Livestrong lobbyist working for Lance the doper

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
tofino said:
From LA twitter feed;

Twitter
Great dinner tonight with @caseywasserman. Good discussion about @LIVESTRONG, sports in general, and the #TdF.

Lance Armstrong @lancearmstrong
July 17


.[/B][/SIZE]

He's reaching. Clutching at straws. If he still had such influence he’d be at the Tour now hamming it up with the other ex-champions.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
This revelation by Serrano conning on the heels of McCain's statement tells me that Armstrong has finally become toxic on the Hill.
They are dropping him like a hot rock.

Just wait, it gets better :D
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
thehog said:
The biggest issue with what’s occurred is that the members of Congress may be more than willing to discussing cancer related issues with a non-profit. What they won’t want to be discussing or involving themselves with an active arbitration and federal law process.

If a lobbyist made appointments under the guise to discuss cancer related issues and brought up a active legal case then that’s a serious breach of trust and probably law.

We shouldn’t’ forget that there are proceeding in progress in front of a Federal Judge. If its concluded that a lobbyist is attempting to “influence” congress to infiltrate and derail the legal process then that’s a very serious issue. Even more so if they’re gaining entry into the appointment books of Congressmen under the Livestrong banner.
A letter to Judge Sparks noting this might be in order. As an attorney admitted to practice in the Federal courts, this concerns me and ****es me off. Need to consult an attorney friend first.
 
May 27, 2011
21
0
0
full text article

Susan, forgive me if this is not cool, thought some were still having trouble with the links...

Livestrong Lobbyist's Agenda Is Questioned

By REED ALBERGOTTI And VANESSA O'CONNELL

The Lance Armstrong Foundation, the Texas-based charity known as Livestrong, sent a lobbyist to Capitol Hill last week to discuss the funding for the agency that has accused the retired cycling champion of cheating to win the Tour de France, a Congressional staff member said.

A spokesman for U.S. Rep. José Serrano (D., N.Y.), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, said his office was visited by a registered lobbyist working on behalf of the foundation, which works to increase awareness of cancer.

The lobbyist's main purpose, the spokesman said, was to talk about the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which enforces rules about performance-enhancing drugs in sports, and which has charged Mr. Armstrong and five others associated with his former cycling team with operating a doping conspiracy in an effort to dominate the Tour de France.

Mr. Armstrong, the chairman of Livestrong, has denied ever using performance-enhancing drugs or methods. He has called USADA's charges part of a witch hunt.

Mr. Serrano's spokesman said the Livestrong lobbyist laid out his concerns about the fairness of USADA's process. Two-thirds of USADA's $15 million annual budget comes from taxpayer funds. Neither Mr. Serrano's spokesman nor the Lance Armstrong Foundation would identify the lobbyist.

USADA receives about $10 million a year in the form of a grant from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Ultimately appropriations committees in the House and U.S. Senate control the ONDCP's budget.

A spokeswoman for the Lance Armstrong Foundation called the description of the lobbyist's visit "inaccurate," and said the charity was active on Capitol Hill last week. The purpose of the visit, she said, may have been misconstrued by Mr. Serrano's office, because the topic of USADA may have come up in passing. "All of our lobbying is focused on the well being and access to care that our constituents rely on," she said.

A spokesman for Mr. Armstrong declined to comment.

Livestrong's goal is helping cancer survivors by increasing awareness of the disease. Mr. Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1996 and recovered to win a record seven consecutive Tours de France from 1999 to 2005. He took up triathlons after retiring from cycling.

The foundation hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing in its lobbying. Livestrong could face challenges if the face of its organization, Mr. Armstrong, is banned from competing in elite-level sports.

In two separate statements last month, the foundation's president, Doug Ulman, lashed out against USADA. "We struggle to understand the leadership choices and lack of openness" of USADA, he said in both statements, questioning its integrity and oversight. "Our hearts go out Lance and his family as they face what can only be a very frustrating and difficult time," he said.

