Is Armstrong about to admit

[Anonymous]

Where the hell is Flick & C'Stoned to add some pro-Lance insight?

 

[sartain]

+++1
This is my sentiment exactly. This would be better than jail time IMHO.

On a separate note I don't see how this news about a whistle blower lawsuit makes it any more likely that a guy with $50 million in the bank will do jail time. When Clemens was testifying in the steroid scandal all the senators and representatives wanted their picture with him and he was not nearly as revered as Lance.

Maybe you should send a letter to BM in jail and ask him that question? I think he had way north of $50M is his account?

 

[theswordsman]

Right before the Tour the French said that they were working with the Feds. I have heard that they are waiting to see what develops from the Landis case and testimony prior to proceeding with the infusion case.

The inference I got was that they think it can be much larger

That's the part that I hope has been happening quietly while people focus on Landis and Lance. If they match the DNA to eight riders, that would be massive already. But WADA said they were working through Interpol to get the national agencies to share info about investigations. The AFLD was already working with Interpol and national agencies to look for doping rings across a variety of sports. I wonder what t would take for someone to be able to retest all of Lance's stored samples without his permission?

 

[Tubeless]

I'm already excited because there's now a lawsuit going after the money of Armstrong, Bruyneel, and Armstrong's business partners, with a chance that their money will go to the government that Lance's people act concerned about in the press - the "taxpayer dollars".

This story is getting more and more press. Typical US fashion, you can only expect the coverage to escalate until the case is resolved, one way or another.

For this simple reason alone, the justice dept is perhaps eager to get involved, to change the PR game from "waste of taxpayer money" into "recovery of taxpayer money". Armstrong's team sure does not think very far ahead when they choose their line of defense for their "poor" client. Going after the small fortune of Armstrong & his supporters would seem like the right kind of justice here, especially as criminal charges may be harder to prove.

To take away the obvious personal PR weakness here, Landis would be wise to make a statement what he'd do with his share of the recovery if he prevails - e.g. donate the entire sum to cancer research or pay back those who gave money to the Floyd fairness fund as someone already suggested.

Once that's done, what's the next PR theme from Armstrong's team?

 

[theswordsman]

Maybe you should send a letter to BM in jail and ask him that question? I think he had way north of $50M is his account?

It's way off topic, but I read a bit of news about Tiger, the other American superstar who got in big trouble (without breaking a lot of laws). One day the news story was that he had taken out a $54 million mortgage on a house. The next day msnbc.com had a piece saying that it seems the mortgage was held by a company with no assets, connected to Tiger's exes divorce lawyer, who had notarized the mortgage. I forget what the year was, but I think Tiger had until 2016 or something to pay off the mortgage or lose the house. And his net worth in the article was $900 million.

Someone in this thread said that Lance has $50 million. I don't know if it's true or not. But I believe his ranch was up for sale a year ago for around $8 million. He still had the house in Austin, and the new place in Colorado. He was living in California last year when he did the vile interview about Contador for Telesport. The reporter described the neighborhood with the movie stars and things. I don't know if that was his or a rental. There's the private plane. Art. Vehicles. Stock. There's no telling how much the guy has that's liquid. And I imagine his real estate has decreased in value and would be tough to sell just like other people's. His lawyers, new spokesman, etc. don't have a potential cash payout at the end of this. I imagine he's financially vulnerable to all of this.

Also, I just remembered that it's been said repeatedly the Novitsky investigation is racing the clock (well, the calendar) as some things are nearing the statute of limitations. If the Justice Department got involved, and the two departments were able to share information, they could cover a lot more ground in a hurry.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Would need an attorney to verify this, but I believe that in some circumstances there are ways around the statute of limitations, or having them extended. Hopefully someone can explain or verify.

Nice to see you back TexPat. Great avatar.

 

[python]

neither trying to claim more than i read nor claiming what i’m about to speculate on makes legal sense, but isn’t plain logic and the time line of the latest news point to some important potential facts with high probability ?

thought 1: the emergence of the whistleblower case=armstrong will likely be charged with fraud/rico (among other things) by novitzky/miller ? (that looking at alpe's latest post would move sol to 10 years)

thought 2: the new circumstantial evidence of armstrong involvement in doping on us postal/discovery is considerably more extensive than what’s been leaked so far (‘2 to 4 riders support all or parts of fladis’s accusations’)

thought 3: there is a private group of determined, resourceful and deep-pocketed individuals who consider it necessary to take on public relations misinformation spread out by armstrong’s camp flandis is important but a small screw in the machinery.

thought 4: timing and sequence of the news emergence is not random by any means and reasonably point to thickening clouds over armstrong’s locale no matter where he moves.

 

[theswordsman]

thought 3: there is a private group of determined, resourceful and deep-pocketed individuals who consider it necessary to take on public relations misinformation spread out by armstrong’s camp flandis is important but a small screw in the machinery.

thought 4: timing and sequence of the news emergence is not random by any means and reasonably point to thickening clouds over armstrong’s locale no matter where he moves.

The wording of thought 3 has me a bit confused.

As for the timing in thought 4, I'm a big picture kind of a guy, but I don't sense that it's being orchestrated in the media. The information in the New York Daily News about the defendants, for instance, would not have been made public until all parties had been served. I don't follow Bruyneel's twitter, but know he lives in Spain, and in Google searches for Contador, Armstrong's name pops up at rides and events around the country. So that story might be out right now because they finally tracked down and served the last guy with papers.

The last news prior to that came from Betsy, who apparently spoke to the L.A. Times after she spoke with Novitsky, plus word that McIlvain had refused to talk without her attorney and was subpoenaed. I think there was a dry spell for a few weeks before that. And it doesn't seem that the unnamed sources are the same. I could be wrong.

 

[python]

The wording of thought 3 has me a bit confused.

As for the timing in thought 4, I'm a big picture kind of a guy, but I don't sense that it's being orchestrated in the media. The information in the New York Daily News about the defendants, for instance, would not have been made public until all parties had been served. I don't follow Bruyneel's twitter, but know he lives in Spain, and in Google searches for Contador, Armstrong's name pops up at rides and events around the country. So that story might be out right now because they finally tracked down and served the last guy with papers.

The last news prior to that came from Betsy, who apparently spoke to the L.A. Times after she spoke with Novitsky, plus word that McIlvain had refused to talk without her attorney and was subpoenaed. I think there was a dry spell for a few weeks before that. And it doesn't seem that the unnamed sources are the same. I could be wrong.

‘not random’ referred not to ‘being orchestrated in the media‘ but to the fact that the reported developments seem to run apace and in phase with (but slightly delayed)..with the actual legal events as they occurred. that is, each time we learned something new (for ex. armstrong team met with feds, betsy delivers some new evidence, mcIlvan subpoenaed, landis launched a law suit etc) it’s like a sequence of dots connecting into a line pointing in a certain (non-random) direction/trend.

regarding the wording of thought 3, how about this: there seems exist a group of individuals besides flandis who concern themselves with fabiani’s public spin and try to counter it in a likely manner.

 

[Cloxxki]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy! It's almost like Christmas. The merry smell of thruth will soon be upon cycling!

From the first leaked LAndis mails, I've had the feeling someone smart was involved, and having lots of fun with it. Like they had already played out the battle plan, and come to a check mate via every possible first, second and xxth step from the opposition.

I have great faith that Landis will do the right thing. He never seemed like a greedy guy to me. Just someone who wants to play with the big boys (on a bike), and now has a sincere intension to clean up cycling, and do that better than he would ever be at the sport itself.
Many people echo he'll donate to a cancer charity, but that would only have symbolic value, to diss LA. Why not give a whole bunch to AA, and services aiding people in mental despair. Fair play initiatives, aimed at a new youth, to be grown as atletes with stronger enthical foundation.

Landis doesn't respond to the mud throwing by the LA camp, but he will be keeping score for sure, keeping detailed notes. His day will come. His fan will get their donations back, or see the money be used vey well. He may even come up with non-legal initiatives to make things right.
I want to believe he intends to make things right, but managed to give himself time to do so, rather than to dig his head into the sand and try to forget, get sleep at night.

 

[oldschoolnik]

Maybe you should send a letter to BM in jail and ask him that question? I think he had way north of $50M is his account?

Right except most people's first knowledge of BM was that he was a Ponzi scheme running crook - and the majority of US citizens think Lance is a national hero. Plus BM case was easy for people to understand - there were no real accounts - and LA case there are about 20 moving parts.

 

[Race Radio]

Where the hell is Flick & C'Stoned to add some pro-Lance insight?

They are still waiting for the Public Strategies talking points.

 

[Race Radio]

Would need an attorney to verify this, but I believe that in some circumstances there are ways around the statute of limitations, or having them extended. Hopefully someone can explain or verify.

Nice to see you back TexPat. Great avatar.

It is usually easy to overcome the SOL. In a related case, Storck, Ketter, Carmichel and "Extract of Cortisone" they were able to get around the SOL issues as the symptoms took a few years to show.

 

[buckwheat]

They are still waiting for the Public Strategies talking points.

The pro Pharmstrong's are spewing on RBR unchecked.

Anyone who diverges from the corporate line is still being banned over there.

I won't even go in the doping forum there. NO point to that other than to laugh.

 

[thehog]

The pro Pharmstrong's are spewing on RBR unchecked.

Anyone who diverges from the corporate line is still being banned over there.

I won't even go in the doping forum there. NO point to that other than to laugh.

From an interest perspective what are they saying? I'm finding it hard now how a Pro Pharmstrong fanboy would still stick with the "never doped" line. Or do they dilute it into something else?

 

[Digger]

From an interest perspective what are they saying? I'm finding it hard now how a Pro Pharmstrong fanboy would still stick with the "never doped" line. Or do they dilute it into something else?

From Coolhand, who was responsible for banning many of us on here:
"I think anyone would be hard pressed to find Landis to be anything other than a lying dope-riden sociopath. My favorite lie so far is the claim he didn't dope for the TdF win."

From others:
This is Landis' last shot at just about anything in life. I don't see this ending well for him.

About Lemond's tribute to Laurent - some nuggets:
Odd that Lemond could expouse so much admiration for Fignon (a proven cheater), yet spew so much vitriol for Armstrong (based on his own gut feelings and hearsay).

To me this only points towards his jealously of Armstrong as the reason for his attacks. Afterall, he did write history against Fignon, making it much easier. I know you're not supposed to speak bad of the dead, but given his stern stance on the use of PEDs, his response could've been more neutral, rather tha using the terms 'greater champions'. Hypocracy at its near finest.

Well Laurent,RIP.



From Coolhand again:
Because he (Lemond) was just as (if not twice as) dirty? Hypocracy and Lemond are great friends- see e.g. his new found love of uber-doper and former top foe Landis.
Coolhand outlining the case for lemond doping:
This is absurd. There were plenty of effective doping methods back to the 80's, nevermind the crazy crap the teams were doing pre-Festina.

Yes the racers for the 80's and 90's were doped to the gills, the testing was a joke, the penalties minor, and the rewards great. Pre-Festina the french teams were doping all their GC riders under the gise of "preparation". The strong Omerta and fear of litigation are protecting the few remaining non-outed dopers of that era, but you would have to be delusional to think that any GT winner from the 80's or 90's was remotely clean.

From another user:
Has it really come down to the best argument to go after LA while ignoring dopers in the era before him being that the drugs weren't as good? That's pathetic. That's like saying a kid today who cheats on a test by having a photo of the answers on his cell phone is worse then a kid in the 80's having the answers from a friends test (who got a 96%) on a piece of paper. They are both cheating...period.

 

[Tubeless]

You read this part:
The Postal Service paid $30.6 million to the team's management company to sponsor the team from 2001 through 2004, according to a sponsorship agreement reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The contract said "negative publicity" due to "alleged possession, use or sale of banned substances" by riders or team personnel would constitute an "event of default," as would a failure to take "action" in the event a rider violates a morals or drug clause.

