Floyd to be charged with fraud

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

This whole sordid affair....

...could have all been avoided.

If only....

[/IMG]

 

[Merckx index]

The basic issue is really rather simple. Did Floyd induce people to give him money by knowingly making false statements?

Again, how can you “induce” people to give money by what you say, when what you say is irrelevant to how well the money will be spent?

Here’s another medical example. I solicit money for treatment of a disease that was caused by some lifestyle factor, such as smoking. In soliciting the money, I lie when I tell people I never smoked. If that induces people to give money for my treatment, should I be charged with fraud? They know I have the disease, they know that the success or failure of the treatment does not hinge at all on whether I smoked or not. Some people may feel cheated, because I don’t have the character they thought I had, because I am more responsible for my plight than I led them to believe. Maybe they wouldn’t have given me money if they know I caused the disease. But can I be charged with fraud when I actually use all the money for treatment?

What about someone who goes bankrupt and asks people to help him out, because he’s a nice guy who deserves better in life? Later it turns out he’s not as nice as he portrayed himself to be. Should he be charged with fraud because he used his charm to help persuade people to give money to someone they might otherwise not have given to? If you are outfront about how the money will be spent, is it really a crime to lie about your character? Good lord, it if is, everyone in advertising should be locked up with the key thrown away.

You might argue these examples are different, because even someone whose own behavior helped cause his disease or his misfortune deserves our help and sympathy. But as that quote from one of Floyd’s contributors indicates, some people think even flat-out guilty people deserve good legal representation. Why should Contador, who apparently was just as guilty as Floyd, be able to fight his case in a way that Floyd couldn’t?

I’m not defending Floyd’s ethics here. But if can persuade people to give him money, not by misrepresenting his chances of winning, but simply by misrepresenting his character, is that really a crime?

Distinction here from political campaigns is that this is based in past factuality, not future premises.

I seem to recall Bill Clinton denying extramarital affairs during his campaign. When it became clear during his tenure in office that he had been lying, should he have been charged with fraud in connection with campaign funds? I also remember a local politician who was accused of an affair while campaigning, and continually denied it, until other women came forward. At that point, he withdrew his candidacy. But I’m pretty sure he wasn’t charged for fraud.

How about all the Republican candidates who run on family values, then after elected, an extramarital affair comes out? Should they be charged with making false statements to obtain campaign funds? Perhaps they should, but I’m pretty sure that would be a very difficult case to win.

Our Mission is:

•To support Floyd Landis against unsubstantiated doping allegations
•To provide the means to attain fairness for Floyd
•To bring justice to those responsible for misconduct in the case

The allegations were obviously not unsubstantiated, but the money was certainly used to support Floyd in fighting those allegations.

It would be hard to define fairness here. Granted, most people would think if he doped, getting him off would not be fair. OTOH, given all the other dopers who slipped through the net, one could argue it would be fair—as distinct from just—for him to get off.

In fact, there was some evidence of misconduct, not intentional or criminal, certainly, but lapses in laboratory procedure. As I noted before, Floyd did get the T/E overturned.

 

[thehog]

Floydfairnessfund.org no longer exists. But the wayback machine archived it at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070428235240/http://www.floydfairnessfund.org/

The spiel is:



The above is not a claim of innocence but that the evidence held by the anti doping authorities cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Floyd doped in winning that stage (and the TdF).

I think Lance agrees as well:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/...interview.html

Do you believe that Floyd Landis doped?

No. I think in a normal American court of law, he’s not guilty. Those arbitrations with USADA and CAS are tough. The arbitrators are in the business of arbitrating in favour of the anti-doping agencies. If I was a juror, I don’t think there was guilt beyond reasonable doubt

 

[BullsFan22]

This whole saga is so confusing to me that I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just say that somewhere along the line, somebody's either been messing with Floyd and seeks to 'destroy' him OR Floyd has been getting the behind the curtain funding divert attention from the real problems of the peloton, OR Floyd is the real martyr, along with Hamilton, Andreu, etc. Armstrong won't be touched. He is untouchable at this point, add to the fact that Floyd will be charged with fraud and probably will be found guilty one way or another, and Armstrong won't have to worry about the Omerta and its potential collapse (doubtful it's gonna collapse in the near future). Having said that, as with all well oiled organizations/govt's/corporations, if the UCI Lance and everything and everyone around him collapse, it will be from the inside. I could be talking out of my behind here, but that's just how I see this at this point in time. I feel sorry for Floyd, but he tested positive, had his TDF title stripped and he's been more ridiculed than supported over the years. Had he not tested positive but still gone after Amstrong, he would have a much stronger backing, perhaps even from some of the riders themselves, likewise Hamilton.

 

[MarkvW]

This whole saga is so confusing to me that I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just say that somewhere along the line, somebody's either been messing with Floyd and seeks to 'destroy' him OR Floyd has been getting the behind the curtain funding divert attention from the real problems of the peloton, OR Floyd is the real martyr, along with Hamilton, Andreu, etc. Armstrong won't be touched. He is untouchable at this point, add to the fact that Floyd will be charged with fraud and probably will be found guilty one way or another, and Armstrong won't have to worry about the Omerta and its potential collapse (doubtful it's gonna collapse in the near future). Having said that, as with all well oiled organizations/govt's/corporations, if the UCI Lance and everything and everyone around him collapse, it will be from the inside. I could be talking out of my behind here, but that's just how I see this at this point in time. I feel sorry for Floyd, but he tested positive, had his TDF title stripped and he's been more ridiculed than supported over the years. Had he not tested positive but still gone after Amstrong, he would have a much stronger backing, perhaps even from some of the riders themselves, likewise Hamilton.

I don't think it needs to be that complicated. The feds were never just investigating Armstrong. They gathered up a lot of evidence about a lot of people. Now they're making their charging decisions based on the evidence that they have. The SOL (five years) may be close to running out on Floyd, so the feds have to fish or cut bait.

 

[Velodude]

<snip>... The allegations were obviously not unsubstantiated, but the money was certainly used to support Floyd in fighting those allegations. ...<snip>

To issue an AAF for using exogenous testosterone requires a two step procedure.

The first is to establish the t/e ratio from the sample and if it is more than 4:1 the second test, a carbon isotope test (CIR), is performed to detect the existence of synthetic testosterone.

From memory in Landis' case his legal team successfully argued that the LNDD lab had either performed the t/e ratio test incorrectly or the lab's procedures were incorrect. (I will accept being corrected on my recollection)

They submitted because of this flaw the CIR test results which provided the basis of the AAF should be set aside. Two of the three Tribunal members disagreed.

With this foreknowledge of their defense it is not unreasonable to claim the AAF lacked (proper) substantiation to form part of the basis of the FFF's objectives for funding.

 

[andy1234]

The basic issue is really rather simple. Did Floyd induce people to give him money by knowingly making false statements?

It all comes down to this.^

IF Landis claimed to be raising money to fight a false accusation, that he later admitted he had commited, he raised the money illegally.
This is surely the reason he wont admit to the specific Testosterone charge.

If he only raised the money by asking people to fund a defence, without the claim of not commiting the offence, then the focus of the fund raising was sound.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The basic issue is really rather simple. Did Floyd induce people to give him money by knowingly making false statements?

No. It's not. This is more smoothing over some LOTS of essential facts to make more false choices. The claims made by the FFF are neither specific nor specifically true or false.

What we can observe was Pat was kicking Floyd out as fast as a guy like Fu Yu Li gets booted out. Zap! Gone. Why? Who knows. We only observe the total randomness of the UCI anti-doping actions.

As soon as Floyd started being honest about his doping program, every appearance is Floyd got caught in a false positive. Why? <shrug> Not enough information.

 

[Merckx index]

It all comes down to this.^

IF Landis claimed to be raising money to fight a false accusation, that he later admitted he had commited, he raised the money illegally.
This is surely the reason he wont admit to the specific Testosterone charge.

If he only raised the money by asking people to fund a defence, without the claim of not commiting the offence, then the focus of the fund raising was sound.

You’re almost there. The next step is just recognizing that a legal defense is BY DEFINITION fighting a false accusation. You cannot defend yourself against an accusation if you admit the accusation is true. You have to plead either guilty of not guilty (or no contest, or not enter a plea, both of which are treated as an admission of guilt). Mounting a defense presumes that you deny the accusation. No one charged with an offense is ever going to say “I plead guilty, but I still think I should get off.” Unless the infraction has extenuating circumstances, which it clearly does not in most (not all) doping cases, and certainly not in this one.

Having established that a guilty person has to lie to exercise his legal right to defend himself, the remaining step is to note that the lie in this case had no relevance, or as lawyers like to say, was not material, to the outcome of the case. Whether Floyd lied or did not lie did not affect the decision. It therefore also did not affect whether or not the money donated was used for the stated purpose. While a lie may affect whether or not someone gives money—by as Mark puts it “inducing” them to give it—this is not material. People may have all kinds of personal reasons for giving others money. It is not legally incumbent on those receiving the money to make sure they honor those reasons when using the money. They are only required to be clear about how they will use the money.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Why now? Why this town?

Interesting to note the state of California is playing a card in the dropping of the Armstrong case and the filing of the Landis case.

Am I wrong?

I'm not disagreeing with you as much as sounding the warning that people are very good at denying what's right in front of their collective faces.

It would be nice if it lead back to Wonderboy. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[andy1234]

You’re almost there. The next step is just recognizing that a legal defense is BY DEFINITION fighting a false accusation. You cannot defend yourself against an accusation if you admit the accusation is true. You have to plead either guilty of not guilty (or no contest, or not enter a plea, both of which are treated as an admission of guilt). Mounting a defense presumes that you deny the accusation. No one charged with an offense is ever going to say “I plead guilty, but I still think I should get off.” Unless the infraction has extenuating circumstances, which it clearly does not in most (not all) doping cases, and certainly not in this one.

Having established that a guilty person has to lie to exercise his legal right to defend himself, the remaining step is to note that the lie in this case had no relevance, or as lawyers like to say, was not material, to the outcome of the case. Whether Floyd lied or did not lie did not affect the decision. It therefore also did not affect whether or not the money donated was used for the stated purpose. While a lie may affect whether or not someone gives money—by as Mark puts it “inducing” them to give it—this is not material. People may have all kinds of personal reasons for giving others money. It is not legally incumbent on those receiving the money to make sure they honor those reasons when using the money. They are only required to be clear about how they will use the money.

Necessity is not a defence against a crime.

Claiming that it was necessary to lie in order to defend himself may be true, but any fraudulant activities that support that lie are still fraudulant.
Any law that was broken in the defense of the original charge still applies and can't be brushed aside as a necessity of the defence.

If Landis admitted to the charge against which he raised the funds, he is admitting to raising the funds under false pretences.
It appears he still doesn't admit to the original doping charge though. Funny that.

Of course if Landis never claimed he didn't dope, or never admits to the original testosterone charge, then officially, be didn't raise the money falsely.

 

[Digger]

A few things here. People say he should have come clean immediately. Look at the conundrum. Come clean immediately. How was he supposed to do that without bringing Lance into it. It was impossible to do it. Also his other friends at the time would have been implicated. Lance ran and still runs cycling. Fighting the case was the lesser of two evils at the time. This is something that clearly did not come naturally to him. He is fundamentally a very honest person. I also believe he wanted to cycle again. Tell the truth about Lance and himself, it's all over. As evidenced by what has happened.
Floyd Fairness Fund - Fairness....there is no way high up or low down that people can say he was treated fairly, in comparison to other high profile tests. Compare his case to AC for example. AC was swept under the carpet until the Germans found out three months later. USADA or the CAS did not treat him fairly. USADA wanted to give him a deal if he gave up Lance. The CAS was farcical. The lab did not behave without fault. Even David Walsh admits they were 'incredibly sloppy'. The UCI were willing to accept 'donation's for positives if you were Lance but not if you are Floyd. How is this fair?
On top of all this, the vast majority of the large donations were from people with links to USP. They knew the story.
Anyway maybe they should pursue Floyd. They will see he is not the person he is being painted out to be by Lance's PR machine. He is a hihgly intelligent and articulate man. Maybe people should go to NYVelocity to see the emails he wrote himself to the UCI.
His former friends did the exact same as Floyd. No more of less, many of them are still in cycling and were too gutless to speak up in support. How is this fair?

By the way, how much less would Livestrong have generated if they knew that Lance doped himself to the gills all his career?
And be under no illusions, Lance is behind this. Why has Tyler not been sought for the same for example?

Moral of the story - never come clean. Maybe Lance is right after all....

 

[hrotha]

Really? We're to believe that not coming clean was the morally justified and good decision?

It's understandable why he'd do it. He wanted to keep his Tour title and keep riding, and most riders would have done the same, and have done the same after testing positive. But don't try to say he had no choice. Others have handled things differently in similar situations.

"But Lance..." No, no "but Lance." Floyd was an adult, and an individual. It was ultimately up to him

 

[Digger]

Really? We're to believe that not coming clean was the morally justified and good decision?

It's understandable why he'd do it. He wanted to keep his Tour title and keep riding, and most riders would have done the same, and have done the same after testing positive. But don't try to say he had no choice. Others have handled things differently in similar situations.

"But Lance..." No, no "but Lance." Floyd was an adult, and an individual. It was ultimately up to him

I never once said he had no choice. I said it was a conundrum...and the people you mentioned there were not on the same team as Lance. How was he supposed to come clean and tell all his story without implicating Lance? Answer that one.

 

[hrotha]

I never once said he had no choice. I said it was a conundrum...and the people you mentioned there were not on the same team as Lance. How was he supposed to come clean and tell all his story without implicating Lance? Answer that one.

You did say it was the lesser of two evils, as if those were his only two options. He had others.

Obviously he couldn't come clean without implicating Lance, but others have admitted they doped without really coming clean (see Camenzind above), and Floyd could have done the same. While it wouldn't have been ideal, it'd still have been better than trying to protest his innocence.

 

[aphronesis]

I’m not defending Floyd’s ethics here. But if can persuade people to give him money, not by misrepresenting his chances of winning, but simply by misrepresenting his character, is that really a crime?

I seem to recall Bill Clinton denying extramarital affairs during his campaign. When it became clear during his tenure in office that he had been lying, should he have been charged with fraud in connection with campaign funds? I also remember a local politician who was accused of an affair while campaigning, and continually denied it, until other women came forward. At that point, he withdrew his candidacy. But I’m pretty sure he wasn’t charged for fraud.

How about all the Republican candidates who run on family values, then after elected, an extramarital affair comes out? Should they be charged with making false statements to obtain campaign funds? Perhaps they should, but I’m pretty sure that would be a very difficult case to win.

.

Most of your examples fall into the area of ethical firewalls. Extramarital affairs are not criminal acts. Nor, for the most part, do they violate any codes of political office.

On the subject of candidates and affairs, it seems that John Edwards would be the one you might be looking for.

 

[Digger]

You did say it was the lesser of two evils, as if those were his only two options. He had others.

Obviously he couldn't come clean without implicating Lance, but others have admitted they doped without really coming clean (see Camenzind above), and Floyd could have done the same. While it wouldn't have been ideal, it'd still have been better than trying to protest his innocence.

Firstly you are comparing these riders, who never won the Tour, to one who did. Apples and oranges.
Secondly telling a very limited confession - what exactly does that achieve. I know what kind of respect I have for the people who say they only doped once or twice and that they got the drugs on the internet. Absolutely zero. You say come clean without coming clean - yet you also admit there was no way he could have come clean without implicating Lance..let's break this down. First question. So Floyd you only doped once. Yes. I never saw doping anywhere else. I never saw doping with USP or Phonak. I decided to purchase the drugs on the internet and to blood dope. I got no medical advice whatsoever from anyone else. I figured out how to blood dope from the internet. I never told anyone, No one ever told me. I never shared a room so no one could have seen me dope.

And you think this was the way to go?

 

[hrotha]

Try reading?

While it wouldn't have been ideal, it'd still have been better than trying to protest his innocence.

And I never said he should have said he only doped once. I said others have gone that route, which was an option Landis had to avoid protesting his innocence and misleading his supporters. I was bringing up examples of riders who did things differently, not claiming they did things perfectly. Landis could have said "Yeah, I doped" and not say anything else on the matter.

 

[Digger]

Try reading?

And I never said he should have said he only doped once. I said others have gone that route, which was an option Landis had to avoid protesting his innocence and misleading his supporters. I was bringing up examples of riders who did things differently, not claiming they did things perfectly. Landis could have said "Yeah, I doped" and not say anything else on the matter.

Two things - clearly that would have been lies. Secondly no one would have let him away with that. They'd have villified him. Thirdly you cannot compare someone like Oscar to Landis. Fourthly as I keep saying, Lance would have been brought up in every interview.
The way you are saying it, he should have said I doped, and walked off into the sunset. As if he would have been allowed. None of those riders had his profile or links to Lance. This is not about my obsession with Lance before you throw that at me, but you cannot admit you doped once, and expect to be left alone like the others were.

 

[ChrisE]

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.
.

Careful about what? I said in a couple of threads that FFF was to defend his taking test during that TdF, ie that particular AAF. That is what he was fighting, and as long as he maintains this then how is FFF fraudulent? Whether it came from a transfusion is irrelevant....he was busted for test not a transfusion.

I really can't recall....did the UCI, USADA, etc. have to propose a theory such as transfusion during his appeals like they had to for AC?

BTW I haven't noticed you posting in awhile. Welcome back.

 

[ChrisE]

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.

Yes it does exist....by still denying taking test that resulted in that particular AAF he is shielding himself from fraud. All of the other admissions and stories have nothing to do with the intended use of funds from FFF. That IMO is why he still denies this, but as I alluded to from the other side of his mouth he claims he feels the need to pay back FFF. He is a train wreck.

Methinks there is something more here. Perhaps there is accusation that the funds were used for something other than his defense??????

 

[aphronesis]

Yes it does exist....by still denying taking test that resulted in that particular AAF he is shielding himself from fraud. All of the other admissions and stories have nothing to do with the intended use of funds from FFF. That IMO is why he still denies this, but as I alluded to from the other side of his mouth he claims he feels the need to pay back FFF. He is a train wreck.

Methinks there is something more here. Perhaps there is accusation that the funds were used for something other than his defense??????

In the technical sense no, but as was discussed with Caruut and as you suggest in this post anyway, once he opened up the floodgates (before there was a GJ investigation) he himself was not shielded.

 

[ChrisE]

In the technical sense no, but as was discussed with Carrut and as you suggest in this post anyway, once he opened up the floodgates (before there was a GJ investigation) he himself was not shielded.

I still don't understand what you are saying.....why does admitting taking EPO for example make solicitation of funds to fight a testosterone AAF fraudulent?

I find myself on the side that this should not be illegal anyway if the funds were used as intended. I don't think it should be illegal for people to be stupid by donating to something like FFF if the funds were in fact used for his defense.

Besides, the FFF said in #3 quoted above "to bring justice to those responsible for misconduct in the case". It looks like that happened.

 

[aphronesis]

I still don't understand what you are saying.....why does admitting taking EPO for example make solicitation of funds to fight a testosterone AAF fraudulent?

I find myself on the side that this should not be illegal anyway if the funds were used as intended. I don't think it should be illegal for people to be stupid by donating to something like FFF if the funds were in fact used for his defense.

Besides, the FFF said in #3 quoted above "to bring justice to those responsible for misconduct in the case". It looks like that happened.

As should be clear, I have no issue with where people decide to waste their money--at least not in the sense that they should expect it back if they fail to do due diligence.

To date there is little information on the actual fraud charges being investigated/considered by the government, so it's difficult to speak with any accuracy beyond the basic point that I've reiterated upthread in various ways.

The language of the FFF (justice) is largely irrelevant. What test/charge Floyd was fighting is irrelevant. The salient distinction here is that this was not a criminal case. Like as not, the FFF was an enterprise in the commercial sphere designed to promote Floyd's livelihood. Not to keep him out of jail, not to protect him from the absolute powers of the govt.

 

[ChrisE]

The language of the FFF (justice) is largely irrelevant. What test/charge Floyd was fighting is irrelevant. The salient distinction here is that this was not a criminal case. Like as not, the FFF was an enterprise in the commercial sphere designed to promote Floyd's livelihood. Not to keep him out of jail, not to protect him from the absolute powers of the govt.

Understood it was not a criminal case, which even further puts this whole issue into my "WTF?" basket. There are alot more important things for the govt to worry about in the US than this BS.

Not sure what the bolded means above...maybe you mean "like it or not". If that is the case, then I agree it could be interpreted as fraud. But, we don't know if that is what was happening.