The foundation formed a partnership with the World Triathlon Corporation's Ironman triathlon series that would raise more than $1 million for the foundation, according to a lawsuit Mr. Armstrong filed against USADA earlier this month. Mr. Armstrong also stood to personally benefit from that contract. However, after USADA announced its doping charges against Mr. Armstrong, the WTC suspended him indefinitely from competing in its events.

Arthur Rieman, an attorney who advises nonprofit organizations, said nonprofits generally aren't supposed to use their funds to benefit their board members. However, he said Livestrong could legitimately argue that protecting Mr. Armstrong's reputation ultimately benefits their mission. Such a decision, though, should be run by the board, he said. "If they were my client I would have advised them to do some homework to be able to demonstrate to any third party that supporting Mr. Armstrong's reputation serves the interests of Livestrong," he said.

The Livestrong spokeswoman said "the executive committee of the foundation's board of directors is aware of and fully supports all of the foundation's advocacy efforts.

The organization's annual net revenue and net assets released from restrictions were $48.6 million in 2011, down 2.7% from the preceding year, according to its financial statements.

"For the last two years, we've focused on the mission that Lance laid out for us," a spokeswoman for the foundation said. "That's serving cancer survivors," she said, adding that Mr. Armstrong's effectiveness would remain even if he is stripped of his titles.

Last week, two high-profile Washington politicians weighed in on USADA's charges. On Thursday, Wisconsin Republican Jim Sensenbrenner sent a letter to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, calling USADA's authority over Mr. Armstrong "strained at best." He said it was the International Cycling Union, not USADA, that had jurisdiction over Mr. Armstrong, and pointed to USADA's eight-year statute of limitations. The arguments were identical to the ones made by attorneys for Lance Armstrong in recent weeks.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Sensenbrenner said nobody from his office had any contact with any individuals associated with Mr. Armstrong in the weeks leading up to his letter.

On Friday, Senator John McCain, (R., Ariz.) issued a statement pledging support for USADA. "This process is the proper forum to decide matters concerning individual cases of alleged doping violations," he said. End.
 
Jan 22, 2011
403
0
9,280
Race Radio said:
It is disturbing that not only is the CEO issuing press releases but they are sending lobbyist's to D.C.
...Foundation President and CEO Doug Ulman, a three-time cancer survivor...

I guess you can't question anything he does, unless of course you are a 4 time cancer survivor.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
FitSsikS said:
...Foundation President and CEO Doug Ulman, a three-time cancer survivor...

I guess you can't question anything he does, unless of course you are a 4 time cancer survivor.
Does surviving cancer make him better than the rest of us. Do they get a free pass to break and bend the rules to suit themselves?

Hmmmm where did i leave that piece of asbestos i had lying around :rolleyes:
 
Cimacoppi49 said:
A letter to Judge Sparks noting this might be in order. As an attorney admitted to practice in the Federal courts, this concerns me and ****es me off. Need to consult an attorney friend first.
Yes I'd be interested to hear what your friend says. I see it as a massive conflict.

VeloNation has a good update: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12421/Report-suggests-Livestrong-lobbyist-could-have-sought-to-influence-USADA-investigation-into-Armstrong.aspx


Serrano sits on the House Appropriations Committee. Appropriations committees from the House and US Senate Control the budget of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which in turn supplies approximately two thirds of USADA’s annual $15 million budget.

The Lance Armstrong Foundation has played down the claims, calling suggestions that the lobbyist outlined his concerns about the process as being ‘inaccurate’. She said that the topic of USADA may have come up in passing, but that the main reason for the visit was related to the charity itself.

Serrano’s spokesman sees things differently, saying that the lobbyist was focussed on taking about USADA and, specifically, about the fairness of the process.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
This revelation by Serrano coming on the heels of McCain's statement tells me that Armstrong has finally become toxic on the Hill.
Yes, but I am somewhat surprised that since Serrano is a New York representative, non of the the New York papers, including the notoriously anti-cycling NY Post and NY Daily News have yet picked up on the story.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Turner29 said:
Yes, but I am somewhat surprised that since Serrano is a New York representative, non of the the New York papers, including the notoriously anti-cycling NY Post and NY Daily News have yet picked up on the story.
The Daily News will. Give them time. They've been reporting well on the whole Lance drug story for a good time now.
 
Sep 27, 2009
117
0
0
There is nothing in the story to pick up other than how much of USADA's budget will go into a hearsay evidence case.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Deagol said:
There has GOT to be a limit of how many favors he can ask of people..
You would think that he would have used a lot of them up if, in fact, he got the DOJ case dropped through politics. Has Lance crossed the threshold from political asset to political liability yet ????
I am not convinced Armstrong got the charges dropped thru politics. In fact, no charges were dropped -- a Grand Jury investigation was halted.

Why? Because overwhelming doping evidence was uncovered and by first letting the USADA process find Armstrong guilty, further criminal charges, and criminal charges alone, would be much easier to prove.

US DAs botched the Clemens and Bonds cases; they could not afford to botch a third.
 
Jan 22, 2011
403
0
9,280
Benotti69 said:
Does surviving cancer make him better than the rest of us. Do they get a free pass to break and bend the rules to suit themselves?

Hmmmm where did i leave that piece of asbestos i had lying around :rolleyes:
Indeed that was what I was implying.

(Dern it! I knew I should of added a smilie!)

On the other hand it's nice to see that Doug's $300,000 + plus salary includes making press releases.
 
Jun 18, 2009
374
0
0
guilder said:
There is nothing in the story to pick up other than how much of USADA's budget will go into a hearsay evidence case.
You do know the difference between direct witness evidence and hearsay evidence, don't you?

My understanding is that the case is based on the direct evidence of more than ten witnesses. Hearsay doesn't come into it.

If just one of them is believed by the Court, it's goodnight Irene.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
rickshaw said:
This Congressman Sensenbrenner "represents" the 5th District, which happens to include much or Milwaukee. Remember the Milwaukee Brewer Ryan Braun and his little doping case. He got off on a technicality.

The Congressman represents The Brewers. He is just earning his pay, I mean Campaign contributions. This could also be payback for going after Braun?
USADA has absolutely nothing to do with MLB. This had to originated through his connections with Trek. D*ck Burke is rolling in his grave. His son is as big of a DB as LA.
 
Aug 5, 2009
266
0
0
Race Radio said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303612804577531353567249064.html

"The lobbyist's main purpose, the spokesman said, was to talk about the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency..."
"A spokeswoman for the Lance Armstrong Foundation called the description of the lobbyist's visit "inaccurate," and said the charity was active on Capitol Hill last week. The purpose of the visit, she said, may have been misconstrued by Mr. Serrano's office, because the topic of USADA may have come up in passing. "All of our lobbying is focused on the well being and access to care that our constituents rely on," she said."

It is all about raising awareness of Lance
Reminds me of when Lance and Frankie hadn't spoken on the phone in almost 2 years when out of the blue 3 days before our deposition for the SCA case in October 2005 lance called Frankie to talk about our upcoming depositions and Kathy LeMond's deposition. Yet, under oath at his deposition he said he called Frankie merely "to say hi".

Same pattern, different situation.
SSDD
LOL
(where are all the sycophant posters here? and how is MarkW is on our side? I thought you were an apologist. Welcome, however, to the truth.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
FitSsikS said:
Indeed that was what I was implying.

(Dern it! I knew I should of added a smilie!)

On the other hand it's nice to see that Doug's $300,000 + plus salary includes making press releases.
I knew you were and i was adding to it ;)
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Turner29 said:
I am not convinced Armstrong got the charges dropped thru politics. In fact, no charges were dropped -- a Grand Jury investigation was halted.

Why? Because overwhelming doping evidence was uncovered and by first letting the USADA process find Armstrong guilty, further criminal charges, and criminal charges alone, would be much easier to prove.

US DAs botched the Clemens and Bonds cases; they could not afford to botch a third.
I am not convinced, either -hence why I used the language: "if he did, in fact ..".

But if the case was dropped in order to let USADA do their thing, I would have expected Novitsky & team to not be as blind-sided and disappointed as they reportedly were. Perhaps you are correct (I hope so).
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Deagol said:
I am not convinced, either -hence why I used the language: "if he did, in fact ..".

