I Know, I KNOW-I'm sick of Lance too

[oldpotatoe]

AND the winter is over AND WHOGAS but it's 'interesting'.

http://www.crankpunk.com/blogs/crankpunk/item/830-scott-mercier-merrill-lynch-and-the-lance-effect.html

[velomonkey]

Read it yesterday. Totally fits in line with everything else.

At one point Och was doing Heine's investments at Montgomery's firm - massive, outright conflict of interest.

[fuzzalow]

I couldn't get through the entire article. And I only skimmed it to try to get quickly to what I thought was the point in the article:
Mercier used to be truthful and opposed to LA.
Mercier has now taken a job with Mother Merrill
LA might be a high-net-worth client to Merrill
Mercier now sucks on the teat of LA's action to get dibs into servicing some of those assets or
Ordered by management to not embarrass a valued client of some reknown
I can't really fault Mercier, these are only some of the morally questionable things one might do working in financial services. LA is shrewd enough to humiliate Mercier with his change of face regarding LA as the price of Mercier's continued gainful employment at Merrill.

All speculation on my part but all the players, the actions and modus operandi are well known at this point.

[oldpotatoe]

I couldn't get through the entire article. And I only skimmed it to try to get quickly to what I thought was the point in the article:
Mercier used to be truthful and opposed to LA.
Mercier has now taken a job with Mother Merrill
LA might be a high-net-worth client to Merrill
Mercier now sucks on the teat of LA's action to get dibs into servicing some of those assets or
Ordered by management to not embarrass a valued client of some reknown
I can't really fault Mercier, these are only some of the morally questionable things one might do working in financial services. LA is shrewd enough to humiliate Mercier with his change of face regarding LA as the price of Mercier's continued gainful employment at Merrill.

All speculation on my part but all the players, the actions and modus operandi are well known at this point.

I think this, but Scott would be better served to either not bring 'it' up anymore, or say 'no comment'...rather than appear to be a new fanboy to save his job..weak.

[CunegoFan]

AND the winter is over AND WHOGAS but it's 'interesting'.

http://www.crankpunk.com/blogs/crankpunk/item/830-scott-mercier-merrill-lynch-and-the-lance-effect.html

That reads like a smear job by one of the Friends of Betsy and not much different than the way they treated Emma O'Reilly after she made peace with LA. They are attacking the guy who made the "right" choice simply because he no longer decries Lance as the devil incarnate. It is pathetic. These people live under an existential fear of a comeback by Lance or even public acceptance of the realities of doping in pro cycling during the age of EPO and transfusions. They go after anyone they see as too close to Lance or anyone who has developed a more nuanced view of the systemic doping in cycling, even if they were previously considered the haters' allies.

Mercier was there. He is all too aware that the choice was to dope or quit because it was impossible to be competitive without doping. It is natural that has a better understanding of what LA was facing, certainly much more than a bunch of wannabe pros who suffer from the delusion that they could have been contenders in a fairyland where doping did not exist.

The ironic thing about this is that the circle of professional Lance haters have devolved to using the same tactics they denounce him for using. Maybe they should have considered Nietzsche's quote about fighting monsters.

[bobswire]

That reads like a smear job by one of the Friends of Betsy and not much different than the way they treated Emma O'Reilly after she made peace with LA. They are attacking the guy who made the "right" choice simply because he no longer decries Lance as the devil incarnate. It is pathetic. These people live under an existential fear of a comeback by Lance or even public acceptance of the realities of doping in pro cycling during the age of EPO and transfusions. They go after anyone they see as too close to Lance or anyone who has developed a more nuanced view of the systemic doping in cycling, even if they were previously considered the haters' allies.

Mercier was there. He is all too aware that the choice was to dope or quit because it was impossible to be competitive without doping. It is natural that has a better understanding of what LA was facing, certainly much more than a bunch of wannabe pros who suffer from the delusion that they could have been contenders in a fairyland were doping did not exist.

The ironic thing about this is that the circle of professional Lance haters have devolved to using the same tactics they denounce him for using. Maybe they should have considered Nietzsche's quote about fighting monsters.

My thoughts are along those lines also.

[johnniecakes]

I find it ironic that those who just wish LA would go away refuse to let it happen. This article seems like another He said, She said, and I think I remember somebody saying something. And I can't imagine a company not wanting it's clients being bashed by it's employees. :no: At least CrankPunk is getting some publicity for themselves.

[54ny77]

conspiracies aside (i.e., weisel's montgomery securities ultimately is now owned by bank of america/merrill lynch), this is not surprising. mercier is a financial advisor, a.k.a. a broker, and as a finra-licensed individual, mother merrill (or any brokerage firm for that matter) will frown on an employee speaking publicly about pretty much anything. he could be an outspoken advocate for being against the clubbing of baby seals, and he'd still get the same "advice" about keeping mum.

[velomonkey]

I think this, but Scott would be better served to either not bring 'it' up anymore, or say 'no comment'...rather than appear to be a new fanboy to save his job..weak.

Yup.

[11.4]

Seriously? Mercier is a financial advisor. Merrill is one of the largest employers. BofA (who owns Merrill) bought Tom Weisl's Montgomery Securities many many years ago and there's really nothing left there, above all any influence from Weisl. He's off doing his own thing in his own firm and I can't think of any of the people at Montgomery who would still be at BofA. As for Lance? He grew up with a CMA account and he probably still has one there. Big Effin' Deal. So does my old English teacher and so does my next door neighbor. Scott wouldn't be able to represent Lance under conflict rules at Merrill. I used to be an investment banker and used to work with Montgomery and with Weisl. This whole article is just trying to connect some dots into some fanciful story.

Truth is, Lance is basically a jerk but he's been trying to come back. Whether selfishly or out of contrition, he's reaching out and people are starting to acknowledge that. I'm not judging him, pro or con. I knew him and had to confront him a few times as a race promoter in Texas years ago. If anyone has had the circumstances to make himself look inside himself and grow up, or not, it's Lance. But that's just one humbled jerk in the world. When hundreds or thousands of people want to continue a vendetta that's already been won, that's just petty and a waste of time. Without judging Lance, but judging these other clowns, I'd say it's time to move on. There ain't no players in that crowd worth listening to.

Think about this: At the end of the century, how does Betsy or Scott want to be remembered? Solely as an accessory to the Lance story, or as someone who did something in their lives? Betsy has been so much -- great partner, great member of a team, great example of integrity -- and all we can do is pair her with Lance? Really? Let's grow up and respect all these people for what they're doing with their lives, not because they happened to run into Lance at one point.

[Dead Man]

Is "crankpunk" a tabloid? Why bother writing all this gossipy crap?

And then he was all like...
And I was all... woah! So I told her what he said and she was all like...

etc.

:rolleyes:

[mg2ride]

Articles like this and the constant whine from people like Betsy work ONLY to help Lances cause.

Keep them coming!

Many, many cyclist will turn back to Lances favor as they get further and further away from the sport.

He will very likely get the wins back before all is said and done.

[velomonkey]

Articles like this and the constant whine from people like Betsy work ONLY to help Lances cause.


Incorrect.

[brando]

Articles like this and the constant whine from people like Betsy work ONLY to help Lances cause.

Keep them coming!

Many, many cyclist will turn back to Lances favor as they get further and further away from the sport.

He will very likely get the wins back before all is said and done.

Penn State got their wins back already and that was after covering up a child predator. When Lance gets his wins back, I hope Floyd does too.

[FlashUNC]

This article reads like someone who has a tenuous grasp on even the brokerage rules that exist.

You do not talk about clients of the firm. Full stop.

[Ralph]

I retired from Merrill Lynch in 1998, after 25 years, before Bank America took them over.

We didn't talk about our clients, privately among ourselves, or in public.

Although I was a full VP of investments, I still had a boss in the office.....and he and those above him were too professional to discuss the firms clients to outsiders....or be influenced by outsiders in how we treated the clients. The rules were pretty clear. Your career was on the line. Can't imagine any other office or region being different....now or then.

[bikingshearer]

Penn State got their wins back already and that was after covering up a child predator. When Lance gets his wins back, I hope Floyd does too.

There is two related important differences. First, what the Penn State pedophile (he no longer deserves the dignity of a name) was not designed to, and did not, increase the football team's chances of winning. Second, the Penn State pedophile was not on the field. Neither is true of Lance.

Make of this what you will, and I am certainly not defending either the disgusting self-absorbed pervert or the monomaniachal win-at-all-costs self-absorbed drug cheat. Frankly, I think the sooner both of them just go away and live out the rest of their miserable existences in anonymity, the better. Just pointing out that the analogy doesn't really follow.

[mg2ride]

Penn State got their wins back already and that was after covering up a child predator. When Lance gets his wins back, I hope Floyd does too.

He won't and that will be the double slap to the face for Floyd. They will justify giving Lance the wins back based on not "catching" him while he was competing. Floyd was caught red handed.

The truth is that Floyd broke the Omerta first and will never be forgiven for it.

For what it is worth. I generally agree with the positions above.

[Dead Man]

Landis didn't just bust - he did it for purely vindictive reasons.

He has less honor than Armstrong. And is a moron to boot.

[brando]

There is two related important differences. First, what the Penn State pedophile (he no longer deserves the dignity of a name) was not designed to, and did not, increase the football team's chances of winning.

Sigh. No one ever thought that. That's not why the wins were vacated and you also know that. This is a university with a mission to nurture young people. The wins were vacated because the institution lost control and put what happened in the locker room in the closet so as not do distract from what was happening on the field.

Second, the Penn State pedophile was not on the field. Neither is true of Lance.


No one's saying Penn State victimized their opponents. Better check your perspective.

The analogy is that money decides who the winner is.

[velomonkey]

Your career was on the line. Can't imagine any other office or region being different....now or then.

Understand, but there is a distinction between saying nothing because the subject is a client of the bank and going from outspoken critic to fanboy.

[CunegoFan]

Landis didn't just bust - he did it for purely vindictive reasons.

He has less honor than Armstrong. And is a moron to boot.

Nope. Landis went nuclear because he felt he was screwed by the system and Lance kept poking the bear until it clawed him.

Landis thinks the anti-doping process is a kangaroo court and he was jobbed for taking a drug he was not using during that Tour. Beyond that the French scheduled a special hearing for Landis to take place at the same time as Landis' hearing with USADA. They had never done this for any rider before or after. If he did not show up then he would be declared guilty. In February of 2007, Landis' lawyer negotiated a delay in exchange for Landis' agreeing not to race in France. Tygart then made a rule that a suspension would start when an athlete withdrew from competition or signed an agreement to suspend himself from competition, whichever came later, so Landis ended up serving a suspension that was effectively two and a half years instead of two.

In the meantime Vino tested positive for blood doping, was given one year suspension by the Kazakhs, and was back before Landis' suspension was finished. This really ticked off Landis.

As Landis' suspension came to an end he had a plan to win the Tour of California but needed some racing to knock the rust off. He asked USAC or the UCI, I forget which, to allow him to race before his suspension was officially over. He felt it was justified because he had been out of competition for more than the two years that was the designated penalty for doping. This was refused. At the same time the UCI bent the rules to allow Lance to race the Tour Down Under. Landis called Steve Johnson to complain about the difference in treatment. Johnson told Landis that Lance's return was good for cycling and "Landis should stop thinking about just himself." This really made Landis angry plus he felt he underperformed at the ToC because of the lack of racing.

Landis sought to join a European team for 2010. He emailed Bjarne Riis but never received a response. He suspected the UCI was blackballing him so he had Vaughters ask the UCI about hiring him. Vaughters told Landis that the UCI told him not to. Vaughters also said he would deny this in any legal case. Yeah, JV is a real stand-up guy.

With the UCI blocking him from returning to Europe, Landis still had hopes of winning the ToC then retiring. He thought Armstrong was pressuring the ToC organization not to admit Landis' team. Lance was also screwing with Landis in other ways. Landis warned him to stop but Armstrong continued. As Landis says, "I don't bluff." That screwing with him was ultimately the final straw that led to Landis dropping the bomb on Armstrong.

BTW, Landis is actually a pretty smart guy when you talk to him.

[unterhausen]

To me what happened at Penn State was far worse, and I'm upset that we got our wins back. I don't see any reason to give anyone an of Lance's wins, they are all just as guilty. Can you possibly go far enough down in the field to find someone that wasn't doing the same thing? I'm almost certain that the last finisher was doping, it actually takes a lot of fitness to pull that off

[Black Dog]

Landis didn't just bust - he did it for purely vindictive reasons.

He has less honor than Armstrong. And is a moron to boot.

Yea he did have a master teach him all about being a vindictive person. :rolleyes:

[Black Dog]

Thank you. This was really insightful to me. Seriously.


Nope. Landis went nuclear because he felt he was screwed by the system and Lance kept poking the bear until it clawed him.

Landis thinks the anti-doping process is a kangaroo court and he was jobbed for taking a drug he was not using during that Tour. Beyond that the French scheduled a special hearing for Landis to take place at the same time as Landis' hearing with USADA. They had never done this for any rider before or after. If he did not show up then he would be declared guilty. In February of 2007, Landis' lawyer negotiated a delay in exchange for Landis' agreeing not to race in France. Tygart then made a rule that a suspension would start when an athlete withdrew from competition or signed an agreement to suspend himself from competition, whichever came later, so Landis ended up serving a suspension that was effectively two and a half years instead of two.

In the meantime Vino tested positive for blood doping, was given one year suspension by the Kazakhs, and was back before Landis' suspension was finished. This really ticked off Landis.

As Landis' suspension came to an end he had a plan to win the Tour of California but needed some racing to knock the rust off. He asked USAC or the UCI, I forget which, to allow him to race before his suspension was officially over. He felt it was justified because he had been out of competition for more than the two years that was the designated penalty for doping. This was refused. At the same time the UCI bent the rules to allow Lance to race the Tour Down Under. Landis called Steve Johnson to complain about the difference in treatment. Johnson told Landis that Lance's return was good for cycling and "Landis should stop thinking about just himself." This really made Landis angry plus he felt he underperformed at the ToC because of the lack of racing.

Landis sought to join a European team for 2010. He emailed Bjarne Riis but never received a response. He suspected the UCI was blackballing him so he had Vaughters ask the UCI about hiring him. Vaughters told Landis that the UCI told him not to. Vaughters also said he would deny this in any legal case. Yeah, JV is a real stand-up guy.

With the UCI blocking him from returning to Europe, Landis still had hopes of winning the ToC then retiring. He thought Armstrong was pressuring the ToC organization not to admit Landis' team. Lance was also screwing with Landis in other ways. Landis warned him to stop but Armstrong continued. As Landis says, "I don't bluff." That screwing with him was ultimately the final straw that led to Landis dropping the bomb on Armstrong.

BTW, Landis is actually a pretty smart guy when you talk to him.

[sfscott]

Seriously? Mercier is a financial advisor. Merrill is one of the largest employers. BofA (who owns Merrill) bought Tom Weisl's Montgomery Securities many many years ago and there's really nothing left there, above all any influence from Weisl. He's off doing his own thing in his own firm and I can't think of any of the people at Montgomery who would still be at BofA. As for Lance? He grew up with a CMA account and he probably still has one there. Big Effin' Deal. So does my old English teacher and so does my next door neighbor. Scott wouldn't be able to represent Lance under conflict rules at Merrill. I used to be an investment banker and used to work with Montgomery and with Weisl. This whole article is just trying to connect some dots into some fanciful story.

Truth is, Lance is basically a jerk but he's been trying to come back. Whether selfishly or out of contrition, he's reaching out and people are starting to acknowledge that. I'm not judging him, pro or con. I knew him and had to confront him a few times as a race promoter in Texas years ago. If anyone has had the circumstances to make himself look inside himself and grow up, or not, it's Lance. But that's just one humbled jerk in the world. When hundreds or thousands of people want to continue a vendetta that's already been won, that's just petty and a waste of time. Without judging Lance, but judging these other clowns, I'd say it's time to move on. There ain't no players in that crowd worth listening to.

Think about this: At the end of the century, how does Betsy or Scott want to be remembered? Solely as an accessory to the Lance story, or as someone who did something in their lives? Betsy has been so much -- great partner, great member of a team, great example of integrity -- and all we can do is pair her with Lance? Really? Let's grow up and respect all these people for what they're doing with their lives, not because they happened to run into Lance at one point.

Even more, BofA bought Monty in 1998. BofA only acquired Merrill in 2008.

[fuzzalow]

I retired from Merrill Lynch in 1998, after 25 years, before Bank America took them over.

Even more, BofA bought Monty in 1998. BofA only acquired Merrill in 2008.

BofA took over, or acquired, Merrill is semantically correct. In truth, Merrill went begging to BofA, desperate for anybody that would take a shot at valuing their prized broker network over ignoring the toxic waste on their balance sheet as far as sub-primes and whatever other worthless crap was on their books. In fairness, there was a lot of pressure from then-Treasury Secretary Paulson to get a deal done. As recounted in the Andrew Ross Sorkin book on the banking crisis "Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System—and Themselves".

Stan O'Neal, who was fired as Merril CEO before the death spiral began, was the luckiest guy to every get fired in terms of a severance package - generously scaled as if a reward for doing well rather than as being fired. The Street never thinks the gorging's gonna end, until the meltdown happens. Crazy.

BTW, my opinion of Mercier's current fan-boi posturing is he wants to be allowed to manage some of LA's assets so he will now do and say anything. Merrill can insist Mercier not disparage a client or remain silent but they cannot force Mercier sing high praise to LA. That part he's doing on his own - anything for a benevolent nod from LA in permitting Mercier to service his capital.

[christian]

conspiracies aside (i.e., weisel's montgomery securities ultimately is now owned by bank of america/merrill lynch), this is not surprising. mercier is a financial advisor, a.k.a. a broker, and as a finra-licensed individual, mother merrill (or any brokerage firm for that matter) will frown on an employee speaking publicly about pretty much anything. he could be an outspoken advocate for being against the clubbing of baby seals, and he'd still get the same "advice" about keeping mum.

This.

[velomonkey]

Nope. Landis went nuclear because he felt he was screwed by the system and Lance kept poking the bear until it clawed him.


This was well written and accurate - I raced agains Landis when he was a junior (MtB) and wouldn't says I know him well, but I know him. The only thing I think you might want to add:

The guy literally had nothing to lose. He was broke, divorced, his father inlaw (a good friend) killed himself and he was living in a log cabin. He never realized the money that comes from a Tour win and he was never well paid while at Postal - least we forget bikes were sold to pay for dope and Landis was low on that list.

He had nothing to lose by blowing it all to hell - he was also, probably, the better racer when it came to him and Lance - all things being equal (which it never was).

[11.4]

BofA took over, or acquired, Merrill is semantically correct. In truth, Merrill went begging to BofA, desperate for anybody that would take a shot at valuing their prized broker network over ignoring the toxic waste on their balance sheet as far as sub-primes and whatever other worthless crap was on their books. In fairness, there was a lot of pressure from then-Treasury Secretary Paulson to get a deal done. As recounted in the Andrew Ross Sorkin book on the banking crisis "Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System—and Themselves".

Stan O'Neal, who was fired as Merril CEO before the death spiral began, was the luckiest guy to every get fired in terms of a severance package - generously scaled as if a reward for doing well rather than as being fired. The Street never thinks the gorging's gonna end, until the meltdown happens. Crazy.

BTW, my opinion of Mercier's current fan-boi posturing is he wants to be allowed to manage some of LA's assets so he will now do and say anything. Merrill can insist Mercier not disparage a client or remain silent but they cannot force Mercier sing high praise to LA. That part he's doing on his own - anything for a benevolent nod from LA in permitting Mercier to service his capital.

I'm not sure why any of this is relevant. Talking up Lance would not get him access to managing some of Lance's assets, for starters, and if any of Lance's assets went to Merrill, Scott would be conflicted from managing them. This post seems not really to address Lance but rather the eternal problem of how Wall Street is managed. It's pretty irrelevant to the tenuous point of this whole thread.

It's simple rules in an investment advisory firm that certain funds cannot be managed in the face of certain conflicts. Rules set by FINRA as well as internally. Anyone who knows the rules nows that this whole Mercier/Armstrong money management thing is a crock of sh*t. Time to let it die, guys. It's a waste of electrons and your nerve endings to keep plugging a point that's dead.

[fuzzalow]

I'm not sure why any of this is relevant. Talking up Lance would not get him access to managing some of Lance's assets, for starters, and if any of Lance's assets went to Merrill, Scott would be conflicted from managing them. This post seems not really to address Lance but rather the eternal problem of how Wall Street is managed. It's pretty irrelevant to the tenuous point of this whole thread.

It's simple rules in an investment advisory firm that certain funds cannot be managed in the face of certain conflicts. Rules set by FINRA as well as internally. Anyone who knows the rules nows that this whole Mercier/Armstrong money management thing is a crock of sh*t. Time to let it die, guys. It's a waste of electrons and your nerve endings to keep plugging a point that's dead.

I'm not sure why your post is shrill and dismissive. This is all just idle conversation and is no more far afield than any of the other topics being batted around in this thread. Irrelevant because you say so? Well goody for you. Lighten up.

You keep harping on "conflicts" that would serve to disqualify any dealings of Mr. Mercier with LA. What on earth are you talking about here? Exactly what is the "conflict" and under what grounds would he run afoul of FINRA and internal policy concerning any involvement in a service capacity to LA? You say you know the rules then school me on what you know and I don't.

Just because Mr Mercier and LA had in the past had a public spat over PEDs in the peloton does not in any way impinge on Mr. Mercier's ability to carry out his fiduciary obligation if he were to function as a broker to LA. LA is free to initiate and engender a business relationship with Mr. Mercier by choosing Mr. Mercier to be his broker in whatever capacity LA desires to use him for.

Mr Mercier is a broker. He does not function as LA's portfolio manager. He will not function as a Sales Trader for Merrill's customer desk that might purposely get lousy fills on trade tickets he has identified as LA's arising from out of some past grudge or vendetta. He is a broker looking to build his client book so he can produce commission business and garner assets for his employer. LA has substantial assets and would be a plum client to enlist. If Mr. Mercier had any authority over "certain funds" as regarding any designated discretionary trading account belonging to LA he would do so only under fully granted prior authority from LA and his employer firm.

I am not plugging a point. We're just talkin' here. But you dump on my post with a lotta misinformed reasons as if you know better and I'm just wastin' everybody's time. Well, its a web forum - wastin' time is its raison d'etre. And it is your post that is irrelevant because it is just blather with nothing but accusations. And if I'm wrong about any of this, well do please set me straight.

[brando]

Landis didn't just bust - he did it for purely vindictive reasons.

He has less honor than Armstrong. And is a moron to boot.

Why is it that everyone is quick to discount Floyd when he's really guilty of the same stuff as all of them? Sure he lied about it to try to save himself, but they all have. I don't have that much invested emotionally in any of these "winners" but it strikes me that some get a pass and others don't.

[Anarchist]

conspiracies aside (i.e., weisel's montgomery securities ultimately is now owned by bank of america/merrill lynch), this is not surprising. mercier is a financial advisor, a.k.a. a broker, and as a finra-licensed individual, mother merrill (or any brokerage firm for that matter) will frown on an employee speaking publicly about pretty much anything. he could be an outspoken advocate for being against the clubbing of baby seals, and he'd still get the same "advice" about keeping mum.

I retired from Merrill Lynch in 1998, after 25 years, before Bank America took them over.

We didn't talk about our clients, privately among ourselves, or in public.

Although I was a full VP of investments, I still had a boss in the office.....and he and those above him were too professional to discuss the firms clients to outsiders....or be influenced by outsiders in how we treated the clients. The rules were pretty clear. Your career was on the line. Can't imagine any other office or region being different....now or then.

Except, of course, that it is perfectly acceptable for him to comment publicly on the Fleishmann's. Also clients ( presumably former) of the firm.

[Anarchist]

Landis didn't just bust - he did it for purely vindictive reasons.

He has less honor than Armstrong. And is a moron to boot.

Unbelievable.

Really.