Armstrong Not the Focus?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 11, 2010
177
0
0
mwbyrd said:
Do you really, I mean REALLY, think LA is/was/wanted to be the biggest drug supplier in Cycling/Sports. That's really far reaching...

And do you really think he wants to have a bike company (ie LeMond), Clothes (He gets free Nike gear), The Tour (Who cares....companies change hands all the time)....
He doesn't own LeMond per say, but has an ownership interest in Trek.

Nike gives him clothes, yes, but pays him MILLIONS to wear them solely because of his Tour cred, which would not exist save for (a) his doping and (b) his denial of equivalent services to his competitors.

ASO (owner of "The Tour") is a gigantic money machine that rakes in a quarter-billon US each year. LA attempted a buyout with Hein Vebruggen a while back.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/once-he-dominated--now-lance-could-own-the-tour/2008/09/19/1221331205913.html

I don't have a clue about doping *supply*, but I doubt LA would soil himself directly with that. Here is what I can gather from what is publicly available. The money is in *control* of the distribution and administration: far more profitable, with far less risk. (People like Papp are the chumps. All the work, all the risk, and nothing to show for it.)

And FWIW, I'm not sitting in the corner with my tinfoil hat channelling this out of the clear blue sky. Walsh states that LA had Ferrari under a non-compete agreement. If that's true, then LA flat out CONTROLLED who got the best doping in the peloton. He found the leading doctor/doping program, then simply shut out all the competition. When one considers that a top doping program was worth a couple hundred grand *per rider*, there was some serious dough riding on who got what out of Ferrari. Isn't this the kind of stuff that we used to call, oh say, "organized crime?"

In other amusing factoids, at least one attorney who appears to be a LA fanboy, thinks that he just might be charged with obstruction of justice. Based on the way everyone who spoke out was punished by Lance, this one could be pretty open-ended for the prosecution:

http://blog.goyetteassociates.com/?tag=federal-grand-jury-indictment

The particular favorite to the US attorney is Section 1512 (b) (3) which states as follows: 18 USC Section 1512 (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with the intent to—- (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officers or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a federal offense…. Under Section 1512 (b) (3) the subject may only engage in misleading conduct which hinders, delays, or prevent communication of some information to a law enforcement officer. There does not need to be a federal investigation pending at the time nor does the subject need to be aware that possibly, some day a federal investigation may commence. The most common example were subjects are prosecuted for obstruction of justice under Section 1512 (b) (3) is where the subject writes a report, gives a statement, is court or deposition testimony or conveys other information. Years later, that statement becomes part of a federal investigation where the United States government alleges that it was somehow misleading or designed to hinder, delay or prevent the communication of information to a law enforcement officer.
Armstrong is the focus, the only question is what do the Feds think they can chuck at the wall and make stick?

[Tinfoil Hat /OFF]
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Race Radio said:
Not exactly. A common tactic is to get all the evidence then let your target hang himself with a perjury charge. Lance would be the last guy they talk to
+1...
And here's the difference (posted on another thread and pasted here cause I'm lazy)

#2 Yesterday, 17:05
Oldman
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Great Pacific NW
Posts: 2,355



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While many of the disclosures in cycling could lead to some baseball-like admissions from atheletes, for Lance the circumstances are hugely different from Alex Rodriguez or others:

1. USADA is after a system of illegal activity. Individual participants can and will save themselves by disclosing what they know about drugs, money and the means of distribution.
2. The atheletes involved in Balco were atheletes first, endorsement vehicles as a secondary source of income.
3. Balco atheletes or their agents didn't seek to control the organizations that governed the sport nationally or internationally. There was no significant evidence of corruption beyond their own actions.Based on news and conjecture Lance is on a path to be investigated for many more things than being an enhanced athelete.

This will bite the chunky **** of anyone involved, American or non-American. Don't kid yourself that the drug companies, Microsoft, Google, music producers and everyone else at commercial risk don't want some serious blood over copyright infringements. They need a head on a pike.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
brianf7 said:
This investigation is nothing to do with doping WADA or UCI and cycling performance it is to find out if the US Postal money paid to the team, Was public money from the Government used ilegaly to buy drugs.
Well, since the US Postal Service isn't funded by the Government, it'd be pretty hard for them to use such nonexistent funds to sponsor a cycling team.

I'm not sure where this investigation will end up, but I'm pretty sure this post office angle will not be it!
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Nick777 said:
Yeah - kind of what I meant - if he is one of the people they are after, leave him dangling whilst talking to everyone BUT him..
Well, perhaps they want the perjury charge more for leverage over Armstrong to ensure his testimony against those that are above him and thus are the real targets of this investigation
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
0
0
stephens said:
Well, since the US Postal Service isn't funded by the Government, it'd be pretty hard for them to use such nonexistent funds to sponsor a cycling team.

I'm not sure if it was public company at one stage way back the money came from somewhere .

Australia Post is a public company for now and they do put some money into cycling but not much.
their posties also ride bikes many of our members are posties and stay fit all year round while riding on the job and being paid for it.
it is a fine art of getting letters in the box without stoping keep pedaling
 
AnythingButKestrel said:
I don't have a clue about doping *supply*, but I doubt LA would soil himself directly with that. Here is what I can gather from what is publicly available. The money is in *control* of the distribution and administration: far more profitable, with far less risk. (People like Papp are the chumps. All the work, all the risk, and nothing to show for it.)

And FWIW, I'm not sitting in the corner with my tinfoil hat channelling this out of the clear blue sky. Walsh states that LA had Ferrari under a non-compete agreement. If that's true, then LA flat out CONTROLLED who got the best doping in the peloton. He found the leading doctor/doping program, then simply shut out all the competition. When one considers that a top doping program was worth a couple hundred grand *per rider*, there was some serious dough riding on who got what out of Ferrari. Isn't this the kind of stuff that we used to call, oh say, "organized crime?"

In[Tinfoil Hat /OFF]
And thus the rise of Fuentes. He was the thinking man's Ferrari.

They key line in the article is the following:

"If an individual athlete was involved in the investigation it would have to be because that individual athlete was involved in distributing drugs or something that's not approved."

- I keep saying; Armstrong wants it to be about use of PED's in cycling - his defence is the "I passed the tests" mantra - but this has very little to do with using and a lot more to do with trafficking and a lot more to do with bribing sports officials.

Race Radio is correct and yourself are correct - There is a lot more money in the distribution of such drugs than selling them like Papp did. Armstrong’s biggest drug wasn't EPO it was money. That’s what lead him down this murky path.

It’s a sophisticated network. Its not a few random cyclists and the bus driver. Although Duffy should be commended.
 
the thing is that ARmstrong himself didnt actually procure the drugs and use them - he got someone else to do it.

The argument is that it was a team sponsored and organised program - Armstrong and Brunyeel arranged for illegal drugs to be purchased, moved across borders and supplied to others. That is the (sale?) and supply of drugs.

If they can prove he used them in the US it is importing illegal drugs.

There is also a wide range of other factors
- bribing foreigh officials/corruption
- tax evasion
- intimidating a witness (LeMond/Andreu in the SCA Case)
- lying under oath (the amt pd to the UCI and dates in the SCA case)
- fraud in relation to his charity and personal finances mix

not to mention the original investigation and whistleblower focus of using federal funds to purchase illegal drugs.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
hfer07 said:
I wrote it since the very beginning of the investigation and I'll do it once more:
The feds are going after the doping ring -for what Bruyneel is going to fall first-then his testimony will be the key to confront and ultimately incriminate LA.
It has just begun.
i agree that Bruyneel might be the key to getting everything they need. i imagine armstrong would never recant anything ever, deny till he died, but Bruyneel i imagine he'll talk to save his skin.
 
Apr 7, 2009
176
0
0
Benotti69 said:
i agree that Bruyneel might be the key to getting everything they need. i imagine armstrong would never recant anything ever, deny till he died, but Bruyneel i imagine he'll talk to save his skin.
I will say this....if Bruynel and Armstrong are the 'heads' of the doping ring...what a bunch of smucks... To think they could get away with something that big.

I still find this angle VERY hard to believe. But then again...
 
