USPS Spending (ESPN article)

[Dr. Maserati]

An apples and oranges comparison. The Postal Service got what they wanted from their advertising and moved on. Are you going to tell me that the Postal Serviced didn't benefit from their sponsorship? Would the postal service image and likeness grace the covers and pages of newspapers and magazines around the world if it weren't for Lance and the team? They bought advertising through sponsorship of a pro cycling team and hoped to rebuild a brand image that had been on the ropes since the 1970's. They didn't shell out money to defend a self admitted liar and cheat who hoped to beat the system. The comparison does not hold up. I only contributed to USPS by purchasing shipping solutions; I didn't donate to a defense fund or charity. I got something for my money and so did Postal.

Apples and oranges.....right.

Why did USPS put doping clauses in their contracts then? Are were they just filling in lots of words like you do.

To the highlighted - didn't you tell us before that you contributed to the FFF or bought his book?

 

[Microchip]

The Cycling News article about this says:

"Armstrong and team manager Johan Bruyneel ... were bound by a "moral turpitude and drug clause"... The clause was added after a French television station aired footage of supposed US Postal staff disposing of medical waste at the 2000 Tour de France, including a product called Actovegin."

Is this footage available on the 'Net? Would be interesting to see.

 

[Merckx index]

I got my money’s worth when I shipped packages by USPS. The packages got where they were supposed to go, probably not as efficiently as if I used someone else

So you believe there are millions of people who are so enamored of LA that they switched to a service they themselves believed might be inferior to the one they had been using, just for the joy of knowing they were throwing money into the same pool that--after considerable manipulations downstream--was supporting his team?

If that's really the case, I'm surprised USPS didn't just ask for flat-out donations at local P.O.s. Really, if you will switch to an inferior service just because they support someone you idol-worship, wouldn't it be simpler, with less overhead, just to make a direct donation to the organization? It would even be tax-decuctible, because it would qualify as a form of organized religion.

 

[Race Radio]

So you believe there are millions of people who are so enamored of LA that they switched to a service they themselves believed might be inferior to the one they had been using, just for the joy of knowing they were throwing money into the same pool that--after considerable manipulations downstream--was supporting his team?

If that's really the case, I'm surprised USPS didn't just ask for flat-out donations at local P.O.s. Really, if you will switch to an inferior service just because they support someone you idol-worship, wouldn't it be simpler, with less overhead, just to make a direct donation to the organization? It would even be tax-decuctible, because it would qualify as a form of organized religion.

Never underestimate the blind loyalty of a groupie.

Now, what about this junior team. Has anyone seen anything about this or was it just a reference to the Olsen Twins?

 

[D-Queued]

D-Queued

Are you suggesting that they didn’t do their due diligence before signing on the dotted line? They had never heard of Festina or any of the other allegations in the early ‘90’s? If you are right then Heaven really does protect fools and children, because they sure got lucky! And just because someone is a liar rarely stops people from jumping on board. Look at Tiger Woods. As we find out now, sponsors had an inkling years ago what was going on, but stayed the course so long as it didn’t explode in their face. It was mutually beneficial.

And in response to your supposition that sponsors wouldn’t want to take their place, prove I am wrong. You cite Phonak as one. I bet they would have traded places with Postal in a heartbeat. No doping positives and 7 TDF titles vs. two disgraced Americans and zero titles. Don’t forget that BMC bikes and Phonak share common ownership. And T-Mobile still hung around even after Zabel, Riis, Ullrich and others soiled the nest. And finally, what coke line are you talking about? I have never heard anyone accusing Postal riders of doing coke. Do you have inside information?

USPS signed on as a sponsor when?

Festina was when?

As far as they knew, Festina was just a watch company. And, as far as they knew, Cancer boy was just some guy that got turfed by Cofidis.

The fact that they started to get concerned about doping right after the Gendarmes checked out the hypodermic, Actovegin sprinkled trash suggests that they were on top of it as soon as there was any concern. In fact, it is reasonable to speculate that their concerns were heightened following the Festina scandal in 1998 - two years after they signed on as a sponsor.

Dave.

 

[Polish]

USPS signed on as a sponsor when?

