Floyd to be charged with fraud

[aphronesis]

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.

All the bolded means is that despite all of the language about fairness, justice, wrongdoing, truth, etc. the FFF was part of a business. Floyd's business as a bike racer. But your interpretation amounts to effectively the same thing. And from my perspective, none of all the imported legalese means very much once that aspect is foregrounded.

No, we don't know, that's my take on one of the more obvious ways in which a fraud angle could be pursued. In that regard, to bring back around the matter of "innocence," (in its etymological rather than US trial sense that Merkcx keeps hammering on about): once all other options fell apart, Floyd admitted that the business of Floyd was not what it had claimed to be.

What the govt. chooses to waste its time on at the ground level is a whole other set of discussions--as you are aware.

 

[frenchfry]

Clearly anyone who gave to the FFF was either incredibly stupid or had an agenda. Even if Floyd lied, difficult to call this fraud.

I suppose you could say USPS was the same, they would have to have been incredibly incompetent not to understand the team was on the full program.

 

[ChrisE]

All the bolded means is that despite all of the language about fairness, justice, wrongdoing, truth, etc. the FFF was part of a business. Floyd's business as a bike racer. But your interpretation amounts to effectively the same thing. And from my perspective, none of all the imported legalese means very much once that aspect is foregrounded.

No, we don't know, that's my take on one of the more obvious ways in which a fraud angle could be pursued. In that regard, to bring back around the matter of "innocence," (in its etymological rather than US trial sense that Merckx keeps hammering on about): once all other options fell apart, Floyd admitted that the business of Floyd was not what it had claimed to be.

What the govt. chooses to waste its time on at the ground level is a whole other set of discussions--as you are aware.

I guess it could be looked at as a "business", but I think that is a stretch. Basically you are saying that he admits the "business of FL" was based upon a fraud, kinda like selling a product that you know will not work. That is not what the FFF charter says or it's public stance....it is based around his being treated fairly and justice beign served for his AAF in the 2006 TdF. The fact that him getting off would be good for the business of FL is an obvious benefit.

And as I alluded to upthread people give money to things that make zero sense all the time, and people pander with lies all the time. A pandora's box would be opened if this was now deemed criminal.

I think more than likely the $ was purportedly used for other purposes than his defense.

 

[ChrisE]

Clearly anyone who gave to the FFF was either incredibly stupid or had an agenda. Even if Floyd lied, difficult to call this fraud.

I suppose you could say USPS was the same, they would have to have been incredibly incompetent not to understand the team was on the full program.

Hey, I still remember your quote on DPF about him dropping his appeal.....to his supporters that was like quitting the TdF while in yellow on the last lap of the champs.

Makes me laugh every time I think about it. Hope you are doing well.....I didn't ge a chance to catch up the other week in Paris. There will be other times. Take care.

 

[Pazuzu]

...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.

There's some truth to what you say. However, the time to prosecute Landis would have been before he came clean, while he was still soliciting donations. To prosecute him now, after he's admitted wrongdoing and pledged to pay back the donations, send the absolute wrong message -- Don't tell the truth, maintain the lie however absurd. One wonders, if Armstrong did the right thing and came clean, would the Feds then reopen the case and prosecute him? One would hope not, but judgeing from the Landis case, one would have to assume so. This is assbackwards and sends a terrible message that
cheating and lying are rewarded and honesty (however belated) is to be punished.

 

[ChrisE]

There's some truth to what you say. However, the time to prosecute Landis would have been before he came clean, while he was still soliciting donations. To prosecute him now, after he's admitted wrongdoing and pledged to pay back the donations, send the absolute wrong message -- Don't tell the truth, maintain the lie however absurd. One wonders, if Armstrong did the right thing and came clean, would the Feds then reopen the case and prosecute him? One would hope not, but judgeing from the Landis case, one would have to assume so. This is assbackwards and sends a terrible message that
cheating and lying are rewarded and honesty (however belated) is to be punished.

Press charges before there is evidence? What evidence was there, besides the AAF, that would allow charges to be filed in 2006/7?

Also, if you admit to a crime you should not be prosecuted? If you promise to pay back FFF, regardless of how ludicrous that is, you should get a pass?

If LA all of a sudden said "yes, I used USPS money to buy PEDs, committed all the wire fraud, etc. that went along with it, etc" he should get a pass?

Are you serious?

 

[thehog]

Landis could have said "Yeah, I doped" and not say anything else on the matter.

?? What are you saying?

You wanted Floyd to admit and confesss but not the whole truth?

Are you serious? and that's better than denying because?

Of course the press wouldn't want to know anymore from the Tour de France winner. They'd be satisfied with a confession like that! Plus Floyd had loads of time to consider his confession. There wasn't much pressure on him.

Beggars belief the logic being applied here.

 

[Pazuzu]

Press charges before there is evidence? What evidence was there, besides the AAF, that would allow charges to be filed in 2006/7?

Also, if you admit to a crime you should not be prosecuted? If you promise to pay back FFF, regardless of how ludicrous that is, you should get a pass?

If LA all of a sudden said "yes, I used USPS money to buy PEDs, committed all the wire fraud, etc. that went along with it, etc" he should get a pass?

Are you serious?

Prosecutors have a fair amount of discretion as to what should or shouldn't be prosecuted. To wit: the Armstong case being dropped despite compelling evidence. Also, it's not uncommon for prosecutors to cut deals and offer immunity in order to arrive at the truth.

But if that still doesn't satisfy you. Then there's this: President Barack Obama could pardon both Landis and Armstrong (and the others) if they came clean. What we have now - truth telling being punished and lying being rewarded - is the worst possible outcome.

 

[Digger]

Right people - here's an option for Landis.
He can plead the fifth. Then they will have to depose Lance to tell if Floyd was telling the truth in his admission. Landis has never admitted it under oath so they would have to prove it.

 

[thehog]

Right people - here's an option for Landis.
He can plead the fifth. Then they will have to depose Lance to tell if Floyd was telling the truth in his admission. Landis has never admitted it under oath so they would have to prove it.

Maybe it's a tactic to not pass on the Lance case file to WADA/USADA by saying at locked up in another investigation? Then draw our the Landis investigation for the next 10 years....

 

[ChrisE]

Prosecutors have a fair amount of discretion as to what should or shouldn't be prosecuted. To wit: the Armstong case being dropped despite compelling evidence. Also, it's not uncommon for prosecutors to cut deals and offer immunity in order to arrive at the truth.

But if that still doesn't satisfy you. Then there's this: President Barack Obama could pardon both Landis and Armstrong (and the others) if they came clean. What we have now - truth telling being punished and lying being rewarded - is the worst possible outcome.

This is not what you said in your other post. You said as long as people admit wrongdoing and in FL's case he pays back FFF all should be forgiven.

Now you are meandering into immunity, prosecutorial descretion, pardons, etc. which I have no problem with. Please don't do a switcharoo on me here. You made a blanket statement about how people should not be punished for telling the truth. I don't agree, in absence of the cover you have listed.

In the US the accused is not compelled to tell anything. It is the job of the govt to prove they are guilty, and there are no rewards for helping the govt. if immunity is not given. If you extrapolate what you are saying then Charles Manson should be let out because he has admitted to orchestrating the Tate/Labianca murders.

Also, you only know of "compelling" evidence from anonymous sources, the media, this forum, etc inre to LA. You don't know how compelling that evidence would be when presented to 12 average Joe's who either don't have an ax to grind, find this a waste of time, are starstruck by LA and his cancer work, etc. I am not saying any of that is right, but that is reality in a system that depends on the reasoning skills of people.

 

[hrotha]

?? What are you saying?

You wanted Floyd to admit and confesss but not the whole truth?

Are you serious? and that's better than denying because?

Of course the press wouldn't want to know anymore from the Tour de France winner. They'd be satisfied with a confession like that! Plus Floyd had loads of time to consider his confession. There wasn't much pressure on him.

Beggars belief the logic being applied here.

Learn to read what you're replying to, the whole ****ing thing, or don't bother. I'm tired of you guys putting words in my mouth.

 

[Digger]

Learn to read what you're replying to, the whole ****ing thing, or don't bother. I'm tired of you guys putting words in my mouth.

Listen man your 'position' is insane and absolutely ridiculous. You have a position and no matter what is said you will not change it.

 

[hrotha]

Listen man your 'position' is insane and absolutely ridiculous. You have a position and no matter what is said you will not change it.

Since you know my position so well, maybe you could summarize it again, hopefully this time without putting words in my mouth. I've never said the morally right thing for Landis to do would have been to make a limited confession. Never.

 

[thehog]

Learn to read what you're replying to, the whole ****ing thing, or don't bother. I'm tired of you guys putting words in my mouth.

Sounds to me you're tired of your own faulty logic. Frustration is a killer.

No one has put any words in your mouth. You wanted Floyd to confess to his doping but gives us the edited version because a half truth is better than the whole truth.

Seriously. Put yourself in his shoes - what would have you done?

 

[thehog]

I've never said the morally right thing for Landis to do would have been to make a limited confession. Never.

Originally Posted by hrotha
Landis could have said "Yeah, I doped" and not say anything else on the matter.

 

[hrotha]

Sounds to me you're tired of your own faulty logic. Frustration is a killer.

No one has put any words in your mouth. You wanted Floyd to confess to his doping but gives us the edited version because a half truth is better than the whole truth.

Seriously. Put yourself in his shoes - what would have you done?

I did not say that at all. I'm frustrated by your constantly misrepresenting what I said. Setting up strawmen left and right is a fundamentally dishonest way of debating.

I said Landis had a choice. I said a full confession would have been the best decision from a moral point of view - yes, this includes telling about Armstrong. Digger seems to be arguing that it was either that, or protest his innocence, which I disagree with: he had other options if he didn't have to walk the hardest, but most righteous road; namely, a limited confession. After all, I understand the kind of sacrifice a full confession entails in the world of cycling. Such a limited confession would still have been better than setting up a bogus fund to fool any fans into donating money, because at least he'd have taken responsibility for his own choices without deceiving others.

 

[ChrisE]

Originally Posted by hrotha
Landis could have said "Yeah, I doped" and not say anything else on the matter.

And why is that so whack in your's and digger's world?

He was popped AAF in the 2006 TdF. He could admit he took it and move on. Why would he be legally compelled to say anything else? This isn't some inquisition where he would be tortured in guantanamo until he implicated LA, etal. if he admitted to this particular AAF.

 

[hrotha]

Originally Posted by hrotha
Landis could have said "Yeah, I doped" and not say anything else on the matter.

Yeah, and the context about the choices he had? Notice the "could", not a "should"? If you're not going to actually READ my posts, don't bother replying to them. Enough with the strawmen.

 

[Digger]

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.
Landis could have said "Yeah, I doped" and not say anything else on the matter.

Your words

 

[DirtyWorks]

Maybe it's a tactic to not pass on the Lance case file to WADA/USADA by saying at locked up in another investigation? Then draw our the Landis investigation for the next 10 years....

I like this idea. Can a lawyer comment as to how the case would pass to the State? Who calls who(m?) And clears the way?
Wonderboy gets a few licks in and delays the inevitable.

 

[hrotha]

Your words

Where's the contradiction?
You asked: can he truly come clean without implicating Lance?
I said: obviously not

That doesn't imply he shouldn't have come clean regardless.

 

[Digger]

And why is that so whack in your's and digger's world?

He was popped AAF in the 2006 TdF. He could admit he took it and move on. Why would he be legally compelled to say anything else? This isn't some inquisition where he would be tortured in guantanamo until he implicated LA, etal. if he admitted to this particular AAF.

So no comment - did Lance dope - no comment.
That wouldn't have caused problems.
Seriously this place is beyond help. Most of yee are Simple Jack candidates.

 

[Digger]

Where's the contradiction?
You asked: can he truly come clean without implicating Lance?
I said: obviously not

That doesn't imply he shouldn't have come clean regardless.

But you still don't get it - how can he come clean without telling his story. How is that possible. How is one hundredth of the story of an use?

 

[hrotha]

But you still don't get it - how can he come clean without telling his story. How is that possible. How is one hundredth of the story of an use?

A "limited confession" is not "coming clean" in my book. That's what you don't seem to get. As to how a limited confession is of any use, I already explained that.