Lance amps the big guns

[stephens]

I'm always amused that people act like it's unfair for defendants to hire high-priced lawyers. Is it some requirement that you're always supposed to let yourself be outspent 10 to 1 by the government side? I mean, come on, even with OJ's lawyers, no way his lawyers cost him more than the government spent prosecuting him and that same dynamic will exist in this Armstrong case as well.

Has Novitsky ever gotten any dopers of anything other than perjury? If not, seems like the key is just to say nothing.

 

[broken chain]

In the realm of common sense,why would one lawyer up so heavily if innocent?
LA's admitting guilt by assembling high priced legal team,although its been proven time and time again,money buys your particular level of justice.
Ask Blogo from Chicago.
Lance has hired an acting coach also.I believe its the same person that prepped him for his Saturay Night Live appearance.
After all the posturing and legal formalities he will walk away scott free.
Maybe a tad lighter in the pocketbook though.

 

[Kennf1]

Not true...Wachtell Lipton are HUGE guns. Probably one the biggest and most prestigous law firms in the country, although I always thought their expertise was corporate law, not this kind of stuff. Trust me, his bills won't be small.

Yep. They made their name as a corporate transactional firm, and were a huge player, along with Skadden Aprs, during the mergers and acquisitions craze in the '80s. I guess if you specialize in that type of work, you develop a white collar crime section out of necessity.

With respect to Armstrong's new acquisition, It's not surprising that the message once again is "this is a waste of taxpayer's money," a theme that is also being hammered by Clemens's lawyers.

 

[kukiniloa]

permit me this diatribe

This case is little to do about doping..ts about money laundering, misappropriation of government funds, bribing sports officials, drug trafficking, drug using, coercing and commercial fraud.

You don't hire a legal team like Lance has because you want to keep mum on if you doped or not. You hire these guys so you don't go to jail.

The CN Article has this quote:
"He then repeated a claim already made by Lance Armstrong, calling into question if it is right to spend taxpayers' money on the investigation: "With salmonella causing the recall of 380 million eggs, I'm probably not the only one wondering right now why the FDA is spending its resources looking into international bicycle races that occurred years ago," Fabiani said in an e-mail to Bloomberg."

This just reiterates the LA camp strategy: it's all about public image.

It's been more than five years since LA won the Tour de France. Given this, he has done a remarkable job of staying the public eye. This is the name of the game: if you're brand name, it's money. So, perhaps with the expertise of his PR consultants, LA has been very successful at being in the news and thereby being able to attract sponsorship or endorsement contracts. This is the name of the game - look at Brett Favre, for example. Same thing - the idea being to only keep one's name on the lips of commentors. Air time translates directly into money.

That LA uses the Livestrong foundation to do this is not intrinsically wrong, but it does create the potential for exploitation. This is an area that I think he has ventured into, using the sanctified image that his association with the LIvestrong Foundation gives him, to bolster and protect his public image. This is certainly ethically dubious, although in this day and age, it's not really a big deal in the USA.

What really bugs me is that Americans are not interested in hearing that doping is commonplace in the NFL, the NBA, and MLB. Meanwhile cycling has absorbed the stigma of being corrupt. It really isn'y fair. In the late 1980s your average NFL player started using PEDs. The result was that even the heaviest players started to maximize their muscle mass while controlling their body weights, which translated directly into a higher level play, with much faster and stronger players. Use of PEDS is now accepted in college football. And at gyms across the country there are dealers selling PEDs out of their lockers.

Given this situation, I can totally understand that LA wants to enforce a Code of Silence. I mean, it's all about money, and the sponsors deserve to have their public image promoted without the stain of doping being present, right?

But it's too late for that, and his hubris will have consequences. Too bad that the sport has to suffer. American cycling fans have suffered enough.

 

[Kennf1]

Has Novitsky ever gotten any dopers of anything other than perjury? If not, seems like the key is just to say nothing.

I think it gets a little trickier if you're a celebrity, though. Armstrong has to protect his image, and his freedom. If this went to trial, he would not have to testify at trial if he doesn't want to. But fans may expect that of him, and for him to categorically deny the allegations, as he has been to the press for the last nine years. Granted, his first concern will be to avoid a conviction (of anything), but his public image is hugely important, as it is to any celebrity. The worst choice would be to voluntarily take the stand, then take the 5th as to certain questions.

 

[hfer07]

i too cant figure out what exactly this new guy will be doing ?

beef up the image ? but haven't they already gotten the ps to do that ?

prevent leaks ? but that's outside of their capacity anyway...

i don't get it. unless the situation is more worrisome than the texas spinners are willing to admit.

I'd guess he'll try to soften the media & get powerful(political)allies to sort of derail/delay the investigation
what I see is that LA understands clearly the potential of jail time & the destruction of his empire-so if he has already reached that peak to hire a guy like Mark Fabiani to defend his case-then he's a very worried man....

 

[rhubroma]

How much money is no jail time worth?

This is Lance's big fight: if he comes out of this even just a little tainted, he's home free for the rest of his life. It's going to be a long and bloody battle, and even LA's biggest haters (a group amongst which I include myself) should realize that with the kind of council he's going to have, the chances he could walk away from this without any real punishment at all are pretty good.

Just goes to show you, capitalist democracy works! He who pays the most, has "truth" and "justice" on his side.

 

[stephens]

And that's usually the government. In rare cases the accused happens to have equal resources to make the fight somewhat more fair. And then people have the nerve to criticize the accused as if it's somehow unfair for him to try to make it a fair fight. Incredible.

 

[eleven]

In the realm of common sense,why would one lawyer up so heavily if innocent?

Because there is a far-reaching investigation being led by a man that has a penchant for long, drawn out investigations that end in perjury charges, not the original investigative charges...and it's hard to know if one is innocent if you don't even know what the charges are.

and the prosecution has access to virtually unlimited resources with which to run the investigation. It should be no surprise that the defense takes steps to counter those investigative resources. The only difference is that the defense has to pay their own bills.

 

[peacefultribe]

I am so tired of the 'taxpayers money' crap. If his clients were honest, then the FDA wouldn't have to spend so much money and time on this investigation. As a tax payer, former athlete, and long time coach, I am more than happy to see justice sought in this case.

 

[DirtyWorks]

the behind the scenes action.

It's about working from the political/judicial end of the game. No one is going to bribe the judge. No one is going to try directly influencing prosecution. That's not how power/influence works in this country.

The guy hired is a peer to politicians. My guess is this guy is hired to talk up the Pharmstrong position in the halls of power. This is about shaping the narrative for legislators and at the very top of the Judicial system.

My thinking is as much as they are trying to minimize their own jail time, they also don't want legislators to get interested in 'fixing' cycling (USAC) and maybe USOC. Weisel's USAC operations won't pass the smell test with a little independent examination.

 

[Merckx index]

I'm sure NW that your going to say the positive tests are the 1999 tested ones, but no way in hell will they ever be able to bring then into a GJ room or a court of law should it get that far. Nobody would trust thier life with the way they tested those samples, and to get something like that in court you'd better follow all the procedures to the letter of the law or lawyers will have a field day with it. O.J. Simpsom comes to mind her blood on the glove found in his truck and it wasn't allowed in court.

He won't come out and confess even if he's guilty he's gone way too far down the road of proclaiming his innocense for a reversal of field. I think he's going all in on this one, if he wins he'll be the best of his generation, if not he'll go to the me against the whole Federal Govt. what do you expect.

In a trial, evidence is not all-or-none. The EPO samples are definitely fair game. The prosecution doesn’t have to prove that this was a sanctionable positive. It only has to bring Ashenden in, who will be more than happy to explain why the samples almost certainly resulted from doping. The judge or jury can decide for themselves how much weight to give to that.

That said, I have a lot of sympathy with your belief that he can't confess at this point. On the one hand, he sees what happened to Clemens by carrying out the "I never doped" line right into court. On the other, he stands to lose a lot more than Clemens would have by a confession. Clemens mostly had his legacy to lose (and of course, lost it, anyway). LA has that, but also Livestrong and all its ramifications.

On a personal level, this could get very interesting. LA the shrewd in-fighter who has never feared to take on legal adversaries vs. LA the practical, hands-on man who covers all eventualities.

