Armstrong Misleads & Swindles Livestrong Donors

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
MarkvW said:
In one of the older Armstrong threads, there's considerable discussion of all the various theories behind why the investigation was terminated.
It is also covered in "Circle of Lies"

Armstrong pushed multiple people to use their political connections to pressure Birotte to drop the case. Some, like Mark Mckinnon refused. Others set up face to face meetings with Birotte and made it clear they intended to fight any charges extremely aggressively. The Cancer Shield was deployed....and it worked for a while
 
Race Radio said:
It is also covered in "Circle of Lies"

Armstrong pushed multiple people to use their political connections to pressure Birotte to drop the case. Some, like Mark Mckinnon refused. Others set up face to face meetings with Birotte and made it clear they intended to fight any charges extremely aggressively. The Cancer Shield was deployed....and it worked for a while
I have not as yet read COL, but do we know who these people are? Is it in the book? Lance had some pretty high end friends commonly known as former Presidents of the USA (Bush Jr. and Clinton). Many of his friends of the day would know the politics and the ways & means of approaching the Department of Justice.

Are you referring to the Armstrong #2 thread?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
I have not as yet read COL, but do we know who these people are? Is it in the book? Lance had some pretty high end friends commonly known as former Presidents of the USA (Bush Jr. and Clinton). Many of his friends of the day would know the politics and the ways & means of approaching the Department of Justice.

Are you referring to the Armstrong #2 thread?
The book details several meetings between Armstrong's team and very high levels of the Justice department. While the book does not say it I have heard Bill Clinton made a call to Birotte on behalf of Lance
 
Is mark seriously still saying that birotte didn't drop the case due to political interference?
Heard one person involved in the case said they were 'ashamed to be American' because of how blatant it was...
Mark seems to be worried that birotte will find out he's been saying what we all know...
 
Race Radio said:
The book details several meetings between Armstrong's team and very high levels of the Justice department. While the book does not say it I have heard Bill Clinton made a call to Birotte on behalf of Lance
I did a partial read of the "DOJ Drops Armstrong Case" thread. There is no question in my mind it was pure political pressure, both small "p" (lawyers and bureaucrats in the DOJ) and large "P" (lawyers and politicians with clout) pressure that got to the DOJ who ultimately ordered Birotte to shut down. Someone at a very high level made this decision, after some very vigorous lobbying. There are just too many connections (Fabiani, Boxer, Clinton Administration lawyers, Bush etc.)

You may remember your post that said in part,

He had enough cash to hire the right lobbyists and lawyers. Armstrong hired Chris Lehane, Clinton's former spokesperson, to lobby Lanny Breuer, Clinton's former Lawyer. They worked side by side for 4 years.

Now Lanny is head of the Criminal division of the justice department. Does every target get that kind of access?


In my view, the story of the political machinations to drop the criminal investigation is as big as the Armstrong Lie itself. One has to assume the Grand Jury had or would have had, as a result of the work of the DOJ investigators access to the same evidence accumulated by USADA just a few months later and laid out in the Reasoned Decision.

I am surprised no author/journalist has tried to take on this story. My hunch is it would have John LeCarre overtones and intrigue. This story in and of itself is probably the main reason LA did not go to USADA.

It is also interesting to read how skeptical most of the posters were of the ability of USADA to do anything substantive about Armstrong's doping. Boy how wrong they were!
 
Lance is still telling his buddies in private about how close he is with Bill Clinton.

If anyone honestly thinks this was not political interference, then there is no hope.

To be fair though I think Mark from here is the only person who argues that point. :rolleyes:
 
Feb 16, 2011
1,457
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
In my view, the story of the political machinations to drop the criminal investigation is as big as the Armstrong Lie itself.

I am surprised no author/journalist has tried to take on this story. My hunch is it would have John LeCarre overtones and intrigue. This story in and of itself is probably the main reason LA did not go to USADA.
This is almost certainly correct. The story of bigwigs influencing the application of justice is a much bigger deal than the shenanigans a corrupt bike racer managed to get away with for a while.

The interesting part, though, is the discussions that took place when USADA went ahead with their investigation and the Justice Dept. decided to enter the Qui Tam case. Did the influential friends decide they were on the losing team by supporting Armstrong and let him slide?
 
Good lord. With such botched html it's impossible to even properly quote the above misquoted quotes. And you can "quote" me on that.


Dude, seriously, this one's for free.

Eliminate that slash [/] in front of the first "QUOTE". The results will be...

Trust me.
Agreed, Gran ... messy work. Thanks for the tip.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
I have not as yet read COL, but do we know who these people are? Is it in the book? Lance had some pretty high end friends commonly known as former Presidents of the USA (Bush Jr. and Clinton). Many of his friends of the day would know the politics and the ways & means of approaching the Department of Justice.

Are you referring to the Armstrong #2 thread?
did not GWBush call him an @rsehole?

How about Secretary 'o State John French face Kerry. he hates wonderboys guts too
 
Digger said:
If anyone honestly thinks this was not political interference, then there is no hope.
To be fair though I think Mark from here is the only person who argues that point. :rolleyes:
I don't think it was political interference.
1) The grand jury had been sitting for 18 months without returning an indictment.
2) At that time, before the USADA had publicly said anything and Armstrong's reputation was still quite good, the chances of getting a conviction were significantly less than the chances would be today.
3) After a further period of 2 years, Armstrong still hasn't been indicted.

Seems to me that the criminal case against him wasn't strong enough. Even today it evidently isn't a slam dunk.
 
blackcat said:
did not GWBush call him an @rsehole?

How about Secretary 'o State John French face Kerry. he hates wonderboys guts too
Bush's quote was after USADA and not before the criminal investigation was dropped. As to Kerry, he was not a member of government before the announcement on Feb. 3, 2012 the charges were being dropped and I suspect he did not have the influence at that time that others close to Armstrong did with the Department of Justice.

I am sure there are lots of high profile pols disgusted with Armstrong, but I suspect the main argument used in the political pressure was the harm an indictment would do to the Livestrong Foundation which is generally perceived to be doing a good job. That would be an easy rationale to drop the charges from a political point of view.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
Bush's quote was after USADA and not before the criminal investigation was dropped. As to Kerry, he was not a member of government before the announcement on Feb. 3, 2012 the charges were being dropped and I suspect he did not have the influence at that time that others close to Armstrong did with the Department of Justice.

I am sure there are lots of high profile pols disgusted with Armstrong, but I suspect the main argument used in the political pressure was the harm an indictment would do to the Livestrong Foundation which his generally perceived to be doing a good job. That would be an easy rationale to drop the charges from a political point of view.
Bush's quot when Lance showed up unannounced at a wounded warriors event Bush was hosting and tried to steal the limelight and show he hung out with powerful folks . This was in 2010
 
KingsMountain said:
I don't think it was political interference.
1) The grand jury had been sitting for 18 months without returning an indictment.
2) At that time, before the USADA had publicly said anything and Armstrong's reputation was still quite good, the chances of getting a conviction were significantly less than the chances would be today.
3) After a further period of 2 years, Armstrong still hasn't been indicted.

Seems to me that the criminal case against him wasn't strong enough. Even today it evidently isn't a slam dunk.
The problem with your argument is that one has to assume the same evidence set out in the USADA Reasoned Decision, which is overwhelming of Armstrong's deceit and fraud, was also available to DOJ investigators and prosecutors and could have been led before the grand jury. We know Hamilton testified and Betsy testified and they were pi$$ed when the charges were dropped.

If the grand jury considered the same evidence as USADA it is hard to argue there was not enough evidence for an indictment.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
KingsMountain said:
I don't think it was political interference.
1) The grand jury had been sitting for 18 months without returning an indictment.
2) At that time, before the USADA had publicly said anything and Armstrong's reputation was still quite good, the chances of getting a conviction were significantly less than the chances would be today.
3) After a further period of 2 years, Armstrong still hasn't been indicted.

Seems to me that the criminal case against him wasn't strong enough. Even today it evidently isn't a slam dunk.
The Grand Jury was never allowed to make a decision. Borat made his decision unilaterally. Everyone associated with the case thought it was a slam dunk.

Everyone associated with the case was furious. It is no surprise that another group in the justice department is now pursuing other charges. It is surprising that they would say publicly that

"
Birotte does not speak for the federal government as a whole.
 
Race Radio said:
Bush's quot when Lance showed up unannounced at a wounded warriors event Bush was hosting and tried to steal the limelight and show he hung out with powerful folks . This was in 2010
Okay, but if that is correct the context of the comments had nothing to do with doping but rather Bush being upstaged. Would that "grudge" be enough to prevent Bush from doing what he could to get the DOJ to close the investigation? Only George could tell us that!

In addition I understand Bush made some similar "arswhole" comments about LA after USADA.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
The problem with your argument is that one has to assume the same evidence set out in the USADA Reasoned Decision, which is overwhelming of Armstrong's deceit and fraud, was also available to DOJ investigators and prosecutors and could have been led before the grand jury. We know Hamilton testified and Betsy testified and they were pi$$ed when the charges were dropped.

If the grand jury considered the same evidence as USADA it is hard to argue there was not enough evidence for an indictment.
An indictment for what, though? The statute of limitations had expired on all of the basic crimes by the time Floyd snitched. I don't think you can make a non-time-barred case from the USADA disclosures.
 
KingsMountain said:
I don't think it was political interference.
1) The grand jury had been sitting for 18 months without returning an indictment.
2) At that time, before the USADA had publicly said anything and Armstrong's reputation was still quite good, the chances of getting a conviction were significantly less than the chances would be today.
3) After a further period of 2 years, Armstrong still hasn't been indicted.

Seems to me that the criminal case against him wasn't strong enough. Even today it evidently isn't a slam dunk.
Jeff was so disgusted he considered resigning...they were getting read to indict within weeks. That's how sure the officers in question were...they were notified of Birotte's decision less than a half hour beforehand...

But good old Mark still says otherwise...:rolleyes:
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Race Radio said:
The Grand Jury was never allowed to make a decision. Borat made his decision unilaterally. Everyone associated with the case thought it was a slam dunk.

Everyone associated with the case was furious
. It is no surprise that another group in the justice department is now pursuing other charges. It is surprising that they would say publicly that

"
The "everyone" statement is plainly fabricated.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Has "Jeff" been talking to the media about the supposedly secret Grand Jury investigation? If anybody has evidence of that, they outght to share it. Such behavior would truly be outrageous conduct.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll believe Novitsky has behaved honorably and has respected the secrecy of the investigative process.

No way am I going to believe an anonymous internet poster of dubious credibility on this issue.
 
MarkvW said:
An indictment for what, though? The statute of limitations had expired on all of the basic crimes by the time Floyd snitched. I don't think you can make a non-time-barred case from the USADA disclosures.
Yes, you may be right. But USADA got around the SOL argument by alleging an ongoing conspiracy that did not end until perhaps after the 2010 TDF and LA's second retirement, well within the SOL.

I am not an expert on American federal SOL legislation, but it seems to me the conspiracy argument was available to DOJ prosecutors as well. I would argue the conspiracy was ongoing from 1995 to 2010 (for sure from 1999 - 2010) even during LA's non compete years because all the parties publicly continued to flog the Armstrong Cycle of Lies (good name for a book!).
 
MarkvW said:
Has "Jeff" been talking to the media about the supposedly secret Grand Jury investigation? If anybody has evidence of that, they outght to share it. Such behavior would truly be outrageous conduct.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll believe Novitsky has behaved honorably and has respected the secrecy of the investigative process.

No way am I going to believe an anonymous internet poster of dubious credibility on this issue.
Yes, it's far better we take your lead and believe your expertise on the issue. :rolleyes:
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Digger said:
But good old Mark still says otherwise...:rolleyes:
Well, "saying otherwise" is the very thing that fuels good old Mark. Perhaps the only thing. No matter what is posted, or who posts it, "saying otherwise" is guaranteed to get him quoted, and that, apparently, makes his day. Without his sparring partner Dr Mas, I can only imagine the uptick in "saying otherwise" that is to come.

Since I'm on the topic...

I recently received a PM from Mr. vW. He was unhappy with one of my posts here in the forum. So much so that he felt need to complain directly to me about it. Which is fine. But he also had the audacity to include the tag line, "Don't bother responding to this."

Well, my advice, to anyone would be: If you don't want a response from me, then don't f'king waste my time with a PM.

I did respond, of course, and rather diplomatically, sincerely, and without any malice whatsoever (as I always have with any PM from anyone). But that was met with silence. :( Which is the only reason I mention it here.


Sorry, where were we?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Digger said:
Is mark seriously still saying that birotte didn't drop the case due to political interference?
Heard one person involved in the case said they were 'ashamed to be American' because of how blatant it was...
Mark seems to be worried that birotte will find out he's been saying what we all know...
MarkvW, along with being wrong each time he gives legal opinions, likes to impugn the character of everyone BUT Birotte. For some reason. Birotte walks on water, so he cannot be questioned. Ever. MarkvW thinks that anonymous intertubes people should not question Birotte because he is a US Attorney and that is not fair or okay because he is a US Attorney and is above and beyond reproach because he is a US Attorney because US Attorneys are above the questioning of their motives because they are US Attorneys.

But everyone else? MarkvW (who is an anonymous intertubes person) will question their integrity armed with facts or not. It's how he rolls.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY