- 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...t-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/article...i-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.c...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."
500,000$ and when and how many increments ?
http://velonews.competitor.com/2005...t-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/article...i-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.c...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."
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram