Raw Documents – The Verbruggen/Landis Exchange
Feb 4 2011
When Paul Kimmage released the full transcript of his interview with Floyd Landis earlier this week, it didn’t take a PR expert to predict what the UCI’s response would be. Pat McQuaid flatly denied all allegations made in the interview, claimed that “there has never been corruption in the UCI”, and went on to take a few swipes at “bloggers and so forth”.
While it may be true that a good deal of Landis’ allegations are difficult to substantiate, paperwork obtained by Cyclocosm indicates at least one claim happens to be very well-documented: Floyd’s back-and-forth with the UCI over unpaid wages from 2001.
In that year, Landis was riding for Mercury-Viatel, an American-registered squad that had just made the jump to Division 1 in hopes of gaining entry to the Tour de France. Due to some colossal mismanagement (you can read Whit Yost‘s fantastic first-hand account here and here), the team was in serious financial difficulty by March—the same point that Landis’ paychecks stopped arriving.
The UCI has a set of regulations concerning pro teams, and one of them involves a sizable bank guarantee, to be opened by the UCI to pay riders and staff in the event the team cannot. Despite repeated requests, the UCI refused to draw from the guarantee to pay Landis, and after two more months, he hired a lawyer. This is where our paper trail begins:
First Document – 30 Jul 2001: An email from Michael P Rutherford, a lawyer representing both Chris Horner (Floyd’s teammate on Mercury) and Floyd Landis, to the UCI. It is addressed “Dear Sirs” but mentions prior conversations with “Mr. Rumpf” and “Mr. Verbiest” [most likely Alain Rumphf, the current director of the UCI ProTour, and Philippe Verbiest, a lawyer for the UCI, who threatened legal action against Landis after his confessions last year].
The message expresses Rutherford’s concern at his inability to contact the correct parties at the UCI regarding the bank guarantee (“I was told there was no one who can tell me the current situation”), and states firmly but politely that the rule obligates the UCI to pay (“the rule is quite clear that the UCI is required to draw upon the bank guarantee”). The letter concludes with a “request that the UCI contact me immediately”. [download document].
Second Document – 9 Aug 2001: A fax from Rutherford to Christian Varin, former UCI anti-doping co-ordinator. The message acknowledges a fax sent from Varin the previous day, presumably about the bank guarantee.
In this second document, Rutherford’s wording is more direct (“Therefore I once again demand that the UCI draw on the bank guarantee”), and details are discussed in greater depth. Mercury-Viatel manager John Wordin has apparently revealed his inability to pay to Horner and Landis, as well as the UCI, and “therefore it is continuing negligence of the UCI” to not draw on the bank guarantee.
Rutherford mentions that Wordin and Verbiest are attempting to forge “an alternative solution” with the riders, but forcefully insists that “Mr. Horner and Mr. Landis will not agree to the arrangement”, and thus the guarantee must be drawn on. Failure to do so, Rutherford reiterates, “is therefore subjecting the UCI to possible liability”; he goes on to question whether the bank guarantee even exists, and requests “satisfactory proof” of it immediately.
The fax’s final paragraph begins with an appeal to mercy (“Mr. Horner had to have a garage sale to pay his monthly bills and feed his children this month”), rolls into a cataloguing of the treachery of Wordin (he “continues to spend what money he has left on his personal bills and proposition new riders for the year 2002 while he simultaneously tells his riders to stick by him and he will provide them with jobs…”), before closing by asking the UCI to see that riders “will be taking care of [sic] rather than being further victimized”. [download document]
Final Document – 10 Aug 2001 A fax from UCI President Hein Verbruggen to Rutherford, insisting that Rutherford’s “aggressive approach might perhaps work in the USA, but it does not in Europe, and most definitely, not with me”. Verbruggen maintains that the UCI legal department has “explicitly followed the rules”.
The fax goes on to suggest that the amount of money involved is too small to worry about (“Your aggressiveness is not at all justified by a claim of $6,666.66″), and that because of the legal action implied by the letter, the UCI will now drag its feet on the claim (“I have given order to our legal department to take the tone of your approach into account when it comes to following up on your request”). [download document]
These documents reveal a UCI that isn’t as beyond reproach as McQuaid insists. Rutherford’s letters, for all their rambling, typo-rich freneticism, are hardly what most people would consider “aggressive” in stance, suggesting “possible” liability, and making no explicit threat of further action. The opacity Rutherford complains about is as frustrating as ever, and his most serious allegation—that the UCI might not actually have a valid bank guarantee—turns out not to be so crazy.
