Floyd to be charged with fraud

[BotanyBay]

CN is still the world's only news outlet making ANY mention of this (several DAYS later).

 

[thehog]

CN is still the world's only news outlet making ANY mention of this (several DAYS later).

According to sources close to the investigation

 

[BotanyBay]

According to sources close to the investigation

I'd imagine that he was probably granted immunity of some sort for his involvement with Birotte's abandoned case. That is, unless he lied. But this many days later, I think a bigger news organization would have been able to confirm this (if it were true).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This thread is not about Armstrong Dig. It can be about the vapidity of an American public, the charade of the UCI, the meanderings of the FBI, the prophet in the wilderness, and any number of other things, but it is not about Armstrong.

When charges are pressed, and, decades later, when some texts and emails are released linking Sand Dog Fab to movers behind this latest development, you can make it about little Gunderson. Otherwise, please refrain.

Digger is not discussing Armstrong per se - he is rightly querying the flip flop of Markvws hypocrisy of how he views different riders (or more presicely Armstrong vs Everyone Else)

Floyd still denies using testosterone doesn't he? I beleive him. Sure he admitted using other drugs, with Lance and stuff - but he still denies the testosterone right?

The FFF Fraud is based on the use of testosterone while at Phonak. And the Feds will first have to prove that. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not think the evidence will hold up. I think Floyd should call on Lance to testify for the defense. First, show how the French Lab has performed in the past yikes. Call Lemond too. Greg had issues with the French testing also. Floyd could also use Lance as a character witness. Deny ever seeing Floyd using testosterone in 2006.

On the other hand, Floyd could admit to using the testosterone in 2006 TdF. Admit he was lying. Establish his fraud. Then go after the Champions Club guys - "Hey, you guys should have known I was doping". And in that way knock his fraud case down.

Ah, Polish - SSDD....
No Floyd does not deny using testosterone.

From the NYVelocity interview:

I did use testosterone leading-up to the Tour, and I know what the clearance rate is, and I know more now about how the carbon-isotope test works and how long the delta change in the carbon isotope should last and how it should degrade over time and I can’t match it up with a blood transfusion. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Velodude]

Probation, restitution, and a small fine would suit me for Floyd. Floyd's fully paid for his doping. Now's the time to pay for cheating his fans.

Funny you bring Lance up. Floyd is another one of the lying Posties who covered for Lance all those years, allowing him to beat the rap. (I'm just pulling your chain ).

Lance beat the rap. That's no reason Floyd should, though. I would have liked to have seen Armstrong exposed and convicted in a criminal trial.

No you don't.

 

[aphronesis]

Digger is not discussing Armstrong per se - he is rightly querying the flip flop of Markvws hypocrisy of how he views different riders (or more presicely Armstrong vs Everyone Else)




Ah, Polish - SSDD....
No Floyd does not deny using testosterone.

From the NYVelocity interview:

With all respect, it's clear that Digger, like many, is keen on the parallels of this "story" with the Armstrong situation.

I would be more inclined to grant your point if Digger could get through a few posts without invoking Armstrong.

One of the greater ironies here are the ways in which many of the discussants have had to flip position. Most deploying no more logic than before.

That aside, there are millions of frauds being carried out daily in the public sphere. If this is, in fact, an ongoing investigation, it would seem more relevant to coordinate the discussion to that.

As you well know, there are threads galore to discuss Armstrong's lies and to take others to task for their indifference on them.

 

[Velodude]

Just a side point, but I don't believe that Floyd ever paid the $100,000, despite a thread at DPF which had that title. The arrangement reached with the USADA was the Floyd could race immediately, and he was to pay the fine over an unspecified time period.

It is my opinion that Floyd's filing asking that the $100K fine be set aside demonstrated very clearly that the CAS arbitration scheme is fraught with the possibility of bias (the "impartial" arbiter in one case can be appointed by one of the sides in a different case, and vice versa), and the USADA did not want to expose that weakness in the system.

Wiki speculatively claims in part:

"In December 2008 Landis and the USADA reached a settlement and agreed to withdraw the case with prejudice, leading some to believe that the USADA waived the $100,000 fine in return for the cessation of litigation"

If settled "with prejudice" its all over which some have interpreted to include the outstanding fine of $100,000.

Grey Manrod deserved their fees.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

With all respect, it's clear that Digger, like many, is keen on the parallels of this "story" with the Armstrong situation.

I would be more inclined to grant your point if Digger could get through a few posts without invoking Armstrong.

One of the greater ironies here are the ways in which many of the discussants have had to flip position. Most deploying no more logic than before.

That aside, there are millions of frauds being carried out daily in the public sphere. If this is, in fact, an ongoing investigation, it would seem more relevant to coordinate the discussion to that.

As you well know, there are threads galore to discuss Armstrong's lies and to take others to task for their indifference on them.

You acknowledge that there are parallels - so, why is it that it cannot be discussed?

Can you name the people who you suggest in the bolder part who have flipped position?
If Floyd has misappropriated any of the funds then he deserves to be charged - however if the funds went on his defense then anyone who contributed got what they paid for.

 

[MarkvW]

No you don't.

Lance is history.

 

[Digger]

With all respect, it's clear that Digger, like many, is keen on the parallels of this "story" with the Armstrong situation.

I would be more inclined to grant your point if Digger could get through a few posts without invoking Armstrong.

One of the greater ironies here are the ways in which many of the discussants have had to flip position. Most deploying no more logic than before.

That aside, there are millions of frauds being carried out daily in the public sphere. If this is, in fact, an ongoing investigation, it would seem more relevant to coordinate the discussion to that.

As you well know, there are threads galore to discuss Armstrong's lies and to take others to task for their indifference on them.

Well the reason I mentioned Armstring immediately was to throw context onto the position Landis faced in 2006. People here are saying he could have given a 'limited confession'. This MAY have worked for someone like Basso and others. The reason it wouldn't work for Landis is that he witnessed Lance doping first hand. It is impossible to tell the truth about Landis' doping without USP. That's not an obsession with Lance on my part...that's outlining the choices facing Landis in July 2006.

 

[aphronesis]

You acknowledge that there are parallels - so, why is it that it cannot be discussed?

Can you name the people who you suggest in the bolder part who have flipped position?
If Floyd has misappropriated any of the funds then he deserves to be charged - however if the funds went on his defense then anyone who contributed got what they paid for.

Sure, they could be discussed on a factual level. If any facts were known. Calling someone out for their level of comfort with Armstrong's deception is well past tedious and covered at this point. Come on, even you aren't interested in that level of redundancy.

Your second question: I'd say some of the forum regulars scratching their heads trying to find the justification for fraud charges would be a good place to start.

You actual point at the end has been stated by many several pages back.

 

[Digger]

Lance is history.

And why isn't Landis? When he is the one who has paid a heavier price than anyone for his wrongs. I am struggling to understand what more you want from this. How many times and in how many ways do you want the guy to 'pay'? He lost the race, lost the case, got a suspension, got a fine, was basically not allowed back into European Pro Cycling, was not allowed into TOC...how much more will be sufficient in order for you to say, you know what, enough is enough here. And okay let's leave Lance out of the equation...why is there not the same level of vitriol for Tyler?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sure, they could be discussed on a factual level. If any facts were known. Calling someone out for their level of comfort with Armstrong's deception is well past tedious and covered at this point. Come on, even you are interested in that level of redundancy.

Your second question: I'd say some of the forum regulars scratching their heads trying to find the justification for fraud charges would be a good place to start.

You actual point at the end has been stated by many several pages back.

You said there were "many" - why not name them, give them the right to reply?
Or is it that what you threw out there is false, but it is much easier to be vague then actually back it up.

 

[aphronesis]

The reason it wouldn't work for Landis is that he witnessed Lance doping first hand. It is impossible to tell the truth about Landis' doping without USP. That's not an obsession with Lance on my part...that's outlining the choices facing Landis in July 2006.

You keep saying this, but you're the one who knows this now. Many didn't in 2006. Yes, those with a stake did know it (or presumed it) and were applying pressure. But that doesn't mean that Landis couldn't have insisted on a limited confession and forced one to be accommodated. He couldn't be in a much worse place now if he had.

The fact that you won't even acknowledge or entertain this possibility makes the rest of your argument rather suspect. A little overdetermined would be another way of describing it.

 

[aphronesis]

You acknowledge that there are parallels - so, why is it that it cannot be discussed?

Can you name the people who you suggest in the bolder part who have flipped position?
If Floyd has misappropriated any of the funds then he deserves to be charged - however if the funds went on his defense then anyone who contributed got what they paid for.

You read through the thread and tell me. I've got time to waste, but not with pedantry. Would you like to discuss something of substance?

Many people on this thread (hog, hrotha and others) have thrown out "you guys" and "some guys" in referencing the opinions of various posters.

See if they'll oblige you in the name checking.

 

[Digger]

You keep saying this, but you're the one who knows this now. Many didn't in 2006. Yes, those with a stake did know it (or presumed it) and were applying pressure. But that doesn't mean that Landis couldn't have insisted on a limited confession and forced one to be accommodated. He couldn't be in a much worse place now if he had.

The fact that you won't even acknowledge or entertain this possibility makes the rest of your argument rather suspect. A little overdetermined would be another way of describing it.

Anyone with half a brain and who followed cycling knew this back in 2000/2001.

No way can I 'entertain' this as a feasible option for him. It was not practical for reasons I have outlined many times. Journalists were crying out for information on Lance back in 2001, not to mention 2006. How was Landis ever going to get back into cycling, which he wanted to do, if he had to keep saying no comment to these questions. Practicality of it alone made it unfeasible. Pat would never have alllowed that kind of response.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You read through the thread and tell me. I've got time to waste, but not with pedantry. Would you like to discuss something of substance?

Many people on this thread (hog, hrotha and others) have thrown out "you guys" and "some guys" in referencing the opinions of various posters.

See if they'll oblige you in the name checking.

Aha, got it.
You cannot name anyone, I thought as much, thanks.

Of course, if you wish to discuss something of substance rather than making up stuff about others opinions, then I will happily discuss that.

 

[aphronesis]

Anyone with half a brain and who followed cycling knew this back in 2000/2001.

No way can I 'entertain' this as a feasible option for him. It was not practical for reasons I have outlined many times. Journalists were crying out for information on Lance back in 2001, not to mention 2006. How was Landis ever going to get back into cycling, which he wanted to do, if he had to keep saying no comment to these questions. Practically how could he do it.

I've already acknowledged upthread that this was known in 2000 for a small microcosm of people. Which is what it was back then.

Some journalists were. Not the paparazzi. Practically, I don't know, maybe the same way that anyone does difficult and unsavory things in their life. Until time passes and they get to another stage. Or, you're right, just quit and give up?

 

[aphronesis]

Aha, got it.
You cannot name anyone, I thought as much, thanks.

Of course, if you wish to discuss something of substance rather than making up stuff about others opinions, then I will happily discuss that.

Sure, you let me know.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sure, you let me know.

When you write something of substance? Sure, I will let you know.... Don't stay in especially though, it could be a long wait.

 

[Digger]

I've already acknowledged upthread that this was known in 2000 for a small microcosm of people. Which is what it was back then.

Some journalists were. Not the paparazzi. Practically, I don't know, maybe the same way that anyone does difficult and unsavory things in their life. Until time passes and they get to another stage. Or, you're right, just quit and give up?

You honestly think that the media at races would have left him alone, or not kept pressurising, if he kept saying no comment. Do you not think Lance, Bruyneel and Pat would have made his position untenable if he kept coming out with this? Seriously.

 

[aphronesis]

When you write something of substance? Sure, I will let you know.... Don't stay in especially though, it could be a long wait.

Probably shorter than if I wait for it from you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You honestly think that the media at races would have left him alone, or not kept pressurising, if he kept saying no comment. Do you not think Lance, Bruyneel and Pat would have made his position untenable if he kept coming out with this? Seriously.

Can you remind me of why this is relevant?
Or what would be different?

 

[aphronesis]

You honestly think that the media at races would have left him alone, or not kept pressurising, if he kept saying no comment. Do you not think Lance, Bruyneel and Pat would have made his position untenable if he kept coming out with this? Seriously.

And so the direction that his life took instead was infinitely more tenable?

Seriously?

 

[MarkvW]

And why isn't Landis? When he is the one who has paid a heavier price than anyone for his wrongs. I am struggling to understand what more you want from this. How many times and in how many ways do you want the guy to 'pay'? He lost the race, lost the case, got a suspension, got a fine, was basically not allowed back into European Pro Cycling, was not allowed into TOC...how much more will be sufficient in order for you to say, you know what, enough is enough here. And okay let's leave Lance out of the equation...why is there not the same level of vitriol for Tyler?

So Lance sets the standard? Lance is a lying, doping jerk. He got off only because the feds couldn't make their case. Lance makes Floyd look like Jesus, for chrissake.

If the feds have a viable case against Floyd, they should charge him. Floyd shouldn't walk just because Lance did. Floyd defrauded people ... AFTER his TdF.

No vitriol for Tyler only because this is Floyd's thread.