when will THIS be addressed

Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
maybe in the next couple weeks ? a visit to Switzerland

500,000$ and when and how many increments ?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/09/news/former-german-cycling-president-blasts-ucis-handling-of-armstrong-case_8889

“Verbruggen is making slower progress than expected because it was thought that it was someone in the French Ministry,” explained Schenk. “However, it could be that the informer is a UCI employee. The only thing the UCI are concerned with is finding out the identity of the informants who brought this case to light.”

A UCI statement recently said they would take no action against Armstrong over the doping accusations and Schenk feels the American cycling icon has received special treatment.

“Since 1998 the UCI has done a lot to combat doping but everything is different where Armstrong is concerned,” added Schenk, who stoked the flames a few months ago when she filed an official complaint with the UCI claiming that, against UCI rules, McQuaid was benefiting from UCI payments and an apartment in Switzerland.

Schenk also pointed to the fact that Armstrong, shortly after a damaging book – David Walsh’s “LA Confidential” – was published claiming he had regularly used doping products, handed Verbruggen a hefty check to be used in the fight against doping.

At the time, Verbruggen made no secret of the American’s gift.

“There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong,” Schenk added. “The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong – to my knowledge 500,000 dollars – and now there is speculation that there are financial connections to Armstrong, as well as the American market. I do not know what sort of connections Verbruggen has.”



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-uci-needs-more-transparency

"Still, Schenk criticised the way in which the donation was made and the subsequent confusion it has caused. "At the time, the UCI Management Committee was not officially instructed before the donation was made," she added. "Then, the amount of the sum changed several times, and to my knowledge there were no documents presented up to now. There should be a transaction receipt, a regular booking at the UCI and a purchase receipt of this Sysmex machine somewhere, all within a certain period of time."



http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20050920/sport/uci-in-fighting-clouds-build-up-to-world-champs defamation

"At the same time the UCI has accused Schenk of pursuing a "witch hunt" against them, saying at the end of a lengthy media release on their website that they have always acted with the "utmost transparency".

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EbB8tLm_dO4J:oldsite.uci.ch/modello.asp?1stlevelid=Q&level1=0&level2=0&idnews=3744+sylvia+schenk+defamation+uci&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

"Mrs Sylvia Schenk lodged three complaints.



The first and second, which were submitted to the UCI Board of Appeal and Ethics Commission, against the UCI and Mr Pat McQuaid, claim that the UCI supported Mr Pat McQuaid in his campaign for the UCI presidency. The UCI Board of Appeal has not published the reasons for its decision. However, it has already rejected the complaint unequivocally.



A further complaint was lodged with the UCI Ethics Commission in 2005 by Mrs Schenk, who seems to want to stop me from defending what I believe to be the overriding interests of cycling. The Commission upheld our complaint.



However, eleven members of the UCI Management Committee submitted a complaint against Mrs Schenk to the UCI Ethics Commission, on the grounds that she had breached the principle of confidentiality. The Commission upheld their complaint.



Given the seriousness of the complaints against Mrs Schenk (making unfounded allegations, manifest intent to harm the reputation of the UCI, its President and Mr Pat McQuaid), the UCI, its President and Mr Pat McQuaid have decided to instigate criminal proceedings against her for defamation.



All of the accusations made against the UCI, in particular those concerning Mr Pat McQuaid’s campaign for the presidency and the nature of his relationship with the UCI, have proved to be unfounded. They have been rejected by both the UCI Board of Appeal and the UCI Ethics Commission.



Not wishing to stop with the UCI Ethics Commission, Mrs Sylvia Schenk also approached the Ethics Commission of the IOC, which decided to wait until the competent bodies (UCI Board of Appeal and Ethics Commission) had published their decisions.



Whatever actions Mrs Schenk chooses to take, and in whatever form she decides to pursue her witch hunt against the UCI, with the collaboration of those individuals who have their own reasons to support her, the International Cycling Union has always acted and will continue to act in complete compliance with its statutes and with the utmost transparency."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/sep/16/cycling.cycling

"Pound's comments came on the same day that Schenk, Verbruggen's fiercest critic, claimed Armstrong was receiving special treatment from the UCI. "Since 1998 the UCI has done a lot to combat doping but everything is different where Armstrong is concerned," said Schenk. Schenk is also concerned that Armstrong made a personal donation to the UCI to help fight doping. The gift coincided with the publication of the controversial book LA Confidential by the Sunday Times journalist David Walsh that linked Armstrong with using performance enhancing drugs without uncovering conclusive evidence. "There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong," Schenk said."
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
"The fight against doping".
"The fight against being sanctioned for doping."
C'mon, it's just semantics!

Lance initially said it was a check for 25K. McQuaid confessed to 100K.
C'mon neither of these guys are accountants. Its a mistake any of us could make!

The real shocker is that the UCI actually has an "Ethics committee". :eek:
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
I have no doubt that the payments to the UCI will be explored. They can subpoena Armstrong's financial records, and I'm sure that Interpol is willing to help direct them to records on the European side.