In fact, the legal standing of Landis’ complaint might be among the least-compelling things brought up in this exchange. I believe that this portion of the UCI rulebook currently lays out the protocol for drawing on a bank guarantee. With a decade of potential changes between this case and today, it’s tough to tell, but the immediacy with which the UCI must pay up doesn’t seem to be specified.
What’s definitely not present in the statute, however, is any clause saying that creditors will be paid by the UCI based on their attitude toward the governing body. While I’ll stop short of calling Verbruggen’s actions “corruption”, they certainly don’t inspire faith in the integrity of the organization—especially after that line about how this “might work in the USA”. In case you’d forgotten, this isn’t the first time Verbruggen’s used a comparison with the United States as means of derision.
Furthermore, Verbruggen’s reply fails to address any of the rather pertinent issues in Rutherford’s letters. While I admire the effort to mediate the Mercury disaster, that’s a matter for Wordin’s lawyers, not the UCI’s. The continued wheeling-and-dealing of an admittedly destitute team manager is just the sort of thing the UCI should be aiming to squelch. Is it any wonder that Landis took the UCI’s behavior in this case as a sign that it had no intentions of following through on it’s own guidelines?
Aside from starkly refuting the picture of the UCI presented by its president, these documents also go a good way toward restoring a bit of Landis’ battered credibility. His recollection of the events described run very close to the facts, and even Verbruggen’s mean-spirited reply does not seem to have been unduly slanted. While I wouldn’t interpret it as proof for his full battery of allegations, it certainly takes the “Floyd has zero credibility” rebuttal off the table.
Possibly related content:
- Floyd Landis Never Was A Master Of Timing Whatever else you might think of Floyd Landis, you’ve gotta give him this—the dude does not hedge. In 2006, he was totally and completely innocent—a clean rider from a pair...
- World Overlooks Oscar as Landis Case Rolls On Yeah, sure, Oscar Freire won another classic with a bike throw, yadda yadda yadda. But do you think anyone cares about the long, flat and dull Vatenfall Cyclassics? Not with...
- Skies Darken over Landis, Tour of Germany. Ok, Eurosport, you just made my sh!t list. First, you say the Landis results will be in by Monday; then you give me the “oh, it hasn’t be tested yet,...
brilliant work Cosmo & perhaps the most articulate exchange I have seen on the matter in the blogosphere.
The message that could have been sent had the bank deposits been released was: “We have verified that you haven’t been paid, here are the funds due that were escrowed on your behalf. We are working with the team management to rectify the situation. You still have $x in escrow, and your contractual payments are reinforced for y time period)”, should your contract with the team be maintained. Let them know the system works, and is there for their protection (as it is described).
I fail to see how communicating openly and fairly with the riders (assuming it wasn’t) or releasing escrowed funds would harm the team, and prevent its salvage. If anything, keeping the riders content, competing, and in place is paramount to having anything to salvage.
Sure having this made public wouldn’t look good, but it is going to come out one way or another. If you release the information first, you control the message. If it comes out from someone else, you are on the defensive.
Touriste-Routier:
The problem is that we are only seeing the letters. We are not seeing anything else, and, I am sure that this exact message was being conveyed to the riders from the Team Management who, despite their incompitence, were trying to resurrect the team and … pay their bills.
Despite this, Landis and Company decided to press their issues, and their issue alone. Eventually, the head of the UCI himself responded and essentially told Landis to STHU. Verbruggen was not nice in saying so, but that is not corruption or favoritism to tell a then minor rider attempting to hold the governing body hostage with a law suit DURING a dispute resolution process.
If we think Landis is a victim here, lets take his beef and apply it to our lives where there are certainly disputes with creditors and employers. Anyone who has been here long enough to cell phone contract knows someone who has had a contract dispute. Generally speaking, in most instances, when the parties to the dispute are attempting to aminacably resolve the situation, it is best to patient and allow the process to proceed. Now what do you think happens when, in a contract dispute in the resolution process, you decide to sue the mediating agency to demand an immediate outcome? Having seen people attempt to do just that on occassion, I have seen a few terse replies to that rather unprofessional behavior that make Verbruggen’s look like a children’s book in comparison.
To date, I have seen no one but Landis follow up being chastized with unproven calls of corruption and having the selective notes of the process leaked publically to smear the organization for daring to chastize Landis? That strikes me as an anger management issue, not endemic organizational corruption.
So, to be clear, if you think Landis is wronged here, then you advocate threatening people with law suits as a method of dispute resolution. If so, do not be surprised when the organizations you threaten (even politely threaten) put you at arms length and refuse to deal with you.
Is Landis’s concern for his salary valid? Sure. Is his concern the only concern? And should the UCI not have been attempting to salvage the team to ensure Landis (and others) of future employment? Not according to Landis it should not have. In fact, according to Landis and Kimmage, such concerns are actually official corruption.
Is there, at least was there, a large doping problem in cycling? Yes. Does that make it right for Landis and Kimmage to essentially turn anti-doping into a crusade of accusation where anyone who disagrees with them must be a corrupt doper?
Such processes do not help real anti-doping efforts, and they harm the sport to no good end. Like everything else that has come out of Landis of late, these memos will convict nobody of anything, all it does in generate bad press. So lets hope we can generate enough to help Landis clear his conscience, which is apparently ALL he is doing here?
@ Eric
The Landis/UCI dispute has a significant difference from your examples. The UCI is a third party to the dispute. They are not a guarantor of payment of salaries, but rather a trustee of funds (or bank guarantees) deposited by the teams to insure payment of rider salaries. As such, they have a fiduciary duty to all the other parties (including the riders), and not just the depositing party.
A trustee owes a duty to the rider, not a STHU response. Representatives of the riders made demand on the UCI for payment from the bank guarantees. And whether the release of the salaries held by the UCI were being held pending the outcome of other Mercury team issues or not, the UCI’s treatment of the riders hardly reflects the action one would expect from a trustee with a fiduciary responsibility.
The demands of the riders were measured by comparison to the UCI’s STHU response. That is no way to treat someone to whom a duty is owed.
Evidence of a vast drug infested conspiracy? Decidedly not. But certainly damning evidence of a arrogant governing body that does what ever it wants to.
Everyone here has no doubt heard the sad joke about why a dog licks in certain places–Because it can. So too our beloved UCI. I am just glad my career and money making abilities are not subject to their whims.
Lorin
Lorin:
The problem is that the UCI bank guarantee, to my knowlegde, does not have a clause that automatically demands that fund be tapped in the event of non-payment.
A look at the actual rules, and I use the ones relating to Contential Team status as teh most relevant for the Mercury Debacle, and it contains an interesting note about the calling on the bank guarantee:
“2.17.023 The national federation shall call up the bank guarantee in favour of the creditor specified in article 2.17.018 paragraph 2 except where there are clearly no grounds for the claim. The UCI continental or women’s team shall be notified of the creditor’s claim and the call on the guarantee. The national federation may set an appropriate indemnity for any call on the guarantee.”
http://www.usacycling.org/forms/uci/UCIAbbreviatedRules.pdf
Interestingly enough, the bank guarantee for a women’s or continental team is only 20,000 Euros, (or 15%) meaning that is a couple of riders at that level are trying to tap into it – there may legimately not be enough in the kitty to pay all the riders – period.
Granted these are the current rules, and they may have evolved some, but I somehow doubt there was ever a rule on the books that allowed a single rider to demand payment from the guarantee. However, looking at the Astana pay problems from just recently, I think it is pretty clear that there is more to tapping into the bank guarantee than simply threatening to sue the UCI.
Perhaps Landis and Kimmage would do well to look at the rules rather than sue the UCI at the FIRST thing out, and then hold a grudge for years to come as a result. Did Landis approach the National Federation to make the request? Or did he act, as it appears, as an independant party, threatening to sue the organization for not doing only what he wanted done?
And that is the problem with these small leaks, when we start looking at the broader picture, seeing what the actual rules and the conditions were, it is pretty clear that Landis is essentially stating, “Do what I want or I will sue you!” For some reason though, when someone deals with that acerbic, counter-productive attitude with a pointed demand that the organization being threatened does not appreciate the treatment, and will resisit it, that is wrong?
And what is it that Landis is really steamed about? That the UCI told him to STHU? After the demise of Mercury, Landis was snatched up by US Postal, a dream slot, where he went on a rather spectacular rise thereafter.
Of course, since none of this is Landis fault, I guess the UCI telling him he in not a National Federation and to not threaten the UCI is the root of everything that has happened since? Again, I just don’t see these memos as anything other than a smear tactic. They hold no one accountable to any legal violations, and are so scoped in nature that they almost invite incredulity in how much of the situation they leave out.
Honestly, if you threaten someone and they threaten you right back, you are not a victim. It is time for Landis to stop blaming everyone else and pointing accusatory fingers at anyone and everyone. He may be right, but if this is the calibure of the proof he has to back up his bomb shell claims, then the illusion of him being a singled out victim is going to be a very painfully burst bubble.
