The Official LANCE ARMSTRONG Thread 2010-2011

[bianchigirl]

AC could have got out of his contract.

They renegotiated it, more money and conditions.

No, Astana - knowing they still had the best rider in the world on their books - refused to let him buy out his contract and set remuneration unfeasibly high to deter any other team from doing so. Then they agreed to AC's terms and conditions.

However, the UCI have been more than happy to ease the way of any rider breaking their contract to go to Shack or Sky.

 

[Carboncrank]

No, Astana - knowing they still had the best rider in the world on their books - refused to let him buy out his contract and set remuneration unfeasibly high to deter any other team from doing so. Then they agreed to AC's terms and conditions.

However, the UCI have been more than happy to ease the way of any rider breaking their contract to go to Shack or Sky.

There is evidence on both sides of this argument. The rider contracts were complicated beyond easy comprehension and whether KCF had an enforceable contract with Alberto after Johann's departure is debatable.

It is certain he ended up with more money and "conditions".

What you mean by "UCI have been more than happy... " I'm not clear on.

I do know that people who find there arguments on shaky ground sometimes turn to "conspiracy" because it can then be used as a blanket argument for just about anything.

 

[bianchigirl]

Ben Swift is under contract to Katusha but is allowed to break it and go to Sky. Beppu is under contract to Skil, named in their squad, and is allowed to break his contract to go to the Shack. In fact Shack were granted a 4 year PT licence when their squad - and manager - were still legally under contract elsewhere. Actually, Bruyneel's own company held all the Astana contracts - he was also given the funds to pay riders directly from his company - so the waters are even murkier. No conspiracy, just something that smells quite bad.

I tend to find that people who have no arguments at all are the very first to accuse others of creating a 'conspiracy'. Personally, I prefer to deal with the available facts.

 

[Race Radio]

There is evidence on both sides of this argument. The rider contracts were complicated beyond easy comprehension

Really? How many rider contracts have you read?

 

[Carboncrank]

Really? How many rider contracts have you read?

I meant complicated in that the contracts appear to be between the rider and the separate entities of Olympus Sarl and KCF.

This seemingly unusual relationship seem to be continuing even now that Johann is long gone.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pereiros-contract-with-astana-in-doubt

 

[Carboncrank]

Ben Swift is under contract to Katusha but is allowed to break it and go to Sky. Beppu is under contract to Skil, named in their squad, and is allowed to break his contract to go to the Shack. In fact Shack were granted a 4 year PT licence when their squad - and manager - were still legally under contract elsewhere. Actually, Bruyneel's own company held all the Astana contracts - he was also given the funds to pay riders directly from his company - so the waters are even murkier. No conspiracy, just something that smells quite bad.

I tend to find that people who have no arguments at all are the very first to accuse others of creating a 'conspiracy'. Personally, I prefer to deal with the available facts.

I don't know about Swift but it appears Beppu has reached agreement with Astatna where he buys his contract out.

Bruyneel and KCF also appear to have negotiated their way out of those contracts.

No need to insinuate that UCI is showing favoritism.

Also... KCF collected funds from the sponsors and paid it to Olympus Sarl, who paid the riders.

We had this discussion a few days ago.

 

[bianchigirl]

Which still begs the question who didn't pay the riders - KCF or Olympus? I'm still at a loss as to why Horner was paid throughout his time at Astana yet Leipheimer, for example, apparently wasn't.

I'd also be interested to know why the UCI is allowing the manager of one team to hold, through his company, the contracts of another. Doesn't it seem the teensiest bit odd to you that, whilst all the other Astana riders could wriggle out of their contracts, Contador's was rigorously enforced? And that that contract was held by the team manager of a rider with whom he'd had a very public falling out? And with whom McQuaid enjoys the chummiest of relations making frequent phone calls to discuss the future of the sport, defending him against the drug testers, the Vrijman report etc etc etc? There are clear signs of favouritism and to deny that is to fly in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

However, the upshot is that the UCI need a proper transfer system with clarity and transparency and not the current muddle. They've even admitted as much but then seem to fall into their usual entropy

 

[Mellow Velo]

As for Bruyneel, given that he has such a variety of riders under contract.
What potential employer doesn't check on a potential employee's employment record?
The "I had no idea he was under contract" defence just doesn't wash.
Especially, as we all knew Beppu had a Skil contract.

Another brown envelope has been passed. This time, a buyout, in the direction of Skil.
It never ceases to amaze me, how the business world mimics the underworld.

The irony here is, with Skil, Beppu had a shot at a Tour ride. With Shack, he will be riding in Skil territory and has no chance for the Tour.

 

[Runitout]

The irony here is, with Skil, Beppu had a shot at a Tour ride. With Shack, he will be riding in Skil territory and has no chance for the Tour.

Wonder if a Tour place was a condition for the switch.

I'd say Skil have no chance to be picked anyhow.

 

[Carboncrank]

Which still begs the question who didn't pay the riders - KCF or Olympus? I'm still at a loss as to why Horner was paid throughout his time at Astana yet Leipheimer, for example, apparently wasn't.

I'd also be interested to know why the UCI is allowing the manager of one team to hold, through his company, the contracts of another. Doesn't it seem the teensiest bit odd to you that, whilst all the other Astana riders could wriggle out of their contracts, Contador's was rigorously enforced? And that that contract was held by the team manager of a rider with whom he'd had a very public falling out? And with whom McQuaid enjoys the chummiest of relations making frequent phone calls to discuss the future of the sport, defending him against the drug testers, the Vrijman report etc etc etc? There are clear signs of favouritism and to deny that is to fly in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

However, the upshot is that the UCI need a proper transfer system with clarity and transparency and not the current muddle. They've even admitted as much but then seem to fall into their usual entropy

Rigorously enforced would have been enforcing the contract they had, not negotiating a new one. I still think he could have got out of it, but I'm not a lawyer.

Some of the sponsors didn't pay KCF.

Then you go off on conspiracy talk again.

 

[Carboncrank]

As for Bruyneel, given that he has such a variety of riders under contract.
What potential employer doesn't check on a potential employee's employment record?
The "I had no idea he was under contract" defence just doesn't wash.
Especially, as we all knew Beppu had a Skil contract.

That's something you'd been following?

Another brown envelope has been passed. This time, a buyout, in the direction of Skil.
It never ceases to amaze me, how the business world mimics the underworld.

Conspiracy theory.

 

[Mellow Velo]

That's something you'd been following?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/radioshack-leave-beppu-matter-to-skil-shimano

Conspiracy theory.

What, you think Skil took kindly to him not showing up, so they just let him go for free, with no compensation?
Get real.
Sky paid Garmin for Wiggins. That's public knowledge.
The Shack will have done the same.
It's called contract buyout and it stinks, because it means the big budget teams can ride roughshod over less glamorous outfits.

 

[theyoungest]

What, you think Skil took kindly to him not showing up, so they just let him go for free, with no compensation?
Get real.
Sky paid Garmin for Wiggins. That's public knowledge.
The Shack will have done the same.
It's called contract buyout and it stinks, because it means the big budget teams can ride roughshod over less glamorous outfits.

It's not even speculation, it's certified truth. From Skil's press release:

Beppu was offered the option of getting out of his contract through payment of non-negotiable compensation to his employer

 

[bianchigirl]

Ah but CC and his ilk love to cry 'conspiracy theory' when the facts are demonstrably against them

Who tells us that the sponsors didn't pay up? Bruyneel. Who was responsible for paying the riders wages? Bruyneel. Who was in negotiation to start a new team with Armstrong throughout the supposed 'non payment' period? Bruyneel. It's much simpler than a conspiracy theory - it's a little game called 'join the dots'. And you've still never given a credible answer as to why Horner would report being paid as usual whilst the big stars of the team were staging their 'faded out' protest.

 

[Race Radio]

Ah but CC and his ilk love to cry 'conspiracy theory' when the facts are demonstrably against them

Who tells us that the sponsors didn't pay up? Bruyneel. Who was responsible for paying the riders wages? Bruyneel. Who was in negotiation to start a new team with Armstrong throughout the supposed 'non payment' period? Bruyneel. It's much simpler than a conspiracy theory - it's a little game called 'join the dots'. And you've still never given a credible answer as to why Horner would report being paid as usual whilst the big stars of the team were staging their 'faded out' protest.

Exactly.

It was the Hog who claimed there was no money at the same time that Astana was saying the money was sent.

 

[Bike Boy]

Exactly.

It was the Hog who claimed there was no money at the same time that Astana was saying the money was sent.

If that's the truth one must really wonder what kind of friends JB and LA have in the UCI.

I would really like to read more about this so I could make up my own mind, because it sounds pretty crazy.

 

[BYOP88]

If that's the truth one must really wonder what kind of friends JB and LA have in the UCI.

I would really like to read more about this so I could make up my own mind, because it sounds pretty crazy.

They are the UCI and they let uncle Pat speak to the press on their behalf.

 

[pmcg76]

Who remembers this question in the Feb edition of ProCycling 2009. Readers were asked to send in their questions for Lance. Read it well CC.

Lance was asked why he signed up for Astana instead of setting up a team to promote Livestrong and clean cycling.

Lance: This idea came together in September and there's no way to put a team together that quickly. There's no way to raise €15 million that quickly. Even before I answer the quesion.....I love the idea and if I had a magic wand I would have done that. But guys were already contracted, you would have been scouting the free agents marker looking for something. Its like saying "Why is George Hincapie on Astana? You did 7 Tours with him, why dont you try to do an eigth". Because he has a contract. People cant just up and leave.
And then the most important is becasue Bruyneel is under contract. He couldnt and wouldnt leave his current situation. And I didnt want to race against him. He's been my partner for a long, long time and I believe in him. He's one of my best friends. So me racing, with all due respect to Kazakhstan and Astana really doesnt have anything to do with raising awareness of Astana. It has everything to do with my loyalty to Johanas well as raising the profile of Livestrong.

So will there be a team? ideally yes.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Yes and Bruyneel, himself had to be bought out of that valid Astana contract.
Hardly surprising therefore, that he doesn't have a moral issue poaching riders from smaller teams.

 

[Bike Boy]

They are the UCI and they let uncle Pat speak to the press on their behalf.

That's the impression you get some times, and after reading a very interesting book illuminating how the UCI totally f##ked M. Rasmussen, while letting Rabobank off the hook, you sometimes wonder what the hell is going on.

As a fan of the sport you can only speculate, and I'm annoyed that so few journalists have the courage to investigate the suspicious behaviour of the UCI.

I learned about the M. Rasmussen case because I read a very enlightening book. I haven't been able to find anything regarding JB and LA, which frustrates me.

 

[pmcg76]

Found this little gem whilst re-reading through that article in ProCycling Feb 09. Made me laugh again.

Question by ProCycling reader: Why should I take the relationship with Don Catlin seriously, when at the time I am writing this, you have no legal agreement in place with him?

Lance:"There is no point in sitting down with ProCycling if these are your readers because they dont want to read about me and I dont want to talk to them. Thses guys may as well go read about something else".

Begins rant about about the blacklist and why he should have to talk to certain people or answer certain queitions.

"There's no need for me to be available. These are forum questions- watchdog groups, Michele Ferrari, Don Catlin. This is the **** they lob in the night".


Oh, somebody asked Lance a good question, how dare they, they are only cycling fans not Lance fans so they dont get to ask questions!!!

So Lance, that reader of ProCycling who asked you about your relationship with Don Catlin! Was he correct?

And people wonder why we dont buy the BS or have little time for his arrogant ways.

 

[Big GMaC]

Found this little gem whilst re-reading through that article in ProCycling Feb 09. Made me laugh again.

Question by ProCycling reader: Why should I take the relationship with Don Catlin seriously, when at the time I am writing this, you have no legal agreement in place with him?

Lance:"There is no point in sitting down with ProCycling if these are your readers because they LOVE CANCER

Fixed! ....

 

[Mellow Velo]

Found this little gem whilst re-reading through that article in ProCycling Feb 09. Made me laugh again.

Question by ProCycling reader: Why should I take the relationship with Don Catlin seriously, when at the time I am writing this, you have no legal agreement in place with him?

Lance:"There is no point in sitting down with ProCycling if these are your readers because they dont want to read about me and I dont want to talk to them. Thses guys may as well go read about something else".

Begins rant about about the blacklist and why he should have to talk to certain people or answer certain queitions.

"There's no need for me to be available. These are forum questions- watchdog groups, Michele Ferrari, Don Catlin. This is the **** they lob in the night".
Oh, somebody asked Lance a good question, how dare they, they are only cycling fans not Lance fans so they dont get to ask questions!!!

So Lance, that reader of ProCycling who asked you about your relationship with Don Catlin! Was he correct?

And people wonder why we dont buy the BS or have little time for his arrogant ways.

That reader was Iain. An occasional poster here, but a mine of info on the affilated forum to the aforementioned mag.

One of the very first people to get banned from Lance's favourite media tool.

 

[pmcg76]

That reader was Iain. An occasional poster here, but a mine of info on the affilated forum to the aforementioned mag.

One of the very first people to get banned from Lance's favourite media tool.

Yeah, I was gonna ask if the guy that asked the question posted on here. Good stuff. Great question.

 

[Publicus]

I don't get Armstrong's schedule at all. He's riding a 68 mile public bike ride in South Africa on March 14th (Paris Nice ends the same day).

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/441314/armstrong-to-ride-cape-argus-sportive.html


I thought he was supposed to be having a more traditional year? Seems like an odd detour. I wonder if there is appearance money involved.