Is Barry Bonds' Trial The Hold Up?

[Race Radio]

I understand the other method used by the US Postal team was for a third party to over bill the team for goods and services. That party would then provide the surplus funds to the US Postal team felons. This third party would be conspiring to money launder and evade tax and would be singing like a bird to Fed investigators in return for immunity.

There is another motivation for this.

Tailwind had some rich groupies as part owners. Most came in late in the game and were always told the team did not make any money so they would not see a dividend. A good way to make sure there is nothing left over is the kickback scam

 

[fatandfast]

does anybody know what happened to Paul Vine? (ex 7-11 mech, owner of Bikes By The Bay) don't know if he left SoCal.Or Fernando Castro (Damage Control Bikes) those guys used to sell stuff from teams. I would love to hear about how teams sell stuff, great subject for an article. Mets clubhouse guy in loads of trouble for selling things he got on the job. MLB has lots of insiders that sell things.
Does anybody know if Hampsten rode a Land Shark? I remember a guy riding one he claimed was his

 

[Exroadman24902]

Yes, "usually sell stuff" - but the previous poster said "Selling bikes is certainly normal practice for any team", when it isn't.

what else do they do with the bikes? Use them again next season?

 

[Polish]

what else do they do with the bikes? Use them again next season?

Sometimes used team bikes are auctioned off for good causes:

http://www.bikerumor.com/2009/11/04...uction-raises-1point3-million-for-livestrong/

http://livestrongblog.org/2009/01/29/official-team-astana-bike-signed-by-lance-on-ebay/

http://www.charitybuzz.com/auctions/livestrong/catalog_items/279601

 

[Dr. Maserati]

what else do they do with the bikes? Use them again next season?

I already answered this in post #542 - but here it is again:

About three years ago, Trek began writing into its contracts that the pro teams it sponsored had to pass the bike frames on to their junior teams. "We just got more specific about it," explained Mr. Burns. "We didn't want to see that stuff getting sold on the market. It should be going to a better use than that."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334812419976690.html

 

[Exroadman24902]

I already answered this in post #542 - but here it is again:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334812419976690.html

But Landis made allegations about 2004-2005

 

[Polish]

I already answered this in post #542 - but here it is again:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334812419976690.html

That article is a great example of Murdoch/WSJ witch hunt smearing.
What a joke that article was.
But at least they used David Clinger and not an unnamed source lol.

Anyway, seems that RadioShack is violating their contract with this auction of Dmitriy Muravyer's TREK. BooHoo.
Still time to bid btw.....

http://www.charitybuzz.com/auctions/livestrong/catalog_items/279601

 

[Race Radio]

But Landis made allegations about 2004-2005

Most rational people can see a difference between selling used bikes at the end of the year and limiting bikes to riders in order to sell them during the season to support a doping program.

Floyd could not even get a TT bike to train on and he is far from the only USPS rider who complained about the lack of access to equipment. Trek saw it as such an issue they hired a person to manage it full time.

Trek gave bikes to the team for racing and training, not to finance a doping program and disrupt the marketplace with cut price bikes

 

[Velodude]

teams usually sell stuff through their service course. i used to get tubular tires by the handful for a few euro. some had flats, some didn't. rainy days were for fixing tubular flats. now i am too lazy to bother.

i even got a prototype campy groupo attached to a broken frame a few years ago from a defunct team that was unloading lots of cool stuff.

The issue is who legally owned the bikes and equipment?

If the teams were domiciled in the US jurisdiction for accounting and income tax purposes the sale proceeds were due to the team.

Trek with the policy change directed from 2007 Trek bike frames were on loan to a team and were then after team use only to be donated to junior teams.

Pre 2007 LA control teams, US Postal Team and Discovery, were obligated to disclose to the IRS the accounting of the sale proceeds of bike and equipment. Depositing of those funds in an account not controlled by the team or held as unaccounted cash by an individual possesses the characteristics of income tax evasion and money laundering.

 

[Polish]

Trek gave bikes to the team for racing and training, not to finance a doping program and disrupt the marketplace with cut price bikes

Trek gave the bikes to the team to WIN races and garner PUBLICITY.
Trek was very very successful because of Lance and his Lieutenants.

Disrupt the marketplace lol.
Disrupted a ton of business away from other brands and into trek coffers.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But Landis made allegations about 2004-2005

He sure did - he said that the bikes were sold to help pay for the doping.
Thanks for reminding everyone of that.

 

[Polish]

He sure did - he said that the bikes were sold to help pay for the doping.
Thanks for reminding everyone of that.

Wonder how Floyd knows.
Maybe he heard it from David Clinger...

Anyway, it seems it would weaken Floyd's WhistleBlower case.
Not using USGov money to buy peds.

 

[Velodude]

There is another motivation for this.

Tailwind had some rich groupies as part owners. Most came in late in the game and were always told the team did not make any money so they would not see a dividend. A good way to make sure there is nothing left over is the kickback scam

I read somewhere that Tailwind, the owner then part owner of US Postal team, was annually always incurring losses from $200,000 to $1m - I stand to be corrected on those figures.

Losses have to be funded and no doubt the wealthy patrons were asked to kick in further funds for the ongoing prestige of group rides with LA and preferential positioning on the TdF course.

It is illogical that the most successful team in the period 1999-2005 could not bolster its income to at least cover expenses if not a tidy profit to reward its investors.

One wonders what other revenue was diverted away from the team bank account (merchandise sales?). Or did LA dictate each year his personal remuneration be increased to strike a loss in the team's books knowing the sycophant team investors would meet that deficit?

 

[fatandfast]

Polish you are biting on bad bait. There is no story of selling bikes and misc equipment. This has been going on forever. There are accounts of Coppi using bikes for barter. Big teams w bar codes probably see a decent pattern of how the bikes are consumed during the race process. Asking for 10 when you really need 5 is hardly new and wasn't invented by Pharmstrong. I question if he was even the biggest abuser. Lots of wrenchers would have challenged the inventory control process, and sometimes for profit.

The end of this will be to find out that Trek and others gave way too much product, it was resold, the loot was used to build egos w second, third and forth girlfriends rather than a mobile drug lab. Putting Lance in the saddle on a training ride and having him use a Sharpie to scribble his name on the bike to make it worth "more" to some zealot is going to be the story. Charlie Sheen played a Landislike character were he discovers that companies are bought and dismantled and sold off. It was ground breaking to some but it was a lame story line then and now.
This is way people make money with old race bikes. In their case surplus new ones that were never going to be needed. When Armstrong explains why he needed the extra cash he will look even more like an ego maniac than he currently does, but probably not criminal.
People are retail mad about a wholesale problem.Lots of the stuff he sold at retail was probably worth pennies on the dollar to Trek and others. If Novitzky does his homework he will find that all the big teams have done some form of retail profiting from things they were given for free or next to nothing. He will probably get a cold shoulder from them also because nobody likes the taxman or his name to be know for a black market anything no matter how small

 

[Velodude]

Polish you are biting on bad bait. There is no story of selling bikes and misc equipment. This has been going on forever. There are accounts of Coppi using bikes for barter. Big teams w bar codes probably see a decent pattern of how the bikes are consumed during the race process. Asking for 10 when you really need 5 is hardly new and wasn't invented by Pharmstrong. I question if he was even the biggest abuser. Lots of wrenchers would have challenged the inventory control process, and sometimes for profit.

The end of this will be to find out that Trek and others gave way too much product, it was resold, the loot was used to build egos w second, third and forth girlfriends rather than a mobile drug lab. Putting Lance in the saddle on a training ride and having him use a Sharpie to scribble his name on the bike to make it worth "more" to some zealot is going to be the story. Charlie Sheen played a Landislike character were he discovers that companies are bought and dismantled and sold off. It was ground breaking to some but it was a lame story line then and now.
This is way people make money with old race bikes. In their case surplus new ones that were never going to be needed. When Armstrong explains why he needed the extra cash he will look even more like an ego maniac than he currently does, but probably not criminal.
People are retail mad about a wholesale problem.Lots of the stuff he sold at retail was probably worth pennies on the dollar to Trek and others. If Novitzky does his homework he will find that all the big teams have done some form of retail profiting from things they were given for free or next to nothing. He will probably get a cold shoulder from them also because nobody likes the taxman or his name to be know for a black market anything no matter how small

Fatandfast, ignorance of the law is not an excuse (or a defense in a civil or criminal proceeding).

Common practice followed in breach of the law is not a precedent to rely on as a defense.

The arrangements entered into for the sale of bikes and overstatement of expenses was allegedly on a team not individual basis with the motives to amass funds to pay for the team doping program.

If so, the investigators had a money trail to follow to its finality. Persons would be involved in the maintenance of those funding arrangements and I would be certain they would not risk the consequences of being dishonest to Federal investigators and also commit perjury in Court.

 

[Berzin]

Fatandfast just conjured up a scenario out of thin air, and he did it for a reason.

Don't go by the facts as we have them when you can just make stuff up that on every instance makes Armstrong look innocent of what he may be charged with.

 

[Exroadman24902]

The issue is who legally owned the bikes and equipment?

If the teams were domiciled in the US jurisdiction for accounting and income tax purposes the sale proceeds were due to the team.

Trek with the policy change directed from 2007 Trek bike frames were on loan to a team and were then after team use only to be donated to junior teams.

Pre 2007 LA control teams, US Postal Team and Discovery, were obligated to disclose to the IRS the accounting of the sale proceeds of bike and equipment. Depositing of those funds in an account not controlled by the team or held as unaccounted cash by an individual possesses the characteristics of income tax evasion and money laundering.

depends where the proceeds show up in their accounts. Many or maybe all teams will sell bikes outwith the jurisdiction they're domiciled in...so storm in a tea cup velodude. Who knows if the proceeds aren't shared out as part of the riders salary or used to pay other bills?

 

[Cal_Joe]

....just conjured up a scenario out of thin air.....

In case you have not noticed, this is the Clinic subforum of the Cycling News forum - conjuring stuff out of thin air happens daily here on every thread.

Don't go by the facts as we have them when you can just make stuff up

Pretty much the same comment. Normally someone may ask "Are you new here?"

...that on every instance makes Armstrong look innocent of what he may be charged with.

Can't quite interpret this part "innocent of what he may be charged with"?

If he is charged with something, there will either be a plea bargain or a trial - those two scenarios (hopefully) will determine charges and innocence/guilt. Don't know why your panties are in a such a twist over things that have not happened yet.

 

[Velodude]

depends where the proceeds show up in their accounts. All teams sell bikes outwith the jurisdiction they're domiciled in...storm in a tea cup velodude. Who knows if the proceeds aren't shared out as part of the riders salary or used to pay other bills?

If you are entering into a covert arrangement to divert proceeds due to the US Postal team from sale of assets (expensive pedigreed bicycles) to fund a doping program the objective is not to disclose them in the team's financial accounts.

Bruyneel claims the team's budget in one particular year was $18m. If they had to sell 50% of the 120 bikes extremely early in the season could the reason be the bean counters erred by underestimating the budget to negotiate sponsorship funds and the team was strapped for cash at an early date?

The incident when Floyd Landis discovered that 60 bikes could not be accounted for happened in March 2004 (Paris-Nice race). A very early date in the season for a team already having to fund unbudgeted team expenses.

Or the costs of the team doping program could not form part of the budget and therefore had to be financed through devious and undisclosed backdoor measures?

Tailwind Sports is a US corporation (incorporated in Delaware) that is assessable in the US on its world wide income less tax credits for foreign taxes paid. Income is not exempt from tax because it is sourced outside the US.

Read this WSJ articlewhich is clear from the persons interviewed that it was the team selling the bikes.

If the riders were getting a benefit from the sales proceeds it would have been put up as a defense. Riders Landis and Clinger then would have no grounds to complain they could not be provided with better bikes.