Eric:
Clearly we are both spending too much time on what are really inconsequential matters, but still, I think the point is not that the Mercury UCI/Landis dispute equals evidence of a wide spread doping conspiracy. But rather that it points out the UCI’s arrogant, “We can do what ever we want” attitude. That is one step away from considering themselves above the law.
While I am not a expert in the UCI’s regs, I can’t help but think that the one you have cited is not the correct one. The language “call upon the bank guarantee” I believe denotes the trustee making a call on the guarantee itself, not the creditor/rider making a demand on the governing body. I have no idea though, when a national federation has the right to call upon the guarantee.
But my point remains, the UCI was a trustee. They owed the riders a fiduciary duty relative to the guarantees for salary payment. A fiduciary duty is a big deal under the law of any jurisdiction. Fiduciaries are always held to a higher standard of care, a greater duty, then parties to a simple contract. The fiduciary is holding something of value in trust for another party or parties. You write: “Honestly, if you threaten someone and they threaten you right back, you are not a victim.” The UCI is not simply being told to pay up or else. They are being told to release the funds that they held in trust to protect the riders. Big difference in my narrow little mind. Their elegant response: “STHU you whinny little American because you don’t understand what you are dealing with here.”
It’s the unmitigated arrogance of the UCI in their dealing with the riders that galls me.
Sorry Cosmo for hijacking the thread. Good discussion. Good observations. I will now bow out.
Lorin
LDR:
There are a couple of points.
1. I Landis did not claim that the UCI is arrogant, he claimed that the UCI was corrupt to the very core, that it played favorites, and that it was manipulating the antidoping system to hide positives from favored athletes – and, particularly for Landis, to manipulate the system to make sure HE was caught.
These documents offer not one shread of evidence to back up that claim. Not one.
2. I don’t doubt for a second, given that UCI was rather famously locked in disagreement with the race organizers over the Pro-Tour, to the point where it nearly broke the sport; was in a contest with manufacturers over rule application standards, and is now in a pissing contest over race radios. That is a fairly self evident conclusion, and one the UCI appears to be taking seriously as it has compromised over the rules enforcement (twice now) and …. I guess we’ll see how the radio situation plays out. There is nothing shocking in Landis’s allegations that the UCI treated him like a minor cyclists rather than a superstar in 2001.
The question is whether Landis is a victim, and quite frankly, he appears to have been no worse off in terms of treatment by the UCI then he gave it. Two jerks locked in a room together – which one is the bigger jerk?
I think it worth pointing out how the two parties most effected by this lawsuit are behaving. Lance has steadfastly, for the most part, avoided public comment on the investigation. Landis, as clearly happened in this case, appears fully willing to shoot off his mouth at every opportunity. Which one has more faith in the investigative process?
I will be honest, Lance may or may not have doped, but what a small party (namely Kimmage and Landis – LeMond seems oddly quiet of late) are doing is simply not helpful to the sport or to removing dope from cycling. Accussation is fine, if, and only if, it is backed by tangible evidence – and what Landis has leaked is not relevant to any of the sensational accusations he has made – not one of them.
So Landis threatened to sue the UCI and the UCI said “bring it on.” How is that helpful to anything?
1) Landis has claimed that the UCI is corrupt….but not soley for witholding funds. We don’t even need Landis to recognize that the UCI is corrupt:
How appropriate is it for the UCI to accept major cash donations from active athletes (who happen to be bearers of the maillot jaune)? The context under which they accepted them is irrelevant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/may/25/uci-lance-armstrong-donation-mistake
How appropriate is it for Pat McQuaid to reward those members of the UCI management committee who nominated him to be president with fine irish whiskey?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-encourages-independent-investigation-of-uci
I doubt that when Landis’ attorney threatened to sue the UCI, he could have envisioned all that was to play out in coming years. That portion of the story is but a small piece of his overall experience in racing – but a telling one in how the UCI regards its athletes, the very people it should be protecting.
2. Landis is a victim of his own choices, something he clealy states. And he even more clearly states that he would have made the same choices over again – given the fact that to accomplish his goal of winning the TdF at that time, one had to be doped (which is easily contradicted by all of we who sit comfortably outside the sport and don’t really know).
To claim that Lance’s silence now is somehow steadfastly noble demonstrates a short memory. If you will remember, after the Landis bomb dropped last summer, Lance was VERY quick to speak up and sing like a canary to put it on the record that U.S. Postal “was not my company, I didn’t have a position, I didn’t have an equity stake, I didn’t have a profit stake, I didn’t have a seat on the board. I was a rider on the team, I can’t be any clearer than that.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-willing-to-co-operate-with-doping-investigation
Why was he so willing to talk then? Because ownership of the team means jailtime for fraud if they are found to be guilty of doping. I always thought that that was a very odd way to respond to doping allegations…..”Not – I didn’t do it and you can re-test all of my old samples to prove it….” His response was, “I’m not part owner of US Postal.” A very good CYA strategy.
Let’s assume for a moment that everything Landis is saying now is true. Just for a moment, accept it. What should he do? What should he say?
1) Do nothing – retire and disappear into attempted obscurity. – It does little for you, nothing for the sport.
2) Follow Vaughter’s advice – own up to your own indiscretions and not name names? When asked – “how did you come up with these doping regimens?” You have to lie to not implicate anyone else…or plead the 5th and end up protecting people for what reason? To what end? Again – this does little for you, and nothing for the sport.
3) Tell all – name names. Once again – it does nothing for you, but it might, JUST might finally let everyone know just how bad the sport has gotten so that maybe, JUST maybe it could be cleaned up.
To believe Landis at this point is to acknowledge that some (maybe ALL) of our cycling heroes have lied, failed, cheated and robbed at one time or another, to one degree or another. Not an easy thing to do. Our tendency is to not consider it even possible. I am merely suggesting to consider the possibility and ask yourself – If you were Floyd Landis right now….and had cheated, and lied about it and couldn’t stand living in your own skin anymore….what would you do?
Nicely written Cyclodog! And to those who say “let ‘em dope” I point to the news that “Tricky Ricky” Ricco may have put himself in the hospital by tranfusing blood stored in his fridge at home. Kimmage was right when he termed doping the “cancer” in cycling. If BigTex did cheat and they finally nail him it just could be the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, one that will crumble the pro sport to ashes so it can be rebuilt in a clean, transparent way.
cyclodog are you really claimiing that giving gifts of whiskey is what pushe dthe UCI to single out Landis (despite the fact that many OTHER riders have been sanctioned) and that it is hidding doping positives?
Whiskey is now the fault of all Landis’s troubles? Whiskey is what makes Roche, Dekker, and Periero dopers? Not too mention Lance, Hincapie, Levi, Dave Z, and everyone else that Landis has accused? Whiskey is now the power to bury charter flights and security footage? To cause, WADA, and National Fderations to sway to the UCI nefarious powers to hide a positive dope test – for a bottle of whiskey that poor ol’ honest Landis just couldn’t bear to come up with as a bribe?
Doping. It requires eveidence of actual doping. Corruption, the kind Landis charges require evidence of actual corruption – not buying whiskey to celebrate a promotion – which has no relevance at all to the kinds of corruption Landis and Kimmage are charging.
They have a burden of proof, and finding every minor issue as if it is magic ‘agh ha!’ does not mean it corroberates to the charges they make. The UCI may not be perfect, no one will make that case, but I would like to see some actualy evidence that backs up the claims Kimmage and Landis are making.
If instead, we lift every bit of criticism, offered as constructive criticism to better the organization, and proof positie of the foulist of corruption and nefarious intent – then we have deeper issues to deal with, namely in restoring sensibility to the accusation process.
Eric,
Your rants are bizarre and it sounds like you deliberately misconstrue what other people are saying.
Cyclodog didn’t say anything about whiskey pushing the UCI to single out Landis. Cyclodog mentioned whiskey as an example of inappropriate business practices.
mattio. I am not talking about what cyclodog is claiming, I am pointing out that it is being used as evidence for what LANDIS and KIMMAGE are claiming.
Again, Landis claims that the UCI is manipulating dope tests to, one, prevent certain riders from being punished (but not him, or Valverde, or Basso, or Cantador, or DiLuca, or Heras, or anyone else serving a suspension – apparently they too must have threatened to sue Verbruggen?), and two, that the UCI is accepting bribes to make this happen.
So bottles of whiskey relevant to those claims? Being told to shut up and be patient relevant to those claims?
I think it is very relevant to ask people to support such explosive claims. Otherwise, we might as well just accuse McQaid of being a murderer.
“Typo rich..”" Perhaps the “author” of the “article” needs a dictionary AND someone who knows how to use one.
In light of the Contador news and the above from the CUI you have to wonder what are they actually doing in Switzerland ever day? Cashing cheques?
Verbruggen is as crooked as a dog’s back leg!