Floyd to be charged with fraud

[Pazuzu]

My theory and its just a theory (for now) is Nov's team would have know the pressure coming from Fabani and taken certain steps in the event the case was dropped. He had found way too much information and well all too aware of Armstrong's "feel good" connections. Thus he devised the plan if the pin was ever pulled and Floyd agreed that he would go to Plan B – DefCon 5!!! (The leak to the one media source Cyclingnews has raised my eyebrow also - on easter weekend to boot! with Armstrong traveling to Paris-Roubaix and subsequently hiding from the media - hmmmm....)

Armstrong is completely farked no matter which way you look at it - and he knows it. Even if Floyd is found guilty and put away a lot of information will come out. A tremendous amount of information that Armstrong doesn't want to see in the public domain – so much information people will wonder why the case was dropped. If the case against Floyd is dropped then Floyd can come out and say what he wants and finally talk in full and present some of the evidence that he's sat on and the wire taps he wore etc. Armstrong cannot and will not take a defamation case against him - he can't as again all "stuff" comes out again.

I'd say checkmate. Well done Floyd and well done Novitsky.

Given the generally unsatisfactory outcome of United States v. Barry Bonds and the manner in which the Roger Clemens case was bollixed up, I think you're giving the Feds too much credit. But damn! I'd love this theory to be correct. We'll see what happens.

 

[MarkvW]

Doping is not a criminal act, either, in the U.S., and even in Europe, the idea that it should be is quite new and rarely has the notion been followed up. The issue people who think Floyd should be prosecuted are hanging their case on is lying to raise funds. So I repeat, if lying about doping to raise legal defense money is a crime, why isn’t lying to raise campaign money a crime?

...

And I'll answer my own question: because though he lied to get people to donate to his campaign, he used all that money for the purpose he said he would. Just as Floyd did. Or maybe he didn't:
...

If I tell you that my nonprofit corporation is solvent (a lie) and I ask you to donate money so that I can use the money for corporate purposes (the truth), and I actually use the money for corporate purposes, then I have probably committed fraud.

If I tell you that my nonprofit corporation has a green logo (a lie) and take the exact same other steps, then I probably haven't committed fraud.

The lie has to be material--sufficiently related to the getting of the money.

It is obvious that Floyd is at risk. If people gave Floyd money because he lied to them and Floyd lied to them to get them to give him money . . . . Well, that's what fraud is.

 

[Race Radio]

Steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in 1990. Buying, selling, and transporting them is a crime. In 2005 the list was expanded to include most drugs or hormonal substance chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone.

If you really want to get in trouble hire some guy who barely speaks English to transport them across state lines for you.....but that is a story for another thread

 

[aphronesis]

If I understand your argument, you think Craig did not misrepresent himself, because his lie was not about a specific code that he violated, whereas Floyd’s lie was. Floyd as a racer signed a document in which he vowed not to dope, whereas Craig as a politician did not. But why is that material? If someone seeks public funds for medical expenses that he doesn’t actually have, the lie is not about violating a signed code. One is not claiming one signed a code, when in fact one did not. One is simply lying about how the money will be used.

So where do you get the idea that the codes of the job are relevant? Apparently you think they are relevant in cases where the person did in fact use the money for the stated purpose. But why? Exactly how is the fact that Floyd signed a code whereas Craig did not material to the question of fraud? You seem to think if the code is implicit, as it was in the case for Craig, then no fraud is involved, but why?

Let’s try to make Floyd’s situation more like Craig’s. Suppose Floyd had raised public money to sponsor himself, and had told everyone who donated that he had always raced clean in the past and would continue to do so. But in this hypothetical example, he didn’t have to sign an anti-doping document in order to race. He raced for a team entirely funded by public donations, or at least he was.

Then it later came out that he doped, both before and after he was sponsored. I take it in that case you would not think Floyd committed fraud. But how is this different from the actual situation he faces? In both cases, he told the same lie to get money. You apparently think the lie is more serious in the case of signing a document, but I don’t understand why. If it’s the same lie, and the same amount of money, why is the signing of some document material?

Or maybe you would consider it fraud. You might argue that Floyd's doping was directly relevant to his success as a racer, and therefore to how well invested his sponsorship would be. Whereas Craig's extramarital affair was not directly relevant to his performance as a politician. But then a code has nothing to do with it. And in any case, this still ignores that the key issue is the lie, and the effect it has on performance. Floyd's doping was relevant to his success as a racer only if the doping were discovered, in which case he would no longer be able to race effectively. Just as Craig's affair was relevant to his performance as a politician only if it were discovered.

I don't know how you would come down here, but it seems to me that you are picking at differences that are not material to fraud.

I think it's fair to say that you don't understand my argument because I really don't care about Craig. It's your example so why should I be compelled to develop an argument based around your own irrelevant example.

Moreover, you move from Floyd to Craig to medical expenses all in one paragraph in something of a scatter shot bid.

This should be simple: if you use campaign funds to get into office, that is not fraud. Regardless of what you say about your personal life. In that respect, it's not that I think Craig didn't misrepresent himself, I think it doesn't matter in regard to his professional conduct. (However unbecoming his persona may have turned out to be.) So, no, let's not try to make one situation more like the other. As a philosophical exercise, I find it abhorrent, potentially oppressive and anti-realist.

Because this is not about Floyd's personal life; it is entirely about his professional life. Which he misrepresented in the solicitation of funds which were intended to ultimately preserve and perpetuate that professional life. That is how the "codes" are relevant to this situation.

It seems to me that you are the one picking at differences that don't exist--documents and other diversions. What Floyd did while he was a racer is one thing--and no, I don't consider it fraud, other than in a very uninteresting academic sense--what he did after he tested out can be construed as fraud. Again, I make no negative judgment in that regard, my interest is strictly in thinking about how it might be so. And what the various implications are if so.

 

[eleven]

Oh for $^%&*'s sake. How much are we going to waste away on this one?

He lied to fund his defense. Whoopty-freakin-do. Meanwhile, **** (eh..short for Richard) Fuld still walks the streets.

 

[Merckx index]

This should be simple: if you use campaign funds to get into office, that is not fraud. Regardless of what you say about your personal life...

Because this is not about Floyd's personal life; it is entirely about his professional life. Which he misrepresented in the solicitation of funds which were intended to ultimately preserve and perpetuate that professional life. That is how the "codes" are relevant to this situation.

We will have to agree to disagree here, as unlike you, I'm not willing to overlook the overwhelming evidence that for Republicans, at least, personal and professional life can't be cleanly separated. And that even though you may not, many people in this country cast their vote based on what they perceive as the candidate's character. I'm very sure these people consider hiding aspects of this character to be a form of fraud, even if you don't.

But in my continuing effort to accommodate you, how about this example? What about politicians who do violate their code of office, for example, are convicted of graft, bribery, use of public funds for personal purposes, etc. This is definitely a violation of a code of professional conduct, right? Yet I have never heard of any such politician being charged with fraud in obtaining campaign funds, even if the evidence emerges that criminal activity began before or during the campaign. Richard Nixon clearly broke laws in order to help himself get re-elected, and it ultimately cost him his job, just like Floyd. But he never returned a dime of the campaign funds that got him into office.

Why not? You would probably say that with all the other charges the politician faces, justice will be done. But somehow that doesn’t apply to Floyd.

Or maybe you pick your way to some other difference. The politician never actually stated that he was dishonest and was engaged in criminal activity. So he never lied to get people to donate to his campaign. Is that it? Or giving to a campaign is not like giving to a defense fund. Must be some difference there that makes Floyd guilty of fraud, but a politician who did far worse is not.

I do understand there are cases when politicians do return campaign funds, but AFAIK, they don't in cases like these.

 

[patricknd]

Further up people are saying he should never have set up the fund because he could have given a limited confession. That's the context of why I am bringing it up.
Also that type of excuse wouldn't work as they used his blood parameters against him, in order to indicate blood doping.

How about he shouldn't have set the fund up because it's freaking wrong?

 

[aphronesis]

We will have to agree to disagree here, as unlike you, I'm not willing to overlook the overwhelming evidence that for Republicans, at least, personal and professional life can't be cleanly separated. And that even though you may not, many people in this country cast their vote based on what they perceive as the candidate's character. I'm very sure these people consider hiding aspects of this character to be a form of fraud, even if you don't.

But in my continuing effort to accommodate you, how about this example? What about politicians who do violate their code of office, for example, are convicted of graft, bribery, use of public funds for personal purposes, etc. This is definitely a violation of a code of professional conduct, right? Yet I have never heard of any such politician being charged with fraud in obtaining campaign funds, even if the evidence emerges that criminal activity began before or during the campaign. Richard Nixon clearly broke laws in order to help himself get re-elected, and it ultimately cost him his job, just like Floyd. But he never returned a dime of the campaign funds that got him into office.

Why not? You would probably say that with all the other charges the politician faces, justice will be done. But somehow that doesn’t apply to Floyd.

Or maybe you pick your way to some other difference. The politician never actually stated that he was dishonest and was engaged in criminal activity. So he never lied to get people to donate to his campaign. Is that it? Or giving to a campaign is not like giving to a defense fund. Must be some difference there that makes Floyd guilty of fraud, but a politician who did far worse is not.

I do understand there are cases when politicians do return campaign funds, but AFAIK, they don't in cases like these.

I'm not sure why this discussion as such is a matter of accommodation for me. Or these examples.

Anyway, let's try this: you are arguing for a moral definition of fraud with regard to the politicians, which is not supported by the structural organization of the political process in this country. Far from being willing to overlook the state of the Republican party, I spend my time being concerned with their more pernicious practices rather than their sexual hypocrisy.

At the same time many Democrats don't make that separation either; in recent years this is referred to as biopolitics. As such, both parties seem to spend more time administering (rather than governing) the lives of the citizenry than they do rewriting restrictions of office.

It would be nice if you didn't put words in my mouth. Justice, etc.

Speculatively, I would say that one reason campaign funds aren't returned is because they are part of a larger regulated (political) economy. How about that? My guess would be that that sort of shielding is written into the regulations of campaign funding.

At no point have I said that Floyd is guilty or that he committed fraud (in fact my last post says the opposite), rather I have proposed one possible argument for the way in which he could be charged with fraud on the basis of his profession as a commercial endeavor. Which he misrepresented tout court. Holding political office is not the same. Among the more obvious differences would be that politicians are employees of the government, but theoretically also of the people. This is a more complex arrangement than being a bike racer.

And so on.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

And in your opinion do you feel he has suffered enough? And yes I am asking for your opinion.

Notra...dam...called they want their coach back!

 

[MarkvW]

We will have to agree to disagree here, as unlike you, I'm not willing to overlook the overwhelming evidence that for Republicans, at least, personal and professional life can't be cleanly separated. And that even though you may not, many people in this country cast their vote based on what they perceive as the candidate's character. I'm very sure these people consider hiding aspects of this character to be a form of fraud, even if you don't.

But in my continuing effort to accommodate you, how about this example? What about politicians who do violate their code of office, for example, are convicted of graft, bribery, use of public funds for personal purposes, etc. This is definitely a violation of a code of professional conduct, right? Yet I have never heard of any such politician being charged with fraud in obtaining campaign funds, even if the evidence emerges that criminal activity began before or during the campaign. Richard Nixon clearly broke laws in order to help himself get re-elected, and it ultimately cost him his job, just like Floyd. But he never returned a dime of the campaign funds that got him into office.

Why not? You would probably say that with all the other charges the politician faces, justice will be done. But somehow that doesn’t apply to Floyd.

Or maybe you pick your way to some other difference. The politician never actually stated that he was dishonest and was engaged in criminal activity. So he never lied to get people to donate to his campaign. Is that it? Or giving to a campaign is not like giving to a defense fund. Must be some difference there that makes Floyd guilty of fraud, but a politician who did far worse is not.

I do understand there are cases when politicians do return campaign funds, but AFAIK, they don't in cases like these.

Are you really saying that a person can say anything that they want in order to get money so long as they don't lie about the use to which that money will be put?

 

[Not Riding Enough]

My 2c worth on what has been raised.

I agree with Merckx index reasons and don’t think FL shouldn’t be charged (maybe he should if he didn’t use the funds raised for legal costs, which seems unlikely).

Given his other confessions, it was ethically wrong to set up the fund even though he said he didn’t take Testosterone (or had a blood transfusion that could have had any) during that tour but not necessarily legal fraud.

I do admire FL for (finally) telling the truth (which I believe) but it may not have been the whole truth. Sure, there could have been a lab problem or his miscalculation or something else but surely it could also be that he is not telling the truth about it to try and protect himself (as MarkvW suggests). But this wouldn’t mean that other things he says are not the truth or should be charged with fraud.

Hog’s theory that this is “Nov’s team plan B” to get Armstrong evidence out there seems a little farfetched but it would be very interesting if true. There may also be no master plan (political or not) with this potential charge and just individual teams working in isolation. Although that may also be a little far fetched given the public profile.

 

[Merckx index]

Speculatively, I would say that one reason campaign funds aren't returned is because they are part of a larger regulated (political) economy. How about that? My guess would be that that sort of shielding is written into the regulations of campaign funding.

Lie on a small scale, and it’s a crime. Lie on a grand scale, and it’s politics.

Yes, I think you’re probably right about that. Given the enormous amounts of money involved in many campaigns, there would have to be liability limits at least, and I could understand a law absolving candidates of any liability. But those letters they send soliciting donations ought to point that out. And though a candidate might not be liable in the sense of having to return money, he or she could still be charged with a crime. The fact that they never are—regardless of whether because it’s written into the election code or because nobody ever tries—I think says something about how seriously the law regards a lie to solicit public funds when the latter are used for their stated purpose. If what Floyd did was so awful, then surely a politician who commited some serious crime while running a campaign and covered it up should be charged. At least it should be pointed out that he in effect commited another crime. Yet I never hear people saying this.

Are you really saying that a person can say anything that they want in order to get money so long as they don't lie about the use to which that money will be put?

Well, I guess politicians can.

But there is another qualifier to “anything they want”. Earlier I compared Floyd’s lie to that of someone who lies about needing medical treatment, noting that in the latter case the lie is about the stated purpose, but not in Floyd’s case. But there is another important difference. In the medical case, the sole purpose of the lie is to persuade people to give money. If people were willing to give money regardless if someone needed it for medical bills or not, one would not lie and would not need to.

This is not the case with Floyd. While he may have lied to persuade people to donate money, this was not the primary reason. As I said before, the primary reason was because he had to in order to contest the case. Even if all potential donors told Floyd that they didn’t care whether he doped and lied about it or not, he would still have to maintain that he didn’t dope. He couldn't, on his internet site, say something like, I won't say whether I'm guilty or not, because that could have been used against him.

I don’t see how anyone considering donating to a legal defense fund could not be aware of this. As Chris noted, the question is what degree of stupidity does the government have to protect its citizens from.

In addition to this point, there is another reason why I think Floyd should not be prosecuted, though it is not strictly speaking a legal argument. I’m sure I’m not alone when I say I learned an enormous amount from his case, not just about the science of doping, but laboratory procedure, the way the data are presented, the role of WADA, etc. From start to finish, it was one of the most informative experiences, at least on the internet, that I’ve ever had. Frankly, had I known all the ramifications when Floyd first appealed for money, I might have donated. Not with the expectation that he was innocent and this might help him prove it, but just for the information.

Floyd’s case was unique in that he put all the raw data in the public domain. I’m not going to argue he wasn’t trying to save his own skin, but he must have had some idea how interesting and provocative this move would turn out to be. This stuff is precious. As a scientist, I can access a lot of published articles free on the internet, not everything I want to see, but a lot. But raw data is something one rarely sees if it’s not a product of one’s own laboratory. They offer rare insights into how science is really practiced, all the steps between laboratory procedures and the results that normally are all that are public.

I think everyone is better off because of this. Those who have criticized WADA for its sloppiness got some evidence of this. WADA got a valuable lesson in ways it needed to improve. At the same time, though, the basic integrity of the anti-doping process, IMO, was upheld. Though it may or may not be consolation to those who contributed to FFF, I think the money was very well spent.

 

[Digger]

Notra...dam...called they want their coach back!

Do you write this stuff yourself? Genius.

 

[patricknd]

Lie on a small scale, and it’s a crime. Lie on a grand scale, and it’s politics.

Yes, I think you’re probably right about that. Given the enormous amounts of money involved in many campaigns, there would have to be liability limits at least, and I could understand a law absolving candidates of any liability. But those letters they send soliciting donations ought to point that out. And though a candidate might not be liable in the sense of having to return money, he or she could still be charged with a crime. The fact that they never are—regardless of whether because it’s written into the election code or because nobody ever tries—I think says something about how seriously the law regards a lie to solicit public funds when the latter are used for their stated purpose. If what Floyd did was so awful, then surely a politician who commited some serious crime while running a campaign and covered it up should be charged. At least it should be pointed out that he in effect commited another crime. Yet I never hear people saying this.



Well, I guess politicians can.

politicians are held to a lower standard of conduct than the rest of us.

 

[patricknd]

Do you write this stuff yourself? Genius.

does it matter weather or not he wrote it?

 

[TERMINATOR]

LOL

It's a serious crime when you lie to the Feds, so stop sticking your head into the sand. Fraud Landis, Tyler, Betsy, Greg and other liars will be taken down one by one by the Feds. This is just the beginning. They are all going to prison. Be aware. The truth allways wins. Justice will prevail. The liars will be punished. Another seven in a row all over again. Fraud Landis - Tyler - Betsy - Greg - Frankie - Filippo - Steve all will be charged...going down one by one. 1 -2 -3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7. Seven in a row.

They never lied to the feds and none of them will be "taken down" by the feds. Lance is the only one who led to the public and he never spoke to the feds because he lawyered up. Lance did commit perjury in his SCA depositions though.

 

[Digger]

does it matter weather or not he wrote it?

If my phone's predective text is the only thing you have on me.....Well done you.

 

[patricknd]

If my phone's predective text is the only thing you have on me.....Well done you.

i blame mine on that too

 

[Dr. Maserati]

does it matter weather or not he wrote it?

Of course it does- as it might cloud the issue, in the cold light of day.
So don't go raining on his parade, this is snow joke.

 

[Digger]

i blame mine on that too

Or maybe you'd care to speak about Floyd being charged with fraud.

 

[thehog]

They never lied to the feds and none of them will be "taken down" by the feds. Lance is the only one who led to the public and he never spoke to the feds because he lawyered up. Lance did commit perjury in his SCA depositions though.

Although this is the Floyd thread I’m the Hog and have latitude.

The SCA case has always be the great mysteries to me. This is why I have the Nov back door theory going on. You’d think now the Federal Investigation into Armstrong has been dropped that SCA would start to look at their options. They’re not a big company so to part ways with 7 million was a big dent. Something doesn’t smell right. That’s why there’s so much irony in all of this. If one man can lie to gain money at the SCA arbitration (and accept it) and not be charged then another raised donations to support his appeal is charged seems strange to me. Something is not adding up.

Maybe just me being crazy.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Or maybe you'd care to speak about Floyd being charged with fraud.

It was just a joke. Now about the Floyd Fraud stuff....maybe patrick does Knot NO anything about that?

I still have a feeling the fed's are trying to determine if the fund was used just for defense. Just my opinion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Although this is the Floyd thread I’m the Hog and have latitude.

The SCA case has always be the great mysteries to me. This is why I have the Nov back door theory going on. You’d think now the Federal Investigation into Armstrong has been dropped that SCA would start to look at their options. They’re not a big company so to part ways with 7 million was a big dent. Something doesn’t smell right. That’s why there’s so much irony in all of this. If one man can lie to gain money at the SCA arbitration (and accept it) and not be charged then another raised donations to support his appeal is charged seems strange to me. Something is not adding up.

Maybe just me being crazy.

First bolded part - Ok last time my poor attempt at humor flew right on past. I will try again....What is up with the fixation....on "Novitz's back door"?

Second bolded part - Well yeah ...duhhhh "something doesn't smell right."!

Seriously you might be on to something with regards to other options by the fed's. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[BotanyBay]

Still no other media outlets picking-up the story, but Landis is starting the appeal of his French conviction:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...263l4257l0l4608l12l12l0l7l2l0l169l434l4j1l5l0.

 

[thehog]

First bolded part - Ok last time my poor attempt at humor flew right on past. I will try again....What is up with the fixation....on "Novitz's back door"?

Second bolded part - Well yeah ...duhhhh "something doesn't smell right."!

Seriously you might be on to something with regards to other options by the fed's. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

I guess what I meant was regardless of the Federal investigation being dropped a lot of information came to light. The normally impenetrable Armstrong was penetrated! What I still find odd is why the likes of Walsh/Sunday Times and the SCA have remained tight lipped since the end of the investigation. Surely they would want to begin proceeding to reclaim some of their losses? Or did they write it all off long ago? Not even a comment?

Maybe Nov’ wants to blow the back doors off? Do it the old fashion way?