what securities went through those accounts. Including securities off non-listed entities, like CS&E or Tailwind for instance.
 
delleErbe said:
There are probably people on this board with hands-on experience who could describe it better but...

If one is managing accounts for multiple clients one isn't necessarily going to login to each client's account and make the trade directly from that account. That could be a headache during a hectic trading day. Instead one makes trades from a trading account and after the markets close, one can allocate those trades to differing accounts.

One could make it so trades are time-stamped as they happen and assigned to specific accounts at the time of the trade. This makes the allocation process straightforward.

Or one could give an average price for all the trades that took place over the course of the day.

Or one could selectively allocate favorable trades to favorite clients. (Unethical but seeing that we know we're dealing with unethical people...)

So say you bought 300 shares of stock X at the open for $10/share. At noon, X goes to $5, you sell 100. At 2pm it goes to $15, you sell 100, at the close it's back to $10, you sell 100. Using the third method, you give the loss to a client you don't like (or your own account), the break-even to whoever, and the profitable trade to your favorite.

Or you could have two trading accounts. At the open, in one account you buy X, the other you sell X. At the market close, you close both positions. One of these is going to show a profit. You assign that one to your favorite. The losing one to yourself. You've effectively transferred money.

While directly transferring $500,000 or a couple million to Person H's bank account would leave a very obvious trail that would be difficult for Person H to explain, allowing Person H's trading account to grow from say $500,000 to $2.5 million over five years would provide good cover. Even if one were to investigate his account, one would probably just see a bunch of profitable trades. It would take some legwork to compare that to all the other trades that took place (and were allocated elsewhere) to see that Person H's account was benefiting from cherry-picking.

Person H has a good excuse when he transfers his money from the brokerage account back to his bank. "I had a very talented trader working for me!"

The examples I gave were crude. There are probably more complex ways of doing this that are harder to discern as being out-of-the-ordinary.

Not saying something like this happened, but it would be a discreet way to pay a bribe and somewhat difficult to prove anything unseemly happened.
In the banking industry they have a term for all this..... "Money laundering".
 
Dec 16, 2012
25
0
0
I understand HV rejecting "a conflict of interest"...but respectfully disagree.

However for HV to reject outright the perception of a conflict of interest is laughable!

As others have indicated "HV has no clue".

Why on Earth did HV not acknowledge the situation with something like:

"I can understand that some might say 'perceived conflict of interest' however I assure you nothing underhand took place."

To repeat this man is a joke. Unbelievable that he managed to way exceed the "Peter Principle" and get half as far up the slippery pole that he has!
 
Sep 5, 2010
25
0
0
brokerage account

the broker gives the client tons of IPO hot offerings that go up big first day and thats how they pay him. its almost free money but some dea do go south facebook but those that sold day one made $$
 
johnsiviour said:
I understand HV rejecting "a conflict of interest"...but respectfully disagree.

However for HV to reject outright the perception of a conflict of interest is laughable!

As others have indicated "HV has no clue".

Why on Earth did HV not acknowledge the situation with something like:

"I can understand that some might say 'perceived conflict of interest' however I assure you nothing underhand took place."

To repeat this man is a joke. Unbelievable that he managed to way exceed the "Peter Principle" and get half as far up the slippery pole that he has!
There was a comment on the CN main story which summed it up well;

"You give a guy that you like a small amount of money to manage"
AND
you are the presidents of cyclings governing body giving that money to a person involved in a cycling team
AND
you facilitate a meeting between the manager and star of the same team with a LAB for details of doping tests
AND
you accept money from the star of the same team for equipment for doping tests
AND
The star rider and manager on the same team go on to win 7 doping assisted tours
AND
"12 years later I end up in a doping case"

I am no rocket scientist but.....
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
DominicDecoco said:
Congrats, Hein. Your pal cleared you.

Long live Hein.
I think it is rather early, though, for UCI to hang out the flags, as they did in that press-release today. Shows their arrogance, again.

I remember similar words from Pat very soon after the Feds dropped their case. Back then he also said something like "this goes to show that there was nothing there, that nothing happened, period."

I would be LMAO if, tonight in part II, Lance would suddenly come out of the woodwork with a 180* turnaround wrt Hein and UCI.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
DominicDecoco said:
Congrats, Hein. Your pal cleared you.

Long live Hein.
let's see how long, even Eddy finally pretends to be disgusted

My disappointment was already enormous at the time and it’s even more so now,” Merckx told Le Soir. “He has admitted and that’s hard to hear. I was quite close to him: he often looked me right in the eyes when we discussed doping, and of course it was a big ‘no'."

and he was really "close to him"

In 2004, Ferrari said that he had been introduced to Armstrong by Merckx himself in late 1995.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
yeah internet petitions have a great history of working :rolleyes:


anyway. lance said he backtracked a doctors receipt for cortisones, where he was caught on in 99, which basiclaly implies for 100% the uci warned him and cooperated on this. can't believe the media haven't jumped on this yet because it prooves uci was corrupt
 
Feb 17, 2012
2,762
0
0
Ryo Hazuki said:
yeah internet petitions have a great history of working :rolleyes:


anyway. lance said he backtracked a doctors receipt for cortisones, where he was caught on in 99, which basiclaly implies for 100% the uci warned him and cooperated on this. can't believe the media haven't jumped on this yet because it prooves uci was corrupt
True. They had no right accepting that prescription and Lance admitted he backdated it.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
DominicDecoco said:
True. They had no right accepting that prescription and Lance admitted he backdated it.
and he admitted it on oprah. literally the only worthwhile thing he said. why isn't that in every news outlet? f'n idiot journalists
 
Ryo Hazuki said:
yeah internet petitions have a great history of working :rolleyes:


anyway. lance said he backtracked a doctors receipt for cortisones, where he was caught on in 99, which basiclaly implies for 100% the uci warned him and cooperated on this. can't believe the media haven't jumped on this yet because it prooves uci was corrupt
Notice these stories are always about the athlete. They won't touch the 7x myth, they won't touch this. It begins to implicate the IOC. No media outlet wants their Olympics press credentials taken away.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/01/17/rondgang-nrc-langs-renners-intrede-epo-legde-kiem-voor-dopingcrisis/

this is the summary of an article which, in full length, outlines the introduction of EPO in the peloton.
I don't have the full article but the guy who wrote it is now talking on Dutch radio (radio 1), and it sounds quite interesting.
For instance, he details in the full version of the article how certain DSs and riders went to the UCI (somewhere in the 90s, definitely pre-Armstrong) to complain viz. express their concerns about the massive amounts of doping being used around them, but that the UCI simply ignored said complaints.
 
Jun 12, 2012
83
0
0
Stop watching cycle racing. As an athletic competition, it's a complete farce. Your continued interest is all that supports people like Hein & Pat. The riders don't seem to care much at all about fairness. You can have much more fun with a bicycle than watching other people riding them, and without much angst at all.
 
Nov 2, 2012
3
0
0
hilarious

DominicDecoco said:
Congrats, Hein. Your pal cleared you.

Long live Hein.
This is actually very funny. HV/PM seizing on Armstrong's words to vindicate themselves.

“That story isn’t true. There was no positive test. No paying off of the lab. The UCI did not make that go away. I’m no fan of the UCI,” Armstrong told Winfrey.

Verbruggen said “given this is true, I was not surprised that Lance Armstrong confirmed this in the interview."

Genius. I'm sure this isn't going to bite them on the **** down the road...
 
Hein Pretends Some More

Hein claims he didn't know Thom Wiesel was partners with Wonderboy when using Och and Wiesel for investment activity.

Not only that, if he did know, he would not have given it a second thought.

That is insight into exactly how corrupted Hein, and the average IOC official is.

Oh yeah, the other thing that comes as no surprise, warning riders their blood values are suspicious. The phrase "never tested positive" just gets more ridiculous by the day.

http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Samenleving/Artikel-Samenleving/Hein-Verbruggen-UCI-For-years-cycling-federation-warned-Armstrong-and-other-riders-with-suspect-values.htm
 
dukster said:
Genius. I'm sure this isn't going to bite them on the **** down the road...
No it won't. They have a long history of denying things that are obviously true.

They report to no one. If the controversy is deemed too intense by the IOC, they might replace them, but same UCI.

They are working on a way to pretend things are changing though! Pat and Hein are working on a version of the breakaway league format because apparently the guy behind Omega-Pharma-Quickstep has money to throw down a drain. That's going to be sold as an "improved UCI."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY