Whenever this has been discussed before, I have never defended this, and I am not now. I agree with Ashendon and everybody else that says this is suspect.
My question was only about proof behind the TUE bribery claim, which I had never heard before. The backdated TUE happened real time, in the 99 tour. *crickets*.
Your prize sharing statement is from the mid 90's. There is no evidence he did not share prize money after his return. If so I'm open to hear about it, obviously. But, just because one doesn't spend $ on something, doesn't preclude him/her from spending it on something else. I think your logic here is suspect.
Anyway, have we settled on bribery (protection), or could it have been extortion? I know the thought of UCI extorting LA in return to squash AAF's is just not feasible to some because it would paint LA in a sympathetic light. We can't have that.
I guess it is all "protection", but has the judge/jury/executioner panel in CN forums ruled out extortion?