The REAL Reason for license fee increases

B. Lafferty wrote:
"crit pro" wrote in message
m...

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7182.0.html

USA Cycling paid Dan McCloud over $100,000 in lawyer consulting fees in
2004.

Duh!

cp


That may or may not be true, but not according to the VeloNews article:

On the advice of an attorney, Bisceglia notified the board, and then the
board asked attorney Dan McCloud to serve as outside counsel in the matter,
a service Hellman says the attorney performed pro bono.

You do know what pro bono meads, right?



Certainly not an amateur bono!

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" wrote in message
...
B. Lafferty wrote:
"crit pro" wrote in message
m...

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7182.0.html

USA Cycling paid Dan McCloud over $100,000 in lawyer consulting fees in
2004.

Duh!

cp


That may or may not be true, but not according to the VeloNews article:

On the advice of an attorney, Bisceglia notified the board, and then the
board asked attorney Dan McCloud to serve as outside counsel in the
matter, a service Hellman says the attorney performed pro bono.

You do know what pro bono meads, right?

Certainly not an amateur bono!

Nor a Sonny Bono.

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" wrote in message
...
B. Lafferty wrote:
"crit pro" wrote in message
m...

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7182.0.html

USA Cycling paid Dan McCloud over $100,000 in lawyer consulting fees in
2004.

Duh!

cp


That may or may not be true, but not according to the VeloNews article:

On the advice of an attorney, Bisceglia notified the board, and then the
board asked attorney Dan McCloud to serve as outside counsel in the
matter, a service Hellman says the attorney performed pro bono.

You do know what pro bono meads, right?

Certainly not an amateur bono!

Nor a Sonny Bono.

crit pro wrote:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7182.0.html

USA Cycling paid Dan McCloud over $100,000 in lawyer consulting fees in 2004.

Duh!

cp

Mistaken statements about legal fees aside, USAC (and earlier the USCF) have
a long history of governance contaminated by conflict of interest. Och has
been watching out for his business interests for years, going back to when
he was an Athlete's Rep back in the early 80s even though he wasn't racing.

Stuff like this has been SOP for a long time. Governance has always been
defined by financial interest because financial interest controls governance.
The statements from Mick Hellman at the end of the article are total horse****.

Bob Schwartz

crit pro wrote:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7182.0.html

USA Cycling paid Dan McCloud over $100,000 in lawyer consulting fees in 2004.

Duh!

cp

Mistaken statements about legal fees aside, USAC (and earlier the USCF) have
a long history of governance contaminated by conflict of interest. Och has
been watching out for his business interests for years, going back to when
he was an Athlete's Rep back in the early 80s even though he wasn't racing.

Stuff like this has been SOP for a long time. Governance has always been
defined by financial interest because financial interest controls governance.
The statements from Mick Hellman at the end of the article are total horse****.

Bob Schwartz

In article , Bob Schwartz
wrote:

crit pro wrote:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7182.0.html

USA Cycling paid Dan McCloud over $100,000 in lawyer consulting fees in
2004.

Duh!

cp

Mistaken statements about legal fees aside, USAC (and earlier the USCF) have
a long history of governance contaminated by conflict of interest. Och has
been watching out for his business interests for years, going back to when
he was an Athlete's Rep back in the early 80s even though he wasn't racing.

Stuff like this has been SOP for a long time. Governance has always been
defined by financial interest because financial interest controls governance.
The statements from Mick Hellman at the end of the article are total horse****.

Bob Schwartz

Realize that USAC probably isnt any worse, and maybe even a bit better,
than any of the othe Olympic NGBs in this kind of thing. The people who
tend to be the ones who run for a Board position of an NGB will tend to
have financial connections in their sport.

In article , Bob Schwartz
wrote:

crit pro wrote:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7182.0.html

USA Cycling paid Dan McCloud over $100,000 in lawyer consulting fees in
2004.

Duh!

cp

Mistaken statements about legal fees aside, USAC (and earlier the USCF) have
a long history of governance contaminated by conflict of interest. Och has
been watching out for his business interests for years, going back to when
he was an Athlete's Rep back in the early 80s even though he wasn't racing.

Stuff like this has been SOP for a long time. Governance has always been
defined by financial interest because financial interest controls governance.
The statements from Mick Hellman at the end of the article are total horse****.

Bob Schwartz

Realize that USAC probably isnt any worse, and maybe even a bit better,
than any of the othe Olympic NGBs in this kind of thing. The people who
tend to be the ones who run for a Board position of an NGB will tend to
have financial connections in their sport.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:52:06 -0000, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

Mistaken statements about legal fees aside, USAC (and earlier the USCF) have
a long history of governance contaminated by conflict of interest.

Nothing says (yet) thaqt the comment about the $ 100,000 is mistaken.
Just because an attorney does one thing pro bono does not prevent him
from billing 500 hours or so on the tab. If I were in the attorney's
position, I would be a lot more inclined to bill a few hours pro bono
when I had already rung up a hundred grand in billing.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:52:06 -0000, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

Mistaken statements about legal fees aside, USAC (and earlier the USCF) have
a long history of governance contaminated by conflict of interest.

Nothing says (yet) thaqt the comment about the $ 100,000 is mistaken.
Just because an attorney does one thing pro bono does not prevent him
from billing 500 hours or so on the tab. If I were in the attorney's
position, I would be a lot more inclined to bill a few hours pro bono
when I had already rung up a hundred grand in billing.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:14:36 GMT, Casey Kerrigan
wrote:

Realize that USAC probably isnt any worse, and maybe even a bit better,
than any of the othe Olympic NGBs in this kind of thing. The people who
tend to be the ones who run for a Board position of an NGB will tend to
have financial connections in their sport.

Since a lot of NGBs have little to offer in the form of side deals or
similar, I'd guess that USAC would be lucky to be in the middle of the
pack.

USAC is facing an interesting few years. Both Congress and the
non-profit initiative in New York State are looking to extend
Sarbanes-Oxley's applicable provisions to non-profits, and have a few
extra they want to add. I haven't looked at the USAC board lately,
since I dropped my membership (renewed on 11/2 finally), but the board
a few years ago would have had tremendous problems in fulfilling the
audit review and other review processes required by SOx. Anyone that
thinks that Congress isn't waiting for the New York intiative to be
completed (with recommendations and modifications to SOx tailored to
non-profits) to impose them on the mess in the Olympics, isn't paying
attention.

Frankly, it will be hugely amusing to see many of the cycling-based
non-profits line up to certify their financials and 990s. The average
'CEO' of these organizations couldn't get a job leading a bagel chain
in New York (nothing against leading a bagel chain - I'd take the
job...). Some are just a couple of years out of college. And they are
going to be handed a statement to sign certifying the financial
statements' accuracy. Heh, heh.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...