• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lance amps the big guns

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
stephens said:
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.

So it's the goverment at fault, is it? Sure and they're just sooo interested about a cyclist who won some race in France several times to invest huge public sums in his downfall.

Or, perhaps, if the feds have opened up a case at all it's because there is more than just smoke.

The truth is that the financial resourses of the mega-rich have transformed justice into a privatge affair. Another example of the privatization and systematic dismemberment of the public domain in the hyper-capitalist America of today. For if he gets off due to legal maneuvering, because of a financial trump card, then the system is simply an utter sham.
 
Disagree

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

"Doping" in the U.S. is not a crime with meaningful penalties. Elements of illegal possession and distribution of drugs, Fraud, conspiracy, perjury are all very serious crimes with jail consequences.

Team Pharmstrong has serious and complicated legal problems. The scale of which is still unknown to his team. Law Enforcement has *many* leads to follow and likely a very long list of crimes for which they could get convictions. That is as hard a job to do as Pharmstrong's.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
stephens said:
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.

Really? Each of us breaks the law countless times daily?

If you knew anything of Spinoza, Tolstoy, Einstein,or Feynman you'd understand the truth and full ramifications of WB Yeats',

"In dreams begins responsibility" which illustrates that Responsibility itself is supernatural , and only exists as an article of faith.


But you don't realize this so you've constructed a wacky world that would require a policeman and big brother in every aspect of life, in order to keep the citizens of the world in line.:eek:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
rhubroma said:
So it's the goverment at fault, is it? Sure and they're just sooo interested about a cyclist who won some race in France several times to invest huge public sums in his downfall.

Or, perhaps, if the feds have opened up a case at all it's because there is more than just smoke.

The truth is that the financial resourses of the mega-rich have transformed justice into a privatge affair. Another example of the privatization and systematic dismemberment of the public domain in the hyper-capitalist America of today. For if he gets off due to legal maneuvering, because of a financial trump card, then the system is simply an utter sham.

the system is stacked in favour, as is western society, of those who can afford it. but saying that not all escape. Conrad Black, a very influential and wealthy figure in society went to jail. martha stewart went to jail. Enron execs have gone down. so sometimes it works.

but capitalism is a sham and favours the rich so what should we expect of its legal system.
 
rhubroma said:
The truth is that the financial resourses of the mega-rich have transformed justice into a privatge affair. Another example of the privatization and systematic dismemberment of the public domain in the hyper-capitalist America of today. For if he gets off due to legal maneuvering, because of a financial trump card, then the system is simply an utter sham.

While I agree with you in principal, remember we have a Republic that only works when the citizens participate. That works out in the real world as participation being disproportionate. Individuals can and do change the course of government working within the structure we have.

The point is not to throw your hands up in the air and quit. Get involved. Even at the very local level it is like making sausage. (ugly) It's satisfying and goes a long way creating better circumstances.
 
powerste said:
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.

Yes, your second last sentence makes the point. The focus is definitely not on perjury, as others have pointed out. But several independent prosecutors, when asked about Novitsky's possibilities for success, said he would be most likely to get LA on perjury as a result of some statement he made during the course of an investigation into trafficking etc. (I can't post the link, as it has expired).

Also remember that trafficking, use of federal funds, etc., presupposes using drugs, so any evidence of using is relevant, or at the very least, provides a potential link to follow in the direction of the heavier stuff. I'm not a lawyer, but I know that like scientists, they build cases through a long, careful acquisition of details. Some of these details may seem far-removed from the ultimate goal, but are necessary to get there. And in the process of acquiring these details, LA could be put in a position of having to admit doping, or perjuring.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
While I agree with you in principal, remember we have a Republic that only works when the citizens participate. That works out in the real world as participation being disproportionate. Individuals can and do change the course of government working within the structure we have.

The point is not to throw your hands up in the air and quit. Get involved. Even at the very local level it is like making sausage. (ugly) It's satisfying and goes a long way creating better circumstances.

I agree, but as Huxley predicted, the whole society is engaging in erotic play while on a soma holiday.:eek:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
Yes, your second last sentence makes the point. The focus is definitely not on perjury, as others have pointed out. But several independent prosecutors, when asked about Novitsky's possibilities for success, said he would be most likely to get LA on perjury as a result of some statement he made during the course of an investigation into trafficking etc. (I can't post the link, as it has expired).

