Turner29 said:
Remember, all they got Al Capone for was tax evasion.
Right, and despite all of the "good he had done" with his philanthropic efforts.
http://www.umich.edu/~eng217/student_projects/nkazmers/capone2.html
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Turner29 said:
Remember, all they got Al Capone for was tax evasion.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.MacRoadie said:Could you submit an amicus brief, or would it just be an informal letter to the court?
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.
And disease got him in the end.Fausto's Schnauzer said:Right, and despite all of the "good he had done" with his philanthropic efforts.
http://www.umich.edu/~eng217/student_projects/nkazmers/capone2.html
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Bill Murray said:Ieven though we see doping in the tour de france as a much more important.
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
thehog said:I guess I just found my answer: 280k in '09: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000044961&year=2009
MacRoadie said:Could you submit an amicus brief, or would it just be an informal letter to the court?
hiccuphell said:this is a user comment from the wsj article being discussed.
link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...ws_wsj#articleTabs=comments&commentId=4451167
and given the spending shown from...
is this more attacking the messenger from camp LA?
Bill. Your first name should have to syllables to fit your schema.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.