Floyd to be charged with fraud

[andy1234]

Andy doesn't want his kids ever confessing if they have nothing left to lose. He wants them going down fighting!!!

Quite the opposite, I want them to realise that honesty is a virtue that you take through your life, not something you pull out when the *** hits the fan.

Its not a difficult concept.

 

[MarkvW]

Hopefully his lawyer skills are better than his accountancy skills or you'd be as well off emailing Sesame Street asking them to explain Quo Tum.

Back 2010 Floyd was poor. Floyd admitted it to Bonnie Ford. Yet, as theHog pointed out earlier, Floyd had lawyers "advising" him. Wilson Sonsini firm. Digger might know of it. Advertises that it does whistleblower qui tam cases.

Floyd also filed his qui tam whistleblower complaint at about that time. Poor man files lawsuit against rich man. Complicated contract fraud case. Needs lawyer help. Floyd can't afford to pay for a lawyer. Voilá! American contingent fee attorneys who take the case on spec for a cut of the eventual return (if any). It is the only possible explanation (unless Floyd was lying about being poor).

So here are the definitions:

Qui Tam: Money (if Floyd wins). Floyd's motivation to spill the beans. As old as time itself.
Contingent Fee: Money (if Floyd wins). The motivation of Floyd's attorneys to help Floyd with the Qui Tam.

 

[thehog]

Back 2010 Floyd was poor. Floyd admitted it to Bonnie Ford. Yet, as theHog pointed out earlier, Floyd had lawyers "advising" him. Wilson Sonsini firm. Digger might know of it. Advertises that it does whistleblower qui tam cases.

Floyd also filed his qui tam whistleblower complaint at about that time. Poor man files lawsuit against rich man. Complicated contract fraud case. Needs lawyer help. Floyd can't afford to pay for a lawyer. Voilá! American contingent fee attorneys who take the case on spec for a cut of the eventual return (if any). It is the only possible explanation (unless Floyd was lying about being poor).

So here are the definitions:

Qui Tam: Money (if Floyd wins). Floyd's motivation to spill the beans. As old as time itself.
Contingent Fee: Money (if Floyd wins). The motivation of Floyd's attorneys to help Floyd with the Qui Tam.

Thanks Mark. I was impressed with your work on Zillow.Com the other day.

Do you have some links to back up some of this detail you have provided? Its certainly interesting information.

You appear to know a little about how this works. Could you provide more detail? Links to what you describe?

Is this insider information you have?

 

[thehog]

Quite the opposite, I want them to realise that honesty is a virtue that you take through your life, not something you pull out when the *** hits the fan.

Its not a difficult concept.

So when the sh!t does hit the fan you don't confess? you don't display honesty?

Could you draw out a timeline for when its appropriate to be honest and when not? What rating system are you using to determine at what point honesty becomes faux-honesty?

You have to be kidding me.

Honesty is honesty. It doesn't always heal past mistakes or make them go away but to be honest is the virtue. Once there its not rated upon how it was achieved.

Life is full of fables of how honesty and lesson were learnt. Its a journey.

 

[MarkvW]

Quite the opposite, I want them to realise that honesty is a virtue that you take through your life, not something you pull out when the *** hits the fan.

Its not a difficult concept.

Floyd's honesty only appeared after he positively falsely fought the doping battle to the very bitter end. Floyd 's "honesty" is just a tool deployed in his latest battle to get money out of Armstrong/Tailwind.

I'm rooting for Floyd to take Lance down, just like I rooted for Sammy the Bull Gravano to take John Gotti down.

 

[Digger]

Back 2010 Floyd was poor. Floyd admitted it to Bonnie Ford. Yet, as theHog pointed out earlier, Floyd had lawyers "advising" him. Wilson Sonsini firm. Digger might know of it. Advertises that it does whistleblower qui tam cases.

Floyd also filed his qui tam whistleblower complaint at about that time. Poor man files lawsuit against rich man. Complicated contract fraud case. Needs lawyer help. Floyd can't afford to pay for a lawyer. Voilá! American contingent fee attorneys who take the case on spec for a cut of the eventual return (if any). It is the only possible explanation (unless Floyd was lying about being poor).