Also remember that trafficking, use of federal funds, etc., presupposes using drugs, so any evidence of using is relevant, or at the very least, provides a potential link to follow in the direction of the heavier stuff. I'm not a lawyer, but I know that like scientists, they build cases through a long, careful acquisition of details. Some of these details may seem far-removed from the ultimate goal, but are necessary to get there. And in the process of acquiring these details, LA could be put in a position of having to admit doping, or perjuring.

which would throw a huge spanner into pro cycling, whether or not that is relevant to what the feds are investigating and their ultimate goal is.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
stephens said:
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).

How could Novitsky charge him / them with anything related to bribing a private foreign entity? I don't think that's in his jurisdiction.
 
Neworld said:
I won't say you're wrong because when lawyers get involved one never knows. But, there have been a lot of fish much bigger than LA that went to jail...Lord Conrad Black for one. I think he's going to jail, because it doesn't matter how much 'spin' LA pays for right and wrong, multiple confessions and positive urine test are just that positive for doping.

What I don't understand about LA is why he doesn't come out and say "shucks people everyone was doing it and I am/was just a struggling cancer survivor trying to keep up. I'm real sorry for everything, really." Then he's not lying, not going to jail and can move forward as a post-cancer, post-liar, post-doper confession puppet and sell more books etc... Then again he is probably a sociopath and cannot imagine an angle like that. Forget what I said.

NW

Perhaps it is not about the doping as much as it is the conspiring. Read United States Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 96 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations (RICO) "Racketeering activity means A) any act or threat involving kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene material, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical...B)...section 224 sports bribery...and the list goes on and one listing many kinds of fraud that are covered in the RICO act. Cornell University Law School website has the RICO act in its entirety. Read, listen and ponder what may be coming.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
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.

Fair enough, here's a Lance quote from this January:

"I wouldn't say I'm a Republican and I wouldn't say I'm a Democrat. I'm probably stronger on the first part than the second."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/18/lance-armstrong-optimisti_n_158839.html

The leading angle for this new PR guy is to try to convince some bureaucrat that the investigation is a waste of governent money, he'll need friends in high places to affect the course of the case. Given that Lance is accused of "targeted donations" which official would want to risk their own career in trying to step in here, even behind the scenes? There's nothing to gain and lots of lose.

The only realistic chance for Lance is to try to beat this thing legally. That his actions were perhaps violations of sporting regulations, but that they did not break any federal laws. He'll have to be very careful what he says himself as perjury is the easy way to get caught. Easiest way out would be to confess to most of what other riders can testify to (doping), and come across to the proscecutors as an honest sportsman, caught in the doping times of the sport - but here's where he's no doubt torn between protecting his legacy & finances tied to that, and trying to stay away from being indicted.

Most seem to be guessing that Lance will fight it all the way, admit to nothing and deny everything. That will make it difficult for even the most skilled PR guy to manage - try to form sentences that defend the client but aren't lies themselves.

This will be fun to watch.
 
stephens said:
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.

Have you not read the Landis excerpts? Lance handed me testosterone. Lance handed me epyrex EPO syringe, Lance arranged blood transfusion in his Swiss apartment administered by Dr. Ferreri. The bus stopped on the side of the road and we all received transfusions including Armstrong. Bruyneel asked me to go and see Armstrong and obtain 3 patches. The blood was sent via motorcycles couriers. The blood was stored in his refrigerator behind his closet. The blood was delivered by an autograph hunting fan. Armstrong and I spoke about the use of EPO and testosterone. We taped up the windows for hidden cameras and one by one we all lay there and received transfusions. Levi, Hincapie and I all received transfusions that day. Lance told me that in 2001 he paid the UCI to make the positive test go away. An unnamed rider has confirmed that the USPS had a systematic doping program and Armstrong actively encouraged riders to dope along with using himself. – So the drugs came there of their own volition? They just turned up at Lance’s doorstep without him knowing? He organised. He coerced. He arranged the drug network for use by himself and his team. That’s a very bad thing to do when doing so across international borders. Very bad.
 
Tubeless said:
Fair enough, here's a Lance quote from this January:

"I wouldn't say I'm a Republican and I wouldn't say I'm a Democrat. I'm probably stronger on the first part than the second."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/18/lance-armstrong-optimisti_n_158839.html

The leading angle for this new PR guy is to try to convince some bureaucrat that the investigation is a waste of governent money, he'll need friends in high places to affect the course of the case. Given that Lance is accused of "targeted donations" which official would want to risk their own career in trying to step in here, even behind the scenes? There's nothing to gain and lots of lose.

The only realistic chance for Lance is to try to beat this thing legally. That his actions were perhaps violations of sporting regulations, but that they did not break any federal laws. He'll have to be very careful what he says himself as perjury is the easy way to get caught. Easiest way out would be to confess to most of what other riders can testify to (doping), and come across to the proscecutors as an honest sportsman, caught in the doping times of the sport - but here's where he's no doubt torn between protecting his legacy & finances tied to that, and trying to stay away from being indicted.

Most seem to be guessing that Lance will fight it all the way, admit to nothing and deny everything. That will make it difficult for even the most skilled PR guy to manage - try to form sentences that defend the client but aren't lies themselves.

This will be fun to watch.

The other problem is media pressure. If the thing gets shelved the WSJ is no way going to give up on it after Armstrong questioned their editorial and journalistic standards.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
Have you not read the Landis excerpts? Lance handed me testosterone. Lance handed me epyrex EPO syringe, Lance arranged blood transfusion in his Swiss apartment administered by Dr. Ferreri. The bus stopped on the side of the road and we all received transfusions including Armstrong. Bruyneel asked me to go and see Armstrong and obtain 3 patches. The blood was sent via motorcycles couriers. The blood was stored in his refrigerator behind his closet. The blood was delivered by an autograph hunting fan. Armstrong and I spoke about the use of EPO and testosterone. We taped up the windows for hidden cameras and one by one we all lay there and received transfusions. Levi, Hincapie and I all received transfusions that day. Lance told me that in 2001 he paid the UCI to make the positive test go away. An unnamed rider has confirmed that the USPS had a systematic doping program and Armstrong actively encouraged riders to dope along with using himself. – So the drugs came there of their own volition? They just turned up at Lance’s doorstep without him knowing? He organised. He coerced. He arranged the drug network for use by himself and his team. That’s a very bad thing to do when doing so across international borders. Very bad.

Nice summary. He's dismissed these things because he belongs to the cult of LA's personality.

He doesn't realize this thing has gotten way too big to be stopped.

I think both he and LA are sociopaths also.
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
Visit site
Quote: "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.


Because a prosecutor who obtains an indictment gets a big attaboy and media attention. The egg story will be over in a few days.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
The other problem is media pressure. If the thing gets shelved the WSJ is no way going to give up on it after Armstrong questioned their editorial and journalistic standards.

Yeah, Pharmstrong has made the wrong enemies.

Everybody in MLB or close to it knew that Piazza's whole career was based on juice. You almost never hear a peep about it because Piazza was recognized as a "nice guy."
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
Fair enough, here's a Lance quote from this January:

"I wouldn't say I'm a Republican and I wouldn't say I'm a Democrat. I'm probably stronger on the first part than the second."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/18/lance-armstrong-optimisti_n_158839.html

The leading angle for this new PR guy is to try to convince some bureaucrat that the investigation is a waste of governent money, he'll need friends in high places to affect the course of the case. Given that Lance is accused of "targeted donations" which official would want to risk their own career in trying to step in here, even behind the scenes? There's nothing to gain and lots of lose.

The only realistic chance for Lance is to try to beat this thing legally. That his actions were perhaps violations of sporting regulations, but that they did not break any federal laws. He'll have to be very careful what he says himself as perjury is the easy way to get caught. Easiest way out would be to confess to most of what other riders can testify to (doping), and come across to the prosecutors as an honest sportsman, caught in the doping times of the sport - but here's where he's no doubt torn between protecting his legacy & finances tied to that, and trying to stay away from being indicted.

Most seem to be guessing that Lance will fight it all the way, admit to nothing and deny everything. That will make it difficult for even the most skilled PR guy to manage - try to form sentences that defend the client but aren't lies themselves.

This will be fun to watch.

Great post.

I think bringing in Fabiani is a smart move giving Tim Hermans performance on ABC.

I agree with the highlighted - there is no perjury (or any other offense) for having your legal team publicly discrediting the FDA, the investigation, the prosecutors, the witnesses etc
But of course the real fight is to try and stop the investigation in its tracks.

On the PR side - I don't expect to see or hear a public statement on the case from Lance anytime soon.

This will be handled by the suits - and the strategy will only need to change if the case does go to court.

If its starting to sink then expect the tears on Oprahs couch - even on this site there are posters who think Basso merely kept his blood in Fuentes fridge as 'insurance' and never doped.
 
Aug 4, 2010
198
0
0
Visit site
shawnrohrbach said:
Perhaps it is not about the doping as much as it is the conspiring. Read United States Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 96 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations (RICO) "Racketeering activity means A) any act or threat involving kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene material, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical...B)...section 224 sports bribery...and the list goes on and one listing many kinds of fraud that are covered in the RICO act. Cornell University Law School website has the RICO act in its entirety. Read, listen and ponder what may be coming.

Was it concidered a controlled substance at the time it was used. I thought Obama signed into law that PED were to be concidered illegal. So he may not fall under dealing with a controlled substance because it may have been before it became law.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
The other problem is media pressure. If the thing gets shelved the WSJ is no way going to give up on it after Armstrong questioned their editorial and journalistic standards.

Huh? You're obviously letting your hate cloud your thoughts. People in high places challenge the journalistic standards of Murdoch operations all the damn time. You're not going to get the WSJ to go on some post-investigation hunt because someone questioned them. They're not in the business of defending themselves, they're in the business of selling newpsapers.
 
eleven said:
Huh? You're obviously letting your hate cloud your thoughts. People in high places challenge the journalistic standards of Murdoch operations all the damn time. You're not going to get the WSJ to go on some post-investigation hunt because someone questioned them. They're not in the business of defending themselves, they're in the business of selling newpsapers.

Sorry you’re right and I’m wrong. They were only the first main stream press to publish the Landis stories and have continued to do so. They’re not in the business of settling this score whilst at the same time selling load of papers. Scandal never sells. You’re right. People have no interest in it. They only want to read nice stories. Please in future - don’t waste my time.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
Sorry you’re right and I’m wrong. They were only the first main stream press to publish the Landis stories and have continued to do so.

indeed! It helped them move a lot of paper.

They’re not in the business of settling this score whilst at the same time selling load of papers.
You're right, they're not in the business of wasting ink on old stories that most Americans don't care about any more- especially sports related stories, since no one reads the WSJ for sports.

Scandal never sells. You’re right. People have no interest in it.

Old scandals warmed over don't sell. That's why they're not still pimping stories about Scooter Libby.
Please in future - don’t waste my time.

I didn't force you to take the time to respond. Only you decide what is a "Waste" of your time.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
I agree with the highlighted - there is no perjury (or any other offense) for having your legal team publicly discrediting the FDA, the investigation, the prosecutors, the witnesses etc
But of course the real fight is to try and stop the investigation in its tracks.

I suspect the train has left the station and the only way to stop this investigation will be to litigate the hell out of it. I think even a best-case scenario is years away from any closure. (the only possible exception to that being a delay in an indictment that moves it beyond the statute of limitations on whatever charges are proposed)
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Great post.

I think bringing in Fabiani is a smart move giving Tim Hermans performance on ABC.

I agree with the highlighted - there is no perjury (or any other offense) for having your legal team publicly discrediting the FDA, the investigation, the prosecutors, the witnesses etc
But of course the real fight is to try and stop the investigation in its tracks.

On the PR side - I don't expect to see or hear a public statement on the case from Lance anytime soon.

This will be handled by the suits - and the strategy will only need to change if the case does go to court.

If its starting to sink then expect the tears on Oprahs couch - even on this site there are posters who think Basso merely kept his blood in Fuentes fridge as 'insurance' and never doped.

A mea culpa that will clear him of federal charges is definitely going to require serious management; at least with respect to those higher profile targets like Weisel. His personal financial problems won't go away but maybe he can hang on to some shred of his "image" that will be marketable. The public speaking circuit is profitable, even for crooks. J. Gordon Liddy and Ollie North made good bucks for years preaching to the faithful and Lance loves his dinero.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
eleven said:
Huh? You're obviously letting your hate cloud your thoughts. People in high places challenge the journalistic standards of Murdoch operations all the damn time. You're not going to get the WSJ to go on some post-investigation hunt because someone questioned them. They're not in the business of defending themselves, they're in the business of selling newpsapers.
Lances tweets weren't about the owner - they were about the journalists.

Anyone else miss Sam Abt's informed and educated reporting of the #TdF for the @nytimes? I sure do. 25 July.

Anyone else getting sick and tired of this bull****? http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5271000 10 June.

Not a smart move.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Lances tweets weren't about the owner - they were about the journalists.

Anyone else miss Sam Abt's informed and educated reporting of the #TdF for the @nytimes? I sure do. 25 July.

Anyone else getting sick and tired of this bull****? http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5271000 10 June.

Not a smart move.

- I know, classic.

Editor
Wall Street Journal
New York, NY

Re: Reed Albergotti Article dated June 10, 2009


Dear Sirs:

I am writing in response to the article written by Reed Albergotti which inaccurately and ineptly described what Mr. Albergotti perceived as an
ongoing feud between Greg LeMond and me. In general, the article fell far short of minimum journalistic standards on many levels. The article was egregiously one-sided, omitted essential material facts and contained many facts which Mr. Albergotti knew, or should have known, were either false or highly questionable.

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-arm...to-wall-street-journal-article/#ixzz0xB3StyQW