Festina was when?

As far as they knew, Festina was just a watch company. And, as far as they knew, Cancer boy was just some guy that got turfed by Cofidis.

The fact that they started to get concerned about doping right after the Gendarmes checked out the hypodermic, Actovegin sprinkled trash suggests that they were on top of it as soon as there was any concern. In fact, it is reasonable to speculate that their concerns were heightened following the Festina scandal in 1998 - two years after they signed on as a sponsor.

Dave.

USPS signed on in 1996 with Eddie Borysewicz as a Big Kahuna.
When did Eddie B first start blood doping riders?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I changed the title of this to fit the dicsussion, and let's try to keep it on that focus- about USPS contract and such.

 

[D-Queued]

I changed the title of this to fit the dicsussion, and let's try to keep it on that focus- about USPS contract and such.

Bearing this in mind -

USPS signed on in 1996 with Eddie Borysewicz as a Big Kahuna.
When did Eddie B first start blood doping riders?

Well Strock didn't come forward against USA Cycling, Wenzel and Carmichael until 2000.

Phinney's book was published in 1992, with its disclosure of the Eddie B program, but Davis stated that he and his Connie had not partaken. Thus, there was a plausible argument that doping in the US wasn't like it was over there.

Sure, there had been doping in the peloton before USPS got involved - but that was some euro thing.

Doping only surfaced with Festina. What people didn't realize until much, much later (starting with the Actovegin and then with Ferrari) was that Lance was out to be the best doper ever. According to Swart, Armstrong had encouraged the 'full program' in 1995, just before the USPS sponsorship. Thus, when USPS signed on, the team were still babes in the doping woods.

Perhaps a better question than whether USPS had a sense of doping or not (rmember the SCA contract didn't happen until later as well), was why on earth Disco got involved?

Dave.

 

[TubularBills]

Bearing this in mind -



Well Strock didn't come forward against USA Cycling, Wenzel and Carmichael until 2000.

Phinney's book was published in 1992, with its disclosure of the Eddie B program, but Davis stated that he and his Connie had not partaken. Thus, there was a plausible argument that doping in the US wasn't like it was over there.

Sure, there had been doping in the peloton before USPS got involved - but that was some euro thing.

Doping only surfaced with Festina. What people didn't realize until much, much later (starting with the Actovegin and then with Ferrari) was that Lance was out to be the best doper ever. According to Swart, Armstrong had encouraged the 'full program' in 1995, just before the USPS sponsorship. Thus, when USPS signed on, the team were still babes in the doping woods.

Perhaps a better question than whether USPS had a sense of doping or not (rmember the SCA contract didn't happen until later as well), was why on earth Disco got involved?

Dave.

"When did Eddy B Start Blood Doping Riders?"

1984 or before

"...on ABC television last August, Eddy B.'s riders made history. His team won nine Olympic medals, including four golds. Borysewicz was named Man of the Year by the Cycling Federation's official publication. Cycling U.S.A. It had been a very good year for Eddy B. in 1984, but as 1985 began, things were unraveling.

Rob Lea had been elected president of the federation on Oct. 12, but had resigned on Dec. 19. USCF secretary Deke Smith resigned two days later. On Jan. 2, Lea sent a letter to members of the board, saying he had quit because an in-house investigation disclosed "that our coaching staff blood-doped some of our Olympic team riders in order to enhance their performance at the Olympic Games."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1119061/index.htm#ixzz1BBC8tvFG

And, Yeah, in hindsight... Why did Discovery ever get involved?

(from CN August 2007):

"The team was said to have been close to signing a deal in March, but no announcement followed the news. As the season wore on, Bruyneel had gone as far as China to search for a replacement sponsor, but by June, the team had still failed to ink a deal. The team was rumoured to be asking $45 million for three years - a difficult sell in the current climate of doping scandals in the sport."

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug10news3

 

[D-Queued]

"When did Eddy B Start Blood Doping Riders?"

1984 or before

...

And, Yeah, in hindsight... Why did Discovery ever get involved?

(from CN August 2007):

"The team was said to have been close to signing a deal in March, but no announcement followed the news. As the season wore on, Bruyneel had gone as far as China to search for a replacement sponsor, but by June, the team had still failed to ink a deal. The team was rumoured to be asking $45 million for three years - a difficult sell in the current climate of doping scandals in the sport."

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug10news3

Though we are led to believe that blood doping was legal at that time...

Thanks for reinforcing the question about Disco.

Dave.

 

[TubularBills]

Though we are led to believe that blood doping was legal at that time...

Thanks for reinforcing the question about Disco.

Dave.

Yep, not banned until January 18th, 1985:

"COLORADO SPRINGS, Jan. 18— The United States Cycling Federation today banned blood doping and imposed sanctions on three staff members who were responsible for the use of the controversial practice on American Olympic cyclists.

The federation, in confirming that some cyclists underwent blood doping only hours before their events, also apologized to the American public, other Olympic cyclists, and the United States Olympic Committee."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9401E7D8143BF93AA25752C0A963948260

Here's another telling quote:

Borysewicz claimed Lance Armstrong as his discovery and not that of Armstrong's later coach, Chris Carmichael. When Carmichael said of his work at the US federation that he wished he had "five Lances," Borysewicz replied,

"Why doesn't he (Chris Carmichael) produce Lances? That's his job. And anyway, Lance is not his product. Lance is my product."

Telegram and Gazette, Worcester, Massachusetts, US, 7 July 1996

Not recruit, Not Rider... "Product"? As in manufactured or artificial? Interesting word choice. Maybe just ESL...

And another:

June 23, 1996

"Carmichael said he didn't feel he had to defend the individuals who were chosen, but could explain the coaching staff's philosophy for building an Olympic team. The cornerstone, he said, is Armstrong, the only American currently racing "who has demonstrated that he can win" against world-class competition. With the Olympics open to professionals this year, the 138-mile road race July 31 in Atlanta is going to be "like the Tour de France and the World Championships all rolled into one day," he said.

What's needed, Carmichael said, are "people that can ride support for Lance, from the first kilometer to the end, who understand what that job entails, what responsiblities they have, whether it's carrying musettes from the feed zone or whatever it takes."

http://www.ltolman.org/93arch/62396.htm

 

[miloman]

Apples and oranges.....right.

Why did USPS put doping clauses in their contracts then? Are were they just filling in lots of words like you do.

To the highlighted - didn't you tell us before that you contributed to the FFF or bought his book?

Only guilty of buying the book . . . fool me once!

 

[miloman]

So you believe there are millions of people who are so enamored of LA that they switched to a service they themselves believed might be inferior to the one they had been using, just for the joy of knowing they were throwing money into the same pool that--after considerable manipulations downstream--was supporting his team?If that's really the case, I'm surprised USPS didn't just ask for flat-out donations at local P.O.s. Really, if you will switch to an inferior service just because they support someone you idol-worship, wouldn't it be simpler, with less overhead, just to make a direct donation to the organization? It would even be tax-decuctible, because it would qualify as a form of organized religion.

Tell me you didn't think it was cool to have a successful US sponsored team in the peloton again. And tell me it didn't heighten brand awareness of USPS products. And tell me USPS is the pinnacle of efficiency. Have you ever waited in line at the post office?

I stand by my statements. I'm not a fanboy – at least not of Lance Armstrong. But the facts remain he/they won and Postal got their money’s worth. I suspect the clause was their way of protecting themselves – plausible deniability; a back door if things get messy. It is kind of like the successful college football coach: everyone knows what is going on, but so long as they insulate themselves with plausible deniability they maintain the status quo. Why Discovery jumped on board given the mounting criticism is anyone’s guess. This has nothing to do with if I like Lance or the team. I will confess I probably enjoyed Postal before Lance as much as any time; especially when Marty Jemison was going after stage wins and a possible yellow jersey in the Tour. No idol worship here, it’s just business. Are you aware that the US Navy sponsors the ESPN X-games. I know some of the athletes personally and now that is a real can of worms. I wonder what is in their contract?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Tell me you didn't think it was cool to have a successful US sponsored team in the peloton again. And tell me it didn't heighten brand awareness of USPS products. And tell me USPS is the pinnacle of efficiency. Have you ever waited in line at the post office?

I stand by my statements. I'm not a fanboy – at least not of Lance Armstrong. But the facts remain he/they won and Postal got their money’s worth. I suspect the clause was their way of protecting themselves – plausible deniability; a back door if things get messy. It is kind of like the successful college football coach: everyone knows what is going on, but so long as they insulate themselves with plausible deniability they maintain the status quo. Why Discovery jumped on board given the mounting criticism is anyone’s guess. This has nothing to do with if I like Lance or the team. I will confess I probably enjoyed Postal before Lance as much as any time; especially when Marty Jemison was going after stage wins and a possible yellow jersey in the Tour. No idol worship here, it’s just business. Are you aware that the US Navy sponsors the ESPN X-games. I know some of the athletes personally and now that is a real can of worms. I wonder what is in their contract?

Ah, ok - so USPS just stuck in the anti-doping clauses for a bit of a laugh.

I assume if USPS didn't pay the figures in the contract and Tailwind took them to Court the Judge would side with USPS and say the figures were only put in to fool people that it was a legal binding document.

 

[miloman]

Ah, ok - so USPS just stuck in the anti-doping clauses for a bit of a laugh.

I assume if USPS didn't pay the figures in the contract and Tailwind took them to Court the Judge would side with USPS and say the figures were only put in to fool people that it was a legal binding document.

Your rebuttals are usually better thought out than that. You’re slipping. I never said that the clause was put in there for laughs. My point is that unless they, meaning those authorized to sign and contract for the Postal Service, were living in a vacuum, there was plenty of anecdotal evidence floating out there to give them cause to reconsider their sponsorship; but instead they chose to insert the clause which in my opinion only served to insulate themselves from any fall out if something unsavory came to light. Do you think that they believed they were sponsoring the only clean team in the peloton? And Armstrong et al. were competing and winning against other who were doped to the gills? How concerned were they about doping? It doesn’t appear to me that the Postal Service did much except penalize the team for added expenses incurred for having to pay a PR firm to put spin on allegations leaking onto the pages of US newspapers and magazines. To me, it appears that the Postal Service wasn’t very proactive in the fight against doping they were duplicitous. As long as it didn’t come back to haunt them, they, like many other sponsors, were more than content to go along for the ride until things got a little too hot. Can you honestly say they deserve compensation?

 

[D-Queued]

... My point is that unless they, meaning those authorized to sign and contract for the Postal Service, were living in a vacuum, there was plenty of anecdotal evidence floating out there to give them cause to reconsider their sponsorship; but instead they chose to insert the clause which in my opinion only served to insulate themselves from any fall out if something unsavory came to light. Do you think that they believed they were sponsoring the only clean team in the peloton? And Armstrong et al. were competing and winning against other who were doped to the gills? How concerned were they about doping? It doesn’t appear to me that the Postal Service did much except penalize the team for added expenses incurred for having to pay a PR firm to put spin on allegations leaking onto the pages of US newspapers and magazines. To me, it appears that the Postal Service wasn’t very proactive in the fight against doping they were duplicitous. As long as it didn’t come back to haunt them, they, like many other sponsors, were more than content to go along for the ride until things got a little too hot. Can you honestly say they deserve compensation?

Some of us regard the move by the USPS to insert the clause as interesting.

In fact, that they did so by itself is very significant.

That they did so based upon concerns about doping, and that they went further to pay for PR spin is even more significant.

Those actions by themselves are tacit evidence that they were aware, concerned and trying to cover up.

But, perhaps the clincher, is another Armstong lie while under oath:

Q. And you could read all the newspapers in the world, but in your mind there's nothing out there that would lead to any reasonable suspicion that your statements regarding your non-use of performance-enhancing drugs isn't a hundred percent accurate. Fair?

A. All I can tell you is we've never had that phone call. Nobody has called and said, if it's Coca-Cola, if it's Nike, if it's Bristol-Myers Squibb, if it's any -- nobody has called and said we have some questions.

Q. Right. But they -- but you acknowledge either -- it's either implicit or explicit in your contracts with sponsors that if you have any connection to doping, those contracts can be terminated. Correct?

