• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Sylvia Schenk says 500,000 $

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mrs John Murphy said:
I have a question - I've read that at the SCA trial Armstrong said the donation was only $25,000, if the donation is shown to have been i) larger and ii) at a different date, does this mean the Uniballer is open to charges of perjury - and would SCA be likely to reclaim their money on these grounds?

There were two donations. One for around $25-$30M that was made some years before the 2005 testimony. The second was for the $100M that McQuaid just copped to receiving. In his 2005 testimony, Lance says that some time after he made the first donation and the date of his deposition, he had pledged to make an additional donation. See pages 98 and 99 of his deposition.
 
thehog said:
from December 2008: - "we like our credibility"

Do you believe that Floyd Landis doped?
No. I think in a normal American court of law, he’s not guilty. Those arbitrations with USADA and CAS are tough. The arbitrators are in the business of arbitrating in favour of the anti-doping agencies. If I was a juror, I don’t think there was guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Why have so many ex-US Postal riders tested positive or admitted doping retrospectively?
I don't know. We’re not in charge of them when they leave. They never tested positive under our guidance.

People say they weren’t caught because your methods of covering up were better.
No. That’s not true. We had a lot of good riders. We had a great team, great directors. Simply not true.

2000 is a compelling case, when we had the French investigation. The only conclusion they could draw was that the samples were too clean. Too clean.

What do you want me to say? My record stands.

What’s your relationship with Hein Verbruggen?
It’s a good relationship. I haven’t talked to or seen him in years.

You made a gift to the UCI back in the early 2000s to buy anti-doping equipment. How much was it?
Er…Well, I can get you an exact number. Around 25,000 dollars. This was a long time ago.

Was the payment to Verbruggen or the UCI?
The UCI. I made it in the interests of it helping. The UCI is not a wealthy organisation.

Did you consider it a potential conflict of interest?
I didn’t. And if it was, we wouldn’t have done it.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/345599/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview.html

That's my fav interviwe Hog, have read it so many times.


Do you have any Therapeutic Use Exemptions?
No. Never have.

Never? What about the cortisone?
Well, obviously there was the cortisone.

Would you open up your health book?
In the year 2001, there were two riders without any notes in their health books – me and Erik Dekker.

Will you open up your blood values record?
That’s for Don Catlin to answer but I’ve told him I’ve got no problem with that.
But you have other riders who got caught, or admitted it, and came back and rode just as fast, without naming names. Which would lead to the conclusion that it’s not so advantageous, that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. I don’t know. If I look at guys that were caught and served time and came back and rode just as fast and were just as successful…
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Ok, here's something which is new to me:

Verdruggen said that Armstrong wanted to donate $100,000 in 2002, but he somehow forgot. :confused: Only when the UCI asked in 2005, they actually got the dough.

What happened in 2005? Right, Fat Pat the Quack took over. So I wonder at that point whether the donation had anything to with Pat getting elected?

At this point one should remember that the UCI has been known to be corrupt. It took a $3M donation from Japan to convince the UCI to make Keirin an Olympic event.
 
May 20, 2010
38
0
0
Why is it hard to cover up a positive? My understanding is that the lab just has a number. They tell the UCI "sample 1275-C tested positive for EPO." Then some authority at the UCI with access to the list of riders and corresponding test numbers needs to match them up to know who had the positive test. Who has that list? If it's just one or two people at the UCI, than a cover-up is as simple as pie.
 
_Zipp0_ said:
Why is it hard to cover up a positive? My understanding is that the lab just has a number. They tell the UCI "sample 1275-C tested positive for EPO." Then some authority at the UCI with access to the list of riders and corresponding test numbers needs to match them up to know who had the positive test. Who has that list? If it's just one or two people at the UCI, than a cover-up is as simple as pie.

The problem arises when, after say a month or so, someone at the lab scratches their head and says "Hmmm, I wonder what ever happened to that AAF we notified the UCI about. There's been nothing in the news, and no request for a B-Sample test".
 
MacRoadie said:
The problem arises when, after say a month or so, someone at the lab scratches their head and says "Hmmm, I wonder what ever happened to that AAF we notified the UCI about. There's been nothing in the news, and no request for a B-Sample test".

That's when you go: "Hey, Lance, someone at the lab is starting to ask questions. You wouldn't mind terribly to do another donation, would you?"...
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
MacRoadie said:
The problem arises when, after say a month or so, someone at the lab scratches their head and says "Hmmm, I wonder what ever happened to that AAF we notified the UCI about. There's been nothing in the news, and no request for a B-Sample test".

Would the lab employee know that it's a cyclist though, that the samples come from the UCI and not some other organization? And if so, would they know whether it's Road? Track? MTB? Pro? Amateur? From which event? The B sample wouldn't be stored at the same lab. It might not even be tested at the same lab. Two or more positives could come from the same athlete but different days. And anyway, the lab employee might give a rat's behind about cycling and not follow the news at all. Who knows.
 
Cobblestones said:
The B sample wouldn't be stored at the same lab. It might not even be tested at the same lab.

They are kept and tested at the same lab. That was the big to-do with Floyd's request for re-testing, testing oversight, and the alleged "incompetence" of the Chatenay-Malabry lab.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
MacRoadie said:
They are kept and tested at the same lab. That was the big to-do with Floyd's request for re-testing, testing oversight, and the alleged "incompetence" of the Chatenay-Malabry lab.

Is not true for all samples. Anyway, the thread is about the donation. Why was the donation promised in 2002, but according to HV they didn't get it until 3 years later (and they had to ask for it).
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
I just logged in, thinking someone posted about Sylvia explaining the $500,000 dollars and the discrepancies with the UCI.

oh well.
 
Cobblestones said:
Is not true for all samples. Anyway, the thread is about the donation. Why was the donation promised in 2002, but according to HV they didn't get it until 3 years later (and they had to ask for it).

From Publicus:

Publicus said:
There were two donations. One for around $25-$30M that was made some years before the 2005 testimony. The second was for the $100M that McQuaid just copped to receiving. In his 2005 testimony, Lance says that some time after he made the first donation and the date of his deposition, he had pledged to make an additional donation. See pages 98 and 99 of his deposition.
 
tubularglue said:
as in million ?

I believe he meant $25-$30K, but I wasn't going to edit the original post.

He may have confused the Roman numeral "M" (thousand) for the metric symbol "K" (thousand), which is commonly used for currency. Also, the Italian word for "thousand" is "mille".
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
MacRoadie said:
From Publicus:

Duh Mac, don't you think I can read?

The point is Verdruggen says there was one donation, promised in 2002, delivered i 2005. So as you noted, too, there's a discrepancy with what Publicus wrote.

Let me explain it to you: either Publicus is wrong or Verdruggen is lying. Since what HV says can in principle be checked relatively easily by a number of people, I assume he might be close to the truth for once.

So the story which is emerging is that LA promised a donation which wasn't forthcoming until 2005 and after the UCI asked for it!

This begs the following questions:

Maybe it is a cover up for two donations (which might explain the general confusion about how much money changed hands, one donation was $100k the other $500k)

If not, why would LA 'forget' to pay?

And why would the UCI remind him 3 years later? Why not earlier? What's special about 2005?

This is interesting stuff. And sorry tubularglue, I couldn't help you.

ETA: offbyone, they got a $3M (million) donation from Japan to include Keirin in the Olympics, which gives us a general idea about the price tags in this business.
 
offbyone said:
An important question on this issue that I don't see anyone asking is, was lance/lance's team the only ones to donate to the uci in the last decade years?

That IS an excellent question, and one I can't answer.

Given the publicity/criticism surrounding the Armstrong donation, and the obvious upside for the UCI and Armstrong to be able to point out that his was not the only donation, I think the complete lack of any evidence supporting other donations is curiously telling.

The "everyone else is doing it" excuse is NEVER used anywhere in cycling.

Nope, never.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
The President of the UCI Pat McQuaid has revealed that Lance Armstrong is the only rider ever to have made a donation to UCI and has admitted that in hindsight, the decision to accept $100,000 while the Texan was still racing was regrettable.

Quote is taken from this article
 
MacRoadie said:
That IS an excellent question, and one I can't answer.

Given the publicity/criticism surrounding the Armstrong donation, and the obvious upside for the UCI and Armstrong to be able to point out that his was not the only donation, I think the complete lack of any evidence supporting other donations is curiously telling.

The "everyone else is doing it" excuse is NEVER used anywhere in cycling.

Nope, never.

I wouldn't call it a lack of evidence, just no one talking about it. Just like no one talked about lance's deposited until now.

The UCI isn't going to want to advertise that actually in the last decade x many riders and x different teams made donations. That just makes them look worse. I would like to see a reporter ask this question.
 
Beech Mtn said:
Quote is taken from this article

Yeah, I had seen that article. Unfortunately, taking McQuaid's word on anything is just about pointless at this point in time.

He's so good at talking out of both sides of his mouth (and his *** as well), it wouldn't surprise me to hear him say one day that this was a one-time mistake and then on the very next day say "Sure, we accept donations all the time. This was no big deal and nothing out of the ordinary. We welcome any and all assistance in the fight for clean sport" (nothing to see here, please move on).
 
offbyone said:
I wouldn't call it a lack of evidence, just no one talking about it. Just like no one talked about lance's deposited until now.

The UCI isn't going to want to advertise that actually in the last decade x many riders and x different teams made donations. That just makes them look worse. I would like to see a reporter ask this question.

As I said, that's the problem with the UCI. If you read the stuff they put out day-to-day, they have become masters in contradicting themselves. Just look at the last two day's worth of comments from McQuaid and Verbruggen.

They tend to be very myopic and will say whatever benefits them here and now., without consideration for the big picture.

Also, the Lance donation has been the subject of considerable debate since at least 2006.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Cobblestones said:
Let me explain it to you: either Publicus is wrong or Verdruggen is lying. Since what HV says can in principle be checked relatively easily by a number of people, I assume he might be close to the truth for once.

What Publicus says can also be checked relatively easily by a number of people. It's in the SCA depositions. Lance admits to two payments to the UCI....so it's either HV or LA who are lying/mistaken.
 
May 15, 2010
76
0
0
Y'know, while its all very intriguing, all this who gave whom how much, really, what does it matter??
We can all agree that all LA's peers during his TDF years have all been linked or busted of doping. We can all agree that LA is, well, we can all not like him (he still has my respect for his athletic accomplishments, but he falls far short as a "man", what with fathering children left, right and center). LA didn't do anything else that everyone else (more or less) was doing, he was just smart (or lucky, or rich;)) enough not to get caught. Floyd knew the score. You think he would be singing like a Canary if he hadn't got caught after his TDF victory? You get caught, shut up and take it.
Ultimately, none of this BS really matters one iota, its just tabloid sensationalism. The pro peoloton could disappear, and you could still go have your own epic mountain bike ride with your buddies.
You want to talk about stuff that matters? How about the BP/Gulf of Mexico disaster? Thats what really matters.
Go for a ride, its good for the body and soul.
And get back to work ya slackers!:p