....and you'll get to the potential fraud for that action. Couple that with any money laundering for purchase of PED's and your into a felony area. Now who serves time is questionable. Barry Bond's trainer stewed in the Federal pokey for not testifying. This will end upstream of Lance and look to some organization. And more and more it's Tailwind's associates that look like the prize.

The existence of this lawsuit clears up the debate whether there's basis to sue Tailwind Sports et al for defrauding the government as some had speculated early on. USPS is a government-controlled entity, statues of limitations have not yet kicked in, this case is open for whistleblower civil action, and indeed treble damages may be awarded. All confirmed.

This disclosure of this USPS contract detail also clarifies an important point - was there material misrepresentation by Tailwind Sports and its principles in order to get the initial contract, and its subsequent renewals? The quoted sentence in the article is from the section that discusses what basis USPS can use to terminate the contract prematurely - but by agreeing to these terms while knowing AT THAT TIME that the team has an organized doping regime is a clear case of contract fraud by the management of the cycling team.

Finally, this dual track of both criminal and civil charges is smart strategy - if there ever was a coordinated plan to begin with. Getting someone convincted "beyond reasonable doubt" and sentenced to time in prison is certainly harder than slapping significant monetary penalties in a case where just the "preponderance of the evidence" is required.

This case is quickly spiraling out of Armstrong's control. The fact that there are so many defendants in this whistleblower case will bring out an army of defendant lawyers, who don't necessarily want to team up - a classic case for the government to use the smaller fish against the bigger ones here as well. The civil case is going to have a life on its own, and likely a longer timeline given the number of parties involed.

This will be fun to watch.

 

[buckwheat]

From an interest perspective what are they saying? I'm finding it hard now how a Pro Pharmstrong fanboy would still stick with the "never doped" line. Or do they dilute it into something else?

Coolhand is busy calling Flandis a sociopath. They're into to dilution, diversion, distraction.

Accusing LeMond, that kind of stuff.

 

[Hugh Januss]

From Coolhand, who was responsible for banning many of us on here:

Increasingly the fanboy strategy seems to be shifting from "most tested. necer failed, high cadence, bla bla bla" to "Landis is the biggest doper of all, everybody has always done it even that nasty jealous LeMond, he might even be worse than Landis". It would be interesting if that became the official defense. I'd like to see how that works for him.

OT but maybe it's time for a poll Is Toolhand the biggest doosh in the world of cycling forums?

 

[thehog]

Coolhand is busy calling Flandis a sociopath. They're into to dilution, diversion, distraction.

Accusing LeMond, that kind of stuff.

Understand. I can see that by attacking Landis and LeMond as just bitter cancels the "did he dope" argument. The funny thing is Landis is bitter. He should be bitter. I would be bitter in his position. Doesn't mean he's not telling the truth. After he doped with Lance then protected him for years after his own positive then to have his face rubbed in it after comeback 2.0. Of course that makes you bitter. Point being Landis could have done this differently. He could have gone the way of Pantani. But he saw a therapist. He got help. And he's now correcting his own wrongs and those of the establishment. We'll all look back in 10 years and thank Floyd Landis. Because one day there might be another cyclist like Armstrong but they'll never be able to do the damage that Armstrong did thanks to Floyd.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Understand. I can see that by attacking Landis and LeMond as just bitter cancels the "did he dope" argument. The funny thing is Landis is bitter. He should be bitter. I would be bitter in his position. Doesn't mean he's not telling the truth. After he doped with Lance then protected him for years after his own positive then got have his face rubbed in it after comeback 2.0. Of course that makes you bitter. Point being Landis could have done this differently. He could have gone the way of Pantani. But he saw a therapist. He got help. And he's now correcting his own wrongs and those of the establishment. We'll all look back in 10 years and thank Floyd Landis. Because one day there might be another cyclist like Armstrong but they'll never be able to do the damage that Armstrong did thanks to Floyd.

+100

I think this thought above encapsulates the disparity between the probable reality of what Landis has done and the Lance/Public Strategies spin on the topic.