So here are the definitions:

Qui Tam: Money (if Floyd wins). Floyd's motivation to spill the beans. As old as time itself.
Contingent Fee: Money (if Floyd wins). The motivation of Floyd's attorneys to help Floyd with the Qui Tam.

This is interesting.
Why do you accept as gospel what suits you?

 

[andy1234]

So when the sh!t does hit the fan you don't confess? you don't display honesty?

Could you draw out a timeline for when its appropriate to be honest and when not? What rating system are you using to determine at what point honesty becomes faux-honesty?

You have to be kidding me.

Honesty is honesty. It doesn't always heal past mistakes or make them go away but to be honest is the virtue. Once there its not rated upon how it was achieved.

Life is full of fables of how honesty and lesson were learnt. Its a journey.

You clearly are capable of taking people at their word, regardless of their actions painting a different picture.

I prefer to judge people over the many actions they have taken in their lives, rather than just the one. It seems fairer.

 

[BotanyBay]

Floyd's honesty only appeared after he positively falsely fought the doping battle to the very bitter end. Floyd 's "honesty" is just a tool deployed in his latest battle to get money out of Armstrong/Tailwind.

I'm rooting for Floyd to take Lance down, just like I rooted for Sammy the Bull Gravano to take John Gotti down.

My sentiments too. Nice job.

And further, Floyd's mostly-honesty only appeared well-after he positively falsely fought that battle. He waited until literally everything (and everyone) around him crashed to the ground. Only when he was left standing fully alone did he act. He was even willing to keep perpetuating the lie while riding for Bahati's team and living on top-ramen noodles. He only began the process of coming clean when he no longer had that team to ride for.

And I still feel that he left-out that one key tidbit of admission. The testosterone of July '06.

 

[thehog]

You clearly are capable of taking people at their word, regardless of their actions painting a different picture.

I prefer to judge people over the many actions they have taken in their lives, rather than just the one. It seems fairer.

I am. I agree. I do take them on their word. And I also take them based upon their actions.

Seeing Floyd has openly displayed and expressed a sincere amount of regret about his past actions including making a phone call to Greg LeMond to apologise I value those actions. Its a good start.

It can't of been easy knowing the reactions and retribution he was about to face.

For sure it does't erase his history. But it does go a long way to explain the reasons why he did the things he did. Its not an excuse but its a reason.

I value the fact that against tremendous and continued opposition he started to tell the story. Even in the face of name calling, harassment, inferences to his drinking habits and on this forum ridcule about his family he has remained steadfast on the story.

I don't have a problem if you feel ripped off by him or hurt by his past actions. He has expressed that this is the case - his honesty doesn't erase the past hurt. But its a great start and something cycling and of a bigger question philosophically the world could do with a bit more of - honesty.

From Wall St to Austin - a wee bit of honesty would go a long way. No matter how we got to that point. Its welcomed.

I really don't think he was expecting a medal for coming clean but on a human level he does deserve some gratitude to telling the real story of Pro Cycling. I think even you could appreciate how hard it must have been for him to come this far. We don't want another Pantani. That would do nothing for this world nor cycling. This is actually a human life we're talking about.

 

[BotanyBay]

Question:

Is it actually possible to be linear and binary at the same time?

You do know what these words mean don't you?

Could you perhaps describe what it is to be amazingling linear and binary? I'd actually like to know.

Seeinging as you worked in advertising (well don't work in advertising) you'd have some copywriting skills and understand word meanings.

This depends upon context and your point of view. In your narrow world (I suppose you're using the context of engineering?) I doubt it is possible.

But in my world, yes, it is possible for you to be both linear and binary at the same time. See the example:

But I doubt you understand the meaning.

 

[BotanyBay]

But you don't want him to talk more. You only want him to talk to the relevant authorities and not come public.

As regards proving it, how do you think the emails came public in the first place? Who was he talking to?
Floyd didn't Go to the media. It's this honesty that you are struggling to comprehend. You keep looking for lies but know full well it's the whole truth.

