Floyd to be charged with fraud - Page 33 - 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
  #321  
Old 04-09-12, 17:15
9000ft 9000ft is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 497
Default

Wow, this is AWESOME!!! It'll never go as far as any of the LA threads but it should provide some good entertainment. Of course some posters can't help themselves and are making it an LA thread by default so who knows?

Good stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 04-09-12, 17:20
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Like Hog, I really don’t understand where the fraud is. Fraud is when you solicit money for a stated purpose, and then use it for something else. Like a pyramid scheme, where the money goes to pay off earlier investors, or into the pocket of the scammer running it. Or an advertiser who claims a product will do something that it won’t in fact do. Or, ahem, hypothetically, someone who asks money for a charity and uses the money for something else.

Floyd didn’t do this. He asked for money so that he could defend himself against doping charges, and he used the money for that purpose and that purpose alone. I don’t see whether he lied or not about doping is relevant. Most people who are charged with a crime and are guilty of it lie about that. Just as politicians routinely lie to people donating to their campaign about what they will do when elected. People who donate money to a legal defense fund or to a political campaign have a right to know that the money will be used for defense or campaigning. They don’t have a right to expect a certain outcome of the defense or campaign.

I mean, what was Floyd supposed to do? If he confessed to doping, he literally would have no case. There would be no court proceedings at all. He could only defend himself by maintaining his innocence. Obviously, maintaining innocence does not mean one is innocent. It simply means someone has decided to fight the charges. Period. End of story. When Floyd told everyone he didn’t dope, he was saying the only thing he possibly could say if he wanted to exercise his legal right to defend himself. Anyone who read anything more into it than that is ignorant of not just human nature, but of the way the law works.
“WE” don’t know this to be 100% fact. Or do “WE”?
That might be part of what the fed’s are investigating.
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 04-09-12, 17:40
Polish Polish is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn_Wilson View Post
“WE” don’t know this to be 100% fact. Or do “WE”?
That might be part of what the fed’s are investigating.
Glenn_, I think you hit the nail on the head.

It would not suprise me if Floyd did not do a great job of record keeping. But he has to account for all those donations and how the money was spent. Receipts etc coming and going. Major tax implications.
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 04-09-12, 18:05
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
I would add that he obviously enjoys the discovery & research element. I think he'd want to go to trial and have his day in court. I'm sure he'd handle himself well under pressure. His reasoning for the initial lying would be to establish the pattern of doping at USPS and subsequent pressures applied from former team mates & mangers to keep zip.

If Armstrong is behind any of this it just seems plain madness on his behalf. For Floyd to defend himself would be to prove the Armstrong doping. All that information is sitting in case files and could be accessed. That's why I think this is Nov's backdoor and not an Armstrong pressured investigation.
You keep bringing this up.
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 04-09-12, 18:13
BotanyBay's Avatar
BotanyBay BotanyBay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,897
Default

CN is still the world's only news outlet making ANY mention of this (several DAYS later).
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 04-09-12, 18:19
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBay View Post
CN is still the world's only news outlet making ANY mention of this (several DAYS later).
According to sources close to the investigation
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 04-09-12, 18:29
BotanyBay's Avatar
BotanyBay BotanyBay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
According to sources close to the investigation
I'd imagine that he was probably granted immunity of some sort for his involvement with Birotte's abandoned case. That is, unless he lied. But this many days later, I think a bigger news organization would have been able to confirm this (if it were true).
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 04-09-12, 19:40
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
This thread is not about Armstrong Dig. It can be about the vapidity of an American public, the charade of the UCI, the meanderings of the FBI, the prophet in the wilderness, and any number of other things, but it is not about Armstrong.

When charges are pressed, and, decades later, when some texts and emails are released linking Sand Dog Fab to movers behind this latest development, you can make it about little Gunderson. Otherwise, please refrain.
Digger is not discussing Armstrong per se - he is rightly querying the flip flop of Markvws hypocrisy of how he views different riders (or more presicely Armstrong vs Everyone Else)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Polish View Post
Floyd still denies using testosterone doesn't he? I beleive him. Sure he admitted using other drugs, with Lance and stuff - but he still denies the testosterone right?

The FFF Fraud is based on the use of testosterone while at Phonak. And the Feds will first have to prove that. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not think the evidence will hold up. I think Floyd should call on Lance to testify for the defense. First, show how the French Lab has performed in the past yikes. Call Lemond too. Greg had issues with the French testing also. Floyd could also use Lance as a character witness. Deny ever seeing Floyd using testosterone in 2006.

On the other hand, Floyd could admit to using the testosterone in 2006 TdF. Admit he was lying. Establish his fraud. Then go after the Champions Club guys - "Hey, you guys should have known I was doping". And in that way knock his fraud case down.
Ah, Polish - SSDD....
No Floyd does not deny using testosterone.

From the NYVelocity interview:
Quote:
I did use testosterone leading-up to the Tour, and I know what the clearance rate is, and I know more now about how the carbon-isotope test works and how long the delta change in the carbon isotope should last and how it should degrade over time and I can’t match it up with a blood transfusion. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 04-09-12, 19:59
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkvW View Post
Probation, restitution, and a small fine would suit me for Floyd. Floyd's fully paid for his doping. Now's the time to pay for cheating his fans.

Funny you bring Lance up. Floyd is another one of the lying Posties who covered for Lance all those years, allowing him to beat the rap. (I'm just pulling your chain ).

Lance beat the rap. That's no reason Floyd should, though. I would have liked to have seen Armstrong exposed and convicted in a criminal trial.
No you don't.
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 04-09-12, 20:06
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
Digger is not discussing Armstrong per se - he is rightly querying the flip flop of Markvws hypocrisy of how he views different riders (or more presicely Armstrong vs Everyone Else)




Ah, Polish - SSDD....
No Floyd does not deny using testosterone.

From the NYVelocity interview:
With all respect, it's clear that Digger, like many, is keen on the parallels of this "story" with the Armstrong situation.

I would be more inclined to grant your point if Digger could get through a few posts without invoking Armstrong.

One of the greater ironies here are the ways in which many of the discussants have had to flip position. Most deploying no more logic than before.

That aside, there are millions of frauds being carried out daily in the public sphere. If this is, in fact, an ongoing investigation, it would seem more relevant to coordinate the discussion to that.

As you well know, there are threads galore to discuss Armstrong's lies and to take others to task for their indifference on them.
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 17:43.


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.