Floyd to be charged with fraud

[Digger]

I wouldn’t say it was incredibly sloppy, it was a little sloppy in places, though anyone who has worked in a lab knows that frequently there are deviations from strict following of procedure. There is no evidence that the sloppiness resulted in a positive that shouldn’t have been a positive. And CAS itself pointed out the sloppiness, and overturned the T/E.



That is not Floyd being treated unfairly, that is Contador being treated unfairly. Just because Contador was handled with kid gloves doesn’t mean that Floyd should have been. He was treated as fairly as, say, Hamilton or Heras were.



Where did you get this idea? The CAS procedure is always the same. Each side picks one arb, then the two arbs agree on a third. This procedure was followed with Floyd’s case and also with Contador’s. If Floyd had no input in the panel, how did it happen that one of the panel members voted to acquit? And since Contador was found guilty, it’s kind of hard to argue that the composition of the panel helped him. In fact, one could argue that the evidence that Contador took a tainted supplement was not as good as the evidence that Floyd took synthetic T.



I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but the key evidence for synthetic testosterone was very clear. The chromatograph profiles were produced, and the peaks came out where they were supposed to come out. The o/oo values were very high for one metabolite, far too high to be explained by anything but a synthetic substance, and the values for one of the other metabolites were also very high. Plus, it came out in the CAS hearing that some of Floyd’s samples for other stages of that Tour also had very high values.

If your point is that LA and Contador both got preferential treatment, I won’t debate that. But all the delays and cover-ups didn’t help Contador in the end. LA, of course, is in a league of his own here. He may have had a positive covered up. But until and unless compelling evidence of this emerges, one really can’t compare Floyd and LA. One can only compare Floyd with other riders who officially tested positive, and in these comparisons, he was treated in the end no worse than anyone else.



Oh, right, like LA is going to come out and say he thinks Floyd really was positive. For someone who has been so critical of LA, you are extraordinarily generous in attributing to him knowledge of what the panel should have done. LA didn't have a clue about the merits of the case, he was just taking the opportunity to diss the same French lab that caused him grief a couple of years earlier. Please.

Btw, Hog, care to provide a link for your assertion in another thread that the USADA investigation of LA is well underway? Or is this another of your “can’t reveal my sources” teases?

I am saying that Floyd's team were not given full disclosure on the arbitrators. They had backgrounds which, let's just say, compromised their positions. These backgrounds only came to light after the fact.
Also that is a fact about the testers not writing down the way they carried out the test...which made it difficult for Floyd's legal team.
The 'incredibly sloppy' line was not from me, but from David Walsh, who was a big critic of Floyd, Tyler and Lance. I believe it speaks volumes when someone like Walsh concedes this point.

All I am trying to say here is that I don't believe there was fairness.
By the way, according to WADA's own guidelines on testosterone, that wasn't a positive test.

 

[Cloxxki]

I was not in the position to contribute to FFF back then. Whereto can I paypal this time around?

 

[Digger]

I was not in the position to contribute to FFF back then. Whereto can I paypal this time around?

I will PM you my bank details and I will send it on to him.

 

[Maxiton]

Painfully ironic, isn't it? The target of a Federal grand jury investigation walks, without so much as a howdy-do -- or an indictment -- despite appearing to be very (obviously) dirty. Meanwhile, the whistle-blower whose public confession and private cooperation with the feds led to the initial investigation - - this guy is himself now under investigation, because of his whistle-blowing! I mean, if you read that in some kind of cheap novel, you'd think "Fake! Doesn't pass the smell test." That would never happen in real life, right? Not in an advanced country, anyway.

It makes it look, to the public, at least, as though Floyd lied to the feds about LA, the feds investigated, found the accusations to be baseless, and are now about to indict the liar. Except, of course, we all know Floyd spoke the truth, at least when it comes to drugs in cycling and Team USPS.

I don't believe the fraud investigation has anything to do, necessarily, with misappropriation of funds. (That may come into it, though, if investigation reveals funds were misappropriated.) And it's only tangentially related to his confession. It has everything to do with his denial (which, in light of that confession and a positive test, is dubious). I think the investigation is about soliciting funds under a fraudulent pretext -- namely, "I did not dope."

Remember when Floyd was confessing to everything, but insisted his Tour positive was false? Everybody said, I believe him! He's confessing to everything else, why would he lie about this? What possible reason would he have to lie about it?

This is the possible reason, this current investigation. When Floyd was mulling over his confession, looking into all the ramifications of doing it, I'm quite sure more than one legal eagle would have advised him, "Look, admit to doping in general if you must. But about this Tour positive, you're putting yourself into real legal jeopardy if you now admit to the very thing you just collected a million dollars to defend against. It's called fraud, Floyd, and it's a federal crime."

 

[MarkvW]

Painfully ironic, isn't it? The target of a Federal grand jury investigation walks, without so much as a howdy-do -- or an indictment. Meanwhile, the whistle-blower whose public confession and private cooperation with the feds led to the initial investigation - - this guy is himself now under investigation, because of his whistle-blowing! I mean, if you read that in some kind of cheap novel, you'd think "Fake! Doesn't pass the smell test." That would never happen in real life, right? Not in an advanced country, anyway.

It makes it look, to the public, at least, as though Floyd lied to the feds about LA, the feds investigated, found the accusations to be baseless, and are now about to indict the liar. Except, of course, we all know Floyd spoke the truth, at least when it comes to drugs in cycling and Team USPS.

I don't believe the fraud investigation has anything to do, necessarily, with misappropriation of funds. (That may come into it, though, if investigation reveals funds were misappropriated.) And it's only tangentially related to his confession. It has everything to do with his denial (which, in light of that confession and a positive test, is indefensible). I think the investigation is about soliciting funds under a fraudulent pretext -- namely, "I did not dope."

Remember when Floyd was confessing to everything, but insisted his Tour positive was false? Everybody said, I believe him! He's confessing to everything else, why would he lie about this? What possible reason would he have to lie about it?

This is the possible reason, this current investigation. When Floyd was mulling over his confession, looking into all the ramifications of doing it, I'm quite sure more than one legal eagle would have advised him, "Look, admit to doping in general if you must. But about this Tour positive, you're putting yourself into real legal jeopardy if you now admit to the very thing you just collected a million dollars to defend against. It's called fraud, Floyd, and it's a federal crime."

I think that what you just described is called "full ***" by Floyd himself.

 

[Maxiton]

I think that what you just described is called "full ***" by Floyd himself.

Not sure I follow. Could you elaborate?

 

[Digger]

I think that what you just described is called "full ***" by Floyd himself.

We agree on something...

 

[MarkvW]

Not sure I follow. Could you elaborate?

Floyd used the "full ***" description of his own behavior on his Twitter account for a few months after he made his disclosure. I think Floyd was fully aware that his confession would have consequences. At the time, he had lawyers advising him (the qui tam ones). They would have surely told him of the risk that he was taking.

 

[Maxiton]

Floyd used the "full ***" description of his own behavior on his Twitter account for a few months after he made his disclosure. I think Floyd was fully aware that his confession would have consequences. At the time, he had lawyers advising him (the qui tam ones). They would have surely told him of the risk that he was taking.

I see. Thanks for that.

My own confession: I last read this thread a few days back. I posted the above without catching up, but I now see that others have made the very point I was making.

I'm not Floyd's biggest fan, but in light of the egregious dismissal of the G.J. without an indictment of LA, I really think they ought to let Floyd get on with his life. Not that they will, probably.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

***

Mods; can you please stop the trolling from Hog, RR etc?
We now knows that everything they said has been lies.
Please make this forum better.

Thank you!

The trolling goes in both directions. How about everybody stops it?

Susan

 

[Digger]

I see. Thanks for that.

My own confession: I last read this thread a few days back. I posted the above without catching up, but I now see that others have made the very point I was making.

I'm not Floyd's biggest fan, but in light of the egregious dismissal of the G.J. without an indictment of LA, I really think they ought to let Floyd get on with his life. Not that they will, probably.

I would gladly not add to the thread if we could just do that. FFS the man has suffered enough. More than any of us know. He has paid a price, far higher than the tour and subsequent suspension. This is why I get irate. Why do we want to keep kicking someone when they're down. None of us can say we haven't made mistakes. How many times do we have to be punished though? I used to despise Marion Jones, but even I saw her going to prison and though ok live and let live. She has paid her price.

 

[Merckx index]

I am saying that Floyd's team were not given full disclosure on the arbitrators. They had backgrounds which, let's just say, compromised their positions. These backgrounds only came to light after the fact.

As I pointed out earlier, Floyd’s team picked one of the arbs, who voted to acquit. So obviously his background was not an issue for Floyd. The arb picked by the prosecution was their choice, nothing Floyd’s team could do about it, regardless of how they felt about him, or what might have emerged about him later. He might have been biased against Floyd, but given that the arb Floyd picked was pretty clearly biased for Floyd, that would do no more than balance the slate.

The third arb was chosen by the first two. If Floyd’s team did not know everything they needed to know about him, that was their fault for agreeing to him. Nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them to accept him. They could have vetoed him. I’m sure if his background compromised his position, they could have found that out before agreeing to him.

But as I said before, the panel voted to throw out the T/E results. This is not the kind of thing a biased arb would be likely to do. If we follow your implication to its logical conclusion, the two biased arbs colluded not only to sanction Floyd, but to throw out a major piece of the evidence against him, apparently to make it look as though they weren’t biased.

Also that is a fact about the testers not writing down the way they carried out the test...which made it difficult for Floyd's legal team.

I think you mean they didn’t record certain lab procedures, a practice which as I said before is not that uncommon. While that’s nothing to commend, there is no reason to think it was done intentionally to make things difficult for Floyd, and I don’t see that it made much of a difference. At the end of the day, Floyd had to explain those IRMS values. The data that were presented had all the proper controls. It would have been pretty difficult to forge data like these. There was also no obvious explanation as to how these data could have resulted from sloppy lab procedures. Sloppy procedures can make the peaks look less sharp, or maybe appear in positions where they shouldn’t be, but it’s really stretching things to say that multiple peaks all moved from the wrong positions to the right ones because of poor procedure.

In fact, as a scientist, one of the facets of this case that helps convince me of the validity of the data is that they were not neat, a perfect reflection of what one would expect. Some values were very high, clearly well beyond the criterion for doping, while some were not. If the people in the lab were intentionally trying to build a case against Floyd, they definitely would not have produced such data. The raw data I saw had the look of genuineness to me, just because they were not as good as one would want them to be.

The 'incredibly sloppy' line was not from me, but from David Walsh, who was a big critic of Floyd, Tyler and Lance. I believe it speaks volumes when someone like Walsh concedes this point.

I think it may say something, but given that Walsh is not a scientist, I wouldn’t say it speaks volumes. I think what he and you and many others don’t appreciate is that this was one of the first times the IRMS test was challenged. Up until a few years earlier, the T-test was based solely on T/E ratios, which is much simpler science. There was the Landaluze case, but he got off on a technicality, not through challenging the science.

The science here is considerably more complex than that for, say, EPO or clenbuterol. Thus it's not surprising that the results did not appear as clear-cut as they would for these other tests. This case brought out the difficulty in getting consistent IRMS values for all four of the metabolites focussed on, and to that extent it did appear to some that the case against Floyd was weak. I myself still regard it as puzzling that two of the four metabolites did not reach criterion. But as I said before, one of his metabolites was consistently off the charts, and it’s very difficult to explain how that could occur except through doping. To the best of my knowledge, one never sees a value like that in a non-doping control. In retrospect, Floyd’s confession makes it pretty clear he did in fact dope, and was taking advantage of the complexity of the science to try to get off.

By the way, according to WADA's own guidelines on testosterone, that wasn't a positive test.

Can you quote the guidelines that indicate this? You might be referring to the fact that individual national feds are given some leeway in the criteria they set for a positive test. I believe Don Catlin of USADA said at one point that Floyd’s results would not be considered a positive test in his lab, though IIRC, he later retracted that. In any case, any scientist would have found the results highly suspicious. Catlin felt that more metabolites should have had values that fulfilled the criterion, but one still has to explain the values that did fulfill them.

 

[MarkvW]

I see. Thanks for that.

My own confession: I last read this thread a few days back. I posted the above without catching up, but I now see that others have made the very point I was making.

I'm not Floyd's biggest fan, but in light of the egregious dismissal of the G.J. without an indictment of LA, I really think they ought to let Floyd get on with his life. Not that they will, probably.

This will probably start another wall of flame, but I think that one of the major reasons that Lance got off was because the Feds (the decisionmakers) were not confident that the more recent acts of Lance would be sufficient 'ongoing criminal behavior' needed to get around the statute of limitations on conspiracy and RICO charges. If the Feds would have gotten on this five or six years earlier, then I really think that the outcome would have been way different. Floyd's (and others') lies are one of the things that bought Lance the time he needed to walk away from this.

I'm not saying this to make the continuing point that Floyd is a jerk (although of course I think he is). I'm also saying it to make the point that Lance walked because the feds thought they couldn't risk taking the case forward and they were very afraid of losing. It's kind of like this: If you are going to take on the King, you have to kill the King. Lance walked because he was a clever dirtbag. Floyd shouldn't walk just because he isn't as clever as Lance.

If Lance got a break, he got the break that powerful people often get--close cases against them won't get charged because the prosecutors are afraid of losing. I don't think that's a reason Floyd should walk (and I don't think the feds will charge a weak case against Floyd).

I also don't think athletes should get special consideration because they are athletes. When they rip people off, they should go down just like the lady who embezzled all that money from the local furniture manufacturer, or the pharmacist who gives pills to his girlfriends. Those crooks' lives are also destroyed, but we want them to be held accountable for their actions. They shouldn't get special consideration just because they can ride a bike fast, throw a football, or hit a baseball, or write good prison literature like Jack Abbott.

If Floyd gets convicted, then some of his victims will get some money back. I don't think Floyd deserves time, but he does deserve a conviction.

 

[Digger]

This will probably start another wall of flame, but I think that one of the major reasons that Lance got off was because the Feds (the decisionmakers) were not confident that the more recent acts of Lance would be sufficient 'ongoing criminal behavior' needed to get around the statute of limitations on conspiracy and RICO charges. If the Feds would have gotten on this five or six years earlier, then I really think that the outcome would have been way different. Floyd's (and others') lies are one of the things that bought Lance the time he needed to walk away from this.

I'm not saying this to make the continuing point that Floyd is a jerk (although of course I think he is). I'm also saying it to make the point that Lance walked because the feds thought they couldn't risk taking the case forward and they were very afraid of losing. It's kind of like this: If you are going to take on the King, you have to kill the King. Lance walked because he was a clever dirtbag. Floyd shouldn't walk just because he isn't as clever as Lance.

If Lance got a break, he got the break that powerful people often get--close cases against them won't get charged because the prosecutors are afraid of losing. I don't think that's a reason Floyd should walk (and I don't think the feds will charge a weak case against Floyd).

I also don't think athletes should get special consideration because they are athletes. When they rip people off, they should go down just like the lady who embezzled all that money from the local furniture manufacturer, or the pharmacist who gives pills to his girlfriends. Those crooks' lives are also destroyed, but we want them to be held accountable for their actions. They shouldn't get special consideration just because they can ride a bike fast, throw a football, or hit a baseball, or write good prison literature like Jack Abbott.

If Floyd gets convicted, then some of his victims will get some money back. I don't think Floyd deserves time, but he does deserve a conviction.

Where has the 'fraud' taken place by the way?

Also in relation to the first part of your post, there has been sufficient reports coming out of this case, that Birotte hadn't even examined the evidence before announcing the decision. That investigators had further meetings planned and that htey were certain of indictments.

Also since you are mentioning Lance...do you think he should repay people who bought his book?

Note: I do like you getting 'Floyd is a jerk' into your post though. I think we've established what your thoughts on him as a person are.

 

[MarkvW]

Where has the 'fraud' taken place by the way?

Also in relation to the first part of your post, there has been sufficient reports coming out of this case, that Birotte hadn't even examined the evidence before announcing the decision. That investigators had further meetings planned and that they were certain of indictments.

Also since you are mentioning Lance...do you think he should repay people who bought his book?

Note: I do like you getting 'Floyd is a jerk' into your post though. I think we've established what your thoughts on him as a person are.

Come on! Even Floyd has said that he was wrong in taking the money and that he intends to pay it back. You must be a super-fan if you want to argue that Floyd hasn't done anything wrong. You're making a case that Floyd himself hasn't even made.

What is your source on Birotte? Is it Race Radio? Is it the leaky federal investigation (that wasn't leaky when everybody thought Lance was going to be indicted)? You are just making stuff up about Birotte.

Lance should renounce all of his Tour wins and should give all of his money back. Are you begging me to say something nice about Lance so that you or others can attack my post? That tired juvenile tactic gets old. Agenda . . . Intern . . . whatever.

When Floyd starts paying back his victims . . . like he said he would . . ..

 

[thehog]

Oh, right, like LA is going to come out and say he thinks Floyd really was positive. For someone who has been so critical of LA, you are extraordinarily generous in attributing to him knowledge of what the panel should have done. LA didn't have a clue about the merits of the case, he was just taking the opportunity to diss the same French lab that caused him grief a couple of years earlier. Please.

Oh don't be so silly! Of course he knew the merits of the case.

He was on the phone daily with Floyd. He help start up the FFF.

The guy spent the best part of 20 years by doping and side stepping the doping controls. Of course he knew about the case and the labs various procedures. He's an expert!

Armstrong also had to pay off the UCI & do deals with Swiss labs because he knew if he ever was to be found positive he'd never survive a CAS hearing.

He knew alright and back in the day knew the raw deal Floyd got.

And for the record Armstrong had not stated that Floyd was guilty even after the revelations came out. I wonder why? Because its true.

Of course I'm critical of Armstrong and he's a lair and a cheat but if there's one thing Lance knows about and thats beating the system. He's a pro at that.

Lance knows what happened.

Now don't be so snarky in your responses. Your posts are generally good.

 

[Digger]

Come on! Even Floyd has said that he was wrong in taking the money and that he intends to pay it back. You must be a super-fan if you want to argue that Floyd hasn't done anything wrong. You're making a case that Floyd himself hasn't even made.

What is your source on Birotte? Is it Race Radio? Is it the leaky federal investigation (that wasn't leaky when everybody thought Lance was going to be indicted)? You are just making stuff up about Birotte.
Lance should renounce all of his Tour wins and should give all of his money back. Are you begging me to say something nice about Lance so that you or others can attack my post? That tired juvenile tactic gets old. Agenda . . . Intern . . . whatever.

When Floyd starts paying back his victims . . . like he said he would . . ..

Mark Ziegler...so stop saying I am making stuff up.

Next...not once have I said he did nothing wrong. I don't believe in a legal sense fraud has been committed. Even ChrisE above seems to think this.

The reason I mentioned the Lance thing, time and time again you have shown yourself to judge Floyd harsher than anyone else. Your post on Tyler was farcical. You said he seemed really genuine. Then when I told you about his fund, you went 180. I mean jesus man come on. So why aren't you this indignant on the Lance thread about him paying back the money people donated. Why weren't you this indignant on any Tyler thread?
Because you clearly have an irrational hatred/dislike for Floyd. No matter what the guy does, you will find fault. Just like you wanted to believe Tyler was genuine, when in fact, his motives were questionable. (In that he wanted to avoid jail and not necessarily clean up the sport)

 

[MarkvW]

Mark Ziegler...so stop saying I am making stuff up.

Next...not once have I said he did nothing wrong. I don't believe in a legal sense fraud has been committed. Even ChrisE above seems to think this.

The reason I mentioned the Lance thing, time and time again you have shown yourself to judge Floyd harsher than anyone else. Your post on Tyler was farcical. You said he seemed really genuine. Then when I told you about his fund, you went 180. I mean jesus man come on. So why aren't you this indignant on the Lance thread about him paying back the money people donated. Why weren't you this indignant on any Tyler thread?
Because you clearly have an irrational hatred/dislike for Floyd. No matter what the guy does, you will find fault. Just like you wanted to believe Tyler was genuine, when in fact, his motives were questionable. (In that he wanted to avoid jail and not necessarily clean up the sport)

You keep wanting to make this about me. It's really about Floyd and his bad behavior.

 

[Digger]

You keep wanting to make this about me. It's really about Floyd and his bad behavior.

I am merely pointing out your double standards here.

 

[MarkvW]

Mark Ziegler...so stop saying I am making stuff up.

You're making stuff up. You're saying that there is more than one report that Birotte didn't look at the evidence before making his decision.

What Ziegler report? Who was the leak that provided THAT inside information?

And who is the other reporter?

You are saying that the person who led the investigation for about two years was unaware of the evidence.

Anything to win an argument, eh?

Floyd, is that you?

 

[Maxiton]

This will probably start another wall of flame, but I think that one of the major reasons that Lance got off was because the Feds (the decisionmakers) were not confident that the more recent acts of Lance would be sufficient 'ongoing criminal behavior' needed to get around the statute of limitations on conspiracy and RICO charges. If the Feds would have gotten on this five or six years earlier, then I really think that the outcome would have been way different. Floyd's (and others') lies are one of the things that bought Lance the time he needed to walk away from this.

I'm not saying this to make the continuing point that Floyd is a jerk (although of course I think he is). I'm also saying it to make the point that Lance walked because the feds thought they couldn't risk taking the case forward and they were very afraid of losing. It's kind of like this: If you are going to take on the King, you have to kill the King. Lance walked because he was a clever dirtbag. Floyd shouldn't walk just because he isn't as clever as Lance.

If Lance got a break, he got the break that powerful people often get--close cases against them won't get charged because the prosecutors are afraid of losing. I don't think that's a reason Floyd should walk (and I don't think the feds will charge a weak case against Floyd).

I also don't think athletes should get special consideration because they are athletes. When they rip people off, they should go down just like the lady who embezzled all that money from the local furniture manufacturer, or the pharmacist who gives pills to his girlfriends. Those crooks' lives are also destroyed, but we want them to be held accountable for their actions. They shouldn't get special consideration just because they can ride a bike fast, throw a football, or hit a baseball, or write good prison literature like Jack Abbott.

If Floyd gets convicted, then some of his victims will get some money back. I don't think Floyd deserves time, but he does deserve a conviction.

Disagree. Perhaps a case can be made against him. Perhaps they will come up with the "smoking syringe" -- the guy who administered or saw administered the dope on the day in question; perhaps a jury will see the "re-infused tainted blood" defense as a ruse, or, worse, as splitting hairs. But in any case, prosecutors who are concerned with the spirit of law and with justice won't prosecute this, and juries so concerned won't convict.

To prosecute a case against Floyd Landis will have a huge chilling effect on those within sport who want to come clean about sport. It will chill, as well, all those who think about taking on powerful people in general, and Lance Armstrong in particular. A prosecution of Landis would take place within the shadow of the immense fraud said to have been perpetrated by Team USPS, its owners, its star rider, but not prosecuted: it will take place within the shadow of a federal investigation of Armstrong, et al., that was suddenly, arbitrarily shut down with no accounting, leaving the appearance at least of endemic corruption inside our own Justice Department.

I don't think they have a strong case against Landis, or a strong reason for pursuing one.

 

[Digger]

You're making stuff up. You're saying that there is more than one report that Birotte didn't look at the evidence before making his decision.

What Ziegler report? Who was the leak that provided THAT inside information?

And who is the other reporter?

You are saying that the person who led the investigation for about two years was unaware of the evidence.

Anything to win an argument, eh?

Floyd, is that you?

Did I use the term two to say there were two reports that Birotte hadn't seen it? But I did use an 's' at the end of the word report, so yeah, there you go.
However there are numerous reports that investigators were scheduled to interview people in the weeks after the investigation was dropped.

Mark Ziegler - google him if you don't know who he is. I suppose he just made it up to sound cool

And you know full well that the men on the ground were the ones leading that investigation, the likes of Jeff for example. Why were these same investigators so confident of indictment in a matter of weeks? These same investigators on the ground were notified twenty minutes beforehand that it was being dropped. All lies again I suppose. Ever wonder why it was announced on the Friday of the SuperBowl, or why Lance has been so quiet about it. Usually the guy can't keep his mouth shut when he 'wins' somethinh like this.
Do you honestly think your legal system is beyond political interference?

 

[Digger]

Anyway Mark if the balco case has shone us one thing it's that leaks are both possible and can be very accurate. I'm still waiting for George to sue or demand a retraction from 60 mins for example for them disclosing that he corroborated Tyler and floyd.

 

[MarkvW]

Did I use the term two to say there were two reports that Birotte hadn't seen it? But I did use an 's' at the end of the word report, so yeah, there you go.
However there are numerous reports that investigators were scheduled to interview people in the weeks after the investigation was dropped.

Mark Ziegler - google him if you don't know who he is. I suppose he just made it up to sound cool

And you know full well that the men on the ground were the ones leading that investigation, the likes of Jeff for example. Why were these same investigators so confident of indictment in a matter of weeks? These same investigators on the ground were notified twenty minutes beforehand that it was being dropped. All lies again I suppose. Ever wonder why it was announced on the Friday of the SuperBowl, or why Lance has been so quiet about it. Usually the guy can't keep his mouth shut when he 'wins' somethinh like this.
Do you honestly think your legal system is beyond political interference?

There is no report that said that Birotte never looked at the evidence--none that I could find. I think the report exists only in your mind.

 

[Digger]

There is no report that said that Birotte never looked at the evidence--none that I could find. I think the report exists only in your mind.

Mark ziegler competitor radio. You will have to bother to listen though. Now that's a pretty specific reference.