Who leaked it? And why?

 

[thehog]

This depends upon context and your point of view. In your narrow world (I suppose you're using the context of engineering?) I doubt it is possible.

But in my world, yes, it is possible to be both linear and binary atthe same time. See the example:

You again? You're back. I was waiting for your response to the USADA emails that Floyd should have written before going to the media that you didn't know about.

Now you're just confused.

BB this is not about me. Stop trying to slip me up to gain back some form of credibility for your vile internet writings. Making me look stupid won't change what you wrote.

You mocked the dead and the divorced.

I think you could learn a lesson from Floyd. Start repairing the damage you've caused.

 

[Digger]

Who leaked it? And why?

I don't know but it's clear he was talking to USADA for months before the emails got into the wrong hands.

 

[Digger]

You again? You're back. I was waiting for your response to the USADA emails that Floyd should have written before going to the media that you didn't know about.

Now you're just confused.

BB this is not about me. Stop trying to slip me up to gain back some form of credibility for your vile internet writings. Making me look stupid won't change what you wrote.

You mocked the dead and the divorced.
I think you could learn a lesson from Floyd. Start repairing the damage you've caused.

Indeed. He made a reference to me having a direct line to heaven to talk to him. Sick and disgusting. One of the worst things I've ever read on here.

 

[andy1234]

I am. I agree. I do take them on their word. And I also take them based upon their actions.

Seeing Floyd has openly displayed and expressed a sincere amount of regret about his past actions including making a phone call to Greg LeMond to apologise I value those actions. Its a good start.

It can't of been easy knowing the reactions and retribution he was about to face.

For sure it does't erase his history. But it does go a long way to explain the reasons why he did the things he did. Its not an excuse but its a reason.

I value the fact that against tremendous and continued opposition he started to tell the story. Even in the face of name calling, harassment, inferences to his drinking habits and on this forum ridcule about his family he has remained steadfast on the story.

I don't have a problem if you feel ripped off by him or hurt by his past actions. He has expressed that this is the case - his honesty doesn't erase the past hurt. But its a great start and something cycling and of a bigger question philosophically the world could do with a bit more of - honesty.

From Wall St to Austin - a wee bit of honesty would go a long way. No matter how we got to that point. Its welcomed.

I really don't think he was expecting a medal for coming clean but on a human level he does deserve some gratitude to telling the real story of Pro Cycling. I think even you could appreciate how hard it must have been for him to come this far. We don't want another Pantani. That would do nothing for this world nor cycling. This is actually a human life we're talking about.

Well, I will take you at your word because it appears you have a valid process for admiring the man, rather than just his stance against Armstrong.
I think it says more positive things about you than it does about Landis though.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, I will take you at your word because it appears you have a valid process for admiring the man, rather than just his stance against Armstrong.
I think it says more positive things about you than it does about Landis though.

Andy I know you would rather ignore it but if Floyd's sole motivation was to get the Lance then why did he reveal details about DaveZ?
Can you point out what you do not believe in the Kimmage interview, thanks.

 

[andy1234]

Andy I know you would rather ignore it but if Floyd's sole motivation was to get the Lance then why did he reveal details about DaveZ?
Can you point out what you do not believe in the Kimmage interview, thanks.

I don't actually doubt Landis told the truth. I actually questioned that he had told "everything" I think he still hasn't told the truth about his testosterone charge.

As far as him taking down friends as well as enemies, I think that he probably wasn't considering anyone elses situation at that stage. He probably felt he didn't owe loyalty to anyone.

 

[thehog]

Well, I will take you at your word because it appears you have a valid process for admiring the man, rather than just his stance against Armstrong.
I think it says more positive things about you than it does about Landis though.

Back in '06 I called him out and said cheat. I didn't like what he did either. But I was realistic enough to know what the sport was about.

I think Floyd biggest mistake was listening to Armstrong and other insiders on how to handle his positive test. He started down a path and he couldn't get back. I bet he and Hamilton wished they had an opportunity to sit down with the Director of the lab to discuss their AAF before the positive was announced. When you see those types of things in your life you wonder why you can't get the same insider treatment.

But I'm now impressed by his stance. Regardless how some guys on this forum spin his motives its takes a man to admit he messed up and slowly start to repair the damage. Again against tremendous opposition.

His living residences have been repossed and you have people on this forum saying "good - serves him right" - one poster pulling out the internet link and showing how much he lost on the sale. We have people naming his family and saying look what he did to them. What we forget he's actually the person going through all that and dealing with it. Not us. People are actually gaining enjoyment from his misery like its some form of victory. Is that what we humans revel in? He's paid a hefty price for his mistakes.

Sometimes in life we should feel a little bit of gratitude for own our situations and living circumstances before we sh!t on those with very little.

Let him be.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't actually doubt Landis told the truth. I actually questioned that he had told "everything" I think he still hasn't told the truth about his testosterone charge.

As far as him taking down friends as well as enemies, I think that he probably wasn't considering anyone elses situation at that stage. He probably felt he didn't owe loyalty to anyone.

But if his motivation was as you say to get back at Lance then there is no need to mention anyone who was not connected with him.

So, in short you cannot find anything that he said in the Kimmage interview false and cannot explain why he mentioned his friend. Thanks.

 

[Zweistein]

This depends upon context and your point of view. In your narrow world (I suppose you're using the context of engineering?) I doubt it is possible.

But in my world, yes, it is possible for you to be both linear and binary at the same time. See the example:

But I doubt you understand the meaning.

In your narrow world, I suppose dictionaries don't exist.

 

[MarkvW]

This is interesting.
Why do you accept as gospel what suits you?

Now you are using "When did you stop beating your wife" style arguments.

Have you got a better theory that explains how Poor Floyd got a lawyer in 2010? Magic? Floyd's fairy godmother? Fanboy lawyers?

Floyd's in it for the MONEY. Deal with it!

 

[Digger]

Now you are using "When did you stop beating your wife" style arguments.

Have you got a better theory that explains how Poor Floyd got a lawyer in 2010? Magic? Floyd's fairy godmother? Fanboy lawyers?

Floyd's in it for the MONEY. Deal with it!

No I was curious to know what suits you to believe in a Landis interview. Everything that doesn't suit your preconceived ideals is dismissed as lies.

Again you want him to repay people yet keep giving him a hard time about being in it for the money.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Now you are using "When did you stop beating your wife" style arguments.

Have you got a better theory that explains how Poor Floyd got a lawyer in 2010? Magic? Floyd's fairy godmother? Fanboy lawyers?

Floyd's in it for the MONEY. Deal with it!

Hi Mark - did he not sell his residence in the Californian hills? I think it was in zillow.com or maybe it was just in your imagination.

 

[thehog]

Now you are using "When did you stop beating your wife" style arguments.

Have you got a better theory that explains how Poor Floyd got a lawyer in 2010? Magic? Floyd's fairy godmother? Fanboy lawyers?

Floyd's in it for the MONEY. Deal with it!

Last week you were suggesting it was a stretch to believe Armstrong was behind the fraud case on Floyd.

Now you're suggesting his confession back 2010 was some elongated elaborate plan to file a suit and swindle money from Lance?!! (queue nasty villain laughter soundbite)

So I assume having the Federal charges dropped against Armstrong was part of Landis plan also?

You do like like to yank the chain my friend. What next? A book deal?

 

[andy1234]

But if his motivation was as you say to get back at Lance then there is no need to mention anyone who was not connected with him.

So, in short you cannot find anything that he said in the Kimmage interview false and cannot explain why he mentioned his friend. Thanks.

To be blunt, calling out his "friends" was just another a$$hole move in a long list of a$$hole moves.

I also never claimed to doubt anything in the Kimmage interview, I didn't even mention it. That was all you.

I thought we were going have a normal discussion for a minute then, but no.
You can't help trying to drag the converstation into an unescapable maze of micro analysis, regardless of the relevance.

Thanks.