Landis wore a wire and filmed Ball (at feds request)

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
reinventing floyd

thehog said:
I think the idea was to place fear, uncertainy and doubt in the minds of the Amrstrong camp.

When the scheduled SI article lands in our laps Armstrong can't simply deny or label Landis a "lair" - why? Well there might be some video/audio evidence lying around thats why.

Should be fun to watch.
there are two items that came through this week.
1. the FFF was mostly funded by rich dorks undeserving of sympathy.
2. floyd may have been working with investigators for a very long time. this is confirmation of what i and a lot of others around here suspected.

it sounds like an expose is on the way very soon via major publications. it may be a happy accident or more likely... SI/WSJ is leaking info to generate interest or ...maybe the feds are letting info drip out and are using the media a tiny bit by pulling the rug from underneath the "witch hunt" and "waste of taxpayers money" talking points prior to a big new article.

what we're supposed to take from this is that the FFF wasn't as much of a moral atrocity as it once seemed and that paying back the small contributors is much more realistic than we thought. also, that federal investigators trust landis enough to do their bidding means it makes it much harder to dismiss him.
 
May 5, 2009
696
1
0
and what if the Fed's are desperate and this is their last try to get Tyler or any former Pharmstrong teammates nervous? Let's hope I am wrong...
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
lean said:
there are two items that came through this week.
1. the FFF was mostly funded by rich dorks undeserving of sympathy.
2. floyd may have been working with investigators for a very long time. this is confirmation of what i and a lot of others around here suspected.

it sounds like an expose is on the way very soon via major publications. it may be a happy accident or more likely... SI/WSJ is leaking info to generate interest or ...maybe the feds are letting info drip out and are using the media a tiny bit by pulling the rug from underneath the "witch hunt" and "waste of taxpayers money" talking points prior to a big new article.

what we're supposed to take from this is that the FFF wasn't as much of a moral atrocity as it once seemed and that paying back the small contributors is much more realistic than we thought. also, that federal investigators trust landis enough to do their bidding means it makes it much harder to dismiss him.
I'm glad you mentioned this. Note that Thom Weisel and crew declined to be interviewed or even respond to any questions.

A more appropriate name for the FFF would have been the "Keep Floyd's F-ing Mouth Shut Fund".

This means that Floyd's a factor now. And no wonder McQuaid, Lance, Fabiani have been beating the "He's a proven liar" drum for so long now. They knew he had a lot more to spill than what he's said so far.

And... I think this recent leak about Floyd wearing the wire... it was strategic. A signal to everyone that the musical chairs music has begun. And there's only so many chairs in the US Atty's office...

 
Mar 26, 2010
92
0
0
I'm assuming this (wearing a wire) took place before Floyd's e-mails went public. But anyone know how far before then it took place?

Part of the argument against Floyd is that its sour grapes for not getting into the Tour of California or a Radioshack contract. That he would have kept silent if one of those things had happened. But this may show that he was talking to the feds before then. If so, I think it lends to his credibility.
 
Dec 14, 2010
154
0
0
BotanyBay said:
And... I think this recent leak about Floyd wearing the wire... it was strategic. A signal to everyone that the musical chairs music has begun. And there's only so many chairs in the US Atty's office...

An the music they are playing is 'Come And Get It' by Badfinger

"Better hurry 'cause it's going, fast."
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
alanshearer said:
I'm assuming this (wearing a wire) took place before Floyd's e-mails went public. But anyone know how far before then it took place?

Part of the argument against Floyd is that its sour grapes for not getting into the Tour of California or a Radioshack contract. That he would have kept silent if one of those things had happened. But this may show that he was talking to the feds before then. If so, I think it lends to his credibility.
the timing is unclear but i agree, the earlier his cooperation with federal investigators began the more landis must be taken seriously.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
lean said:
there are two items that came through this week.
1. the FFF was mostly funded by rich dorks undeserving of sympathy.
2. floyd may have been working with investigators for a very long time. this is confirmation of what i and a lot of others around here suspected.

...what we're supposed to take from this is that the FFF wasn't as much of a moral atrocity as it once seemed and that paying back the small contributors is much more realistic than we thought.
That is one of the more interesting aspects of all this. Especially when we remember LA saying, "This is somebody who took, some would say, close to a million dollars from innocent people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym1qz0eO0ww&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

And yet it's quite clear now that:
1) Most of the funds came from people who were far from innocent.
2) LA most likely knew exactly how much his inner circle had donated.

