Armstrong Under Criminal Investigation

[ChewbaccaD]

Lance should talk to his good buddy Joe Papp......Travis kept him out of prision

I liked Travis right up until I read that...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I liked Travis right up until I read that...

Quid pro quo?

 

[oldschoolnik]

NPR spoke with a witness contacted in Armstrong Criminal case

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/08/171438616/lawsuit-investigation-loom-over-lance-armstrong

Lance being nicer to USADA in hopes they can help. Travis is his best hope.

Those who think that Borat is fine.....this quote says a lot

The comments on this, as others have noted, still contain a few true believers.

I love when they say "well most of his competition was using peds too-- so he didn't cheat anyone--" I bet these people couldn't name more than 2 other cyclists who Lance competed against, yet their so sure everybody (all 197 other riders) were on peds too!

 

[howsteepisit]

It appears odd to me that the witness spoken to by NPR did not know what agency of the US government was doing the investigation.

 

[Aleajactaest]

"What is the issue?" - well its that the highlighted is untrue.
He admitted his doping to the very first journalist who asked about it, which was Juliet Macur in 2006. Here is the link to her NYT article.

But what you are saying is he "denied it for years" - either link to it or admit you are wrong.

He stopped racing in 2000, if he admitted it in 2006 that means for 6 years he did not. If you're hanging your argument on the idea that NO ONE asked and therefore he had no obligation to admit it, that's kind of lame. And, in a sport rife with cheaters as he admitted in that article, the idea that for 6 years NO ONE ASKED a former cyclist if he cheated is as unbelievable as Lance saying he has two balls. I have to call complete BS on that.

 

[Aleajactaest]

It appears odd to me that the witness spoken to by NPR did not know what agency of the US government was doing the investigation.

Surely the all coordinate the lies they tell the press, right? I hate it when leaks are done badly. They need to talk with Jeff N, about how to do that. At least Travis says when he's the source.

 

[BroDeal]

He stopped racing in 2000, if he admitted it in 2006 that means for 6 years he did not. If you're hanging your argument on the idea that NO ONE asked and therefore he had no obligation to admit it, that's kind of lame. And, in a sport rife with cheaters as he admitted in that article, the idea that for 6 years NO ONE ASKED a former cyclist if he cheated is as unbelievable as Lance saying he has two balls. I have to call complete BS on that.

So what you are saying is that you have no proof, just weak conjecture.

 

[Aleajactaest]

So what you are saying is that you have no proof, just weak conjecture.

You can't prove a negative hypothesis. Just ask the UCI about testing lance a couple hundred times. If you honestly think a former team mate of Lance Armstong retired and for 6 years, with the french up Lance's a$$ the whole time, NO ONE asked him about it? The stupidity of such a conclusion is just beyond comprehension and there is nothing I can do for you.

 

[Fatclimber]

You can't prove a negative hypothesis. Just ask the UCI about testing lance a couple hundred times. If you honestly think a former team mate of Lance Armstong retired and for 6 years, with the french up Lance's a$$ the whole time, NO ONE asked him about it? The stupidity of such a conclusion is just beyond comprehension and there is nothing I can do for you.

Yeah, let's not forget how thorough journalists and doping authorities were at that time. Who were these French that were up lance's *** the whole time? There were only a couple of dudes (Irish-French?) asking relevant questions at that time and you see how far that got them.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Lance being nicer to USADA in hopes they can help. Travis is his best hope.

This.

It's his best chance to stay out of jail, and being completely financially ruined.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You can't prove a negative hypothesis. Just ask the UCI about testing lance a couple hundred times. If you honestly think a former team mate of Lance Armstong retired and for 6 years, with the french up Lance's a$$ the whole time, NO ONE asked him about it? The stupidity of such a conclusion is just beyond comprehension and there is nothing I can do for you.

Aha, but you said that he "denied" it, from memory you said he denied if for years. That's not trying to prove a negative.

 

[autologous]

Surely the all coordinate the lies they tell the press, right?

Who is it that you are accusing of lying to the press?

 

[Race Radio]

Who is it that you are accusing of lying to the press?

the same people who did the leaks that never happen

It is called trolling. Make up something in the desperate hope someone will respond to the babble. Next up something about Betsy or Lemond

 

[D-Queued]

First you said this:

...

Do I think her husband amplified the issue a lot by lying for 10 years about his part is this? You bet.

...

Then you said this:

He stopped racing in 2000, if he admitted it in 2006 that means for 6 years he did not. ...

While both are flagrant lies, the fact that you have started to correct yourself underscores that even you are starting to realize how flagrant they are.

Multiple moderators have now modified your recent posts.

Please take the hint.

STOP LYING and STOP TROLLING.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

the idea that for 6 years NO ONE ASKED a former cyclist if he cheated is as unbelievable as Lance saying he has two balls. I have to call complete BS on that.

then it should be easy for you to provide a link that proves Frankie wrong

 

[Cimacoppi49]

New Criminal Investigation

with Birotte out of the loop. Has anyone heard a word from Fabiani lately? It seems Tim Herman is the only one speaking on Armstrong's behalf.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/lance-arms...ness-tampering-intimidation/story?id=18415386

I'm betting that Armstrong cuts a deal where he pleads guilt to one count each of obstruction, witness tampering and perjury with either a minimal prison sentence or a suspended sentence and probation dependent on his full cooperation with USADA and the DoJ.

The US Attorney in CA has ended his DoJ career. Look for him to be gone within 6 months.

 

[Scott SoCal]

with Birotte out of the loop. Has anyone heard a word from Fabiani lately? It seems Tim Herman is the only one speaking on Armstrong's behalf.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/lance-arms...ness-tampering-intimidation/story?id=18415386

I'm betting that Armstrong cuts a deal where he pleads guilt to one count each of obstruction, witness tampering and perjury with either a minimal prison sentence or a suspended sentence and probation dependent on his full cooperation with USADA and the DoJ.

The US Attorney in CA has ended his DoJ career. Look for him to be gone within 6 months.

I can't see how Birotte survives in his job if the new investigation snags Armstrong.

Would Birotte have any other exposure other than his future employment? Do you see him being investigated for the case closure unless there's a smoking gun showing influence peddling (or worse)? I would have thought that to be an impossibility until the details of the new investigation were leaked (and their timing). Now, it seems anything is possible.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I can't see how Birotte survives in his job if the new investigation snags Armstrong.

Would Birotte have any other exposure other than his future employment? Do you see him being investigated for the case closure unless there's a smoking gun showing influence peddling (or worse)? I would have thought that to be an impossibility until the details of the new investigation were leaked (and their timing). Now, it seems anything is possible.

Birotte does not have to explain to the public why he declined to prosecute. However, he does have to explain his decision to his boss in the DoJ, Eric Holder and Holder's minions in the criminal division. If asked, Birotte will have to produce all of his communications with Fabiani and all other Armstrong representatives as well as any and all communications with politicians on Capitol Hill. Something has always smelled about his decision and now that Obama is reelected handily and Armstrong is disgraced and unpopular, the caca may well hit the fan in CA.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Birotte does not have to explain to the public why he declined to prosecute. However, he does have to explain his decision to his boss in the DoJ, Eric Holder and Holder's minions in the criminal division. If asked, Birotte will have to produce all of his communications with Fabiani and all other Armstrong representatives as well as any and all communications with politicians on Capitol Hill. Something has always smelled about his decision and now that Obama is reelected handily and Armstrong is disgraced and unpopular, the caca may well hit the fan in CA.

Tangled web.

Lets hope the slap across Birotte's face is just the beginning. Might be refreshing to get to the bottom of this. It's not just the LA case either. Birotte's office closed the case against Angelo Mozilo without bringing charges and seemed to surprise many.

Perhaps there's nothing to it, perhaps there is something there.

More popcorn please.

 

[mewmewmew13]

with Birotte out of the loop. Has anyone heard a word from Fabiani lately? It seems Tim Herman is the only one speaking on Armstrong's behalf.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/lance-arms...ness-tampering-intimidation/story?id=18415386

I'm betting that Armstrong cuts a deal where he pleads guilt to one count each of obstruction, witness tampering and perjury with either a minimal prison sentence or a suspended sentence and probation dependent on his full cooperation with USADA and the DoJ.

The US Attorney in CA has ended his DoJ career. Look for him to be gone within 6 months.

Wow. Thanks for this opinion...
I'm listening

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Wow. Thanks for this opinion...
I'm listening

If LA cuts a deal where he pleads guilty to federal charges, the then has a criminal record which makes his life a whole lot worse.

I am guessing he would rather fight the federal charges, and make the deals on the civil charges.

No one will touch a felon no matter how contrite he can make himself appear to be,,

 

[mewmewmew13]

If LA cuts a deal where he pleads guilty to federal charges, the then has a criminal record which makes his life a whole lot worse.

I am guessing he would rather fight the federal charges, and make the deals on the civil charges.

No one will touch a felon no matter how contrite he can make himself appear to be,,

True...but he may not have a choice. He also doesn't want to sit on a fed investigation witness stand.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

If LA cuts a deal where he pleads guilty to federal charges, the then has a criminal record which makes his life a whole lot worse.

I am guessing he would rather fight the federal charges, and make the deals on the civil charges.

No one will touch a felon no matter how contrite he can make himself appear to be,,

But then again ....

http://famousdaily.com/history/martha-stewart-convicted.html

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

But then again ....

http://famousdaily.com/history/martha-stewart-convicted.html

Hehehe.....I bet Lance will make the best Peach Cobbler in cell block D.

 

[silverrocket]

You can't prove a negative hypothesis. Just ask the UCI about testing lance a couple hundred times. If you honestly think a former team mate of Lance Armstong retired and for 6 years, with the french up Lance's a$$ the whole time, NO ONE asked him about it? The stupidity of such a conclusion is just beyond comprehension and there is nothing I can do for you.

http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/coming-clean

Hope I inserted the link right, first time!

The gist: from Frankie's own mouth, in a Bicycling Magazine interview, no, nobody had ever asked him if he doped before he actually admitted to doping. It IS hard to believe, even for Frankie, but Aleajactaest will note that rather than imply people are stupid for believing this, I just went online and found out if it was true or not.