Federal Prosecutor Doug Miller Assigned to Landis case

[Jimmy Riddle]

1 more time...

federal funds WERE NOT used to fund USPS bike team.

your tax dollars DID NOT fund USPS bike team.

USPS needs budget and pricing approval from govt, that's it.

do they charge you for stamps? do they charge you to send a package?

they are a business, albeit a heavily regulated one. as such govt would still be concerned with they're advertising/marketing expenditures.

Thanks, very interesting info. But I presume they must have found some type of technicality to get around this or this would have already died.

 

[BroDeal]

My general impression is that these investigations start at point A but the people managing the investigation don't expect to STAY at point A. Point A gives them the leverage to obtain evidence and then the evidence leads them to something bigger.

If I was Lance I'd be worried about a RICO case. Just my .02.

I think he is probably more worried about all his ex-teammates talking. FLandis is one thing; but when it is Vaughters, Zabriskie, Vande Velde, Danielson, Hamilton, et cetera then his usual public relations tricks will not work. It will be like getting hit with a wall of flood water rather than the occasional rain drop.

It is likely that he never goes anywhere near a court room, but the information developed by the investigation destroys him anyway.

 

[Jimmy Riddle]

I think he is probably more worried about all his ex-teammates talking. FLandis is one thing; but when it is Vaughters, Zabriskie, Vande Velde, Danielson, Hamilton, et cetera then his usual public relations tricks will not work. It will be like getting hit with a wall of flood water rather than the occasional rain drop.

It is likely that he never goes anywhere near a court room, but the information developed by the investigation destroys him anyway.

Most of them like Armstrong and wouldn't want to see him go down. I think they would rather take the fifth for the greater good.

I think most of the evidence will come from the supergrass.

 

[tubularglue]

I think he is probably more worried about all his ex-teammates talking. FLandis is one thing; but when it is Vaughters, Zabriskie, Vande Velde, Danielson, Hamilton, et cetera then his usual public relations tricks will not work. It will be like getting hit with a wall of flood water rather than the occasional rain drop.

It is likely that he never goes anywhere near a court room, but the information developed by the investigation destroys him anyway.

lets not forget his ex wife and everyone else on the longlist

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

I'm not a loser...of course, no loser thinks they are a loser, so my judgment is suspect...

looks like we are starting to gain traction here

 

[tubularglue]

Most of them like Armstrong and wouldn't want to see him go down. I think they would rather take the fifth for the greater good.

Classic

 

[BroDeal]

Classic

BPC is in not in full troll mode yet. He is warming up.

 

[tubularglue]

BPC is in not in full troll mode yet. He is warming up.

you can tell by the 1 minute interval posts of the guy/gal talking/writing to itself.

It's a good night to start hitting that ignore button on about 5 posters.



back to topic


At what point can they start entering premises for evidence ? Curious

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Most of them like Armstrong and wouldn't want to see him go down. I think they would rather take the fifth for the greater good.

I think most of the evidence will come from the supergrass.

Do you really believe those named riders will take the fifth, essentially incriminating themselves, for Lance Armstrong?

Do you understand what that means? I don't think you do.

If anything, they would simply not answer, as the 5th amendment probably would not apply to what they saw, especially if they are not being charged with a crime.

If you imaginary scenario DID come to pass, and they simply like Armstrong SO much, they would simply not answer, thus being slapped with contempt.

 

[Jimmy Riddle]

lets not forget his ex wife and everyone else on the longlist

That's my point. There were initially rumours of her cooperating, but she has made clear she is willing to take the fifth or say she can't remember any of this.

 

[Jimmy Riddle]

Do you really believe those named riders will take the fifth, essentially incriminating themselves, for Lance Armstrong?

Do you understand what that means? I don't think you do.

If anything, they would simply not answer, as the 5th amendment probably would not apply to what they saw, especially if they are not being charged with a crime.

If you imaginary scenario DID come to pass, and they simply like Armstrong SO much, they would simply not answer, thus being slapped with contempt.

I thought the 5th amendment right was precisely about not saying anything. Whatever you want to call it, I think they could well opt for that.

You don't have to be super buddies with someone to respect them and have a basic sense of decency and loyalty.

Remember many of these riders are actually big fans of the sport themselves.

 

[BroDeal]

you can tell by the 1 minute interval posts of the guy/gal talking/writing to itself.

It's a good night to start hitting that ignore button on about 5 posters.

Just hit the "report post" link on BPC's posts and mods will eventually get rid of the turd. Ignore him and do not respond to his posts.