The topic of large donations coming from industry insiders was mentioned a few months ago by Bonnie Ford.
"Other major donors requested anonymity at the time they gave to the Floyd Fairness Fund because of their ties to the U.S. cycling industry. Landis and Henson said they would continue to honor that request -- although they did confirm separately that Armstrong was not a donor. USADA lawyers prosecuting Landis at one point requested a list of donors, but the information was never turned over."
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5652787
 
Dec 14, 2010
154
0
0
I think Facebook is both annoying and very scary; but it seems even the Fanboys over there are starting to get very worried, and lashing out even more at Landis and Novitsky.

It's going to be sad to see the fanboy world crumble, especially during the Holiday Season

"Thanks Livestrong Lance Armstrong & Doug Ulman returned to AUS after the USO's Holiday Tour. Are you surprised POS Novitsky releases information to press about his witch hunt to spur articles about his BS case? This time its about scum & cheat Floyd Landis WEARING A WIRE to get evidence against a cycling team owner!So Novitsky continues... to argue in the press what he can't prove in Court. Thanks Lance, Doug for making the USO Trip!"

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Thanks-Livestrong/147982721884020
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
lean said:
there are two items that came through this week.
1. the FFF was mostly funded by rich dorks undeserving of sympathy.
2. floyd may have been working with investigators for a very long time. this is confirmation of what i and a lot of others around here suspected.

it sounds like an expose is on the way very soon via major publications. it may be a happy accident or more likely... SI/WSJ is leaking info to generate interest or ...maybe the feds are letting info drip out and are using the media a tiny bit by pulling the rug from underneath the "witch hunt" and "waste of taxpayers money" talking points prior to a big new article.

what we're supposed to take from this is that the FFF wasn't as much of a moral atrocity as it once seemed and that paying back the small contributors is much more realistic than we thought. also, that federal investigators trust landis enough to do their bidding means it makes it much harder to dismiss him.
So...

1. Apparently LA's crocodile tears over the 'innocent donators' to the FFF are not only misplaced, but more evidence of his increasingly sociopathic/narccisitic behaviour. And more proof that he's an hyperbolic-loving liar.

2. Flandis has been in-bed with the feds (that rolls right off the tongue...) since at least this incident (late 2009?). That makes a lot of his actions since then VERY intriguing... Perhaps not so much the p*ssing whiner so many made him out to be, maybe more of an intelligent strategic approach to literally bring down an American cycling empire (these rich dudes literally ran the US cycling fed, remember). In my books, that makes Flandis a STUD!
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
flicker said:
I have to give Floyd credit he has a lot of nerve, courage something to befriend someone and then film them. I am not saying that because I like Mike Ball(I have found him creepy and I didn't like his shtick around races) but to go into someones house with the agenda of getting them in trouble takes nerve!
It does take a couple of large balls or courage, especially considering that Mr. Ball is a felon already. I would be careful around a guy with that type of character anyway regardless of wearing a wire etc.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Granville57 said:
That is one of the more interesting aspects of all this. Especially when we remember LA saying, "This is somebody who took, some would say, close to a million dollars from innocent people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym1qz0eO0ww&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

And yet it's quite clear now that:
1) Most of the funds came from people who were far from innocent.
2) LA most likely knew exactly how much his inner circle had donated.

The topic of large donations coming from industry insiders was mentioned a few months ago by Bonnie Ford.
"Other major donors requested anonymity at the time they gave to the Floyd Fairness Fund because of their ties to the U.S. cycling industry. Landis and Henson said they would continue to honor that request -- although they did confirm separately that Armstrong was not a donor. USADA lawyers prosecuting Landis at one point requested a list of donors, but the information was never turned over."
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5652787
USADA asked for donors who gave more than $250.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Granville57 said:
That is one of the more interesting aspects of all this. Especially when we remember LA saying, "This is somebody who took, some would say, close to a million dollars from innocent people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym1qz0eO0ww&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

And yet it's quite clear now that:
1) Most of the funds came from people who were far from innocent.
2) LA most likely knew exactly how much his inner circle had donated....
Well spotted. Inclusion of the wording "some would say" indicates that he knew it was complete BS. I also speculate that it was one of many carefully crafted pre-prepared sound-bites delivered in that interview.

Edit: Definitely part of the message...under oath.... wrote book...different story now.... took money for defense...some would say $1,000,000.....
Message starts at 2:15, then its repeated at 8:25, including the phrase "some would say" at 8:40.

I suppose the major donors to the Floyd STFU fund are technically entitled to a refund, but I'm not crying for them because their investment didn't pay off long term. :)
 
Granville57 said:
That is one of the more interesting aspects of all this. Especially when we remember LA saying, "This is somebody who took, some would say, close to a million dollars from innocent people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym1qz0eO0ww&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

And yet it's quite clear now that:
1) Most of the funds came from people who were far from innocent.
2) LA most likely knew exactly how much his inner circle had donated.

The topic of large donations coming from industry insiders was mentioned a few months ago by Bonnie Ford.
"Other major donors requested anonymity at the time they gave to the Floyd Fairness Fund because of their ties to the U.S. cycling industry. Landis and Henson said they would continue to honor that request -- although they did confirm separately that Armstrong was not a donor. USADA lawyers prosecuting Landis at one point requested a list of donors, but the information was never turned over."
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5652787
All true but I think the investors for the most part were innocent. In fact it was Armstrong himself who was taking money from innocent investors (people) with the Tailwind scam.
 
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Well spotted. Inclusion of the wording "some would say" indicates that he knew it was complete BS. I also speculate that it was one of many carefully crafted pre-prepared sound-bites delivered in that interview.

I suppose the major donors to the Floyd STFU fund are technically entitled to a refund, but I'm not crying for them because their investment didn't pay off long term. :)
Which raises another question....... Did the investment money ever buy dope or pay bribes? Armstrong did say the $100,000 donation (payoff) came from the investment fund and thats why he couldn't remember the exact amount.

With this is mind - if investor money was used for purposes other than "investing" and without the knowledge of the investor and if it was used to fund an elaborate drug procurement, distribution and export business then this is very very farking serious. Thats Madoff territory right there.

Remember as Lance racked up the wins he got richer and richer and the investors who were investing for the "win" lost more and more money.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
It does take a couple of large balls or courage, especially considering that Mr. Ball is a felon already. I would be careful around a guy with that type of character anyway regardless of wearing a wire etc.
What'd Ball do time for previously?
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
thehog said:
With this is mind - if investor money was used for purposes other than "investing" and without the knowledge of the investor and if it was used to fund an elaborate drug procurement, distribution and export business then this is very very farking serious. Thats Madoff territory right there.
That's why I've been saying since the beginning that while it may "look" like a doping case, dope is just the crap that's being moved around. This is a case about fraud.

While you're all looking for Armstrong indictments, it's possible (perhaps probable) that the results of this case will have more to do with money laundering and basic, everyday fraud.

And now you can see why (despite hating Armstrong's guts), Weisel was not willing to answer the WSJ's questions. Weisel is neck-deep in this stuff. Och and Gorski might be lawyering-up as we speak,
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
cycling's bilderberg group

thehog said:
All true but I think the investors for the most part were innocent. In fact it was Armstrong himself who was taking money from innocent investors (people) with the Tailwind scam.
this part is unclear. were they naive believers in the myth themselves or were they complicit? i see no reason for them to disbelieve in LA in 1999 but that naivete is hard to imagine after 7 straight TdF's and floyd's miracle in 2006.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
lean said:
this part is unclear. were they naive believers in the myth themselves or were they complicit? i see no reason for them to disbelieve in LA in 1999 but that naivete is hard to imagine after 7 straight TdF's and floyd's miracle in 2006.
Some of these guys are just cycling enthusiasts (the kind that think Rosarito-Ensenada is a "race") and others (like Weisel) who "know".

I've only learned in recent weeks some of the back-story on the investors and why Lance & Co are bigger peckerheads than we first thought.
 
lean said:
this part is unclear. were they naive believers in the myth themselves or were they complicit? i see no reason for them to disbelieve in LA in 1999 but that naivete is hard to imagine after 7 straight TdF's and floyd's miracle in 2006.
The WSJ article goes into depth in regards to the questions some of the investors asked. The inquires were brushed aside that the French hated Ameircans and Hog Bruyneel addressed them at one meeting and stated whilst doping may occur on some teams it never took place at USPS/Disco. Period. Would you like some fraud with your drink Sir?
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Some of these guys are just cycling enthusiasts (the kind that think Rosarito-Ensenada is a "race") and others (like Weisel) who "know".

I've only learned in recent weeks some of the back-story on the investors and why Lance & Co are bigger peckerheads than we first thought.
ironically, i had never heard of rosarita-ensenada and had to google it (i live outside of philadelphia). as you suggest tho, i think the investors were a mixed bag.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY