Armstrong Misleads & Swindles Livestrong Donors

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

The irony in that statement is as thick as JLo's a$$.

 

[MarkvW]

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!).

USADA was able (like the other civil litigants) to argue fraudulent concealment. Their conspiracy argument, while advanced, was never tested in the arbitration (because Armstrong caved). It wasn't a slam dunk that the older (Postie) TDFs would survive arbitration or the CAS.

While corruption or improper influence is possible, I doubt it.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

USADA was able (like the other civil litigants) to argue fraudulent concealment. Their conspiracy argument, while advanced, was never tested in the arbitration (because Armstrong caved). It wasn't a slam dunk that the older (Postie) TDFs would survive arbitration or the CAS.

While corruption or improper influence is possible, I doubt it.

Good observation about the fact the finding of a conspiracy was never tested by the potential arbitrators in the USADA case, and how it may have affected SOL. I find USADA's argument as set out in the Reasoned Decision as to the existence of a conspiracy compelling however, at least insofar as Armstrong and Bruyneel is concerned.

In the case of any other party who did not take an active part in the conspiracy after 8 years (I think I have that right as to the SOL), in other words any party who did nothing to further the conspiracy, I agree that USADA would have been hard pressed to nail such a rider.

I am not clear as to what races Armstrong did after the 2010 TDF where there is evidence the conspiracy went beyond the last day of the TDF that year. So for sake of argument lets assume the last day of the conspiracy was July 25, 2010 the last day of the 2010 TDF (And I recognize that in and of itself would have been contested).

Armstrong threw in the towel on USADA on August 23, 2012. Therefore if USADA was going to go after anyone other than Bruyneel and LA, then they would have had to prove those persons as a party to the conspiracy after August 22, 2004. Hincapie would fall into that period but others such as Hamilton would be outside the date.

Of course by throwing in the towel this enabled USADA to assert in the Reasoned Decision the existence of a conspiracy without it being challenged as you point out.

IMHO the conspiracy did exist, and it makes common sense for USADA to be able to argue that in the case of a conspiracy the SOL would only expire if there was 8 years between the last active participation in the conspiracy and the date USADA brought charges against a party. And that if there were conspiratorial acts within the 8 years they could discipline for any aspect of doping during the life of the conspiracy i.e. back to 1999. This would create an exception to the standard SOL rule.

 

[MarkvW]

Good observation about the fact the finding of a conspiracy was never tested by the potential arbitrators in the USADA case, and how it may have affected SOL. I find USADA's argument as set out in the Reasoned Decision as to the existence of a conspiracy compelling however, at least insofar as Armstrong and Bruyneel is concerned.

In the case of any other party who did not take an active part in the conspiracy after 8 years (I think I have that right as to the SOL), in other words any party who did nothing to further the conspiracy, I agree that USADA would have been hard pressed to nail such a rider.

I am not clear as to what races Armstrong did after the 2010 TDF where there is evidence the conspiracy went beyond the last day of the TDF that year. So for sake of argument lets assume the last day of the conspiracy was July 25, 2010 the last day of the 2010 TDF (And I recognize that in and of itself would have been contested).

Armstrong threw in the towel on USADA on August 23, 2012. Therefore if USADA was going to go after anyone other than Bruyneel and LA, then they would have had to prove those persons as a party to the conspiracy after August 22, 2004. Hincapie would fall into that period but others such as Hamilton would be outside the date.

Of course by throwing in the towel this enabled USADA to assert in the Reasoned Decision the existence of a conspiracy without it being challenged as you point out.

IMHO the conspiracy did exist, and it makes common sense for USADA to be able to argue that in the case of a conspiracy the SOL would only expire if there was 8 years between the last active participation in the conspiracy and the date USADA brought charges against a party. And that if there were conspiratorial acts within the 8 years they could discipline for any aspect of doping during the life of the conspiracy i.e. back to 1999. This would create an exception to the standard SOL rule.

Makes sense to me--for USADA. For USADA, the conspiracy kept on through the Discovery name change.

But for the feds, in a potential criminal case, there is an argument (a good one, I think) that the USPS conspiracy ended with the last USPS payoff. Lance did some cover-up stuff afterward, but it would be difficult to prove a conspiracy to cover up the USPS fraud as part of an ongoing conspiracy to defraud the USA.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The irony in that statement is as thick as JLo's a$$.

LOLZ

great reply made me laugh