Floyd to be charged with fraud

[hrotha]

I mean, what was Floyd supposed to do? If he confessed to doping, he literally would have no case. There would be no court proceedings at all. He could only defend himself by maintaining his innocence. Obviously, maintaining innocence does not mean one is innocent. It simply means someone has decided to fight the charges. Period. End of story. When Floyd told everyone he didn’t dope, he was saying the only thing he possibly could say if he wanted to exercise his legal right to defend himself. Anyone who read anything more into it than that is ignorant of not just human nature, but of the way the law works.

Well, yeah, but most dopers manage to defend themselves without asking the naive for donations.

 

[thehog]

Well, yeah, but most dopers manage to defend themselves without asking the naive for donations.

Yes because using public money from state sporting funds and sponsors money is better than asking the general public for it?

Many dopers use donations to fund appeals. David Miller being one. Some don't choose to be public in their fund raising.

Your point is stupid. Maybe Floyd should have had a foundation that could have supplemented his legal fees?

 

[9000ft]

Of course a certain number of posters here wasted no time pretending this has nothing to do with Lance LOL

Whether Floyd defrauded people by asking them money for his defense has something to do with Lance Armstrong?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The reason he denies taking test is the reason for this thread.....that denial will be used to shield him from this fraud. Yes, a staple PED of the modern doping cocktail was the lone PED not in his system. Right.

He admits FFF was a mistake alright, while from the other side of his mouth he denies taking the PED that he was using the money from FFF to fight. I can't think about this too much longer or that ruptured disk in my neck will get inflamed from the whiplash.

I have no idea why he would hack into the lab's computers if he was truly innocent of taking test. That would lead me to conclude that perhaps he wasn't that innocent after all. Desperate people do desperate things, like ridicule GL for being the victim of child abuse as if that would turn this whole ordeal into his favor.

I don't spend too much time thinking about the fluff that tends to obscure the facts. You can draw your own conclusions from how he "seems" in interviews. I prefer other methods, like deductive reasoning.

Careful..... that is part of the misconception about Floyds case.
He didn't deny taking testosterone in the run up to the 06 Tour, just that he did not take it during the Tour.
It is his view - as someone experienced in taking PEDs not as a scientist - that it should not have flagged a positive. Chances are they botched a transfusion.

Very true, scale is the only difference here.
Landis commited just about every offence that Armstrong is accused of.
Intimidation, perjury, fraud etc etc.

Crying about fairness should be reserved for those who are entitled to fairness.

Am, Andy - 'scale' is not the only difference here.
There is the rather obvious fact that Landis was sanctioned for his offences, the other person you mentioned was not.

Fairness would dictate that both suffer the same fate.

 

[aphronesis]

Yes because using public money from state sporting funds and sponsors money is better than asking the general public for it?

Many dopers use donations to fund appeals. David Miller being one. Some don't choose to be public in their fund raising.

Your point is stupid. Maybe Floyd should have had a foundation that could have supplemented his legal fees?

Your point is equally stupid as was debated ad nauseam for the past couple of years. It is up to the state to prove that that sponsorship money was not put to the uses for which it was dedicated. And the discretionary degree to which those aims were not achieved.

Floyd's sole objective was to demonstrate his innocence, which he subsequently announced did not exist.

It's not surprising that so many here confuse "aw shucks" morality with societal mechanisms, but that makes it no less bleak and disheartening.

Try to stay on point if you're really going to get into this.

 

[hrotha]

Yes because using public money from state sporting funds and sponsors money is better than asking the general public for it?

Many dopers use donations to fund appeals. David Miller being one. Some don't choose to be public in their fund raising.

Your point is stupid. Maybe Floyd should have had a foundation that could have supplemented his legal fees?

Where did I say using public money is OK? That's not Landis' case. I'm talking about Landis' case.

 

[thehog]

Where did I say using public money is OK? That's not Landis' case. I'm talking about Landis' case.

You're splitting hairs. You're trying to suggest that by asking for donations to fund the appeal made him worse than other dopers who fund appeals with their own money. There are no levels of evil here. Dopers doped.

As Dr. M rightfully pointed out Floyd was found guilty and did his time. He's also broke and unemployed.

Do you think he should have gone the Ullrich route? That would have been more noble?

Most dopers didn't win the Tour and lot of dopers like Valverde have a good portion of cash from all their winning to defend themselves.

Other dopers with no money don't even bother... they slip away.

Your logic is neither sound nor sensible.

 

[hrotha]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm just suggesting what Landis did was morally reprehensible and, maybe, punishable by law. Everything else is in your very active imagination.

 

[thehog]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm just suggesting what Landis did was morally reprehensible and, maybe, punishable by law. Everything else is in your very active imagination.

No you didn't. You suggested he preyed on the "naive" for donations. If those who were donating were willing how does that become "reprehensible".... this is your own opinion of course so you're welcome to it in your own special little world.

 

[andy1234]

You're splitting hairs. You're trying to suggest that by asking for donations to fund the appeal made him worse than other dopers who fund appeals with their own money. There are no levels of evil here. Dopers doped.

As Dr. M rightfully pointed out Floyd was found guilty and did his time. He's also broke and unemployed.

Do you think he should have gone the Ullrich route? That would have been more noble?

Most dopers didn't win the Tour and lot of dopers like Valverde have a good portion of cash from all their winning to defend themselves.

Other dopers with no money don't even bother... they slip away.

Your logic is neither sound nor sensible.

If Hrotha isn't, I am.

Lying about your doping is one thing. It is a function of the culture.
Asking your fans to fund the defence of that deceit is another.

Relative fairness should be compared against honourable people, not other cheats.
What has, and is happening to Landis IS fair, the fact that same fate is not linear for all cheats is irrelevant.

It was Landis who decided that he wouldn't be bound by the ethical boundaries that most people follow. He now has no right to expect those same boundaries to apply in his favour.

 

[hrotha]

If Hrotha isn't, I am.

Hmm, either The Hog edited his post, or I misread. I actually agree with you.

No you didn't. You suggested he preyed on the "naive" for donations. If those who were donating were willing how does that become "reprehensible".... this is your own opinion of course so you're welcome to it in your own special little world.

Many of those who donated were willing because they were deceived. Simple as that.

 

[rhubroma]

If Hrotha isn't, I am.

Lying about your doping is one thing. It is a function of the culture.
Asking your fans to fund the defence of that deceit is another.

Relative fairness should be compared against honourable people, not other cheats.
What has, and is happening to Landis IS fair, the fact that same fate is not linear for all cheats is irrelevant.

It was Landis who decided that he wouldn't be bound by the ethical boundaries that most people follow. He now has no right to expect those same boundaries to apply in his favour.

The question then arrises: is Lance more honorable in doing so when preying upon the public's desire to contribute to a cause in curing the sick? If so, do the ethical boundaries shift according to how the money was raised? And if so, at this point how can we even discuss ethical boundaries in any absolute terms?

 

[mewmewmew13]

If Hrotha isn't, I am.

Lying about your doping is one thing. It is a function of the culture.
Asking your fans to fund the defence of that deceit is another.

Relative fairness should be compared against honourable people, not other cheats.
What has, and is happening to Landis IS fair, the fact that same fate is not linear for all cheats is irrelevant.

It was Landis who decided that he wouldn't be bound by the ethical boundaries that most people follow. He now has no right to expect those same boundaries to apply in his favour.

I think you are also describing wonderboy's ability to finance his expensive lawyers through 'funds'.

 

[aphronesis]

The question then arrises: is Lance more honorable in doing so when preying upon the public's desire to contribute to a cause in curing the sick? If so, do the ethical boundaries shift according to how the money was raised? And if so, at this point how can we even discuss ethical boundaries in absolute terms?

What does honor have to do with it? And why are there the inevitable comparisons to LA? (Set aside RR's claim that there are behind the scenes links.) Why in fact are these various terms being brought out with no qualification. Fairness, for an example, is both an exercise of power and a categorical judgement made relative to that power. It is never absolute.

Why should ethics be any different. Should Floyd be prosecuted? No? Are there obvious and *simple* grounds to see why he might be? Sure.

Again, let's leave aside the moralizing and note that there is a profit mechanism in the Armstrong endeavor. People are employed and the economy moves. This has nothing to do with honor. In objective terms, Floyd only drained societal mechanisms and did so in advance stating that there would be no possible gain other than his own.

 

[andy1234]

The question then arrises: is Lance more honorable in doing so when preying upon the public's desire to contribute to a cause in curing the sick? If so, do the ethical boundaries shift according to how the money was raised? And if so, at this point how can we even discuss ethical boundaries in any absolute terms?

This is a discussion about Landis.
Another persons crimes going unpunished is irrelevant.

Somehow Lands being at odds with Armstrong makes him less accountable than anyone else who commited the same offences? I don't think so.

Landis being investigated is fair. Everything else is another discussion.

 

[andy1234]

I think you are also describing wonderboy's ability to finance his expensive lawyers through 'funds'.

Im not, but my opinion on anyone doing this would be the same.

 

[thehog]

Hmm, either The Hog edited his post, or I misread. I actually agree with you.

Many of those who donated were willing because they were deceived. Simple as that.

Agreed. Although I don't think they were "naive". Sometimes we like to give because it sticks one to the other side.... in this case the French.

I will add Floyd was also a little disadvantaged by the fact that he couldn't do a UCI deal and not have to go down the fateful path of the appeals process.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If Hrotha isn't, I am.

Lying about your doping is one thing. It is a function of the culture.
Asking your fans to fund the defence of that deceit is another.

Relative fairness should be compared against honourable people, not other cheats.
What has, and is happening to Landis IS fair, the fact that same fate is not linear for all cheats is irrelevant.

It was Landis who decided that he wouldn't be bound by the ethical boundaries that most people follow. He now has no right to expect those same boundaries to apply in his favour.

Well hold on - if lying about your doping is "a function of the culture" (which it is) - then how can anyone claim they were duped for financing a defense?

I doubt there were many who believed that Floyd was innocent - as the FFF was set up as a flag waving fund to ensure his right to a defense against those nasty French people.

From an ESPN article in 2010:

Two men who have been active in the business and politics of professional cycling in the United States confirmed that they were among Landis' benefactors but would not go on the record because of their continuing ties to the sport. "He deserved a fair trial," one said. "It was not a suggestion that I believed in his innocence or guilt, but having no chance is inappropriate." Another echoed that sentiment and added, "He probably deserved to lose, and it would have been better if he'd confessed, but I don't harbor any resentment about having given him money."

To the blue - yes and no.
If he misappropriated the funds then yes, but if all the money went on his defense then no - it is like the scene in Shawshack Redemption where Andy says he did not kill his wife, Red asks all the other prisoners were they guilty of their crimes and they all said they were innocent.

 

[andy1234]

Well hold on - if lying about your doping is "a function of the culture" (which it is) - then how can anyone claim they were duped for financing a defense?

I doubt there were many who believed that Floyd was innocent - as the FFF was set up as a flag waving fund to ensure his right to a defense against those nasty French people.

From an ESPN article in 2010:


To the blue - yes and no.
If he misappropriated the funds then yes, but if all the money went on his defense then no - it is like the scene in Shawshack Redemption where Andy says he did not kill his wife, Red asks all the other prisoners were they guilty of their crimes and they all said they were innocent.

Seeking public funding to defend a crime you know you have commited, and subsequently admit to, is cause for investigation.

Being investigated is fair.
Being found guilty or not is a matter for the powers that be.

If individuals contributed to a defence fund, knowing he was probably guilty, that doesnt alter the premise on which the fund was set up.
It does however confirm my belief about how f*'**ing stupid some people can be.

 

[Caruut]

Seems to me like there's a lot of people not sure whether they're discussing what is morally wrong, and what is legally wrong. The two are not the same.

Of course there is a strong argument to say that Floyd was morally wrong in taking money to fight a doping conviction, when he knew full well he had doped. There is an equivalent line that perhaps if he felt he wasn't given the same chance as other people to defend himself, then in his mind it was okay to raise funds to do so. I imagine many people in the FFF knew that there was a chance he had doped, but that since so many others had too, he deserved to be able to defend himself. Raising money from people who hold that belief is not immoral, in my view.

The legal question surely hinges on whether Floyd ever knowingly took testosterone. If he took money from people knowing full well he was guilty, then there is a fraudulent element to that. However, I don't know enough to say whether that is actually fraud or not - I'd appreciate it if any lawyers could enlighten us.

On the subject of hacking the lab, if you think that there's no way an innocent man could do that, then it's time to pull your head out of the sand. If I thought that I was innocent of an offence, and was certain that I was being set up, I would do anything I possibly could to try and find the truth - I think we all would. On the contrary, someone who knew they were guilty would have no reason (other than to get caught and look like they were doing what someone being set up would be doing) to hack the lab.

To those who say LA has nothing to do with this, again, it's time to get your heads out of the sand. He helped set up the fund. He introduced Floyd to this world of doping, and he, unlike Floyd, got off free for everything he did. Justice is as much about applying laws equally as it is about applying them accurately.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Seeking public funding to defend a crime you know you have commited, and subsequently admit to, is cause for investigation.

Firstly - doping is not a crime.

Which law says that there must be an investigation for a "crime" when you know you have committed (FL says he didn't but...) and that you admit to (FL says he took other PEDs during the Tour)?

That sounds like made up law.

Being investigated is fair.
Being found guilty or not is a matter for the powers that be.

Being investigated for misappropriation, sure. Anything else, no.

If individuals contributed to a defence fund, knowing he was probably guilty, that doesnt alter the premise on which the fund was set up.
It does however confirm my belief about how f*'**ing stupid some people can be.

What? then our jails would be full of lawyers who took cases of people they knew to be guilty (not a bad scenario)....
How do you know if someone is "guilty" of their crime unless they get a fair hearing??
Remember Landis nearly got off... it was 2 to 1.

 

[aphronesis]

Seems to me like there's a lot of people not sure whether they're discussing what is morally wrong, and what is legally wrong. The two are not the same.

Of course there is a strong argument to say that Floyd was morally wrong in taking money to fight a doping conviction, when he knew full well he had doped. There is an equivalent line that perhaps if he felt he wasn't given the same chance as other people to defend himself, then in his mind it was okay to raise funds to do so. I imagine many people in the FFF knew that there was a chance he had doped, but that since so many others had too, he deserved to be able to defend himself. Raising money from people who hold that belief is not immoral, in my view.

The legal question surely hinges on whether Floyd ever knowingly took testosterone. If he took money from people knowing full well he was guilty, then there is a fraudulent element to that. However, I don't know enough to say whether that is actually fraud or not - I'd appreciate it if any lawyers could enlighten us.

On the subject of hacking the lab, if you think that there's no way an innocent man could do that, then it's time to pull your head out of the sand. If I thought that I was innocent of an offence, and was certain that I was being set up, I would do anything I possibly could to try and find the truth - I think we all would. On the contrary, someone who knew they were guilty would have no reason (other than to get caught and look like they were doing what someone being set up would be doing) to hack the lab.

To those who say LA has nothing to do with this, again, it's time to get your heads out of the sand. He helped set up the fund. He introduced Floyd to this world of doping, and he, unlike Floyd, got off free for everything he did. Justice is as much about applying laws equally as it is about applying them accurately.

Justice is an arbitrary fiction. Please.

As to the rest, Floyd maintains he didn't take testosterone at that time. The fraud came into existence at the moment that he admitted he had been doping.

Not only are people confusing morals and legality, there's a confusion here between civic and criminal cases. Donors could sue Floyd for damages, but it's up to a prosecutor to step in and pursue criminal fraud. (As has been seen in a separate case.) On the basis of Floyd's own public record--statements before and after his hearings--there would be at least a suggestion of intentional fraud. Confined to one person and a few subordinate handlers.

 

[BillytheKid]

He introduced Floyd to this world of doping, and he, unlike Floyd, got off free for everything he did. Justice is as much about applying laws equally as it is about applying them accurately.

This is unproven and in my mind improbable. I think to get to that level the curse is most likely already on you.

 

[rhubroma]

This is a discussion about Landis.
Another persons crimes going unpunished is irrelevant.

Somehow Lands being at odds with Armstrong makes him less accountable than anyone else who commited the same offences? I don't think so.

Landis being investigated is fair. Everything else is another discussion.

Apart from your final claims not being universally accepted, Landis’ deception and the timing of the charges being brought against him in fact raise issues about the state of justice and the judiciary process in inevitable relation to the other's. This is why the matter has been discussed.

Of relevance, then, is how the thematic congruence of two irreconcilable results makes it undeniably clear that money, politics and popularity have taken precedence over the impartiality of law and the application of punishment based on guilt. This has also been discussed up-thread, for which you have only fallen victim to a reductive fallacy.

More than a question of fairness, it is one of applied double standards to similar circumstances of deception. I don't know if it was criminal for Landis to raise money for his defense under that stated purpose, however his arguments corresponded to the facts, so long as he stated it, in decidedly poor taste certainly yes, but every American can survey their own conscience over this issue (especially those stupid or cynical enough to have made contributions); whereas I am quite certain that raising "funds" on the backs of the cancer community to hide the truth and pay one's legal expenses, when that hasn't been expressly stated in the foundation pledge is legally fraudulent. The fact that one is thus facing the potential wrath of the judicial system, while the other isn't even being placed under further investigation because of the political pressure and legal team he was able to buy and avail himself with, brings up all those very contingent issues we have been examining so far, but which you refuse to consider.

 

[Caruut]

Justice is an arbitrary fiction. Please.

As to the rest, Floyd maintains he didn't take testosterone at that time. The fraud came into existence at the moment that he admitted he had been doping.

Not only are people confusing morals and legality, there's a confusion here between civic and criminal cases. Donors could sue Floyd for damages, but it's up to a prosecutor to step in and pursue criminal fraud. (As has been seen in a separate case.) On the basis of Floyd's own public record--statements before and after his hearings--there would be at least a suggestion of intentional fraud. Confined to one person and a few subordinate handlers.

Justice could be described as an "arbitrary fiction", but it is one on which the rule of law, and thus civilised society, depends.

He admitted to doping, but not to doping with testosterone - fighting a case against his testosterone charge with money for that then doesn't seem so much like fraud. If a guy gets donations to fight one murder charge, and confesses to a different one, then they are two different cases, as these are.

Personally, I can't tell whether Floyd's "not testosterone" claim has any validity. On one level, it seems like a fraud get-out clause, yet on another, he has been so frankly and damagingly honest elsewhere, I can't see why he would lie here. The fact remains that he hasn't confessed to the crime which he was fighting with the FFF. It's all very complicated.