Is Barry Bonds' Trial The Hold Up?

[Oldman]

Let's keep in mind, as well, that Bonds was testifying before the GJ because he wasn't the target of the investigation. Only when he decided to become evasive, coupled by Anderson's apparent willingness to sit in jail rather than testify, that the Feds lost patience.

Bonds goal, along with Anderson, was to collude to keep Bonds' name clean. The Feds wanted Victor Conte and BALCO, not Barry Bonds.

The Armstrong investigation is apparently about Armstrong (and possibly/likely others).

Lance is a target but not the target in the mind of many. As for being evasive that's where his public personna/behavior is so far beyond that of Clemens and Bonds. He's been selling his purity for a long time.

 

[Exroadman24902]

While there certainly are many who would like some kind public action the Feds will take their time.

People are no longer scared of wonderboy, they are coming forward in droves and the Feds are smart to examine all avenues and take their time. Armstrong is also smart to abandon his comeback to focus on his legal fight....as much as he tries to downplay it he is in serious trouble and has a long fight ahead of him.

The Bonds case will have zero effect on the Armstrong case.....but if it starts going bad for the Feds expect the media spin to say it will

The Clemens mistrial and the mistrial on the three counts of perjury and alleged use of performance-enhancing substances by bonds were a blow to the feds. This will deter them from pursuing LA on he said she said standards of evidence

 

[Race Radio]

The Clemens mistrial and the mistrial on the three counts of perjury and alleged use of performance-enhancing substances by bonds were a blow to the feds. This will deter them from pursuing LA on he said she said standards of evidence

You are welcome to believe that, but it is far from the truth.

There will be no Greg Anderson's with Lance. Nobody is going to jail for Wonderboy. In the Bonds case the "She Said" evidence was weak, a one time off hand comment. With Lance you have years of direct witness testimony from multiple witnesses.

The case against Armstrong will be the strongest of the three

 

[Exroadman24902]

You are welcome to believe that, but it is far from the truth.

There will be no Greg Anderson's with Lance. Nobody is going to jail for Wonderboy. In the Bonds case the "She Said" evidence was weak, a one time off hand comment. With Lance you have years of direct witness testimony from multiple witnesses.

The case against Armstrong will be the strongest of the three

unless you are working with or in the authorities that are investigating Armstrong, how could you possibly know if the less than impressive results of the prosecution of Bonds and Clemens haven't caused budgetary concerns to be raised? I am sure the feds have to justify their budget to someone, to justify the use of resources, so it may or may not influence a shelving of the LA case...

 

[Race Radio]

unless you are working with or in the authorities that are investigating Armstrong, how could you possibly know if the less than impressive results of the prosecution of Bonds and Clemens haven't caused budgetary concerns to be raised? I am sure the feds have to justify their budget to someone, to justify the use of resources, so it may or may not influence a shelving of the LA case...

Oh, so now the talking point is budgetary concerns not evidence? The talking points change fast.

The Armstrong case has approval from the highest level of the justice department. It is not going away

 

[Exroadman24902]

Oh, so now the talking point is budgetary concerns not evidence? The talking points change fast.

The Armstrong case has approval from the highest level of the justice department. It is not going away

no, just do the chances of conviction justify the budget is what the feds will ask and be asked whether people like you like it or not. The grand jury may have finished it's work and be going no further. We don't get informed by a grand jury that they didn't go ahead. Do you? And only a grand jury approves it, by a majority of 16 out 23 members is it?...Not the Dept of Justice's prerogative to approve..

 

[Race Radio]

no, just do the chances of conviction justify the budget is what the feds will ask and be asked whether people like you like it or not. The grand jury may have finished it's work and be going no further. We don't get informed by a grand jury that they didn't go ahead. Do you? And only a grand jury approves it, by a majority of 16 out 23 members is it?...Not the Dept of Justice's prerogative to approve..

Wrong. They Grand Jury is not the sole arbiter of if Armstrong, Bonds, Clemens, or their buddies are charged with a crime. Regardless, given the fact that multiple witness have gone in front of the grand jury and described the use and distribution of drugs, along with the effort to cover it up, the likelihood that they GJ will not recommend to move forward is zero.

It has been reported multiple times that over site and approval for this investigation has gone to the highest levels of the Justice department.

 

[Exroadman24902]

Wrong. They Grand Jury is not the sole arbiter of if Armstrong, Bonds, Clemens, or their buddies are charged with a crime. Regardless, given the fact that multiple witness have gone in front of the grand jury and described the use and distribution of drugs, along with the effort to cover it up, the likelihood that they GJ will not move forward is zero.

It has been reported multiple times that over site and approval for this investigation has gone to the highest levels of the Justice department.

the grand jury decides and that is the cornerstone of the legal system. They need 16 votes of 23 to indict. Multiple witnesses might have gone in and said they saw nothing. So it isn't clear how this will go...you just are so worked up about it you can't let that possibility enter your mind

 

[Race Radio]

the grand jury decides and that is the cornerstone of the legal system. They need 16 votes of 23 to indict. Multiple witnesses might have gone in and said they saw nothing. So it isn't clear how this will go...you just are so worked up about it you can't let that possibility enter your mind

nope, the justice department can still move forward. You also have missed that there are multiple investigations and multiple potential charges and sanctions.

What witness said they saw nothing? Do you really think the GJ will ignore multiple people describing systematic doping and listen to people who say they saw nothing because they were not even on the bus?

You are just getting worked up, don't let the myth allow you to suspend rational thought.

 

[Exroadman24902]

nope, the justice department can still move forward. You also have missed that there are multiple investigations and multiple potential charges and sanctions.

What witness said they saw nothing? Do you really think the GJ will ignore multiple people describing systematic doping and listen to people who say they saw nothing because they were not even on the bus?

You are just getting worked up, don't let the myth allow you to suspend rational thought.

Why should a grand jury only believe people who said LA doped. And indictments are decided by a grand jury in the USA, aren't hey?

 

[Race Radio]

Why should a grand jury only believe people who said LA doped. And indictments are decided by a grand jury in the USA, aren't hey?

Why would they believe someone who was not in the room? You know that this involves far more then just Federal criminal charges right?

Do you really believe this is going all go away? Really?

 

[Exroadman24902]

Why would they believe someone who was not in the room? You know that this involves far more then just Federal criminal charges right?

Do you really believe this is going all go away? Really?

Maybe..maybe not. But some were in the room and might say they saw nothing. Is he being prosecuted in Europe at the moment? The indictments come from the grand jury in the USA, don't they?

 

[Race Radio]

Maybe..maybe not. But some were in the room and might say they saw nothing. Is he being prosecuted in Europe at the moment? The indictments come from the grand jury in the USA, don't they?

Maybe, Maybe not? What do you put the chances at, 10%? 99%? Even Armstrong knows there will be indictments, that is why he is spending 100's of thousands of $$$ a month on lawyers. There has been zero evidence that this will not result in multiple indictments, if there was the Feds would have stopped by now.

Who has testified that they were on the bus and said they saw nothing? George, Floyd, and Tyler all said the same thing.

There are multiple investigations going right now. The Qui Tam case, USADA non-Analytical positive. Novtizkey and Miller are sharing evidence with both of those. The French have been investigating and have said they will wait until the Feds hand down their indictments. Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland all have investigations going which have turned up signification financial evidence.

All signs point to Armstrong being tied up in multiple legal cases for the next decade. That conclusion is the rational one based on the large volume of information available......not because someone is "Worked Up"

 

[MacRoadie]

Didn't the government, in their response to the request by Armstrong to have their intial response to his motion re: leaks unsealed, specifically state that unsealing the documents would jeopardize an ONGOING criminal investigation, and may lead to destruction of evidence?

Doesn't sound like the kind of language you'd get regarding a Grand Jury that is done, or an investigation that has run its course...

 

[Exroadman24902]

Didn't the government, in their response to the request by Armstrong to have their intial response to his motion re: leaks unsealed, specifically state that unsealing the documents would jeopardize an ONGOING criminal investigation, and may lead to destruction of evidence?

Doesn't sound like the kind of language you'd get regarding a Grand Jury that is done, or an investigation that has run its course...

Very true . A federal grand jury normally sits for no more than 18 months but it can be extended in 6 month increments for up to 36 months..with a bit of luck we might know by November as that would be the the end of the 18 months since May/June 2010 when the jury started.

 

[Exroadman24902]

Why would they believe someone who was not in the room? You know that this involves far more then just Federal criminal charges right?

Do you really believe this is going all go away? Really?

I do admit the chances of indictment are high, but it has taken so long since the Grand jury started in June 2010...nothing served by October would be highly suspect.

Here is an example of the odds which Lance has to know-which would worry me sick if were him

Fiscal Year 1994 through 1998, federal prosecutors secured 122,879 indictments, according to DOJ records. During the same period, prosecutors failed to get indictments in only 83 cases.Of the indicted, 90 percent -- plead guilty, and that of the remaining defendants who go to trial, another 80 percent to 85 percent are found guilty by a jury or judge.

 

[Velodude]

Maybe..maybe not. But some were in the room and might say they saw nothing. Is he being prosecuted in Europe at the moment? The indictments come from the grand jury in the USA, don't they?

You need steering in the right direction about Mr Armstrong's potential woes arising out of the speculated GJ indictments.

It is not a crime in the USA to take performance enhancing drugs. It is therefore not crucial to prove there existed evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that LA took PEDs during the USPS sponsorship funding period.

Therefore the outcome of this expected trial will not turn on whether there exists provable direct and circumstantial evidence of LA's drug taking (re your concerns over reliability of witnesses).

The Achilles heel(s) for Mr Armstrong is it is provable that he had ownership and directional participation of the team (which he asininely publicly denies) during the period USPS was providing US taxpayer related funds, the USPS contract forbid the use of PEDs by the team and the team breached numerous Federal laws in funding, transporting and administering those drugs.

All the expected indictments coming out of the GJ can lead to convictions of LA (and possibly his fellow team owners/directors) without proving his personal PED use.

 

[Dave_1]

You need steering in the right direction about Mr Armstrong's potential woes arising out of the speculated GJ indictments.

It is not a crime in the USA to take performance enhancing drugs. It is therefore not crucial to prove there existed evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that LA took PEDs during the USPS sponsorship funding period.

Therefore the outcome of this expected trial will not turn on whether there exists provable direct and circumstantial evidence of LA's drug taking (re your concerns over reliability of witnesses).

The Achilles heel(s) for Mr Armstrong is it is provable that he had ownership and directional participation of the team (which he asininely publicly denies) during the period USPS was providing US taxpayer related funds, the USPS contract forbid the use of PEDs by the team and the team breached numerous Federal laws in funding, transporting and administering those drugs.

All the expected indictments coming out of the GJ can lead to convictions of LA (and possibly his fellow team owners/directors) without proving his personal PED use.

You would need a money trail, proof of who LA and co procured the products from. How can Swiss customs check if Landis is telling the truth? There is also a claim he used a product at trial stage, but proving it is what needs done. Money sent to ferrari isn't proof of doping. Surely he said, she said is not enough alone. How do the feds prove money from previous season' s bikes being sold were used to dope? I don't doubt la doped..but it's fair to ask how this will pan out

 

[Velodude]

You would need a money trail, proof of who LA and co procured the products from. How can Swiss customs check if Landis is telling the truth? There is also a claim he used a product at trial stage, but proving it is what needs done. Money sent to ferrari isn't proof of doping. Surely he said, she said is not enough alone. How do the feds prove money from previous season' s bikes being sold were used to dope? I don't doubt la doped..but it's fair to ask how this will pan out

The two methods that I am aware they used to create a slush fund(s) for PEDs are not sophisticated and thereby the easiest to forensically trace.

According to Floyd Landis about 60 surplus team issue Trek bikes were sold during he season and the bikes in use (60) were intentionally well maintained for sale after the season end. Trek have publicly admitted this practice was being conducted but had since directed those bikes must be passed on to junior teams.

120 bikes for sale through Ebay and bike shops must in the majority leave a paper trail to a bank account. Cash collected by couriers is by practice remitted by a traceable negotiable instrument or deposit direct to the account of the vendor.

I understand the other method used by the US Postal team was for a third party to over bill the team for goods and services. That party would then provide the surplus funds to the US Postal team felons. This third party would be conspiring to money launder and evade tax and would be singing like a bird to Fed investigators in return for immunity.

A natural person must ultimately be behind the establishment of a bank account eg., for a corporation through a person having authority or being delegated authority to open and operate the account. That person would have to be accountable to the Feds for the activity in that account. Granting of immunity will work wonders.

In setting up these secret funds they would have breached Federal laws relating to money laundering and income tax evasion.

 

[Exroadman24902]

The two methods that I am aware they used to create a slush fund(s) for PEDs are not sophisticated and thereby the easiest to forensically trace.

According to Floyd Landis about 60 surplus team issue Trek bikes were sold during he season and the bikes in use (60) were intentionally well maintained for sale after the season end. Trek have publicly admitted this practice was being conducted but had since directed those bikes must be passed on to junior teams.