But if the case was dropped in order to let USADA do their thing, I would have expected Novitsky & team to not be as blind-sided and disappointed as they reportedly were. Perhaps you are correct (I hope so).
Publicly, they needed to be. Otherwise, Armstrong's machine would immediately have begun spinning "conspiracy" stories. Also, doing so keeps LA and Company off-guard as to the nature of accumulated evidence.

Nevertheless, should the USADA be successful, I doubt criminal charges will be filed against Armstrong. The resulting fallout will be quite enough punishment, given that it will open him to a variety of lawsuits, starting with SCA all over again.

Remember, all they got Al Capone for was tax evasion.
 
Sep 27, 2009
117
0
0
Runitout said:
You do know the difference between direct witness evidence and hearsay evidence, don't you?

My understanding is that the case is based on the direct evidence of more than ten witnesses. Hearsay doesn't come into it.

If just one of them is believed by the Court, it's goodnight Irene.
If a hundred people witnessed you e.g speeding down the road, you should be ticketed or worse? Not even ten cops can pull that off. Even worse is witness testimony by threat of prosecution.
Making assumptions based on what you think you've heard or what you think you've seen is almost as good as hearsay.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
guilder said:
If a hundred people witnessed you e.g speeding down the road, you should be ticketed or worse? Not even ten cops can pull that off. Even worse is witness testimony by threat of prosecution.
Making assumptions based on what you think you've heard or what you think you've seen is almost as good as hearsay.
There will be a lot of empty prisons when judges realise that eye witness testimony isn't valid evidence - just "hearsay".

In fact - we can just do away with courts all together - only people who are caught red handed or admit their crimes out of their own sense of moral decency need be punished.

this law stuff is easy.....
 
guilder said:
There is nothing in the story to pick up other than how much of USADA's budget will go into a hearsay evidence case.
You forgot to work "witch hunt" into your post. Rookie intern mistake, I am sure you will do better next time.

You must be well connected, since you claim to know that USADA has no direct evidence. Maybe you could share more on the subject with us so we don't go off making false assumptions. I personally haven't seen anything to lead me to believe that USADA is relying only on direct witnesses (and not hearsay, as another poster has already pointed out).
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
guilder said:
If a hundred people witnessed you e.g speeding down the road, you should be ticketed or worse? Not even ten cops can pull that off. Even worse is witness testimony by threat of prosecution.
Making assumptions based on what you think you've heard or what you think you've seen is almost as good as hearsay.
Good point - free Jerry Sandusky. :roll eyes
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Turner29 said:
Publicly, they needed to be. Otherwise, Armstrong's machine would immediately have begun spinning "conspiracy" stories. Also, doing so keeps LA and Company off-guard as to the nature of accumulated evidence.

Nevertheless, should the USADA be successful, I doubt criminal charges will be filed against Armstrong. The resulting fallout will be quite enough punishment, given that it will open him to a variety of lawsuits, starting with SCA all over again.

Remember, all they got Al Capone for was tax evasion.
Hmmm, this seems very reasonable to me. However, if there was a crime committed (even witness intimidation), it still seems unfare to get punished only for a portion of what you did instead of everything you did.

Another problem I have with the way this has been charachterized is that anyone is "out to get him". He commited crimes and/or cheated.

He started the process by breaking the rules/laws and now- belatedly- the process is at least attempting to come full-circle and punish that behavior.

If no crime/cheating/etc had been commited, then there is no punative action. Heck, I've gotten a few speeding tickets, but realize that the cops weren't "out to get me". They were just doing their jobs.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
guilder said:
If a hundred people witnessed you e.g speeding down the road, you should be ticketed or worse? Not even ten cops can pull that off. Even worse is witness testimony by threat of prosecution.
Making assumptions based on what you think you've heard or what you think you've seen is almost as good as hearsay.
Perhaps you can take your expert legal opinion to the Legal thread?

Here
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17844

This thread is about Livestrong funded lobbyists trying to interfere with USADA's case.

Thanks
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY