David Walsh piece

[pedaling squares]

Ten minutes ago on RTE radio news we heard that they just caught the Duchess of Pork, trying to manhandle £500,000 out of an undecover reporter, for access to Prints mAn drew(B&W), he being an international business hoover type dude for his mudders gang.

How come no one has ever been able, cleanly, just like Higgins in Snooker, corner Lance and get it over with? He corners himself by his behaviour. Witch hunting should only be for people who put bells on bicycles to make them go fatter.


One hour later: Fhuckingham Chalice have refused to comment on the Alsatians.

Absinthe??

 

[Parrot23]

The key is not to go after Armstrong but those around him. The chic is still hurting that Lance left her.

Sheryl Crow.

Was there a LOT at more than one Tour, I think.

She has to know it all, or a good portion.

 

[thehog]

Sheryl Crow.

Was there a LOT at more than one Tour, I think.

She has to know it all, or a good portion.

She would have looked in the closet in Girona. She spent some time there & followed him all around Europe in 2005 to write that p1ssy album.

 

[D Avoid]

Absinthe??

*** Go duck a **** Shoosan ***

Please stop posting nonsense.

Why would I do that, everyone else is, if slightly disguised?

 

[Bala Verde]

Which brings up a poing. Who exactly are the feds, or USADA for that matter, going to go after? Just Lance? That's not likely.

I found this interesting in the article:

If Novitzky concludes that US Postal did run a doping programme, Armstrong and others could face charges. Through Tailwind Sports, the US Postal team was funded by taxpayers’ money. The penalties for misusing such funds are draconian.

Could that be/is that the angle?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I found this interesting in the article:



Could that be/is that the angle?

I know this was discussed in another thread - it appears that US Postal Service is not in receipt of federal funds - perhaps some of the Americans can confirm this?

If they do receive funds this way then it is unlikely that this is the angle.

 

[Bala Verde]

I know this was discussed in another thread - it appears that US Postal Service is not in receipt of federal funds - perhaps some of the Americans can confirm this?

If they do receive funds this way then it is unlikely that this is the angle.

Without doing any real research (and not to offend/criticize anyone), I quickly googled "US Postal and appropriations".

The first result was: this 1999 article

Last week the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a $29.7 billion Treasury, Postal and General Government appropriations bill (S-1282), that reduces last year's USPS $100.1 million allocation to $93.4 million. The rest of the money goes to the U.S. Treasury Department, which includes the Internal Revenue Service and the White House.

You can probably go back to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and look for S-1282.

caveat: don't know if it became law.

That would, in my opinion, imply US Postal did/does receive fed funding. I do not know the details about their subsequent funding of a cycling team, and whether or not some of fed funding was used towards P.R. activities/advertisment.

I could be wrong though

 

[Cerberus]

I found this interesting in the article:



Could that be/is that the angle?

Does anyone knows when it stops being taxpayer money legally speaking? If Armstrong gets paid by US Postal and then used that money which is now his for doping, does it still count?

 

[velosopher54]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. So far the evidence of corruption in the UCI is that Landis says that Lance told him it happened. Hardly ironclad. Even if it's true, it could be far harder to prove than the doping charges because most likely less people would know about it. Certainly it's the most interesting charge, but it's also the hardest to prove.

Did anyone else notice in Lance's statements he says he didn't ever give money to the UCI, but McQuaid says yes Lance 'donated' $100.000? Already caught in a lie and it's before any court hearings.

 

[D Avoid]

*** edited by mod ***

Please stop posting nonsense.

Why would I do that, everyone else is, if slightly disguised?

There done correcto.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I found this interesting in the article:



Could that be/is that the angle?

No. The USPS is NOT taxpayer-funded.

 

[buckwheat]

No. The USPS is NOT taxpayer-funded.

No, but it's kind of a hybrid between govt. and private sector.




On August 12, 1970, President Richard M. Nixon signed Public Law 91-375, which reorganized the federal Post Office Department as the United States Postal Service. Under the new law, which went into effect on July 1, 1971, the Service emerged as an independent agency of the executive branch, no longer under the control of Congress. Operational authority passed to a President-appointed and Senate-approved Board of Governors and a managerial infrastructure, headed by the Postmaster General named by the Governors. No longer a cabinet member, the Postmaster General became the Service CEO. The law gave the new agency the authority to issue public bonds to finance operations and to engage in collective bargaining between management and union representatives. It also established a postal rate-setting policy and procedure regulated by the independent Postal Rate Commission.

In the doping issues, there are apparently more direct Federal statutes which can be applied than Armstrong's fraudulent use of USPS funds.

 

[Tubeless]

I am a long-time follower of the clinic, but a new poster.

USPS is technically not taxpayer-funded, but it is a quasi-governmental agency that presently owes the US taxpayers $10 billion - a sum it's unlikely to ever pay back in full.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/losing-money-isnt-the-u-s-postal-services-only-problem/19379758/

So the federal goverment may have several reasons to look into this. Congress does have oversight of its operations - all key USPS decisions have to be approved there. 9 out of its 11 governors are appointed by the president. So the relevant federal agencies have the interest and perhaps the fiscal responsibility to investigate whether the USPS name is associated with breaking any federal laws - and whether the USPS agreement with Tailwind Sports included any misrepresentations by the cycling team.

 

[stephens]

Did anyone else notice in Lance's statements he says he didn't ever give money to the UCI, but McQuaid says yes Lance 'donated' $100.000? Already caught in a lie and it's before any court hearings.

This has already been cleared up in another thread through correspondence with Lance for clarification (someone asked him on twitter or something like that). One of Landis' charges is that Lance bribed the UCI specifically over the 2002 Tour de Suisse (which if it ever happened, must have been the 2001 because Lance didn't ride the 2002). When asked if he'd given to the UCI, Lance thought he was being asked about that bribery claim and so responded "no". The question was asked in a general way, but in the context it seems believable that Lance wasn't intending to deny giving to UCI at all, but just deny the bribery charge of Landis. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[stephens]

You know, getting Lance on some sort of misuse of public funds charge would be about as unsatisfying as getting Al Capone on tax evasion.

 

[Tubeless]

I would not underestimate the power of the US congress or the federal government to cause havoc - even if no indictments or actual prosecution takes place. MLB (Major league baseball) long ignored politicians' pleas to clean up itself for the sake of setting a better example for kids dreaming to become MLB stars. The players' union consistently blocked attempts at more punitive anti-doping rules. That was the background for the fall of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and many other American baseball heros.

Lance is in a similar situation. He's been clever in the age-old American tradition of appearing to do some good to get cover for his activities which tends to discourage officials and politicians to believe in "rumors", but the public opinion is starting to turn against him. The significance of Landis' statements is that he's targeting the US cycling at large (including possible bribery of the head of an international agency by an American), so the feds have plenty of reasons to investigate.

All it takes now is to get some persistent federal agency official motivated and permitted by his bosses to investigate. Then it does not matter whether there are any federal laws that were possibly broken - the federal investigators know how to use the threat of perjury to get statements to find out what happened.

Those statements will be a matter of public record - or leaked to the press as appropriate. Those who are deemed to have lied, will then be pursued further for lying to federal officials, a serious crime in the US, i.e. no doping laws need to be broken to nail someone.

 

[Anonymous]

So many thoughtful and reasoned posts

Seriously, it is impressive. WE must remember one reality:

Just because the forces of evil / doping appear to be on the defensive do not ever underestimate their powers and the lengths they will go to to keep what they have. From the lowliest pro-doper to the highest levels of the UCI (and beyond to the IOC?) no one is likely to just roll over. The UCI / corruption story is probably the most important. Stay tuned.

 

[gjdavis60]

One look at her website and the Feds will know they have a weak link to tap. The key is not to go after Armstrong but those around him. The chic is still hurting that Lance left her.

The website pours out: "He left me when I stood by him and I want to phark him over and it was that stupid bike & the drugs that did it".

http://www.kristinarmstrong.net/

If there is widespread, systemic criminal activity in pro cycling as many suspect, and if there is really a federal agency investigating, then I think collecting evidence should be quite easy for investigators. Face it, pro cycling is made up largely of naive, uneducated people who don't have the resources for expensive lawyers, and whose most prized possession - their freedom - will be at stake. With the unique ability to compel witnesses, I have no doubt that law enforcement can get the answers that arbitration panels and drug testing organizations cannot - if, that is, they are really interested.

 

[drb716]

The biggest news is not LA is a doper.

It is that Floyd says Lance paid the UCI to make a positive test go away.
Catching Lance himself - as you pointed out - would not change a whole lot, but showing the sporting authority as complicit and corrupt is.

This will require a massive shakeup of sporting authorities - indeed one on a scale never seen before, and I include CONI in the lat 90's in that observation.

Good point. I hope it works this time...

Thanks

 

[bigmatt24]

Does IAAL mean I am a Lawyer. If not, then what?

thanks

Yes, I am a lawyer (and that was what I meant that to mean). I was assuming "IANAL" = "I am not a lawyer."

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I am a lawyer (and that was what I meant that to mean). I was assuming "IANAL" = "I am not a lawyer."

No IANAL is a prison term.

 

[JA.Tri]

A full investigation of LA is important. Not because of any of his achievements but because of the influence he wields both within and outside of Pro-cycling.

I perceive LA's attitude to be that of "I am bigger than this sport or the individuals within it."

Yes I believe that LA has doped and that he may have bribed (and probably unduly influenced "impartial" officials). However that is of no account. Nor for that matter is his "guilt" or otherwise.

What is important is a full and frank examination of an individual that some may say is "above it all".

 

[SpartacusRox]

cracking article, from a news corp newspaper

interesting note that the times say KRISTIN ARMSTRONG is co-operating with the authorities along with landis - if thats true could be big news

Co-operating doesn't necessarily mean upholding Floyd's claims. It may simply mean she has agreed to speak with the investigator.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Co-operating doesn't necessarily mean upholding Floyd's claims. It may simply mean she has agreed to speak with the investigator.

Correct. It could be she has agreed not to contempt herself, but she could plead the 5th (conspiracy to commit X), or lie/perjure herself under the guise of cooperation, or she could finally unload the years of bad behavior, doping, etc.

Correct. Pick the flavor that suits you.

 

[VeloCity]

Didn't Thomas Frei - who just got busted for EPO use at BMC - say that he started using EPO in the summer of 2008 while with Astana? And wasn't Bruyneel the manager of Astana at that time?

Just sayin'.