Ok, so Lance says that Coca-Cola, Nike and BMS didn't call. But, the title sponsor, USPS, clearly did.

I am sure Novitzky has this filed away, but hope that the SI article covers it as well.

Dave.

 

[MacRoadie]

As the season wore on, Bruyneel had gone as far as China to search for a replacement sponsor, but by June, the team had still failed to ink a deal.

And we all know Joe P. could give you the name of at least one Chinese company that would be quite happy to become more involved in cycling...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your rebuttals are usually better thought out than that. You’re slipping. I never said that the clause was put in there for laughs. My point is that unless they, meaning those authorized to sign and contract for the Postal Service, were living in a vacuum, there was plenty of anecdotal evidence floating out there to give them cause to reconsider their sponsorship; but instead they chose to insert the clause which in my opinion only served to insulate themselves from any fall out if something unsavory came to light. Do you think that they believed they were sponsoring the only clean team in the peloton? And Armstrong et al. were competing and winning against other who were doped to the gills? How concerned were they about doping? It doesn’t appear to me that the Postal Service did much except penalize the team for added expenses incurred for having to pay a PR firm to put spin on allegations leaking onto the pages of US newspapers and magazines. To me, it appears that the Postal Service wasn’t very proactive in the fight against doping they were duplicitous. As long as it didn’t come back to haunt them, they, like many other sponsors, were more than content to go along for the ride until things got a little too hot. Can you honestly say they deserve compensation?

You're right, maybe I am slipping and I just imagined Dan Osipow saying how Tailwind reassured USPS that their team was clean and unique:

"It's past history, and they know about the relationship they had with us at the time. It's past history. They have the utmost faith in [team manager] Johan [Bruyneel] and Lance. And they have the utmost faith in our program. And they leave it at that," Osipow says. "It was difficult news, but you have to recognize the source of the story, and the history behind it. We believe Lance. Everybody in this organization believes Lance."

Maybe I imagined Joyce Carrier (a great name for USPS spokesperson) saying:

"Unless someone proves any differently, we have no reason to not trust what the team has told us."

 

[miloman]

You're right, maybe I am slipping and I just imagined Dan Osipow saying how Tailwind reassured USPS that their team was clean and unique:


Maybe I imagined Joyce Carrier (a great name for USPS spokesperson) saying:

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Are you suggesting that they (USPS) were naive and duped and didn’t do their do diligence or maybe, just maybe, they said one thing in public and on the record and something entirely different behind closed doors? Not the first time anyone’s done that, is it? You never answered any of my questions: Do you think they (USPS officials) really thought the program was clean, or do you think they were just covering themselves with the added clause? Do you think their actions showed real concern or duplicity? Do you think USPS benefitted in any way shape or form from their sponsorship with Tailwind? Forget your feelings for Armstrong for a moment, which I might add is well documented here; based on the information that is coming to light do you think USPS deserves compensation? I am not asking for objective proof, just your opinion so I know where you stand.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Are you suggesting that they (USPS) were naive and duped and didn’t do their do diligence or maybe, just maybe, they said one thing in public and on the record and something entirely different behind closed doors? Not the first time anyone’s done that, is it? You never answered any of my questions: Do you think they (USPS officials) really thought the program was clean, or do you think they were just covering themselves with the added clause? Do you think their actions showed real concern or duplicity? Do you think USPS benefitted in any way shape or form from their sponsorship with Tailwind? Forget your feelings for Armstrong for a moment, which I might add is well documented here; based on the information that is coming to light do you think USPS deserves compensation? I am not asking for objective proof, just your opinion so I know where you stand.

USPS certainly have grounds for breach of contract.

Unlike you - I do prefer objective proof - I don't care for your opinion as it is usually uninformed and as much as you protest not to be a LA fan you show no objectivity.

So here is what Senior Vice President of sales for USPS Gail Sonnenberg said regarding how some members of its board wanted to end the sponsorship after doping stories hit the press.

