Sylvia Schenk says 500,000 $

[MacRoadie]

Let me explain it to you: either Publicus is wrong or Verdruggen is lying.

Wow, thanks for that insightful analysis. Never would have made it there on my own.

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, in the very same paragraph in which you refer to Hein Verbruggen using the cognomen "Verdruggen", you're also willing to believe that, for the first (and possibly only) time in recent history Verbruggen is telling the truth (or close to it).

Duh, now I get it.

 

[Tangled Tango]

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?

I don´t remember where, but I did read the UCI as saying they hadn´t received any other donations from a cyclist.

 

[Cobblestones]

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.

Uh no. What you can check is that it is in the depositions. What you cannot check is whether that actually coincides with reality or not. Who knows what Lance did with his money, how much he earned in which country, and where he declared what kind of income.

On the other hand, donations to the UCI should be part of their accounting. So there's a straightforward way to audit that. In particular since they're a non-profit (or whatever that corresponds to in Switzerland).

 

[Cobblestones]

Wow, thanks for that insightful analysis. Never would have made it there on my own.

Great, I've found the level on which to talk to you then.

So, in the very same paragraph in which you refer to Hein Verbruggen using the cognomen "Verdruggen", you're also willing to believe that, for the first (and possibly only) time in recent history Verbruggen is telling the truth (or close to it).

Duh, now I get it.

Sadly, no. And I thought I've made progress. Oh dear.

 

[MacRoadie]

Uh no. What you can check is that it is in the depositions. What you cannot check is whether that actually coincides with reality or not.

Let's not forget that whatever was in the depositions was testified to under oath and penalty of perjury. None of Verbruggen's comments were made under oath.

Publicus chooses to rely upon sworn testimony, you choose to give equal (or greater) weight to media comments by Verbruggen.

 

[Hugh Januss]

The thing about bribes is they are only really effective if they do not become public knowledge. Just because two of Lance's "donations" have been admitted to, that in no way means they are all the "donations" he made. It doesn't mean either that a number of other cyclists that we have not heard about have made "donations" as well. The term 'tip of the iceberg' springs to mind.
The only thing that I think we can say with relative certainty on this subject is that Ullrich, Landis, Heras, Vino, Astarloza, Zirbel, Hamilton, DiLuca, Sella, Schumacher, Kohl, DiBonis, Ricco, Beltran, Piepoli and so on were not among the ones to make "donations".

 

[MacRoadie]

Sadly, no. And I thought I've made progress. Oh dear.

Apparently not.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Uh no. What you can check is that it is in the depositions. What you cannot check is whether that actually coincides with reality or not. Who knows what Lance did with his money, how much he earned in which country, and where he declared what kind of income.

On the other hand, donations to the UCI should be part of their accounting. So there's a straightforward way to audit that. In particular since they're a non-profit (or whatever that corresponds to in Switzerland).

Huh? That what I meant by "so it's either HV or LA who are lying/mistaken."

 

[MacRoadie]

Huh? That what I meant by "so it's either HV or LA who are lying/mistaken."

Give it up. He's not making any progress with you either. We'll both simply have to wait until he comes down to our level.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The thing about bribes is they are only really effective if they do not become public knowledge. Just because two of Lance's "donations" have been admitted to, that in no way means they are all the "donations" he made. It doesn't mean either that a number of other cyclists that we have not heard about have made "donations" as well. The term 'tip of the iceberg' springs to mind.
The only thing that I think we can say with relative certainty on this subject is that Ullrich, Landis, Heras, Vino, Astarloza, Zirbel, Hamilton, DiLuca, Sella, Schumacher, Kohl, DiBonis, Ricco, Beltran, Piepoli and so on were not among the ones to make "donations".

Switzerland is also not known for its financial openness either, so I don't know how open the UCI has to be with its accounts. Although McQuaid keeps on saying that the receipts are all there for people to look at, the question is what would happen if someone were to request the accounts - either a journalist or someone involved in a criminal investigation?

Saying you can look at the evidence, is very different from actually letting people look at them.

 

[MacRoadie]

Switzerland is also not known for its financial openness either, so I don't know how open the UCI has to be with its accounts. Although McQuaid keeps on saying that the receipts are all there for people to look at, the question is what would happen if someone were to request the accounts - either a journalist or someone involved in a criminal investigation?

Saying you can look at the evidence, is very different from actually letting people look at them.

I agree.

As has been pointed out in several other threads, European cycling still retains many "old world" traditions, including a good amount of actual "cash" transactions. There is a LOT of grease money floating around European cycling, most of which goes to the usual stuff: appearance fees, sponsor recognition, VIP shmoozing, start/finish town selection, etc.

It's no stretch to assume that a "donation" (bribe), if one actually existed, would be made in a similar fashion. Certainly, the best way to conceal a bribe would be to accompany it with a legitimate "donation" for the books, to maintain at least the appearance of legitimacy and a paper trail.

I have no idea who gave what to whom and when, beyond what I can read in sworn testimony, but to assume that other considerations don't exist because the UCI has "opened it's books" would be disingenous.

If I were trying to get the UCI off my back, I'd make a magnanimous donation of cash or equipment, well documented and and very public, while at the same time slipping a manilla envelope stuffed with green backs into Paddy or Hein's jacket pocket.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Switzerland is also not known for its financial openness either, so I don't know how open the UCI has to be with its accounts. Although McQuaid keeps on saying that the receipts are all there for people to look at, the question is what would happen if someone were to request the accounts - either a journalist or someone involved in a criminal investigation?

Saying you can look at the evidence, is very different from actually letting people look at them.

If there is indeed substantial amounts of money being paid by various teams and/or individuals I would think it very unlikely that Pat Mick takes it to the bank with a deposit slip that has 'Saxo Bank April bribe payment' written in the margin. I would think it would be more along the lines of cash that is divided into envelopes that go to the various people involved in tipping off the teams about 'surprise tests' and so on.

 

[MacRoadie]

If there is indeed substantial amounts of money being paid by various teams and/or individuals I would think it very unlikely that Pat Mick takes it to the bank with a deposit slip that has 'Saxo Bank April bribe payment' written in the margin. I would think it would be more along the lines of cash that is divided into envelopes that go to the various people involved in tipping off the teams about 'surprise tests' and so on.

You'd better watch it Hugh. You're starting to sound like me. Soon you too will be needing Cobblestone's assistance.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

It's getting more like the Untouchables by the day.

 

[offbyone]

Didn't the ASO do independent testing during some of these tours? If so wouldn't the monies to uci be somewhat marginalized.

 

[MacRoadie]

It's getting more like the Untouchables by the day.

It sounds bizarre, but cash "considerations" have ALWAYS been business as usual in European cycling. Every request is met with an open palm. Every one.

 

[Cobblestones]

Switzerland is also not known for its financial openness either, so I don't know how open the UCI has to be with its accounts. Although McQuaid keeps on saying that the receipts are all there for people to look at, the question is what would happen if someone were to request the accounts - either a journalist or someone involved in a criminal investigation?

Saying you can look at the evidence, is very different from actually letting people look at them.

They collect taxes from their companies and their population just as any other country and they do have audits in Switzerland. Swiss banks are more secretive than others (less so in the recent past) but they do comply with Swiss law. It should relatively straightforward for Swiss authority to audit the UCI accounts and find declared donations. I think you're confusing things. Swiss banks have been notorious for not cooperating with foreign governments. When the Swiss government knocks at their doors, they've always been very obliging.

I don't think it is equally straightforward to audit Armstrong and find what donations he made (in particular he might not have elected to ask for tax deductions in connection with his donation). Moreover, who knows from which account he made the donation. Surely he has several accounts in Europe with income from different sources. Which authority you have to ask to investigate LA's claim depends now from which account he paid, whether he made a tax-deductible donation in the first place, and in which country he claimed the tax deduction. Whether they comply with such a request in the first place (the request would likely come from the US) is another question. In that regard, he might have told a lot of BS in the SCA case with little chance that it will ever be investigated.

I don't think I can be much clearer than that. I'm truly sorry that MacRoadie isn't able to follow, but don't let that discourage you.

 

[Cobblestones]

Didn't the ASO do independent testing during some of these tours? If so wouldn't the monies to uci be somewhat marginalized.

They're being squeezed out by budget cuts. They've made very few tests in the 2009 TdF compared to the UCI. It's the other way around. The AFDL is marginalized.

 

[offbyone]

They're being squeezed out by budget cuts. They've made very few tests in the 2009 TdF compared to the UCI. It's the other way around. The AFDL is marginalized.

But I am talking about in the last decade not last year. Assuming they were then it tosses aside the basis of this whole discussion. What would it matter if UCI was taking bribes if the the frenchies weren't on board? Sure it might make it easier, but he would still be taking an awful big risk.

 

[Cobblestones]

But I am talking about in the last decade not last year. Assuming they were then it tosses aside the basis of this whole discussion. What would it matter if UCI was taking bribes if the the frenchies weren't on board? Sure it might make it easier, but he would still be taking an awful big risk.

Well, there were those six EPO samples from 1999...so...yes.

Actually, not so much since the tests did not become available until several years later and retroactive testing just wasn't done.

 

[offbyone]

Well, there were those six EPO samples from 1999...so...yes.

Actually, not so much since the tests did not become available until several years later and retroactive testing just wasn't done.

The poor relationship between the different doping agencies and their posturing, politicking and attention whoring make this a much fuzzier mess than it should be. As I have stated previously, I am more interested in moving forwards anyways, not backwards....

 

[tubularglue]

"I know that Lance said he thought that the figure was $25,000 but that could be because the UCI was actually dealing with Lance's manager Bill Stapleton. Regarding the figure suggested by Sylvia Schenk, that's figure she's just picked from the air. The real amount is $100,000."

McQuaid said he would be willing to testify in a possible US Federal investigation into the Landis accusations, but claimed he would have little to say. He said there is no need for an independent investigation into Landis accusations because they are already being investigated.

WTF. you have got to be kidding me !

 

[tubularglue]

She would be a great person to talk to about that donation(s)

her troubles with UCI

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=sylvia_schenk05b

"Then he tried to put pressure on me. At the World's in Hamilton (Canada, 2003) he yelled and swore at me. I just tried to keep calm and we did talk sensibly after that again, but in the meantime he said to me, 'It's a man's world, and you're a woman, so you have to adapt.' That was his most important point, so to speak. [laughs] In Hamilton, he told me I should think very carefully about what I do, as I was damaging the Federation and myself. He said he could see to it that I wouldn't get re-elected just like the other Italian president [Giancarlo Ceruti]. So he threatened me massively. And I'm the kind of person who speaks her mind, openly, not behind someone's back. I can be convinced of something, I can agree to a majority but the topic should be sensibly discussed first. I won't be forced, and I won't be bought. "

 

[thehog]

The UCI have finally publish the receipt from Armstrong's donation on their website: http://twitpic.com/1vs2dc

 

[Anonymous]

The UCI have finally publish the receipt from Armstrong's donation on their website: http://twitpic.com/1vs2dc

That's funny.

The sad part is the quality of their reciept probably is'nt that good.