Floyd to be charged with fraud - Page 15 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 04-07-12, 23:35
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
The alleged motivation of Armstrong to encourage donations from his wealthy sycophants in his Champions Club was not to assist in exonerating Floyd but to discredit the same French lab that tested his 1999 "B" samples.

Those sycophants could only be induced to donate by Armstrong's fraud that Floyd, like himself, was the subject of a French conspiracy when Armstrong was aware that Floyd was a team PED user on USPS and PED use was obligatory for TdF success.

Any member of the Champions Club could take legal action against LA if he induced those donations by falsely claiming Floyd was clean and had suffered at the hands of a French conspiracy.

David "Tiger" Williams was a member of the Champions Club and has a falling out with Armstrong and may have been instrumental in FL's LA exposure. He could make it hot in the kitchen for LA if he legally sought to recover his donations to the FFF on LA's recommendations.

.
VDude I value your opinion. Why would some suggest Armstrong pushed for Floyd to be investigated by the Feds if it could expose himself?

In addition what Federal law(s) could have been broken by Floyd in accepting the donations? I'm still not seeing what law or line has been crossed if people were donating to a cause rather than having money "swindled" from them to make profit elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 04-08-12, 00:13
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,051
Default

Quote:
Floyd's sole objective was to demonstrate his innocence, which he subsequently announced did not exist.
Some people still don’t get it. The purpose of a trial is NOT to demonstrate innocence. It is to determine whether there is enough evidence to establish guilt. Likewise, the purpose of a legal defense fund is NOT to vindicate someone who is innocent. It is to reduce the probability of there being sufficient evidence to establish guilt.

Individuals are of course free to view a trial as a demonstration of innocence, as vindication, etc. But this is their personal interpretation; it is not how the law sees it. If you get a verdict of not guilty, the law does not say you are innocent. The law does not say you are vindicated. That is just someone's spin on the verdict.

Quote:
If I received money from donations, based upon telling people I had a fabricated disease, it would be illegal.
The fabrication of the disease is not illegal, but aquiring money based on the false claim is.

If Landis recived money based upon a defense that he hadn' t doped, he received that money dishonestly.
Nope. You still don’t get it. The first example is fraud, because you aren’t using the money to treat the disease. The second is not fraud because you are using the money for exactly what you say you are using it for.

A much closer analogy would be someone who asked for money to treat a disease, when he in fact knew it was incurable, and that there were very strong odds that he would die regardless of treatment. Is that fraud? I don’t know, but if we’re going to compare it to Floyd’s situation, we should stipulate that it is well-known that people with that disease almost always die. Perhaps the person assures donators that he has been told by doctors he has a better than average chance of surviving.

However, even that analogy doesn't capture the situation. In the medical example, the person who is asking for money is withholding information relevant to deciding how well spent that money will turn out to be. In Floyd's situation, this was not the case.

Floyd's defense was not that he hadn't doped. He said he didn't dope, but that wasn't his defense. His defense was a carefully constructed attack on the science that indicated he doped, and not a bad one under the circumstances. In the CAS appeal, he managed to get the elevated T/E thrown out. He put that money to very good use.

Most if not all of the money given to Floyd was donated after he put all the documents on the internet. At that point, his actual guilt/innocence was completely irrelevant to the outcome of the case. The outcome was going to be determined BY THOSE FACTS ALONE. So how could someone who donated to Floyd complain that he was cheated? Whether Floyd really doped or not was not going to affect the outcome of the case, which is to say, it did not affect how wise it was to donate the money.

I understand that some people might have donated not just to get Floyd off, but to make a statement. That the truth will out. Of course these people--who I think were all nickel and dime contributors--were disappointed. But again, the notion of vindication is not a legal one; it's just spin. If Floyd used their money to the best of his ability to get off, it's all he should be legally obligated to do.

Quote:
Donors could sue Floyd for damages, but it's up to a prosecutor to step in and pursue criminal fraud
Of course, in America anyone can sue anyone for anything. I can sue someone on this forum for disagreeing with me. Seriously.

Last edited by Merckx index; 04-08-12 at 00:55.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 04-08-12, 00:21
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Some people still don’t get it. The purpose of a trial is NOT to demonstrate innocence. It is to determine whether there is enough evidence to establish guilt. Likewise, the purpose of a legal defense fund is NOT to vindicate someone who is innocent. It is to reduce the probability of there being sufficient evidence to establish guilt.

Individuals are of course free to view a trial as a demonstration of innocence, as vindication, etc. But this is their personal interpretation; it is not how the law sees it. If you get a verdict of not guilty, the law does not say you are innocent. The law does not say you are vindicated. That is just someone's spin on the verdict.



Nope. You still don’t get it. The first example is fraud, because you aren’t using the money to treat the disease. The second is not fraud because you are using the money for exactly what you say you are using it for.



Of course, in America anyone can sue anyone for anything. I can sue someone on this forum for disagreeing with me. Seriously.
Good of you to collapse the posters. Yes, it's true some people don't get it. If you admit to the basic allegations (setting aside the testosterone issue) you moot the point of the hearing. Those allegations are ultimately at stake in regard to the governing body you are describing. If you're going to get pedantic and technical about short-handing "innocence" for burden of proof (the differences of which I am well aware; it's not a difficult distinction to grasp, nor is it concealed from the public record), then you should probably go back and remove your various examples--the ludicrous future conditions of political campaigning for example--which as I said, don't parallel this one. Again, speaking of not getting....

But since we are being pedantic and technical, your most recent post has much to say about "the law," "the eyes of the law," etc. which, outside of France, I wasn't aware had much to do with Floyd in this matter. One would think that that might be one of the hinge points here, which, maybe, would distinguish this from a situation in which one solicits funds for defense in a criminal "law" case. The USADA is not the law--although it is federally funded.

Similarly, the remark about suing had nothing to do with the glorious liberties of America, but to underscore the difference between civil and criminal.

Last edited by aphronesis; 04-08-12 at 01:35.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 04-08-12, 00:56
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Of course, in America anyone can sue anyone for anything. I can sue someone on this forum for disagreeing with me. Seriously.
Question remains why haven't they sued already? If they were that angry when he admitted in 2010 that could have formed a class action and sued him.

The nickel & dimmers as you eloquently state were probably more of the "France vs America" debate which was still hot at the time rather than advocating clean sport.

Your post is excellent. Explains it all very well which makes me think the investigation is to tie up Floyd and truly bankrupt him. Can't think of another reason why a prosecutor would go near it.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04-08-12, 01:16
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
VDude I value your opinion. Why would some suggest Armstrong pushed for Floyd to be investigated by the Feds if it could expose himself?

In addition what Federal law(s) could have been broken by Floyd in accepting the donations? I'm still not seeing what law or line has been crossed if people were donating to a cause rather than having money "swindled" from them to make profit elsewhere.
I do not know if LA is behind the Fed probe into FL. It would be akin to shooting oneself in the foot if he was the initiator considering his problems arose from not addressing Floyd as a loose cannon type potential problem before 2010.

From what I recall the careful scripting behind inducing donations to the FFF was to bring fairness to the anti-doping system through reforms, openness and transparency and drawing awareness to the related issues concerning Floyd's case.

From recollection it was omitted from the FFF spiel any reference to Floyd's innocence or funding to prove his innocence.

I cannot see how the Feds could run a fraud case against FL unless the FFF had misled the donors the funds were to prove that Floyd did not partake in PEDs.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-08-12, 01:24
MarkvW's Avatar
MarkvW MarkvW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Some people still don’t get it. The purpose of a trial is NOT to demonstrate innocence. It is to determine whether there is enough evidence to establish guilt. Likewise, the purpose of a legal defense fund is NOT to vindicate someone who is innocent. It is to reduce the probability of there being sufficient evidence to establish guilt.

Individuals are of course free to view a trial as a demonstration of innocence, as vindication, etc. But this is their personal interpretation; it is not how the law sees it. If you get a verdict of not guilty, the law does not say you are innocent. The law does not say you are vindicated. That is just someone's spin on the verdict.



Nope. You still don’t get it. The first example is fraud, because you aren’t using the money to treat the disease. The second is not fraud because you are using the money for exactly what you say you are using it for.

A much closer analogy would be someone who asked for money to treat a disease, when he in fact knew it was incurable, and that there were very strong odds that he would die regardless of treatment. Is that fraud? I don’t know, but if we’re going to compare it to Floyd’s situation, we should stipulate that it is well-known that people with that disease almost always die. Perhaps the person assures donators that he has been told by doctors he has a better than average chance of surviving.

However, even that analogy doesn't capture the situation. In the medical example, the person who is asking for money is withholding information relevant to deciding how well spent that money will turn out to be. In Floyd's situation, this was not the case.

Floyd's defense was not that he hadn't doped. He said he didn't dope, but that wasn't his defense. His defense was a carefully constructed attack on the science that indicated he doped, and not a bad one under the circumstances. In the CAS appeal, he managed to get the elevated T/E thrown out. He put that money to very good use.

Most if not all of the money given to Floyd was donated after he put all the documents on the internet. At that point, his actual guilt/innocence was completely irrelevant to the outcome of the case. The outcome was going to be determined BY THOSE FACTS ALONE. So how could someone who donated to Floyd complain that he was cheated? Whether Floyd really doped or not was not going to affect the outcome of the case, which is to say, it did not affect how wise it was to donate the money.

I understand that some people might have donated not just to get Floyd off, but to make a statement. That the truth will out. Of course these people--who I think were all nickel and dime contributors--were disappointed. But again, the notion of vindication is not a legal one; it's just spin. If Floyd used their money to the best of his ability to get off, it's all he should be legally obligated to do.



Of course, in America anyone can sue anyone for anything. I can sue someone on this forum for disagreeing with me. Seriously.
The basic issue is really rather simple. Did Floyd induce people to give him money by knowingly making false statements?
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-08-12, 01:25
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkvW View Post
The basic issue is really rather simple. Did Floyd induce people to give him money by knowingly making false statements?
yes, thank you. which was all "innocence" was ever meant to denote. (since there was never a legal--let alone criminal-- case as such to begin with. not until FL moved to federal court to have the findings thrown out)

Floyd seems to think so:

"I am acutely aware that accepting money on a false premise and then later returning it does not erase the lie,” he said, “and I'll live with the fact that I lied to trusting people, but I want to live an honorable life and I hope that people will see this as a starting point toward that goal."

Landis, who has subsequently admitted doping for much of his career and pointed the finger at many others, said that the fact that he convinced fans to contribute to a campaign based on lies nagged at him daily.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/59...#ixzz1rPMAvejc


Distinction here from political campaigns is that this is based in past factuality, not future premises.

Last edited by aphronesis; 04-08-12 at 01:36.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-08-12, 01:36
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post

Floyd seems to think so:

"I am acutely aware that accepting money on a false premise and then later returning it does not erase the lie,” he said, “and I'll live with the fact that I lied to trusting people, but I want to live an honorable life and I hope that people will see this as a starting point toward that goal."

Landis, who has subsequently admitted doping for much of his career and pointed the finger at many others, said that the fact that he convinced fans to contribute to a campaign based on lies nagged at him daily.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/59...#ixzz1rPMAvejc


Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/59...#ixzz1rPM0Guqd

Distinction here from political campaigns is that this is based in past factuality, not future premises.
Not to cloud the issue but reminds me a little of selling a book for profit with:

"I asked myself what I believed. I had never prayed a lot. I hoped hard, wished hard, but I didn't pray. I had developed a certain distrust of organised religion growing up, but I felt I had the capacity to be a spiritual person, and to hold some fervent beliefs. Quite simply, I believed I had a responsibility to be a good person, and that meant fair, honest, hardworking and honorable. If I did that, if I was good to my family, true to my friends, if I gave back to my community or to some cause, if I wasn't a liar, a cheat, or a thief, then I believed that should be enough. At the end of the day, if there was indeed some Body or presence standing there to judge me, I hoped I would be judged on whether I had lived a true life, not on whether I believed in a certain book, or whether I'd been baptised."
— Lance Armstrong (It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life)

or

"...I know you're going to find this hard to believe, but (Ferrari is), to me, totally clean, and totally ethical, believes in clean, fair sport, but produces great results with his athletes because he's -- he's so focused. But I never -- I never had a conversation with him regarding (Performance enhancing drugs)"

Last edited by thehog; 04-08-12 at 01:38.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-08-12, 01:41
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Floydfairnessfund.org no longer exists. But the wayback machine archived it at:

http://web.archive.org/web/200704282...rnessfund.org/

The spiel is:

Quote:
Our Mission Fairness and Justice for Floyd

The Floyd Fairness Fund was established to support Floyd Landis in his efforts to clear his name of unsubstantiated doping allegations by providing him with the means to attain a fair and just hearing.

Our Mission is:

•To support Floyd Landis against unsubstantiated doping allegations
•To provide the means to attain fairness for Floyd
•To bring justice to those responsible for misconduct in the case
The above is not a claim of innocence but that the evidence held by the anti doping authorities cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Floyd doped in winning that stage (and the TdF).
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-08-12, 01:52
MarkvW's Avatar
MarkvW MarkvW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
Floydfairnessfund.org no longer exists. But the wayback machine archived it at:

http://web.archive.org/web/200704282...rnessfund.org/

The spiel is:



The above is not a claim of innocence but that the evidence held by the anti doping authorities cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Floyd doped in winning that stage (and the TdF).
The doping authorities never had to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:14.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.