Race Radio said:
Not exactly. A common tactic is to get all the evidence then let your target hang himself with a perjury charge. Lance would be the last guy they talk to
"never ask a witness a question you don't know the answer to"... anything else seriously jepoardises your case should the answer be something you didn't expect
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
mwbyrd said:
I will say this....if Bruynel and Armstrong are the 'heads' of the doping ring...what a bunch of smucks... To think they could get away with something that big.

I still find this angle VERY hard to believe. But then again...
they may not be heads but everything went through them, they controlled it for USPS at least whether for others, well who knows. It would be funny if they supplied a lot of the peloton but 'watered' down their PEDs.

smucks only when they get caught and lets hope that happens and like most criminals never believe they'll be caught.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Just because they're going after the supply chain does not mean that Armstrong is not a target. When you go after the supply chain, you also prosecute the links within.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
AussieGoddess said:
the thing is that ARmstrong himself didnt actually procure the drugs and use them - he got someone else to do it.

The argument is that it was a team sponsored and organised program - Armstrong and Brunyeel arranged for illegal drugs to be purchased, moved across borders and supplied to others. That is the (sale?) and supply of drugs.

If they can prove he used them in the US it is importing illegal drugs.

There is also a wide range of other factors
- bribing foreigh officials/corruption
- tax evasion
- intimidating a witness (LeMond/Andreu in the SCA Case)
- lying under oath (the amt pd to the UCI and dates in the SCA case)
- fraud in relation to his charity and personal finances mix

not to mention the original investigation and whistleblower focus of using federal funds to purchase illegal drugs.
Lance and Johann, so much naughtieness , so little time.

And thus the rise of Fuentes. He was the thinking man's Ferrari.

They key line in the article is the following:

"If an individual athlete was involved in the investigation it would have to be because that individual athlete was involved in distributing drugs or something that's not approved."

- I keep saying; Armstrong wants it to be about use of PED's in cycling - his defence is the "I passed the tests" mantra - but this has very little to do with using and a lot more to do with trafficking and a lot more to do with bribing sports officials.

Race Radio is correct and yourself are correct - There is a lot more money in the distribution of such drugs than selling them like Papp did. Armstrong’s biggest drug wasn't EPO it was money. That’s what lead him down this murky path.

It’s a sophisticated network. Its not a few random cyclists and the bus driver. Although Duffy should be commended.

#32


My Lance would never ever participate in such activity, he just... wouldn't.


I agree Lance has issues with his Dad(s) and loves his Mom more than anything in the world but is this any reason to take such a brutalistic churtleistic approach against my Lord Armstrong.

To me obviously Lance is an Alpha male. That is why he evokes such hate from some individuals, the lead sled dog has the few dogs who didn't get to pull the sled.

Oh well, carry on the hate if it soothes your souls.
Today, 00:15
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Sometimes the only way to tell a witch is to tie a 200kg anvil to its neck and throw it in the water, if it sinks it is a witch, if it floats definitely a witch.
 
flicker said:
Sometimes the only way to tell a witch is to tie a 200kg anvil to its neck and throw it in the water, if it sinks it is a witch, if it floats definitely a witch.
And sometimes the only way to call out a serial doper and liar and suspected drug trafficer is to have the appropriate authorities investigate. If he's convicted he's definitely a doper, if not... well he's still probably a doper.
 
Jul 11, 2010
177
0
0
For whatever it's worth, I don't think that Lance and Johann did anything terribly new or unique. Drug distribution has been rife within the peloton for decades, and the performance doping wasn't quite as wild as some of the crazy crap the euros were up to. Drug distribution as income supplementation was already well established within pro bike racing. That's why Lance and Johann are befuddled by the investigations. They were uptown compared to the Eurotrash "junkies on wheels" programs.

Lance and Johann simply did the performance doping "better" and more aggressively than anyone else. What's unique to them is the scale of the enterprise, the empire that was constructed around the myth of "clean" american boys beating up on the sneaky euros, and that for the first time it was a distinctly *American* enterprise funded with what were unmistakably American dollars.

Will convictions end doping? Probably not. But hopefully it scares the crap out of enough folks in the business to seriously weigh the consequences and give clean racing a go. American sponsors, managers, etc. need a serious wake-up call.
 
People keep saying the investigation is not about Armstrong, as if somehow he had nothing to do with the procuring, ingesting and pedaling of PED's.

This has EVERYTHING to do with Armstrong, and whether he used or not is absolutely of the essence.

The investigation, like any other, starts somewhere. And that somewhere is with him. He is the centerpiece, and everything will fall into place once he is exposed once and for all.

The thing is, the UCI will not go after him and will let his tainted TdF record of wins stand. That is the biggest travesty of all.

But as long as it's exposed how he did it, his name will ring out synonymously with the biggest cheats and frauds in the history of sport.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
They seem to be interested in more than a decades worth of Lance's activities. Perhaps he was trafficking long before his TDF wins.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
AnythingButKestrel said:
For whatever it's worth, I don't think that Lance and Johann did anything terribly new or unique. Drug distribution has been rife within the peloton for decades, and the performance doping wasn't quite as wild as some of the crazy crap the euros were up to. Drug distribution as income supplementation was already well established within pro bike racing. That's why Lance and Johann are befuddled by the investigations. They were uptown compared to the Eurotrash "junkies on wheels" programs.

Lance and Johann simply did the performance doping "better" and more aggressively than anyone else. What's unique to them is the scale of the enterprise, the empire that was constructed around the myth of "clean" american boys beating up on the sneaky euros, and that for the first time it was a distinctly *American* enterprise funded with what were unmistakably American dollars.

Will convictions end doping? Probably not. But hopefully it scares the crap out of enough folks in the business to seriously weigh the consequences and give clean racing a go. American sponsors, managers, etc. need a serious wake-up call.
This I agree with. Without Eddie B. and Ed Burke, and without the "naturally talented" TdF winner LeMond Lance probably never would have existed.

To me Lance played on a level playing field in Europe.

The posters and haters on this site, I imagine come from the UK understandably where doping is unheard of. I understand the outrage by being beaten by Armstrong, simply not fair.

The investigation hopefully will stick, against the suppliers and provacatuers,
in the doping game.

I still do not understand the outrage against Armstrong. He and Johann carry a long tradition in European cycling.

I suppose as a friend of mine commented if Lance was doping unabated, using the most experimental, expensive and powerful dope exceeding any of his opponents doping exploits he could be called a cheat.

This is an opinion shared by many. Not me.

If not, well call him a mediocre classics rider who was enhanced into an uber
champion, patron du peloton etc.

I do not consider Lance any different than any other top tier pro rider nor European footballer.

Therefore I still consider the investigation a witch hunt.
 
flicker said:
This I agree with. Without Eddie B. and Ed Burke, and without the "naturally talented" TdF winner LeMond Lance probably never would have existed.

To me Lance played on a level playing field in Europe.

The posters and haters on this site, I imagine come from the UK understandably where doping is unheard of. I understand the outrage by being beaten by Armstrong, simply not fair.

The investigation hopefully will stick, against the suppliers and provacatuers,
in the doping game.

I still do not understand the outrage against Armstrong. He and Johann carry a long tradition in European cycling.

I suppose as a friend of mine commented if Lance was doping unabated, using the most experimental, expensive and powerful dope exceeding any of his opponents doping exploits he could be called a cheat.

This is an opinion shared by many. Not me.

If not, well call him a mediocre classics rider who was enhanced into an uber
champion, patron du peloton etc.

I do not consider Lance any different than any other top tier pro rider nor European footballer.

Therefore I still consider the investigation a witch hunt.
And this is why I consider your opinions on the subject worthless. A question of values I would think - cheating to me is inherently wrong whether everyone else is doing it or not.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
frenchfry said:
He never tested positive, just another witch hunt victim.
He never tested positive while alive, but the coroner felt differently. They barely tested for anything then.
 
acoggan said:
Ever hear of Tommy Simpson?
Even Sean Yates was busted once. ;) It's more a question of there being less Brits represented rather than there being no dopers.

Sorry flicker, even granted that you're generally polite and well-meaning, I think that your argument doesn't really stand up and it's replete with the same sort of facile geopolitical bias you level at Europeans.

The US government in its various agency forms is actually the latecomer in all this. People (from all over the world) have been saying what they think about Armstrong for a lot longer. It is not a witch hunt, it is just history catching up and examining someone who most of us feel deserves to be examined.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY