Floyd to be charged with fraud

[mewmewmew13]

I'm not sure if misspelling "except" makes that funnier, or an epic fail...

I was sort of wondering that myself

 

[MarkvW]

No my name is theHog.

Besides you're the one who keeps bring up this Qum Ter case. But you don't want to discuss it?

You really are strange man at times.

Hard to really trust anything you say.

The qui tam is all secret. Nothing to discuss. Tolling of the limitations period does apply there, though! Waiting to see if the feds will take it, I guess.

 

[BotanyBay]

You're the one asking the question. I'm seeking clarification on what you're asking.

I'm reading your post:

"Thanks for that article, Race.

Now my question: If Floyd is so honest, why would "Federal Police World" turn on the recently honest Floyd Landis?"

- You wrote "Federal Police". I need to understand in the United States who are the Federal Police? Because its important to the question you're asking.

You suggest that the Federal Police were investigating Landis and now they dropped the case and have started proceedings against Landis?

Is that what you're saying?

I think you need to clarify your assertion. Who are the Federal Police?

Then I can respond to the question.

They mean "The federal government" as the prosecuting force. We don"t have a "federal police force" per-se but rather the FBI that handles investigations and such. They ARE federal law enforcement officers, but their purpose isn't to stand on street corners and enforce gum-chewing laws.

 

[thehog]

They mean "The federal government" as the prosecuting force. We don"t have a "federal police force" per-se but rather the FBI that handles investigations and such. They ARE federal law enforcement officers, but their purpose isn't to stand on street corners and enforce gum-chewing laws.

What do you mean "they"? You mean in the article? It be nice if they clarified what they meant by the "Federal Police World" - do you believe everything that printed this second and moment? (like do you do any of you're own research to verify what you read?)

Do you think the FDA is part of the this newly defined term "Federal Police World"?

Are they the same "law enforcement officers" as you state that are now investigating Landis?

...or are they different bunch of guys? You know the guys wasting tax payer money chasing Armstrong is this the same FPW (Federal Police World) rattling Landis's cage?


(The FDA do actually enforce gum-chewing laws if the gum contains dangerous compounds but we'll save that lesson for another day)

 

[BotanyBay]

What do you mean "they"? You mean in the article? It be nice if they clarified what they meant by the "Federal Police World" - do you believe everything that printed this second and moment? (like do you do any of you're own research to verify what you read?)

Do you think the FDA is part of the this newly defined term "Federal Police World"?

Are they the same "law enforcement officers" as you state that are now investigating Landis?

...or are they different bunch of guys? You know the guys wasting tax payer money chasing Armstrong is this the same FPW (Federal Police World) rattling Landis's cage?


(The FDA do actually enforce gum-chewing laws if the gum contains dangerous compounds but we'll save that lesson for another day)

The "feds" (including FDA, IRS, FBI and US Atty's office) have a really well-organized capacity to come together and make life really difficult for those who need to defend themselves against such a prosecution. In other words, God help you if you even find yourself on the receiving end of such a prosecution. Landis will need a lot of money to defend himself against the unending resources of a federal prosecution (and this is why several people have assumed he'll plead guilty). He is facing the "U.S. Government" (quite literally). All of this is coordinated by the U.S. Attorney's office (the lawyers who prosecute the cases).

 

[BotanyBay]

You suggest that the Federal Police were investigating Armstrong and now they dropped the case and have started proceedings against Landis?

We have different prosecutorial "districts" each with thier own lead attorney (the U.S. Attorney for that district). Floyd's case is being handled by the AS Attorney in the district immediately SOUTH (San Diego) of the one Armstrong was being investigated by (Los Angeles).

But who knows how much the two attorneys are talking to one another. They can choose to work independently, or share information. They are given wide latitude to work independently (usually). The U.S. Attorney General's office (their bosses) can direct them on how closely they must cooperate (if at all). Did Holder have anything to do with Armstrong's case dismissal, and did he have anything to do with Floyd's? We do not yet know. That is the big mystery.

 

[MarkvW]

Interesting thing in the article is the idea that the feds are "turning on" Floyd. That implies some kind of agreement that the Feds once had with Floyd, that the Feds have now rejected.

If the Feds are turning on Floyd, it would have to be because Floyd breached an agreement with the Feds. Otherwise, the Feds would surely abide the terms of their deal.

Of course, there's the possibility that the Feds never had any deal with Floyd and never turned on him.

I want to know whether or not Floyd breached an immunity deal with the Feds!

 

[thehog]

We have different prosecutorial "districts" each with thier own lead attorney (the U.S. Attorney for that district). Floyd's case is being handled by the AS Attorney in the district immediately SOUTH (San Diego) of the one Armstrong was being investigated by (Los Angeles).

But who knows how much the two attorneys are talking to one another. They can choose to work independently, or share information. They are given wide latitude to work independently (usually). The U.S. Attorney General's office (their bosses) can direct them on how closely they must cooperate (if at all). Did Holder have anything to do with Armstrong's case dismissal, and did he have anything to do with Floyd's? We do not yet know. That is the big mystery.

Thanks for the update Matlock. I was wondering where you'd gone but obviously the internet speed in your basement is not T1 speeds. (Give Verzion a call I hear FiOS is super fast)

It appears to have taken you some time to piece all that together (note to self - buy shares in Google) from the comfort of Wikipedia. Well done. Are you going to provide the link where you stole all the from? or this is just personal already known knowledge?

Whilst its been fun dismantling you over the past two days I have to say you have no idea what you're talking about.

So back to your original assertion; You stated that why would the same "Federal Police World" investigating Armstrong now drop that case and start investigating Landis?

You were suggesting that they had discovered Landis was lying and now they're going to proscecute him because of his lies? That being the case why would they prosecute for the FFF? Wouldn't they prosecute him for mis-leading Government Officials?

Appears after a little research you've backed down from this statement? Or do you still maintain that this is the case? The FPW are now making Floyd pay for all his lies?

Silly boy.


Tonights homework:
Please discuss the FDA's role into the investigation of Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis and connections to both investigations if any. 200 words or more.

 

[BotanyBay]

Thanks for the update Matlock. I was wondering where you'd gone but obviously the internet speed in your basement is not T1 speeds. (Give Verzion a call I hear FiOS is super fast)

It appears to have taken you some time to piece all that together (note to self - buy shares in Google) from the comfort of Wikipedia. Well done. Are you going to provide the link where you stole all the from? or this is just personal already known knowledge?

Whilst its been fun dismantling you over the past two days I have to say you have no idea what you're talking about.

So back to your original assertion; You stated that why would the same "Federal Police World" investigating Armstrong now drop that case and start investigating Landis?

You were suggesting that they had discovered Landis was lying and now they're going to proscecute him because of his lies? That being the case why would they prosecute for the FFF? Wouldn't they prosecute him for mis-leading Government Officials?

Appears after a little research you've backed down from this statement? Or do you still maintain that this is the case? The FPW are now making Floyd pay for all his lies?

Silly boy.


Tonights homework:
Please discuss the FDA's role into the investigation of Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis and connections to both investigations if any. 200 words or more.

Clearly the cultural gap here is big. Is English not your primary language, or is it that you are "not so bright"?

 

[BotanyBay]

Thanks for the update Matlock. I was wondering where you'd gone but obviously the internet speed in your basement is not T1 speeds. (Give Verzion a call I hear FiOS is super fast)

It appears to have taken you some time to piece all that together (note to self - buy shares in Google) from the comfort of Wikipedia. Well done. Are you going to provide the link where you stole all the from? or this is just personal already known knowledge?

Whilst its been fun dismantling you over the past two days I have to say you have no idea what you're talking about.

So back to your original assertion; You stated that why would the same "Federal Police World" investigating Armstrong now drop that case and start investigating Landis?

You were suggesting that they had discovered Landis was lying and now they're going to proscecute him because of his lies? That being the case why would they prosecute for the FFF? Wouldn't they prosecute him for mis-leading Government Officials?

Appears after a little research you've backed down from this statement? Or do you still maintain that this is the case? The FPW are now making Floyd pay for all his lies?

Silly boy.


Tonights homework:
Please discuss the FDA's role into the investigation of Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis and connections to both investigations if any. 200 words or more.

You've fundamentally misunderstood... pretty much everything. I don't know if this is intentional obfuscation, or just lack of intelliegence. I was QUOTING AN ARTICLE that Race Radio posted a link to. Somewhere, you seem to have assumed that I was quoting myself. I was not. Go back to RaceRadio's post, follow the link. Read the article. Comprehend the article. Form an opinion. Then (and only then) react either to what IT said, or what I said.

 

[BotanyBay]

In case you haven't noticed the author didn't make nasty remarks about Floyd's mother, unlike you who made cheap nasty and distasteful shots about the divorce AND who made statements on more than one occasion about someone who died tragically.
If you don't see he difference here, then you're farther gone than I thought.

I don't think the mere mention of the divorce is cheap (even if later in the post some elementof comedy is introduced), and bringing attention to the fact that Floyd has the suicide of a man (at least partially) on his hands.

I have made fun of the cabin in the woods. I have pointed-out the sadness of the human toll exacted on his immediate family (mother AND daughter). I have found it interesting (not comedic) that Floyd's divorce was a "Google search suggestion" long before the divorce became public knowledge. As a matter of fact, I believe I was the first to point this out. I wondered if ARMSTRONG might have had anything (dylancasey) to do about it.

It's not considered a "cheap shot" for Matt Lauer to ask Bobby Brown if he bears any degree of responsibility for the death of Whitney Houston. Both are public people. Floyd was the winner of the Tour de France. Hardly an anonymous individual.

 

[thehog]

You've fundamentally misunderstood... pretty much everything. I don't know if this is intentional obfuscation, or just lack of intelliegence. I was QUOTING AN ARTICLE that Race Radio posted a link to. Somewhere, you seem to have assumed that I was quoting myself. I was not. Go back to RaceRadio's post, follow the link. Read the article. Comprehend the article. Form an opinion. Then (and only then) react either to what IT said, or what I said.

Sure. I read your post.

This is what you wrote:

Thanks for that article, Race.

Now my question: If Floyd is so honest, why would "Federal Police World" turn on the recently honest Floyd Landis?

- See the part I bolded and underlined. Thats yours. You clearly state "Now my question". "My" question as in "you" - "Yours". That does not appear anywhere in the article. You added in: Now my question.

You were redirecting the quote as if you were asking the question.

You were suggesting the FPW are all one of the same Federal Police (as you stated) and they now working on Floyd because he's "not honest".

You're still not making any sense. You're trying to claim that they wouldn't be investigating him if he was "honest"? and there's a link to Armstrong etc etc etc.

You even invited (taunted) me to respond: " So... Digger, Maserati, Hog: please, go there. We're waiting."

So I responded and flushed all that rhetoric down the toilet with your Federal Police/Not Federal Police/I work in advertising/don't work in advertising along with Floyd's blood bag from 2004.

Here's my question: Do the FPW investigate Internet hate?

 

[MarkvW]

Sure. I read your post.

This is what you wrote:

Thanks for that article, Race.

Now my question: If Floyd is so honest, why would "Federal Police World" turn on the recently honest Floyd Landis?

- See the part I bolded and underlined. Thats yours. You clearly state "Now my question". "My" question as in "you" - "Yours". That does not appear anywhere in the article. You added in: Now my question.

You were redirecting the quote as if you were asking the question.

You were suggesting the FPW are all one of the same Federal Police (as you stated) and they now working on Floyd because he's "not honest".

You're still not making any sense. You're trying to claim that they wouldn't be investigating him if he was "honest"? and there's a link to Armstrong etc etc etc.

You even invited (taunted) me to respond: " So... Digger, Maserati, Hog: please, go there. We're waiting."

So I responded and flushed all that rhetoric down the toilet with your Federal Police/Not Federal Police/I work in advertising/don't work in advertising along with Floyd's blood bag from 2004.

Here's my question: Do the FPW investigate Internet hate?

Well hogster, unless your Floyd-Love has blinded you, must admit it is at least possible that Floyd withheld material information from the Feds. It is at least POSSIBLE, surely. It would explain why the feds are looking at him for a possible federal felony!

Maybe Floyd is not as saintly as you, Digger, and Maserati think! It is possible, isn't it? Maybe Floyd is still keeping some secrets . . .

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

Now you're just confused.

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

You mocked the dead and the divorced.

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

No damage done...just for you, digger, and maybe the Dr. .

 

[thehog]

Well hogster, unless your Floyd-Love has blinded you, must admit it is at least possible that Floyd withheld material information from the Feds. It is at least POSSIBLE, surely. It would explain why the feds are looking at him for a possible federal felony!

Maybe Floyd is not as saintly as you, Digger, and Maserati think! It is possible, isn't it? Maybe Floyd is still keeping some secrets . . .

I think its about as possible as BB explanation for Floyd's testosterone positive: (this was prior to him saying that Floyd is lying about taking testosterone - you know before the story changed again and again and again).

"Ever consider this?... Floyd was such a past abuser of testosterone that his body quite possibly quit producing it naturally, forcing him to use daily "maintenance" doses just to be "normal" (chemically). But perhaps his body kicked back a little "spike" that day, causing the testers to zoom-in and have a look at what his body's testoserone was actually MADE OF. remember, in the rationalizing mind of a doper, that "maintenance dose" would not be considered "doping" in his mind. He probably thought he was at baseline levels, so he was "OK" as far as cheating.

Floyd's ****ed that he got caught cheating for the drug he never expected to get caught cheating with."

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=16921&page=72

 

[MarkvW]

I think its about as possible as BB explanation for Floyd's testosterone positive: (this was prior to him saying that Floyd is lying about taking testosterone - you know before the story changed again and again and again).

"Ever consider this?... Floyd was such a past abuser of testosterone that his body quite possibly quit producing it naturally, forcing him to use daily "maintenance" doses just to be "normal" (chemically). But perhaps his body kicked back a little "spike" that day, causing the testers to zoom-in and have a look at what his body's testoserone was actually MADE OF. remember, in the rationalizing mind of a doper, that "maintenance dose" would not be considered "doping" in his mind. He probably thought he was at baseline levels, so he was "OK" as far as cheating.

Floyd's ****ed that he got caught cheating for the drug he never expected to get caught cheating with."

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=16921&page=72

You're as slippery as an eel, hogster. You can't even admit that it is POSSIBLE that St. Landis withheld information from the feds. Not even the teensiest, tiniest bit possible!

We'll find out soon enough.

 

[thehog]

You're as slippery as an eel, hogster. You can't even admit that it is POSSIBLE that St. Landis withheld information from the feds. Not even the teensiest, tiniest bit possible!

We'll find out soon enough.

Counsel you're leading the witness.

Its an interesting question;

If Armstrong could at least admit to his doping and tell us his version I could weigh up both sides of the story. Unfortunately he's still at the denial stage. His train has yet to stop at honestville station.

Maybe someone else involved at Tailwind or the FFF could give their side of the story so all of us make a better deduction on the events?

Or maybe you have some insider information you'd like to share with us? Perhaps you might have something that busts the case wide open?

Slippery indeed MarkW.

 

[MarkvW]

Counsel you're leading the witness.

Its an interesting question;

If Armstrong could at least admit to his doping and tell us his version I could weigh up both sides of the story. Unfortunately he's still at the denial stage. His train has yet to stop at honestville station.

Maybe someone else involved at Tailwind or the FFF could give their side of the story so all of us make a better deduction on the events?

Or maybe you have some insider information you'd like to share with us? Perhaps you might have something that busts the case wide open?

Slippery indeed MarkW.

Actually, the hogster is exercising his right to not answer the question. You have the privilege of not answering if by doing so you would compromise your love of Floyd.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was sort of wondering that myself

wow you in on this? WoW.

 

[thehog]

Actually, the hogster is exercising his right to not answer the question. You have the privilege of not answering if by doing so you would compromise your love of Floyd.

On the contrary my dear.

You're a man of sound mind and rational thinking.

Wouldn't you want to know both sides of the story?

Seeing neither you nor I have access to the case files held tight by the Feds you're summating he is lying. Based on what exactly?

Its your question and I'd like to hear your reasons.

Is that not fair? or do you not want to answer the question? or you just throwing it out there so some "mud" sticks?

I'd really like to hear Armstrong's version. I'd like him to clarify the doping at USPS and his involvement (if any) in the setting up and/or promotion of the FFF. I think that would help a lot people who are sitting on the fence make up their minds.

 

[MarkvW]

On the contrary my dear.

You're a man of sound mind and rational thinking.

Wouldn't you want to know both sides of the story?

Seeing neither you nor I have access to the case files held tight by the Feds you're summating he is lying. Based on what exactly?

Its your question and I'd like to hear your reasons.

Is that not fair? or do you not want to answer the question? or you just throwing it out there so some "mud" sticks?

I'd really like to hear Armstrong's version. I'd like him to clarify the doping at USPS and his involvement (if any) in the setting up and/or promotion of the FFF. I think that would help a lot people who are sitting on the fence make up their minds.

You answer my question with more questions. Oh well ....
If you want to play, you have to trade answers.

 

[thehog]

You answer my question with more questions. Oh well ....
If you want to play, you have to trade answers.

Not at all.

If you have reason to believe Floyd has being lying to the Feds then out with it. Show the forums the reasons. Show us the lies so they can be discussed.

I'd be disappointed if you of all people (someone I enjoy jousting with) was just "throwing it out there" to see what sticks in some form of vain attempt to tarnish another person.

Mark, really?

So lets see the evidence of Floyd lying to the Feds.

We're all waiting....

I'll pop the kettle on. Could be a long night to get through the swaths of evidence you're about to present.

 

[MarkvW]

Not at all.

If you have reason to believe Floyd has being lying to the Feds then out with it. Show the forums the reasons. Show us the lies so they can be discussed.

I'd be disappointed if you of all people (someone I enjoy jousting with) was just "throwing it out there" to see what sticks in some form of vain attempt to tarnish another person.

Mark, really?

So lets see the evidence of Floyd lying to the Feds.

We're all waiting....

I'll pop the kettle on. Could be a long night to get through the swaths of evidence you're about to present.

I give up. You won't answer my question.

 

[thehog]

I give up. You won't answer my question.

Just as I thought. You have nothing and no reason. Thank you for answering my question.

Even for someone of your legal nous and abilities you'd have to admit that was a fairly poor attempt at throwing mud.

The moderators should hold you in contempt.... but I think you'll get let off with a fine and wrist slap.

Better luck next time solider. I look forward to our next duel. Whisky at the railroad bar?


"Will the court record that MarkW was not able to provide any evidence to the statement that Floyd Landis lied to Federal Investigators. Case dismissed! Next!"

 

[Race Radio]

So lets see the evidence of Floyd lying to the Feds.

There is none.

If Floyd was lying to the Feds then the Feds he lied to would go after him not some guy in another district. This case has been going on for over a year. They have called witnesses who gave $50 to the FFF. There are other possible charges besides Fraud (And Mark clearly knows what they are) but they are silly. Why would the Feds continue to work with Floyd at the same time they are charging him?

It is just another attempt to introduce as much confusion into the discussion as possible by our resident legal expert