Ms. Sonnenberg says the consensus among the investors was that the French were out to get Mr. Armstrong because he was an American dominating their national race. Ms. Sonnenberg says she was assured several times by Mr. Weisel and by two part-owners who were team managers, Mark Gorski and Dan Osipow, that the team was not doping.

The managers told her, she says, that Mr. Armstrong was living like a "monk" somewhere in the French Alps, and that some other teams were "dirty," but that everyone knew the good teams from the bad ones. Ms. Sonnenberg says she believed the Postal team was clean.

 

[Polish]

Doping only surfaced with Festina. What people didn't realize until much, much later (starting with the Actovegin and then with Ferrari) was that Lance was out to be the best doper ever. According to Swart, Armstrong had encouraged the 'full program' in 1995, just before the USPS sponsorship. Thus, when USPS signed on, the team were still babes in the doping woods.

Dave.

Doping only surfaced with Festina?

Maybe for you and me it did, but we were not sinking millions of dollars into a Pro Cycling Team. Sponsors, however, KNEW about doping.....

Sponsors knew in the 1950's when Fausto claimed "I only dope all the time".
And they knew in the 1960's when Anquetil stated "Mineral Water WTF?"
In the 1970's when Eddy was busted, sponsors knew.
And don't get me started on the 1980's. Filthy. Books were written btw.

But during the 1990's, pre-festina, sponsors could think Cycling was clean?
Country bumpkins and babes in the woods? Mass Amnesia? Whatever.....

 

[D-Queued]

Doping only surfaced with Festina?

.....

Ahem... 'in a major way' with 'criminal proceedings'.

Doping was around before Festina.

What was the penalty? 10 minutes.

Time out for children lasts longer.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

USPS certainly have grounds for breach of contract.

Unlike you - I do prefer objective proof - I don't care for your opinion as it is usually uninformed and as much as you protest not to be a LA fan you show no objectivity.

So here is what Senior Vice President of sales for USPS Gail Sonnenberg said regarding how some members of its board wanted to end the sponsorship after doping stories hit the press.

Ms. Sonnenberg says the consensus among the investors was that the French were out to get Mr. Armstrong because he was an American dominating their national race. Ms. Sonnenberg says she was assured several times by Mr. Weisel and by two part-owners who were team managers, Mark Gorski and Dan Osipow, that the team was not doping.

The managers told her, she says, that Mr. Armstrong was living like a "monk" somewhere in the French Alps, and that some other teams were "dirty," but that everyone knew the good teams from the bad ones. Ms. Sonnenberg says she believed the Postal team was clean.

So, Sonnenberg was concerned and called and asked about doping. Several times, in fact.

But, what does Cancer boy have to say about that:

...But, perhaps the clincher, is another Armstong lie while under oath:

Q. And you could read all the newspapers in the world, but in your mind there's nothing out there that would lead to any reasonable suspicion that your statements regarding your non-use of performance-enhancing drugs isn't a hundred percent accurate. Fair?

A. All I can tell you is we've never had that phone call. Nobody has called and said, if it's Coca-Cola, if it's Nike, if it's Bristol-Myers Squibb, if it's any -- nobody has called and said we have some questions.

Q. Right. But they -- but you acknowledge either -- it's either implicit or explicit in your contracts with sponsors that if you have any connection to doping, those contracts can be terminated. Correct?

Ok, so Lance says that Coca-Cola, Nike and BMS didn't call. But, the title sponsor, USPS, clearly did.

...

Liar. Contract breacher. Fraud.

Dave.

 

[Nick777]

I had a friend who raced on Postal

I bet you have had some interesting chats over the years.

 

[Polish]

Ahem... 'in a major way' with 'criminal proceedings'.

Doping was around before Festina.

What was the penalty? 10 minutes.

Time out for children lasts longer.

Dave.

Ok, so Sponsor USPS was more concerned with the major, criminal stuff than they were with the small stuff. Don't sweat the small stuff. La Bomba lol.

That would explain why sponsor USPS stipulated that a rider could be fired if they were "Convicted of a felony" or even if they "Failed a drug test".
Did not have to be fired, mind you, but they could be grrrr.

Turns out sponsor USPS did not have to fire any riders.
Thank goodness.
Go Team Go.