@Tubeless - Landis is showing a sophistication in his approach and tactics that is blindsiding his detractors. I can only imagine what the next move will be. If the adversary is wounded or stunned, go for the kill, so to speak. I agree with your post 100%. So far, and in hindsight, none of this looks random or to chance. Quite the contrary, this appears to be orchestrated and deliberate, with a very real focus on escalating pressure in sudden and dramatic ways.

 

[spectacle]

Would need an attorney to verify this, but I believe that in some circumstances there are ways around the statute of limitations, or having them extended. Hopefully someone can explain or verify.
.

here's a link to a pretty decent overview of how statutes of limitations are tolled

the link covers civil statues of limitations, but the same principles pretty much apply for criminal ones as well (except that the justifications for tolling are more limited in application and scope, and minority and incompetency are irrelevant).

basically, assume that the statute of limitations applies without exception.

unless:

1. the plaintiff is a minor or an incompetent

2. the matter was not discoverable at an earlier time for some justifiable reason

(merely not having discovered it earlier does not count, if it could have been discovered) (examples: a resulting medical ailment that required a long time to manifest and a matter that was purposefully and successfully concealed)

3. the matter is part of an ongoing course of action, as opposed to a discrete event (depending on the circumstances, the statute may not even be deemed to have begun to run yet in "ongoing enterprise" scenarios).

(this is exactly why RICO was enacted, to prosecute crimes that make up part of an ongoing criminal enterprise, which would be time barred if prosecuted as discrete crimes) (conspiracy charges can often achieve the same results).

these three pretty much cover all of the major justifications for tolling (i.e. temporarily pausing the running of) the statute of limitations.

note that if the statute has run, it has run. period. and the matter is no longer actionable. period. (this is why some crimes, like murder, have no statute of limitations).

hope this helps

 

[oldschoolnik]

Coolhand is busy calling Flandis a sociopath. They're into to dilution, diversion, distraction.

Accusing LeMond, that kind of stuff.

I haven't been back to the RBR doping boards for years - they are living in their own world. I would go back just to keep them honest but I'd like to be able to maintain my screen name over there in case I need to post on the wrenching boards which are actually really good.

 

[oldschoolnik]

Is Toolhand the biggest doosh in the world of cycling forums?[/color]

No need for a pol there is no contest - he is the "Eddy Merckx" in that arena and has no equal. At least here, the fanboys no when to fall back to the next best defense when their primary arguments have been proven wrong.

 

[theswordsman]

From Coolhand, who was responsible for banning many of us on here:
"I think anyone would be hard pressed to find Armstrong to be anything other than a lying dope-riden sociopath. My favorite lie so far is the claim he didn't dope for the TdF win."

Fixed it. It's interesting that the guy they're defending is guilty of the worst accusations he can think up for someone else.

I still don't see the orchestration, but you guys could be right. After Floyd's e-mails were leaked initially, and he'd done a couple of interviews, cycling publications started talking to experts asking what might be happening. I posted the Velonews article from May yesterday, which was one of the places where people were talking about the False Claims Act.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...-—-and-rewarded-—-by-whistleblower-law_118741

On June 7th it was announced that Landis had hired Greg LeMond's legal team from the Trek lawsuit. Prior to that he was taking heat from a lot of sources, including a Cease & Desist letter from Verbruggen.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...uscle_in_face_potential_legal_challenges.html

I'm guessing that once that team started advising him, and various legal experts had suggested in cycling and mainstream press that the whistle blower lawsuit might be a viable option, that they decided to go for it.

He said initially that he came forward at the time that he did because the Statute Of Limitations would start to be up for some of his activities, and it would be senseless (my word) to step up after he'd legally gotten away with some things. He was trying to get some of the guys he named immunity when everything went public. Then he had to spend loads of time with the investigators, talk to Ashenden and Catlin, deal with the Tour Of California, etc., then catch his breath and get the new lawyers. They had to file the lawsuit, and the stuff last night couldn't leak until everyone named had been served. I see it as a natural progression of two different things.

It would be interesting to know how and when the defendants were notified. If Bruyneel or Knaggs or Stapleton was served first, for instance, how tough would the other guys have been to track down?