A related set of questions that I have are... OK, Lance supposedly "helped" the UCI buy a blood testing machine. We've seen that the UCI moved TDF testing from the AFLD to the lab in Cologne. So does the UCI have the latitude to bring their testing "in-house" at their own leisure? Are they doing their own testing?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
BotanyBay said:
I have no doubt that the payments to the UCI will be explored. They can subpoena Armstrong's financial records, and I'm sure that Interpol is willing to help direct them to records on the European side.

A related set of questions that I have are... OK, Lance supposedly "helped" the UCI buy a blood testing machine. We've seen that the UCI moved TDF testing from the AFLD to the lab in Cologne. So does the UCI have the latitude to bring their testing "in-house" at their own leisure? Are they doing their own testing?
It could be a bit more challenging if part of the "Donation" came in the form of equity in an asset not cash.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
NashbarShorts said:
"The fight against doping".
"The fight against being sanctioned for doping."
C'mon, it's just semantics!

Lance initially said it was a check for 25K. McQuaid confessed to 100K.
C'mon neither of these guys are accountants. Its a mistake any of us could make!

The real shocker is that the UCI actually has an "Ethics committee". :eek:
There was a time when Lance was asked a direct question about his stance on doping, and he volunteered a blurb about how he'd given UCI a huge donation to help them buy equipment (much more than 25K). He used this to help shape the perception that he was now retired and actually interested in being involved in the anti-doping fight. I wish I remembered the location of the article, but I sure remember reading it and thinking it odd at the time.

This statement was made long before people were accusing he and the UCI of collusion.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
NashbarShorts said:
Lance initially said it was a check for 25K. McQuaid confessed to 100K.
Maybe they were referring to different donations..... IIRC, Lance said there was more than one in the SCA trial. Why assume the ones we know about are the only ones?
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Maybe they were referring to different donations..... IIRC, Lance said there was more than one in the SCA trial. Why assume the ones we know about are the only ones?
Lance making personal "donations" to the UCI makes about as much sense as Roger Clemens making donations to Major League Baseball. He was merely attempting to pave a path for a future courtroom explanation. A manufactured alibi. But he got sloppy and was unable to manage his recall of the lies.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
The bribed as well as the one making the bribe are guilty. LA being the only rider that anybody can remember making a big"donation" is a reason for an investigation..by the French not the Americans. If they have dirty samples and it it revealed that they were tested by grade school kids or with the power off on the machine..I can hardly see were that is Pharmstrongs problem.The system is a complete cluster phug and many heads should roll.People in other counties don't understand the American legal system..from time time..sorry 100% of the time the guy with the most money wins..Lance thought since he has more cash on hand than most anybody..cyclingwise..the only threat would be from space or a major government..looks like he guessed wrong. I there is stuff laying around that can be discovered just by making an in person appearance..the French are going to look like a bigger joke than letting him off with a donation. Peter Sellers is dead so I hope they are at least talking to steve Martin as the pink panthers stand in.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
How is it that the only Fed that rivals the UCI in ineptitude and corruption, FIFA, actually suspended people for taking bribes......you know it is bad when FIFA looks better then the UCI
 
fatandfast said:
The bribed as well as the one making the bribe are guilty. LA being the only rider that anybody can remember making a big"donation" is a reason for an investigation..by the French not the Americans. If they have dirty samples and it it revealed that they were tested by grade school kids or with the power off on the machine..I can hardly see were that is Pharmstrongs problem.The system is a complete cluster phug and many heads should roll.People in other counties don't understand the American legal system..from time time..sorry 100% of the time the guy with the most money wins..Lance thought since he has more cash on hand than most anybody..cyclingwise..the only threat would be from space or a major government..looks like he guessed wrong. I there is stuff laying around that can be discovered just by making an in person appearance..the French are going to look like a bigger joke than letting him off with a donation. Peter Sellers is dead so I hope they are at least talking to steve Martin as the pink panthers stand in.
Since when Does the French government have any authority over UCI???:confused:
If you're referring to the French as in ASO--they don't any authority over them either--UCI is an independent autonomous governing body AFAIK
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
There was a time when Lance was asked a direct question about his stance on doping, and he volunteered a blurb about how he'd given UCI a huge donation to help them buy equipment (much more than 25K). He used this to help shape the perception that he was now retired and actually interested in being involved in the anti-doping fight. I wish I remembered the location of the article, but I sure remember reading it and thinking it odd at the time.

This statement was made long before people were accusing he and the UCI of collusion.
I believe this is the article you are refering to, from 2004.
I am a huge advocate of WADA, USADA, drug controls, random controls, out of competition controls. I have donated money to the UCI over the years to increase [drug controls].
The reason it came out was because Schenk was about to reveal it as she was head of the Ethics Committee and was going for election for President of the UCI against McQuaid.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I am a huge advocate of WADA, USADA, drug controls, random controls, out of competition controls. I have donated money to the UCI over the years to increase [drug controls]. - Armstrong, 2004
He did a nice job laying down a foundation for a future defense, eh? Just in case anyone ever dared to call it a systematic series of bribes.

Shame on all of us for not collectively saying "Huh?!?!?" when he made that statement. It was hanging right out there for 6 years!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
He did a nice job laying down a foundation for a future defense, eh? Just in case anyone ever dared to call it a systematic series of bribes.

Shame on all of us for not collectively saying "Huh?!?!?" when he made that statement. It was hanging right out there for 6 years!
True - the 2004 admission went unchecked but Armstrong brought it up again in 2005 (as the election was heating up) and Hein Verbruggen confirmed it before Schenk did and HV did get a 'Huh?" which he answered in his own unique way.
Verbruggen noted, also taking offense to any suggestion that the UCI would turn a blind eye if Armstrong ever tested positive. When a journalist asked him about this yesterday, Verbruggen told AD that he responded, "'Get the hell out of here, idiot!', I told him. Luckily I could restrain myself a bit, otherwise I would really let fly. I'm not good with such people. This initiative deserves nothing but praise and respect."
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
BotanyBay said:
He did a nice job laying down a foundation for a future defense, eh? Just in case anyone ever dared to call it a systematic series of bribes.

Shame on all of us for not collectively saying "Huh?!?!?" when he made that statement. It was hanging right out there for 6 years!
I don't know about you, but I'm no journalist...

It shouldn't be about losers like us tracking quotes on an anonymous forum.

We should be able to look at the brighter lights of cycling journalism to bring these sort of things to the fore. Maybe even "the world's first WWW cycling site"?

If the coverage of these issues is lacking for you, let the inksters know. Apparently they get paid for this sort of thing...

If not, allow them to continue to lose credibility...
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
BotanyBay said:
He did a nice job laying down a foundation for a future defense, eh? Just in case anyone ever dared to call it a systematic series of bribes.
*resists urge to channel BPC and troll*

That's actually what I was getting at when I said there was more than one payment. In the past when this has been discussed, especially in relation to the tour de suisse, people have lost track this and tried to figure out how much THE donation was. It's a 'wrong question' and detracts attention from the seriousness of multiple inappropriate donations, which is why I tried to reinforce tubularglue's point about "increments".
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
I don't know about you, but I'm no journalist...

It shouldn't be about losers like us tracking quotes on an anonymous forum.

We should be able to look at the brighter lights of cycling journalism to bring these sort of things to the fore. Maybe even "the world's first WWW cycling site"?

If the coverage of these issues is lacking for you, let the inksters know. Apparently they get paid for this sort of thing...

If not, allow them to continue to lose credibility...
+1.

you just detected, responded and got rightfully resistant to what was meant as a refined 'collective guilt' allusion regarding armstrong behavior.

consider this together with other signals like attempts to humiliate/deminish texpat or some other (milder) detractors of texas.

keep your ears tuned. kudos.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
I don't know about you, but I'm no journalist...

It shouldn't be about losers like us tracking quotes on an anonymous forum.

We should be able to look at the brighter lights of cycling journalism to bring these sort of things to the fore. Maybe even "the world's first WWW cycling site"?

If the coverage of these issues is lacking for you, let the inksters know. Apparently they get paid for this sort of thing...

If not, allow them to continue to lose credibility...
I used to send emails to Sal Ruibal of USA Today almost weekly. He was such a believer. I decided to put my focus on the mainstream media. Now Sal can see, but he's not covering cycling anymore. :(
 

Bilirubin

BANNED
Nov 3, 2010
77
0
0
I agree with Schenk's comments this year that it would not be possible to cover up a positive test, nor does she think the UCI would do that.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
python said:
+1.

you just detected, responded and got rightfully resistant to what was meant as a refined 'collective guilt' allusion regarding armstrong behavior.

consider this together with other signals like attempts to humiliate/deminish texpat or some other (milder) detractors of texas.

keep your ears tuned. kudos.
Yeah... It's a bit sad the subversive non-speak can be found even in cycling.

Mind you, who doesn't love a good conspiracy?
 

Bilirubin

BANNED
Nov 3, 2010
77
0
0
Sylvia Schenk:

"I do not think that a positive doping test can be easily covered up, especially in the case of such a famous rider like Armstrong," Schenk told Cyclingnews on Tuesday. "The tests are performed in accredited labs; it would be difficult to bury a positive result as there are too many people involved. But not only that: I also doubt that the UCI would do such a thing."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-uci-needs-more-transparency
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Bilirubin said:
I agree with Schenk's comments this year that it would not be possible to cover up a positive test, nor does she think the UCI would do that.
I wonder what her comments would be now that we saw that Contadors positive had to be leaked by the media 2 months after he went positive?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I wonder what her comments would be now that we saw that Contadors positive had to be leaked by the media 2 months after he went positive?
Doesn't it prove her point?

Maybe her comment would be "I rest my case" or "I told you so"?
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
It is much more difficult to bury a postive CURRENTLY, b/c the test results go simulataneously to WADA and the UCI.

But this was not always the case, correct? Its only in the recent few years that WADA has been put in the loop.

As such, prior it would have been EXTREMELY EASY to bury a positive. When it is a closed loop containing only the UCI, it doesn't get much easier.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY