Livestrong lobbyist working for Lance the doper

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 12, 2012
649
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.
1) Speeding is a very poor example.

2) While invariability attacked and discredited by defense attorneys, witnesses immunity is integral to the legal process. In fact, witnesses compelled by subpoena to appear before a grand jury are entitled to receive immunity in exchange for their testimony.

3) Jerry Sandusky, for example, was convicted without a shred of physical evidence, all evidence was testimony based.

Regarding Armstrong, if a witness states seeing Lance Armstrong receive a blood transfusion, this is not hearsay evidence. However, if a witness says he saw Armstrong inject himself with EPO, that testimony would be easy to challenge, unless the witness could provide compelling evidence the hypodermic needle contained EPO.

Regarding eyewitness testimony, arbitrators, judges and juries are typically swayed by detail, consistency and delivery. Going back to the Sandusky case, in which the defense tried to portray witnesses, in this case victims, as being part big money making conspiracy, the juries found consistency in the stories, including numerous details. Moreover, each witness was convincing, most even riveting.

The USADA is not going to bring in 10 former team mates and merely have them state each saw LA dope. They are going to provide specific details -- where, when, how, who else was present. Even minor details such as the weather and time of day.

If anyone testifies traveling with Armstrong to meet, for example, Dr. Ferrari at a hotel, these records hopefully will be produced to substantiate testimony. There are reports of substantial payments to Ferrari, some perhaps being recent. These alone apparently are enough for sanctions against Armstrong.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-reportedly-made-dollar-465000-payment-to-ferrari-in-2006
 
thehog said:
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.
Wasserman is Wonderboy's client. He can't say no. Wonderboy is probably still on the Board of Directors over at USACDF. USACDF is making money for Wasserman's group, so it's a win-win.

Wasserman has done pretty well brokering sponsorship deals for USAC. For an old guy like me, the most ironic being InterContinental Hotels Group. Until very recently, no competitive cyclists could even afford the Motel 6, much less the Crowne Plaza. The outstanding question is who is getting paid on USAC's side when these deals close.

100% agree the guy can't be seen at ASO events, much less the TdF.

Here's the list of Serrano's committee appointments dated 2011: http://serrano.house.gov/press-release/serrano-announces-committee-assignments-112th-congress

He's got some commerce, science and technology subcommittee stuff that would be very influential for Wonderboy. Oddly enough, on an oversight committee for the USPS too. Senior member on the House Appropriations committee is THE big one though.

The guy co-sponsored eliminating the retirement pre-funding requirement for the USPS. FYI: that's why the USPS is running a deficit. He's on the right track!
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
0
0
PedalPusher said:
Not really and yes.

Lobbyist visits are calendered or recorded, and are accessible under FOIA. So not backroom that we can't find out, nobody really checks unless they smell something, but there are groups tha troutinely check on these matters.
When I say "backroom" I don't mean it in the shady, Tammany Hall sense, but more "behind the scenes". Certainly the lobbying is not a secret, and isn't against the law, but those guys find their jobs are much easier if they're not in the headlines themselves...
 
BroDeal said:
My thought is that the time for politicians to meddle in the affair was before June. Once the letter was sent out or certainly by the time the review board greenlighted charges, the case against Armstrong reached the equivalent of an indictment being handed down. Politicians generally will not interfere with cases that are underway. The accused becomes a bit toxic...
but didn't this method have success with the federal case...? it would appear from all accounts that pressure was put on from above to stop the grand jury investigation.

i'm concerned.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
0
0
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.
Could you submit an amicus brief, or would it just be an informal letter to the court?
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Could you submit an amicus brief, or would it just be an informal letter to the court?
It would be a letter, but after discussing it with two lawyer friends, it's probably not a great idea. The judge will be aware one way or the other of all these attempts at political influence. His decision will be based on the law. ;)
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
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.
Ah yes, the argument from the speedo site making an appearance. If 10 people saw you murder someone, I would suggest any DA would have a strong case with no other physical evidence. 1 or 2 witnesses who got reduced sentences, you have problems. 10 of them PLUS staff of the teams (who didn't cut any deal), and you have a good case. Keep pretending and fighting the mythical game played over in speedoland.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
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.
If you don't know what hearsay is (and you don't), I would suggest not using the term. Just a friendly suggestion.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Big Doopie said:
but didn't this method have success with the federal case...? it would appear from all accounts that pressure was put on from above to stop the grand jury investigation.

i'm concerned.
Possible, but not clear and certain. There were problems with statute of limitations, but I think they had a case. More likely is the fact that US Attorneys will only bring a case they feel they have a 100% chance of winning. After Bonds. the view has changes a bit. But, depending on what comes out at a trial or in arbitration, that could change. That's one reason why Uniballer is putting up such a fight.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
Since when is direct witness testimony hearsay?

So If I witness a murder today with my own two eyes, that's hearsay....clearly it isn't but that's what people are saying here.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
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.
From FRE Rule 801
c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Eyewitness testimony as to what a witness saw is not hearsay. What a witness heard may be hearsay or not. There are many accepted exceptions to the hearsay rule such as admissions against interest, excited utterances, death bed confessions. .
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
Is Casey Wasserman the lobbyist then?

First, the news that a lobbyist visited Capitol Hill;
Then, Lance tweets about dinner with Wasserman and what the spoke about.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
D-Queued said:
Good point.

There are going to be some major morale problems. It is inconceivable that every employee of Livestrong is a sock puppet. There have to be at least a few that believe in the Livestrong cause itself. Maybe even a few that are not so blind to Lance.

Possible, even if marginally probable.

Dave.
http://hombredesubaru.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/who-is-this-hombre.html

Hombre of DailyPelotonforums. Glenn Wilson may have, or may have not, outed him.
 
Microchip said:
Is Casey Wasserman the lobbyist then?

First, the news that a lobbyist visited Capitol Hill;
Then, Lance tweets about dinner with Wasserman and what the spoke about.
No. Wasserman, more or less, is a sports deal maker. Wasserman pitches Post cereal company that USAC would be a great sponsorship opportunity and then Wasserman's company gets a cut of the done deal and perhaps other revenue from USAC to pay for his company's time.

USAC's got a deal with them and Wonderboy is on the BOD at USACDF.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Bill Murray said:
Ieven though we see doping in the tour de france as a much more important.
not an either/or dilemma.

You have presented a false dichotomy. One can be for cancer sufferers, for truth, for personal dignity, for respect, and not reconcile the behaviour of Armstrong as means justify ends.

Is it zero sum however? Does a cancer sufferer, grasp at any glimmer for reason, for potential, and they would find it in Susan Komen or its ilk?

Certainly, this foundation has hallmarks of a cult, so it is self-fulfilling. I am not saying IT IS a cult, or the cancer sufferers are automatons being manipulated. Do not misinterpret that. The point is, there are individuals who have conflated cancer and sport, the competition of sport, and drawn cancer into the argument on a cycling fora. Cycling and cancer are mutually exclusive.
 
Jul 20, 2009
11
0
0
this is a user comment from the wsj article being discussed.

Your story is inaccurate. Most importantly, the Lance Armstrong Foundation does Not send paid lobbyist to Washington DC. They send volunteers from across the US, working in conjunction with other cancer foundations in a group known as OVAC (One Voice Against Cancer) I know because I'm one of the volunteers that has gone for many years. I take time away from my family and work in hopes that we keep cancer prevention and research funding as a top priority, especially during these tough economic times. One of two men and one of three women, that includes all of your readers, will be diagnosed in their lifetime. We lose almost 600,000 Americans to cancer a year or roughly one a minute. We discuss how to save lives and put an end to the suffering this disease causes. That is our agenda that you are questioning
link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303612804577531353567249064.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs=comments&commentId=4451167

and given the spending shown from...

thehog said:
is this more attacking the messenger from camp LA?
 
Not sure I could wade into that cesspit…. Plenty of sound and reasonable arguments going on it the comments section.

“Eliminate the USADA. It is simply another agency formed by persons who want to control other person's lives. It is funded by taxpayers. I am a taxpayer. As a taxpayer, I don't care if Lance dopes. As a taxpayer, I don't care if anyone in athletics dopes. If I was a sponsor of an event like the TDF, I might care if the entrants doped. If I was one of the athletes I might care. But, as a taxpayer I don’t care. I don’t care if golfers, jockeys or any other athlete dopes. But I REALLY DO CARE THAT SOMEONE IS USING MY MONEY TO POLICE WHAT THEY CONSIDER A PROBLEM THAT I DON’T CONSIDER A PROBLEM. It has nothing to do with the “general welfare”. Disassemble all these agencies that police issues like this and put the money to better use.”


hiccuphell said:
this is a user comment from the wsj article being discussed.



link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303612804577531353567249064.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs=comments&commentId=4451167

and given the spending shown from...



is this more attacking the messenger from camp LA?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Bill Murray said:
But people working for THIS charity obviously got inspired by Lance Armstrong and what this charity does. It's understandable to me they feel a sense of debt to him and want to continue their good works.
Bill. Your first name should have to syllables to fit your schema.

two words, two syllables per.

Its an Arbiter CNfora handle schema

here, give you some tips

Will
Yam

Mah
RAY

cheers
 
Livestrong .org? .com?

I did a little digging, most of it for cancer related things. Could be something, could be nothing.

Livestrong .com? .org? spending http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000064871&year=2012

Podesta Group seems to be the lobbyist organization of choice because they seem to do quite a bit of work with health issues. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmissues.php?id=D000022193&year=2012

Demand Media's spending: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000050084&year=2010

Lance Armstrong Foundation: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000044961&year=2010

One of Amgen and Demand Media's lobbyists: American Continental Group
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000021831&year=2012
Funny how the USOC and USADA uses them too: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000058083&year=2012

If you want to dig around more, I suggest doing searches through google using the prefix "site:eek:pensecrets.org $search_phrase" The in-site search engine isn't useful for me. That should read site<COLON>opensecrets.org
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY