Friday, January 13, 2012

OH DEAR PAT ! What have you done this time ?

Controversial President Pat of the UCI told to resign by Rolf Aldag !

Now that Rolf has other fish to fry he is letting people know of his thoughts on the “ Rotten state “ of Cycling ! Managing the most successful team in the Sport last season would have put him in the box seat to observe the goings on in the sport which us , the fans , can only speculate about .

German newspaper item runs :

whilst to avoid controversy the CyclingNews website suspended the English language version of the article . Having reviewed the content of this controversial item , the MD of Cyclingnews allowed it to appear with additions :

Forum members of Cyclingnews are having a field day and no doubt there is still a lot of mileage to run in this story ?

Some of the content relating to the German Newspaper article :

"And finally in an interview to a German publication Carpani said the 'donation' was not until 2007.

UCI-Sprecher Enrico Carpani antwortete auf SZ-Anfrage: "Im Mai 2002 spendete Armstrong einen 25.000-Dollar-Scheck. Damit wurden Dopingtests in Juniorenrennen finanziert. 2005 beschloss Armstrong nach seinem Rücktritt eine weitere Spende an die UCI von 100.000 Dollar, die UCI benötigte eine Sysmex-Maschine. Wir bekamen die Spende erst im Januar 2007 - für die Gründe der Verspätung müssen sie Mr. Armstrong fragen." Carpani schließt, dies sei "das allerletzte Mal, dass wir uns zu der Sache äußern, wir haben alles gesagt". Hat die UCI das wirklich?

UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani said on SZ-Request: In May 2002, gave Armstrong a 25,000-dollar check. "To have drug testing junior race financed needed. 2005 decided to Armstrong after his resignation a further donation to the UCI of $ 100,000, the UCI . a Sysmex machine we received the donation in January 2007 - for the reasons of the delay they have to ask Mr. Armstrong." Carpani concludes that this was the very last time that we give our opinion on the matter, we have said everything". If the UCI really?

As to the receipt - was that the time McQuaid produced the receipt from the 'confidential file' and would not allow a photograph be taken? If it was a different time, when was the receipt dated, how much was on it, who was paid?

And why did they not put that information on the UCI website as Pat said he would:

" We've contacted in recent days the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time. I have statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say. The letters will also soon be published on the UCI website in a sign of transparency."

No comments:

Post a Comment