If it walks like a corrupt official and quacks like one...

[Maxiton]

Uh yea Pat, nothing suspicious here at all... Jebus man, he can actually move his mouth and say those things as though people will believe him.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-reveals-armstrong-made-two-donations-to-the-uci

I don't know what you see but I see the face of innocence here, a fair-minded, progressive-thinking, forward looking administrator who despite being under siege is determined to clean up cycling. Why do you love corruption?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

LOL. McQuaid is cleaning up all right.

 

[craig1985]

When I jog with Lance he always runs just behind me.

I dont think Lance would be the *****.

And you always manage to drop the soap in the shower?

 

[ElChingon]

How is it they just forgot about the amounts when this first came up? They're supposed to be a poor organization so $125,000 comes by and opps where is that check hum.. makes you wonder? Most organizations after getting more than a thousand or five thousand send back a super welcome card or gift, not the UCI instead they even forget that you sent a check. Not to mention announce such donations on your website and hold a press conference to show people are giving to your organization and to hopefully get more donations after showing others are doing so? I'm not on the side thinking the donation was good or not without its suspicious angle. BUT! Who discounts such a donation as a petty value if their organization is so poor? Supposedly according to Pat?

We all know what's going on and they're just trying to hide it as good as they can.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Paddy and the UCI have spent the last couple of months trying to figure out how many of the L.A. donations they had to publicly admit, and which they fugured they could successfully bury even through an audit. The $125k is what was sorted into the pile of donations with paper trails they couldn't erase entirely. The other pile, well now that's going to be the extra few hundred thousand that Schenk was referring to. Guess we'll never see that, unless the UCI gets hit with a forensic audit (under what authority I have no idea) that is more effective at probing than they are expecting.

 

[MacRoadie]

Guess we'll never see that, unless the UCI gets hit with a forensic audit (under what authority I have no idea) that is more effective at probing than they are expecting.

The UCI has a long history of running into people that are more effective at (fill in the blank) than they are expecting.

 

[Oldman]

Paddy and the UCI have spent the last couple of months trying to figure out how many of the L.A. donations they had to publicly admit, and which they fugured they could successfully bury even through an audit. The $125k is what was sorted into the pile of donations with paper trails they couldn't erase entirely. The other pile, well now that's going to be the extra few hundred thousand that Schenk was referring to. Guess we'll never see that, unless the UCI gets hit with a forensic audit (under what authority I have no idea) that is more effective at probing than they are expecting.

When they start probing personal accounts of UCI officials, that's when the fun will begin. These guys aren't Wall Street bankers, too big to fail; they can't explain the Mercedes S600 on a $70K/year salary.

 

[Runitout]

I like how he says that Armstrong was the youngest ever world champion. How does he expect us to believe him when he says bullsh!t like that?

I get a better receipt from my drycleaner; but given the nature of the 'donation' I'm surprised they managed to dig something out at all, or at least take so long to produce/retrieve/concoct something so bad.

I'd be willing to bet that the remaining 375,000 never made it to the UCI. There's a dutchman with bad skin who could tell us a little bit more, I'm sure.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I like how he says that Armstrong was the youngest ever world champion. How does he expect us to believe him when he says bullsh!t like that?

I get a better receipt from my drycleaner; but given the nature of the 'donation' I'm surprised they managed to dig something out at all, or at least take so long to produce/retrieve/concoct something so bad.

I'd be willing to bet that the remaining 375,000 never made it to the UCI. There's a dutchman with bad skin who could tell us a little bit more, I'm sure.

This is part of the problem - Stephen Farrand who wrote the CN article only appears to have seen a 'photocopy receipt' for the purchase of the Sysmex machine.
'We' already knew the story of the machine - and it appeared to have been bought in 2005 - but that appeared to have been bought out of UCI funds, and a 'reminder' was sent to LA to 'reimburse' the UCI.

So the question still remains - when was the reminder sent and when was the money paid from LA/CSE?

 

[craig1985]

I'm amazed that Pat does not see this a clear breach of conflict. FMD.

 

[ultimobici]

I'm amazed that Pat does not see this a clear breach of conflict. FMD.

Do you mean "breach of confidence" or "conflict of interest" because "breach of conflict" doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Parrot23]

All of the de facto advance notice stuff about the testing of Astana last year and Armstrong in prev. years makes a lot sense in light of his fawning comments. Armstrong is the UCI's "product" essentially. Like a big commercial bank = "too big to fail".

Same thing happens with a lot of govt/quasi public regulators: the industry "captures" the regulator, making its decisions consistent with industry needs.

See George Stigler, Nobel Prize in economics, on "regulatory capture".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

The UCI's conflict of interest here is fatal to its integrity (just like that of investment banks both working for clients and trading against them simultaneously; there are no effective "Chinese walls"). WADA has been right about this all along. The promoter of the sport's image and its enforcer/tester should be different entities. The tester should have no more affection/interest in the sport than, say, in African basket weaving, the local toastmasters club, etc., what have you.

They should be able to swing the ax unfettered. McQuaid's comments are the clearest indication so far that the UCI cannot and WILL NOT. If Armstrong fails (is uncovered), the UCI fails and so does cycling. Quelle horreur! It's as simple as that for McQuad/UCI.

This situation is like a woman staying in a bad/abusive marriage ("I'll take my lumps of coal because the alternatives are worse", re "I have not alternatives"). Integrity of these things is always hard to understand from the outside, but not from the inside (for the protagonists). And McQuaid's remarks show he definitely is a protagonist.

Armstrong has brought home the bacon for a niche industry sector (looking to expand in places like, eh gads, Malaysia, China, Africa, LOL) and for commercial entities like Versus, who will milk the Lance story till the cows come home. In this sense, it makes little sense to keeping whingeing about their coverage and attitude toward Lance. These folks will only let go at the very last minute, when they absolutely have to, kicking and screaming. It's in their "industry's" interests to run with the Lance story as along as every $ counts, and cycling's profile expands (for the UCI).

High time folks started to look at this as an industry (Tailwind is/was a moneymaking corporation, re Weisels etc., UCI has de facto been compromised with its interests aligned with the industry's--ie. regulatory capture--looking to expand the market niche as a whole). McQuaid is practically screaming the latter. How clear can it be?

It is to Novitzky...................and UCI are stunned, thinking essentially that one of the industry's primary cash cows might go down.

That is McQuaid's point. He's spelled it out very clearly.

 

[Publicus]

No matter what happens (even if Armstrong is found to have been doping) he will remain a star:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/sport/inside_sport.asp?xfile=/data/miscellaneous/2010/July/miscellaneous_July18.xml&section=miscellaneous

 

[Tubeless]

All of the de facto advance notice stuff about the testing of Astana last year and Armstrong in prev. years makes a lot sense in light of his fawning comments. Armstrong is the UCI's "product" essentially. Like a big commercial bank = "too big to fail".

Same thing happens with a lot of govt/quasi public regulators: the industry "captures" the regulator, making its decisions consistent with industry needs.

See George Stigler, Nobel Prize in economics, on "regulatory capture".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

The UCI's conflict of interest here is fatal to its integrity (just like that of investment banks both working for clients and trading against them simultaneously; there are no effective "Chinese walls"). WADA has been right about this all along. The promoter of the sport's image and its enforcer/tester should be different entities. The tester should have no more affection/interest in the sport than, say, in African basket weaving, the local toastmasters club, etc., what have you.

They should be able to swing the ax unfettered. McQuaid's comments are the clearest indication so far that the UCI cannot and WILL NOT. If Armstrong fails (is uncovered), the UCI fails and so does cycling. Quelle horreur! It's as simple as that for McQuad/UCI.

This situation is like a woman staying in a bad/abusive marriage ("I'll take my lumps of coal because the alternatives are worse", re "I have not alternatives"). Integrity of these things is always hard to understand from the outside, but not from the inside (for the protagonists). And McQuaid's remarks show he definitely is a protagonist.

Armstrong has brought home the bacon for a niche industry sector (looking to expand in places like, eh gads, Malaysia, China, Africa, LOL) and for commercial entities like Versus, who will milk the Lance story till the cows come home. In this sense, it makes little sense to keeping whingeing about their coverage and attitude toward Lance. These folks will only let go at the very last minute, when they absolutely have to, kicking and screaming. It's in their "industry's" interests to run with the Lance story as along as every $ counts, and cycling's profile expands (for the UCI).

High time folks started to look at this as an industry (Tailwind is/was a moneymaking corporation, re Weisels etc., UCI has de facto been compromised with its interests aligned with the industry's--ie. regulatory capture--looking to expand the market niche as a whole). McQuaid is practically screaming the latter. How clear can it be?

It is to Novitzky...................and UCI are stunned, thinking essentially that one of the industry's primary cash cows might go down.

That is McQuaid's point. He's spelled it out very clearly.

This is well put. You'd think given the gravity of the situation, McQuaid would be smart enough to adjust his public comments to show impartiality as the head of the governing body, but he seems blind to the perception by outsiders that he's increasingly part of the problem.

Ironically, his voluntary disclosure may give more credence to the feds looking at one of the possible charges once all the facts are in - bribing of a foreign official by a US corporation. We could end up seeing that UCI audit after all.

 

[Big Doopie]

Armstrong is the UCI's "product" essentially. Like a big commercial bank = "too big to fail".

precisely. well put.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

When they start probing personal accounts of UCI officials, that's when the fun will begin. These guys aren't Wall Street bankers, too big to fail; they can't explain the Mercedes S600 on a $70K/year salary.

Why not? Have you seen how many Americans can explain $500k houses on $75k a year salaries? Tons.

 

[fatandfast]

you guys must be alergic to winning or something. lance armstrong is keeping the sport alive during the global financial crisis, his donations are probably some of the only money the uci is getting.

Not to mention the billions of sponsorship dollars he brings in with he superstar personality. Cycling would be dead without armstrong and his money and you know it.

Grow up and love excellence.

Lots of things to address here. Lance being human can do wrong..doesn't make him the anti-Christ. Your timing is a bit off. Armstrong promised the money in 2002 and final gave it in 2005. You are correct using the UCI statements Armstrong is the ONLY rider that has ever given them money. There was no financial crisis when he promised or gave the loot. Being the only rider to give cash to the referees/police of pro cycling is pretty weird on any level. The fact that the $100k was forgotten by the UCI strange. The fact that they overlooked another $25,000.00 dollars..stupid. The fact that anytime Armstrong/Livestrong gives anything to anybody there is a press conference..gave less to the Boys/Girls Clubs of Texas..press conference.Gave some to Haiti relief..press conference..gave some to Ben Stiller's ..Stillerstrong.org which builds schools ..press conference..the fact that this cash was given in an envelope and without a peep to the press is suspect at the very least. Armstrong and his story are great for cycling. His winning tradition is also a lure for fans both new and old. Some of the scumbagz he has rubbed elbows with are hard to ignore when some of his questionable dealings are brought to light. He has built 2 lives 1 on the bike 1 off..both bring in boats of cash..both require him to deal with the press and lots and lots of public exposure..it would appear that he will phuk up sooner or later.

 

[TheMight]

This is part of the problem - Stephen Farrand who wrote the CN article only appears to have seen a 'photocopy receipt' for the purchase of the Sysmex machine.
'We' already knew the story of the machine - and it appeared to have been bought in 2005 - but that appeared to have been bought out of UCI funds, and a 'reminder' was sent to LA to 'reimburse' the UCI.

Why exactly does the UCI need that machine? I thought they used independent labs for testing. And then the receipt is "secret?"

Just seems kind of weird to me.

 

[ansimi]

Why exactly does the UCI need that machine? I thought they used independent labs for testing. And then the receipt is "secret?"

Just seems kind of weird to me.

It is weird. Maybe they got it second hand from somebody like Ferrari when he was done using it for research.

 

[Cobblestones]

It is weird. Maybe they got it second hand from somebody like Ferrari when he was done using it for research.

So they could analyze fingerprints and DNA test blood residues on it?

 

[Tubeless]

Why exactly does the UCI need that machine? I thought they used independent labs for testing. And then the receipt is "secret?"

Just seems kind of weird to me.

Unless this has changed recently, UCI does perform the "control" tests - to check the riders' blood to be within acceptable parameters (used to be the 50% Hkr limit). These are typically performed on the entire peloton. The Sysmex machine has a high-level of accuracy and consistency in counting blood parameters.

 

[Mellow Velo]

No matter what happens (even if Armstrong is found to have been doping) he will remain a star:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/sport/inside_sport.asp?xfile=/data/miscellaneous/2010/July/miscellaneous_July18.xml&section=miscellaneous

I like this bit:

However, McQuaid said that even if the seven-time Tour de France champion is eventually found guilty of doping, he will remain one of the biggest champions in the sport.

Which is the complete opposite to his opinion of Landis, when commenting on the allegations.

Basically, it's a continued green light to dope to the eyeballs, no?

 

[Parrot23]

No matter what happens (even if Armstrong is found to have been doping) he will remain a star:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/sport/inside_sport.asp?xfile=/data/miscellaneous/2010/July/miscellaneous_July18.xml&section=miscellaneous

Thanks for that.

McQuaid and the prevailing model of--purportedly--going against all riders named is part of the problem. What a set of negative incentives to catching cheats! Just digs in omerta deeper.

Novitzky et al per the WSJ are very shrewd in aiming not at lesser riders but at the team leaders and directors (and I hope the facilitators, the "doctors" Landis described administering the transfusions at Postal). This is how to take this thing down. Go for the head honchos (and esp. the head rider, the star winners of this system of loot**).

Get some sort of immunity deal for domestiques against dunces like McQuaid/UCI, and then the domestiques and others will sing like canaries when allowed immunity on the one hand, and faced with the prospect of perjury charges on the other. They could roll these networks (roll one witness, get him to rat out the others, and immediately work your way up the line....all the while aiming for the head honchos).

McQuaid wants to "shoot"/charge the witnesses (a form of intimidation here in the interests of Armstrong and Bruyneel, like a guy running a mafia protection racket); Novitzky, I hope, wants to get them immunity.

Go for the big fish, and let the little fish swim.

(**Armstrong earning an ostensible $20m a year, all told and mainly from sponsers, is presposterously out of line for procycling, a relatively small niche sport, let's face it, completely unlike F1, football/soccer, golf, tennis.)

 

[Roadent]

Thanks for that.

McQuaid and the prevailing model of--purportedly--going against all riders named is part of the problem. What a set of negative incentives to catching cheats! Just digs in omerta deeper.

Novitzky et al per the WSJ are very shrewd in aiming not at lesser riders but at the team leaders and directors (and I hope the facilitators, the "doctors" Landis described administering the transfusions at Postal). This is how to take this thing down. Go for the head honchos (and esp. the head rider, the star winners of this system of loot**).

Get some sort of immunity deal for domestiques against dunces like McQuaid/UCI, and then the domestiques and others will sing like canaries when allowed immunity on the one hand, and faced with the prospect of perjury charges on the other. They could roll these networks (roll one witness, get him to rat out the others, and immediately work your way up the line....all the while aiming for the head honchos).

McQuaid wants to "shoot"/charge the witnesses (a form of intimidation here in the interests of Armstrong and Bruyneel, like a guy running a mafia protection racket); Novitzky, I hope, wants to get them immunity.

Go for the big fish, and let the little fish swim.

(**Armstrong earning an ostensible $20m a year, all told and mainly from sponsers, is presposterously out of line for procycling, a relatively small niche sport, let's face it, completely unlike F1, football/soccer, golf, tennis.)

Good observations all around, Parrot - I'm wondering at what point Brunyneel decides that hard prison time is less appealing than outing his protege? Knowing his calculating nature, I wouldn't be surprised if he's already starting to do the math and will wait until Novitzky just gets to him with solid stuff to 'flip' and confess all "It was Lance's idea all along: I was a simple DS doing what I needed to keep my star rider on the top.." Wouldn't put it past him...

 

[Benotti69]

Good observations all around, Parrot - I'm wondering at what point Brunyneel decides that hard prison time is less appealing than outing his protege? Knowing his calculating nature, I wouldn't be surprised if he's already starting to do the math and will wait until Novitzky just gets to him with solid stuff to 'flip' and confess all "It was Lance's idea all along: I was a simple DS doing what I needed to keep my star rider on the top.." Wouldn't put it past him...

it might be hard for Hog to do that when all the other rider's are naming him as Godfather and LA as prodical son...or howabout The Godfathers....