120 bikes for sale through Ebay and bike shops must in the majority leave a paper trail to a bank account. Cash collected by couriers is by practice remitted by a traceable negotiable instrument or deposit direct to the account of the vendor.

I understand the other method used by the US Postal team was for a third party to over bill the team for goods and services. That party would then provide the surplus funds to the US Postal team felons. This third party would be conspiring to money launder and evade tax and would be singing like a bird to Fed investigators in return for immunity.

A natural person must ultimately be behind the establishment of a bank account eg., for a corporation through a person having authority or being delegated authority to open and operate the account. That person would have to be accountable to the Feds for the activity in that account. Granting of immunity will work wonders.

In setting up these secret funds they would have breached Federal laws relating to money laundering and income tax evasion.

let's see how LAs accountants and lawyers explain that away. Selling bikes is certainly normal practice for any team. How that money was then used or accounted for is key. What year did Trek ask for bikes to be passed on to junior teams?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

let's see how LAs accountants and lawyers explain that away. Selling bikes is certainly normal practice for any team. How that money was then used or accounted for is key. What year did Trek ask for bikes to be passed on to junior teams?

In 2007 - as this WSJ article is a year old:

About three years ago, Trek began writing into its contracts that the pro teams it sponsored had to pass the bike frames on to their junior teams. "We just got more specific about it," explained Mr. Burns. "We didn't want to see that stuff getting sold on the market. It should be going to a better use than that."

Nor is selling bikes a "normal practice for any team" - for some teams perhaps, but they don't end up flogging lots of stock on eBay.
We even know who one of the people who was selling them, Darch McQuaid, el Presidentes Pats brother.:

Then he says he’s got a bike for sale that Armstrong owned, that he’s going to put it on eBay but he’s willing to part with it for a decent price despite you dancing on Armstrong’s career.....
Lance Armstrong’s bike cutting through the Dublin traffic. Cool. Nice. Darach tells you how light it is. You ask will it break in half on a manhole cover. He says it’s super strong. You ask about the saddle – might it be bad for a gentleman who wishes to settle on a large family. Trying his patience you empty your entire cycling information locker on his head. He tells you the wheel size and frame spec. You ask him what colour it is.

 

[gregod]

...

Nor is selling bikes a "normal practice for any team" - for some teams perhaps, but they don't end up flogging lots of stock on eBay.
...

teams usually sell stuff through their service course. i used to get tubular tires by the handful for a few euro. some had flats, some didn't. rainy days were for fixing tubular flats. now i am too lazy to bother.

i even got a prototype campy groupo attached to a broken frame a few years ago from a defunct team that was unloading lots of cool stuff.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

teams usually sell stuff through their service course. i used to get tubular tires by the handful for a few euro. some had flats, some didn't. rainy days were for fixing tubular flats. now i am too lazy to bother.

i even got a prototype campy groupo attached to a broken frame a few years ago from a defunct team that was unloading lots of cool stuff.

Yes, "usually sell stuff" - but the previous poster said "Selling bikes is certainly normal practice for any team", when it isn't.

 

[gregod]

Yes, "usually sell stuff" - but the previous poster said "Selling bikes is certainly normal practice for any team", when it isn't.

i wasn't trying to contradict you. i don't know if it is normal practice to sell bikes or not, but most sell stuff through their service course, not ebay. i have been to a number of services courses and they all had bikes for sale, usually with some kind of damage. i guess good bikes were either given back or passed to juniors.

there was an ex-pro who set up a website to flog team stuff, including bikes. i don't know if it ever took off, though.

 

[Race Radio]

i wasn't trying to contradict you. i don't know if it is normal practice to sell bikes or not, but most sell stuff through their service course, not ebay. i have been to a number of services courses and they all had bikes for sale, usually with some kind of damage. i guess good bikes were either given back or passed to juniors.

there was an ex-pro who set up a website to flog team stuff, including bikes. i don't know if it ever took off, though.

http://www.theprosstuff.com The guy who started it got busted for dope. One of Papp's customers/distributors

Certainly some teams sell stuff at the end of the season or when they go out of business.....but when the bikes are flying out the back door during the season and the riders are not getting the equipment they need there is an issue.

All of the riders on the team knew there was an issue. Trek knew there was an issue, so much so that they hired Scott Daubert to try to get a handle on it. The team's reaction? Julien would not let Scott in the Service Course for 2 years. Yeah, nothing to hide.