 

[Exroadman24902]

If you are entering into a covert arrangement to divert proceeds due to the US Postal team from sale of assets (expensive pedigreed bicycles) to fund a doping program the objective is not to disclose them in the team's financial accounts.

Bruyneel claims the team's budget in one particular year was $18m. If they had to sell 50% of the 120 bikes extremely early in the season could the reason be the bean counters erred by underestimating the budget to negotiate sponsorship funds and the team was strapped for cash at an early date?

The incident when Floyd Landis discovered that 60 bikes could not be accounted for happened in March 2004 (Paris-Nice race). A very early date in the season for a team already having to fund unbudgeted team expenses.

Or the costs of the team doping program could not form part of the budget and therefore had to be financed through devious and undisclosed backdoor measures?

Tailwind Sports is a US corporation (incorporated in Delaware) that is assessable in the US on its world wide income less tax credits for foreign taxes paid. Income is not exempt from tax because it is sourced outside the US.

Read this WSJ articlewhich is clear from the persons interviewed that it was the team selling the bikes.

If the riders were getting a benefit from the sales proceeds it would have been put up as a defense. Riders Landis and Clinger then would have no grounds to complain they could not be provided with better bikes.

you are not their accountant and so you do not know how the proceeds of bike sales were distributed or in which jurisdiction. You also do not know if there is a money trail to dope dealers. You are quite simply inferring, behaving as a rumor monger in the process. The reason we are waiting 15 months on for the grand jury to indict is that it is hard to prove, but I admit the odds of indictment are frighteningly high for Mr Armstrong

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In case you have not noticed, this is the Clinic subforum of the Cycling News forum - conjuring stuff out of thin air happens daily here on every thread.

Really?
That may be your modus operandi but it isn't for most posters here.

Pretty much the same comment. Normally someone may ask "Are you new here?"


Can't quite interpret this part "innocent of what he may be charged with"?

If he is charged with something, there will either be a plea bargain or a trial - those two scenarios (hopefully) will determine charges and innocence/guilt. Don't know why your panties are in a such a twist over things that have not happened yet.

I thought Berzins point was easy to see - someone is making up a lot of stuff (while ignoring other information) to paint Lance in a more favorable light.

I don't know why your panties are in a wa..... actually, scratch that, I do.

you are not their accountant and so you do not know how the proceeds of bike sales were distributed or in which jurisdiction. You also do not know if there is a money trail to dope dealers. You are quite simply inferring, behaving as a rumor monger in the process. The reason we are waiting 15 months on for the grand jury to indict is that it is hard to prove, but I admit the odds of indictment are frighteningly high for Mr Armstrong

Hmm, I don't think Velodude claimed to be an accountant - nor do I see why you we need to be one to understand Floyds claims that Treks were sold to pay for doping.

Thats a good point about there not being a moneytrail to dope dealers - yes, it may well be that the drugs were given for free and administered for no financial reward - maybe this investigation will show that there is a lot of love in this world afterall.

As for jurisdiction - well Delaware is kindof part of the US - so, is Texas, just.

 

[Velodude]

you are not their accountant and so you do not know how the proceeds of bike sales were distributed or in which jurisdiction. You also do not know if there is a money trail to dope dealers. You are quite simply inferring, behaving as a rumor monger in the process. The reason we are waiting 15 months on for the grand jury to indict is that it is hard to prove, but I admit the odds of indictment are frighteningly high for Mr Armstrong

No rumour mongering. I give credit to the Floyd Landis accounting of events.

WSJ - The Case of the Missing Bikes

The next day, Mr. Landis said, he got a phone call from Mr. Bruyneel, who was angry that Mr. Landis had contacted the sponsors. According to Mr. Landis, Mr. Bruyneel told him that the money raised from equipment sales helped pay for doping.

If you do not give credit to Floyd then remember it was his emails that initiated the current state of play before the Grand Jury.

The Feds are checking his claims about the bike sales (by interviewing Trek) and his credibility will not be a fragile part of the prosecution's case when the prosecution presents in court the documentary trail of the dope financing funds from the sale of the team bikes.

