WSJ article on American cycling backers
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 93006.html
Good read. Knew a lot of it but there is some new stuff in there.
Makes me wonder if the WSJ know Floyd-gate part 3 is about to start.
Good read. Knew a lot of it but there is some new stuff in there.
Makes me wonder if the WSJ know Floyd-gate part 3 is about to start.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
0
Comments
-
Wow. I didn't know the financial background. How very, very interesting. and depressing.point your handlebars towards the heavens and sweat like you're in hell0
-
Dang, beaten to it, again.
Certainly adds a some flesh to the money trail.
So, Tailwind never turned a profit.
A tale of broken dreams and promises.
Armstrong's "credibility" takes another hit."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Very interesting, but for a bunch of supposedly "smart people", some of them seem like right eejits. Its like a two-wheeled version of the "The Producers" with Tailwind in the Zero Mostel role, seducing wealthy dowagers in return for a benediction from LA.
It would be nice to see the entirety of the financial involvment. I find it hard to believe that the investors would have stuck with such a loss making "investment" if there wasn't some way they could write a significant potion of it off against tax. In the words of PJ Rourke "Rich sh!tpokes with high-hat tax lawyers don't pay taxes"'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
Oops, wrong thread.0
-
The Champions Club sounds like fun: "Mr. Barnett, the Michigan marketing executive, joined the group ride in Arizona. After about 200 yards, he says, the pro riders were out of sight."0
-
Not sure what to make of this. It's as if there's a subtext like these big time investors are beaming out the vibes that they were hoodwinked, it is all "we put money in because we wanted to be close to the pros, Johan said doping didn't exist, we thought it was a French plot".0