pastronef said:
Yes, that was my association as well.
However, there are also some differences between the two cases.
The first difference is that in this case the money doesn't go through a major stakeholder in the sport (i.e., the UCI), but directly to an organization that should be relatively independent (an anti-doping agency). So, unlike Armstrong, Sunweb doesn't involve the UCI president in a secretive scheme involving money and payments.
The second difference is that the money isn't meant to finance (or dictate) a very specific testing regime. In Amstrong's case, he financed a very specific piece of lab equipment to analyze samples, thereby dictating how samples were going to be tested. We now know that one of the reasons for doing so was so he could manage his own blood values in order to not test positive as he had access to such a machine as well. It was basically a bribe to ensure the use of a testing method he could anticipate and take counter-measures against, all under the pretense of supporting the anti-doping effort.
In the case of Sunweb, this isn't really what's happening. They are basically financing the anti-doping agency to do more tests, without being involved in the details of the tests being performed, the selection of athletes, or the timing of the tests. I don't see how doing that would give Sunweb better means of anticipating and counter-measuring the anti-doping efforts. So, in principle, if we were living in a fully transparent world without scheming behind the scenes, then this wouldn't increase Sunweb's chances of defeating the tests.
The third difference is that in Armstrong's case it wasn't exactly sure where the results of the tests performed with the machine were ending up (did they only end-up at the UCI or were they send to WADA post 1999?). In Sunweb's case, the tests will be treated as regular tests, with their results being shared to WADA and recorded in the ABP. This should leave less room for selective favoritism from the UCI.
Now, everything I said here is "in theory if everything were to be fully transparent". If things aren't going to be transparent, then we have no way of knowing what actually happens to the money, with the testing regime, and the results. Still, I would rate funding an independent anti-doping agency to do additional tests above buying a specific machine for the UCI so you know how to defeat it.