Bruyneel and Armstrong ran an operation that was protected by omerta and within the sport corruption. They never expected their unsophisticated drug financing arrangements would be probed by an instrumentality outside their sport with will and teeth.

Festina's woes snowballed because they did not look after Willy Voet. LA's woes commenced when they did not simply appease known maverick Floyd Landis.

 

[Dave_1]

If you are entering into a covert arrangement to divert proceeds due to the US Postal team from sale of assets (expensive pedigreed bicycles) to fund a doping program the objective is not to disclose them in the team's financial accounts.

Bruyneel claims the team's budget in one particular year was $18m. If they had to sell 50% of the 120 bikes extremely early in the season could the reason be the bean counters erred by underestimating the budget to negotiate sponsorship funds and the team was strapped for cash at an early date?

The incident when Floyd Landis discovered that 60 bikes could not be accounted for happened in March 2004 (Paris-Nice race). A very early date in the season for a team already having to fund unbudgeted team expenses.

Or the costs of the team doping program could not form part of the budget and therefore had to be financed through devious and undisclosed backdoor measures?

Tailwind Sports is a US corporation (incorporated in Delaware) that is assessable in the US on its world wide income less tax credits for foreign taxes paid. Income is not exempt from tax because it is sourced outside the US.

Read this WSJ articlewhich is clear from the persons interviewed that it was the team selling the bikes.

If the riders were getting a benefit from the sales proceeds it would have been put up as a defense. Riders Landis and Clinger then would have no grounds to complain they could not be provided with better bikes.

I am willing to wait to see if LA has a money trail linking him to dope dealers/middle men that is proven in court.

If the bikes were sold in Europe, are the team taxed in Europe as well?

It's an interesting debate. How does a pro team get taxed when the team only ever uses money, increases number of sponsors to run the team. The sponsor's input is already taxed. How does a team run a profit? Are they trying to increase sponsorship so the owners can take a bigger cut of it when they force riders salaries lower? Or do the sponsors demand every cent is spent? How does a team owner's contract look?

 

[Velodude]

I am willing to wait to see if LA has a money trail linking him to dope dealers/middle men that is proven in court.

If the bikes were sold in Europe, are the team taxed in Europe as well?

The alleged intent of the private sales of team bikes is to provide covert funds (money laundering) to finance the team drug program. If the transactions are seen to be private, eg., Ebay, and not accounted in the team's books the team would be evading tax full stop (income tax evasion).

It may be noted that the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act) can apply when a minimum of two of certain crimes are committed within a 10 year period. Money laundering and income tax evasion fit the bill.

Dave_1 further wrote:

It's an interesting debate. How does a pro team get taxed when the team only ever uses money, increases number of sponsors to run the team. The sponsor's input is already taxed. How does a team run a profit? Are they trying to increase sponsorship so the owners can take a bigger cut of it when they force riders salaries lower? Or do the sponsors demand every cent is spent? How does a team owner's contract look?

Sponsorship money is income to a cycling team and a tax deductible write off as a promotion expense to the sponsor.

Profits are earned and losses are incurred the same as any other business carrying on an activity with the intent of earning a profit.

With these US Postal team bikes attracting a premium with sale prices up to $20,000 per bike you can do the maths (average bike sale price x 120 bikes) to estimate the substantial amount of income not accounted to the team per year. I would suggest a minimum of $600,000. Multiply the number of years (USPS 1999-2004 = 6)

 

[fatandfast]

Fatandfast just conjured up a scenario out of thin air, and he did it for a reason.

Don't go by the facts as we have them when you can just make stuff up that on every instance makes Armstrong look innocent of what he may be charged with.

Berzin maybe you can look at some of those conjured photos of the Colombian teams in Colorado. Those guys I am sure don't sell any equipment to make ends meet..or to get home after the race. They are probably just using a rental van and loaner mag trainers because they are trying to make friends. Selling equipment and swag by racers is hardly a fairy tale. Doing it to create a drug slush fund may be, after all Landis has a book full