 

[tubularglue]

That's my point. There were initially rumours of her cooperating, but she has made clear she is willing to take the fifth or say she can't remember any of this.

can you provide a link to her statement ? thanks

What happens in court could be quite different, no

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I thought the 5th amendment right was precisely about not saying anything. Whatever you want to call it, I think they could well opt for that.

You don't have to be super buddies with someone to respect them and have a basic sense of decency and loyalty.

Remember many of these riders are actually big fans of the sport themselves.

Well, you've got it wrong, but as you say, they could opt for that (though it would not apply).

Answer this (though I know you won't): Do you believe they value this so called respect, decency and loyalty (to Lance) above their own freedom?

 

[Oldman]

the USPS is not a govt agency, it is more accurately described as a heavily regulated monopoly. they have a monopoply on 1st class mail. competition exists with parcels but the USPS is the only game in town when you want to drop a stamped letter in the mail and that's why they need govt approval to raise the price of postage. the fact that they can't set their own prices and powerful stubborn unions is why they're in such financial difficulty. there are some interesting parallels to other monopolies you mentioned.

USPS is absolutely massive tho. post offices/employees in every god-for-saken town in the country no matter how remote. sponsoring a bike team was a drop in the bucket with a budget the size of theirs.

alot of possible angles in this, it will be interesting to see what charges, if any, will stick.

-i had a summer job with USPS back in college and had to sit thru an orientation explaining all this crap, might have been the worst job of my life. i did get paid to sit thru the orientation at least.

Interesting distinction. Unlike others who believe some fraud charge for using Federal funds (which you corrected-thanks) I think the Prosecutor would use the same method of discovery and prosecution. That the USPS was a sponsor makes it politically compelling. That USADA would want to discuss the method PEDs are distributed is legally compelling. That a Celebrity level athelete would profit from a charity to the degree LA allegedly has would be compelling to the media. In the end, no one may do time but how much baseball are Clemens/Bonds playing and what's happened to their endorsement income?
Reducing the ill gotten gains and the cynical misuse of a charity have emerged as an acceptable end IMO. Scaring cycling into a cleaner sport is probably happening to some degree, now. We'll have to see what happens to the UCI if they are enough of an embarrassment to the IOC (an organization that is really tough to embarrass).

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Major change occurred in early 70's and USPS broke away from fed govt. it is a very unique circumstance i dont care to debate or explain right now. the sponsorship of a "fraudulent" bike team would draw the ire of fed govt more so than it would another business but it is inaccurate to say federal funds or tax dollars were misused. that info IS OUT THERE.

What you seem to be missing is that the USPS purchases and contracts through the US Federal GSA (General Services Administration). As such, even an "independent" organization like the USPS, from a purely contracting standpoint, is a Fed govt agency, and as such, enjoys the protections of engaging with vendors under the policies and protections of the US Fed GSA.

I am not sure how else to convince you this applies but from a contracting standpoint, and that is one of the clear issues seems to be going forward (and the defrauding of the USPS under their contract) for the Tailwind/Lance crew, the USPS is a Federal agency. The USPS is independent in management and budget but still subordinate and part of the Executive branch of the US Federal Govt, subject to very clear contracting rules, which are applicable here.

Here is a link with more than plentiful information as to how all of that world works. Go bananas! All the details to bore you to tears.

 

[MacRoadie]

Originally Posted by lean,mean,&green
the USPS is not a govt agency, it is more accurately described as a heavily regulated monopoly. they have a monopoply on 1st class mail.

The federal government legally defines it as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States,"

They're a "monopoly" whose 11-man Board of Governors is appointed by the President ( 9 of the 11) and approved by Congress, and whose current existence and authority is granted by Title 39 of the United States Code (originally established by the Second Continental Congress and subsequently in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution). They also enjoy sovereign immunity, power of eminent domain, and the authority to negotiate postal treaties with foreign powers.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Anyone noticed how CN has gone cold on these developments? It's not as if they aren't germane to the cycling world, after all, they were one of the news outlets to break the Landis allegations.

I don't think CN realised the momentum they would generate and the embarrasment it would bring to their sponsers - ads for Lance and The Shack are all over this site.

Future Publishing are case in point to how corruption works in cycling and big business. It's a wonder they haven't shut the likes of us up by closing the forums.

 

[rhubroma]

I don't think CN realised the momentum they would generate and the embarrasment it would bring to their sponsers - ads for Lance and The Shack are all over this site.

That's what's wrong, everything is reduced to who has the deepest pockets!

 

[dbrower]

Taking the 5th...

Regarding taking the fifth, I am not a lawyer, but I have been on a federal grand jury and seen how this works in practice. Someone is subpoenaed, and informs the prosecutor beforehand they are not going to talk. If the prosecutor wants the testimony anyway, immunity may be offered. The witness comes into the grand jury room, is sworn in and refuses to answer questions. After several of these refusals, the witness is asked if this will be the response to all questions. "That is correct." The prosecutor then produces a pre-prepared immunity grant, and says tells the witness the questions must now be answered, with the threat of perjury. Then the witness spills everything possible under the granted immunity from prosecution.

Should riders A, B, C and D show up and get immunity to discuss things seen working for their employer/team owner, they will sing unless they want to go spent time in jail for contempt, like Greg Anderson. Whether anyone is willing to do that won't be seen until it comes to that. I personally doubt the wall of silence would survive.

-dB

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Regarding taking the fifth, I am not a lawyer, but I have been on a federal grand jury and seen how this works in practice. Someone is subpoenaed, and informs the prosecutor beforehand they are not going to talk. If the prosecutor wants the testimony anyway, immunity may be offered. The witness comes into the grand jury room, is sworn in and refuses to answer questions. After several of these refusals, the witness is asked if this will be the response to all questions. "That is correct." The prosecutor then produces a pre-prepared immunity grant, and says tells the witness the questions must now be answered, with the threat of perjury. Then the witness spills everything possible under the granted immunity from prosecution.

Should riders A, B, C and D show up and get immunity to discuss things seen working for their employer/team owner, they will sing unless they want to go spent time in jail for contempt, like Greg Anderson. Whether anyone is willing to do that won't be seen until it comes to that. I personally doubt the wall of silence would survive.

-dB

To your point, invoking the Firth Amendment (cannot incriminate oneself) would only occur if they had been indicted, ie only applicable for those charged, indicted or whose testimony would incriminate themselves, would invoke the "Fifth". Taking the Fifth does not apply for a witness to an act, per se.

As far as you know, is this correct?

 

[Bicicleta]

Interesting decision in the Bonds case..

Wonder what impact, if any, it might have on a potential case vs. Lance & co.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ii73xmjeiSvJP25gxHDwHtoEppDQ

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors could not present evidence, such as positive urine samples, that the government claims shows that Bonds knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Interesting decision in the Bonds case..

Wonder what impact, if any, it might have on a potential case vs. Lance & co.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ii73xmjeiSvJP25gxHDwHtoEppDQ

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors could not present evidence, such as positive urine samples, that the government claims shows that Bonds knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

Not knowing item one about that case, or baseball for that matter, the only parallel I could see is if the US Feds attempted to use the 1999 Tour de France EPO positives as evidence against Lance. To me, I don't see positive doping controls being at issue with regard to Lance and any case against him. It seems clear the tests are routinely beaten.

I would need to spend some time reading to understand the decision. Get back to you Monday!

 

[MacRoadie]

Interesting decision in the Bonds case..

Wonder what impact, if any, it might have on a potential case vs. Lance & co.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ii73xmjeiSvJP25gxHDwHtoEppDQ

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors could not present evidence, such as positive urine samples, that the government claims shows that Bonds knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

Not if you add in the rest of the (short) article:

Friday's appeals court ruling upholds a lower court decision barring federal prosecutors from showing the jury any evidence collected by Bonds' personal trainer Greg Anderson.

It's a chain of custody issue.

 

[Oldman]

Interesting decision in the Bonds case..

Wonder what impact, if any, it might have on a potential case vs. Lance & co.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ii73xmjeiSvJP25gxHDwHtoEppDQ

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors could not present evidence, such as positive urine samples, that the government claims shows that Bonds knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

The key was that Greg Anderson wouldn't testify and verify the source of the samples. The custody of the evidence would be questioned (tainted samples?).
In LA/USPS case there appears to be no shortage of witnesses and participants. It looks like folks are starting to figure out how the dominoes will fall regarding witness immunity. Note also that the immunity usually would relate to Criminal prosecution, not a subsequent civil lawsuit. OJ was acquitted of a criminal offense but lost in Civil court as an example of the distinction. A Grand Jury and Special Prosecutor would have broad powers but I don't think they can shield a witness to that extent but they could seal testimony. That could protect an Allan Lim or Kristin Armstrong somewhat but there would seem to be plenty to tie these folks to the profiteering via the tainted performances. It would be interesting to see a "naive" major sponsor, say Trek; attempt to reclaim funds or stock/compensation for endorsements if they could be shown to be out of the loop.