 

[Anonymous]

And that's usually the government. In rare cases the accused happens to have equal resources to make the fight somewhat more fair. And then people have the nerve to criticize the accused as if it's somehow unfair for him to try to make it a fair fight. Incredible.

Well, I for one don't blame Lance for putting a high-powered team together. It's exactly what I would do if I was guilty of what I was accused of.

 

[stephens]

The EPO samples from '99 will be totally discredited or excluded. No way can a legitimate chain of custody be shown that would satisfy the requirements of the US court system.

 

[Tubeless]

This guy is a lobbyist. He's job is to get into the administration and apply pressure to drop the investigation. Call up friends and favours and get this marked down as a waste of tax payers money. Armstrong to make a sizeable donation to the political party who gets the investigation shelved. This guy is not a lawyer in the true sense of the word. He's a player.

The irony here is that whilst Lance doesn’t have “time” nor the “energy” to bring about a defamation case on Landis he got the time to hire a guy like this!

The problem for Lance is that the wrong party is in charge of the administration. Lance lives in the capitol of a deep-red republican state, and was widely rumored to be considering a run for congress - while he never openly stated his political affiliation, he's made appearances with all the wrong characters for this new PR guy to convince his buddies in the justice dept that Lance is one of them...

Here's one example that would not look good in that context:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-23-armstrong-mccain_N.htm

 

[thehog]

The EPO samples from '99 will be totally discredited or excluded. No way can a legitimate chain of custody be shown that would satisfy the requirements of the US court system.

?? This is what I don’t understand. This has nothing to do with trying to prove whether Lance doped or not. They have no interest if those 99 samples were postive, negative or other. That’s not going to sell the case. If what Landis is saying is correct then the use of doping products is a sideline to the trafficking, bribing, fraud aspects of settup up drug networks in Europe. This is not about positive dope controls. We all need to get past this aspect to get to the heart of the matter - fraud.

 

[Mainerider]

Interesting. I did not know that. So some serious firepower going on to battle little ole Floyd.

Yeah...They're the real deal. Very well known and respected in corporate America.....in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Weisel was the "referral" source. I'll bet his investment banking company has done business with them.

 

[Merckx index]

The problem for Lance is that the wrong party is in charge of the administration.

Most of LA's statements and associations in the past have indicated he leans Democrat. I don't think his joining McCain for an event proves otherwise, any more than his bike ride with Bush.

This is what I don’t understand. This has nothing to do with trying to prove whether Lance doped or not. They have no interest if those 99 samples were postive, negative or other. That’s not going to sell the case.

Most analysts agree that if LA is convicted of anything, it will be perjury. Perjury is most likely to result from stating that he never doped, when the Feds can prove that he did dope. The '99 samples could be critical to making that case.

Why do you think it took more than two years just to indict Clemens? His statements that he didn't dope were on the public record, couldn't have been clearer. The problem had to be that the Feds wanted to be sure they had proof that those statements were lies.

 

[stephens]

Well, I for one don't blame Lance for putting a high-powered team together. It's exactly what I would do if I was guilty of what I was accused of.

Just remember that the entire basis of our civil society is that it doesn't really matter what one has done or hasn't done: one is only guilty of what the government can prove he has done.

None of us make any real promise to follow the laws of the land. That's just not the social contract that we've made. What we seem to agree to as a society is that if we are caught breaking the law and the government proves it fairly, then at that point we are in violation and we will take our punishment like a man. But until that point, one's status as a fine upstanding citizen is pretty much intact. Hell, even Kobe Bryant gets paid bank for endorsements these days because he didn't get convicted of anal rape.


That's why the only thing that is likely to turn the American public totally against Lance is the allegations of bribing the UCI. That's a violation of the moral "contract" Americans operate under - that if caught legitimately, you should take your punishment like a man and not use influence or money to escape. (note: this does not extend to paying for good lawyers).

 

[Disprin]

?? This is what I don’t understand. This has nothing to do with trying to prove whether Lance doped or not. They have no interest if those 99 samples were postive, negative or other. That’s not going to sell the case. If what Landis is saying is correct then the use of doping products is a sideline to the trafficking, bribing, fraud aspects of settup up drug networks in Europe. This is not about positive dope controls. We all need to get past this aspect to get to the heart of the matter - fraud.

But, in the end, it comes back to doping. If there was no doping then none of these other charges could be placed.

 

[buckwheat]

Just remember that the entire basis of our civil society is that it doesn't really matter what one has done or hasn't done: one is only guilty of what the government can prove he has done.

None of us make any real promise to follow the laws of the land. That's just not the social contract that we've made. What we seem to agree to as a society is that if we are caught breaking the law and the government proves it fairly, then at that point we are in violation and we will take our punishment like a man. But until that point, one's status as a fine upstanding citizen is pretty much intact. Hell, even Kobe Bryant gets paid bank for endorsements these days because he didn't get convicted of anal rape.


That's why the only thing that is likely to turn the American public totally against Lance is the allegations of bribing the UCI. That's a violation of the moral "contract" Americans operate under - that if caught legitimately, you should take your punishment like a man and not use influence or money to escape. (note: this does not extend to paying for good lawyers).

Says you! Just don't get caught. 'What isn't prohibited is permitted.'

Thanks Michele!

Your interpretation of life explains the entire justification of police states.

By chance, are you a serial killer?

Your reasoning was Ted Bundy's entire proclamation of his innocence. 'Why there's no irrefutable physical evidence!'

 

[stephens]

On the contrary, it is what prevents police states. We place the onus on the authorities to have very high standards of proof before they can restrict the freedoms of our citizens.

Every one of us breaks the law countless times daily. We don't care. No one cares. As long as we atone for our sins if caught, then it's fine. That's why different crimes have different punishments. Otherwise, if the contract we were really making as citizens was that we agree to never break the law, then the punishment for any violation would simply be death, and none of us would mind because after all, we agreed to never violate the law, right? But we don't agree to that: we only agree that if we are proved to have violated the law, then we'll pay the reasonable penalty, and will not try to bribe our way out of it or flee or anything like that.

For this reason, the UCI bribery charge, if true, is what will damage Lance's reputation more than anything else. Much more than claims he took drugs to help win races but never was caught by the authorities.

Note: i'm talking about the law here and citizens expectations there of. If you have religious beliefs that give you some other moral code, then that's fine, but as that stuff is based on the supernatural, there is no rational way to discuss that anyway.

 

[thehog]

Most analysts agree that if LA is convicted of anything, it will be perjury. Perjury is most likely to result from stating that he never doped, when the Feds can prove that he did dope. The '99 samples could be critical to making that case.

Why do you think it took more than two years just to indict Clemens? His statements that he didn't dope were on the public record, couldn't have been clearer. The problem had to be that the Feds wanted to be sure they had proof that those statements were lies.

Disagree is about perjury. That’s just a subsequent event of denial. Armstrong in it worse than Clemens. Clemens went to visit Conte to get his gear. In this case Armstrong set up the network through Europe. That’s much much worse.

 

[stephens]

I will make a $100 donation to the charity of the Hog's choice if it is ever proven that Lance himself (not his employers or coaches or doctors) ran a drug network for others in Europe! What is proof? Well, I guess if the courts prove that then that's fine for me.

 

[powerste]

Most analysts agree that if LA is convicted of anything, it will be perjury. Perjury is most likely to result from stating that he never doped, when the Feds can prove that he did dope. The '99 samples could be critical to making that case.

Analysts may believe that, but I don't buy it. Doesn't make any sense to me to investigate the whole affair if the end goal is perjury, or even if the end result is likely to only be perjury. I hafta believe that these guys learned something from the BALCO case and are better prepared to do much better than perjury this time around, at least wrt/ the real players. Now, the threat of perjury as a club for witnesses, that I can buy. But if LA is the big fish, then the Feds had better be prepared to do a lot better than perjury - otherwise why bother. OTOH If LA is simply a link in the chain, and he perjures himself for the Feds as they uncover fraud/bribery/etc perpetrated by Hog/Tailwind/Weisel/USAC/USOC/etc, that's another story.

Guess it all depends on who the bigger fish end up being.