New WSJ Article

[joe_papp]

joepabike
Reed's latest piece on #Landisgate is going up on the WSJ soon if not already - try: http://is.gd/dLi7x SCA - the ghost of @lancearmstrong

 

[theswordsman]

I appreciate the attention to detail in the writing.

Mr. Armstrong has never been sanctioned for failing a drug test.

Things should start picking up steam, with riders being questioned, and Novitsky getting all the documents from the SCA proceedings and Trek/LeMond.

 

[dbrower]

It's a curious article because Mr. Alberghotti seems to have picked up a tic from an editor advised by a lawyer. Every couple of paragraphs he has to put in something that says Armstrong has never tested positive or been charged with anything. I think they call it "balance".

-dB

 

[scribe]

They also seem to acknowledge it will be difficult to get anything to stick, charges-wise. This should be interesting to see how all the boys do under oath

 

[Kennf1]

At some point, I would think SCA files a lawsuit for fraud. Right now, they just have to sit back and let the feds gather evidence.

 

[tubularglue]

They also seem to acknowledge it will be difficult to get anything to stick, charges-wise. This should be interesting to see how all the boys do under oath

do we know the charges that would be hard to stick ?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

So a white collar criminal defense attorney has been hired but, they are entirely clueless about the kind of case that might be going to be brought against Lance. Comedy gold.

Perjury in the SCA trial sounds like a promising angle to start with. Anyone recall from the SCA transcript whether he categorically stated he had NEVER used drugs? Surely that would open the entire historical can of worms.

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

it's always pure comedy to see a convicted doper throwing rocks in a glass house...........

thanks Joe

 

[Ferminal]

it's always pure comedy to see a convicted doper throwing rocks in a glass house...........

thanks Joe

Likewise those who defend Armstrong but are critical of other dopers.

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

Likewise those who defend Armstrong but are critical of other dopers.

NEWSFLASH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

they ALL ARE DOPERS AT THE TOP of the sport.............

have you not been paying attention?

then you have joe pap........ a convicted doper who never was anything in the sport...........maybe this is why he is so bitter?

just a thought

 

[superleicht]

To me, the most interesting thing is what Lance's new lawyer says:

"He's never tested positive for doping. The objective evidence proves, based on the criteria of his sport, that he's not a cheater."

IOW, you can be stoked on PEDs, but if you don't return a positive or are not sanctioned, you didn't do anything wrong.

 

[MacRoadie]

Mr. Daly said on Friday that he had "no confirmation" that Mr. Armstrong was a focus of the probe. "He's never tested positive for doping. The objective evidence proves, based on the criteria of his sport, that he's not a cheater," he said.

Talk about a qualifier...

 

[David Suro]

It seems it is time to circle the wagons and speak very carefully.

Other than the following:

Positive B samples from 1999
Sworn testimony of deposed witnesses
Financial contributions to the UCI
Abnormal values on performance tests

Does anyone know of any other evidence?

It seems that without a syringe or blood bag containing blood that matches LA's DNA the evidence is largely circumstancial.

Anyone want to make a bet about a verdict of guilt or innocence on any count tried?

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

well...........LeMond and the other tools in the clinic said Lance would never start the tour let alone finish it.................

looks like Lance wins again

 

[Neworld]

So, after you finish laughing from this comedy you are thus agreeing that LA is and most certainly was a doper. A doper who has made millions lying to us, cancer survivors and himself that he is an idol, a champion and an honest sportsman.

Thank you for confirming what JP is saying. Who cares if JP, Landis, Andreu ... are bitter or not. They know more about cycling than most of us and they know how to dope and who doped.

Lets look forward and with their knowledge to change the sport for the better.

NW

 

[Dunedain]

It seems it is time to circle the wagons and speak very carefully.

Other than the following:

Positive B samples from 1999
Sworn testimony of deposed witnesses
Financial contributions to the UCI
Abnormal values on performance tests

Does anyone know of any other evidence?

It seems that without a syringe or blood bag containing blood that matches LA's DNA the evidence is largely circumstancial.

Anyone want to make a bet about a verdict of guilt or innocence on any count tried?

BTW, I think he probably doped but.... I agree, the examples you bring up are not bulletproof evidence. Now, if people from postal talk and corroborate each other - then I think the prosecutors have a case or at least can put him in a position to perjure himself. In my opinion though - Lance will not be convicted but if he is, it will be perjury.

 

[Runitout]

Other than the following:
...
Sworn testimony of deposed witnesses

...
It seems that without a syringe or blood bag containing blood that matches LA's DNA the evidence is largely circumstantial.

Sworn eyewitness testimony is not circumstantial evidence. Blood bags are circumstantial evidence. Are you saying that circumstantial evidence would make the case strong or weak?

There's circumstantial and non-circumstantial evidence regarding Armstrong's doping; however, last I looked it is not a crime. I have no idea if Armstrong has committed a crime. If he has, then I hope he is caught for it and duly punished; if not, then I hope he is allowed to retire into blissful obscurity.

I would like the UCI to face the sword, though. I think those who allowed the 1990s to happen to cycling deserve a princely comeuppance. If the bogeyman is brought down with them, then so be it.

 

[Cerberus]

It seems it is time to circle the wagons and speak very carefully.

Other than the following:

Positive B samples from 1999
Sworn testimony of deposed witnesses
Financial contributions to the UCI
Abnormal values on performance tests

Does anyone know of any other evidence?

It seems that without a syringe or blood bag containing blood that matches LA's DNA the evidence is largely circumstancial.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that only speaks indirectly to the point at hand. Landis's testimony is direct evidence not circumstantial, he has credibility issues, but that has nothing to do with the evidence being circumstantial. The 1999 samples probably also count as direct evidence. Financial contribution and abnormal values on the other hand is clearly circumstantial.

ETA: Ninjaed I see.

 

[Barrus]

A little question, is this the entire article, because I get a sign saying:

sample of subscriber content

Which can be implied as meaning that it is not the entire article. Am I correct in this reasoning?

 

[Benotti69]

well...........LeMond and the other tools in the clinic said Lance would never start the tour let alone finish it.................

looks like Lance wins again

I dont' know how you can come to that conclusion? Lemond gave an opinion, not set a competition to see whether LA would win in a race to France.

Things are getting desperate on your side of the fence when you consider that a win!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It seems that without a syringe or blood bag containing blood that matches LA's DNA the evidence is largely circumstancial.

Anyone want to make a bet about a verdict of guilt or innocence on any count tried?

Evidence to prove what? That he doped? It doesn't sound like that's at the core of the investigation. The real focus seems to be on fraud, illegal drug possession and sales, or racketeering. With that they won't be looking quite so much at 1999 tests, or the credibility of Landis testimony. They'll look hard at things like taxes, bank records, contracts, etc. Which happens to be the area of Novitzky's expertise.

Remember also this isn't entirely about Lance. I don't think investigators are aiming squarely at him, and I hope they aren't. He's sort of a middle fish here. A visible one certainly, and a bully, but still not likely the highest person on the pyramid. They'll be spending a lot of time looking at Weisel, maybe Stapleton, JB depending on how international this goes, and certainly some of the physicians and medical support. Alan Lim for example probably has a real hot seat waiting for him.

 

[Roland Rat]

The comments section is amusing, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th after Joe's could be straight out of the Public Strategies internal memo.

Bigger fish to fry... check.
Never failed a test.... check.
Better things to do with tax monies... check.

 

[Roland Rat]

Evidence to prove what? That he doped? It doesn't sound like that's at the core of the investigation. The real focus seems to be on fraud, illegal drug possession and sales, or racketeering. With that they won't be looking quite so much at 1999 tests, or the credibility of Landis testimony. They'll look hard at things like taxes, bank records, contracts, etc. Which happens to be the area of Novitzky's expertise.

Remember also this isn't entirely about Lance. I don't think investigators are aiming squarely at him, and I hope they aren't. He's sort of a middle fish here. A visible one certainly, and a bully, but still not likely the highest person on the pyramid. They'll be spending a lot of time looking at Weisel, maybe Stapleton, JB depending on how international this goes, and certainly some of the physicians and medical support. Alan Lim for example probably has a real hot seat waiting for him.

I'll be amazed if Livestrong come out of this unscathed also. Surely there has to be some kind of fraud on the public or obtaining money under false pretences thing going on there, never mind any behind the scenes financial shenanigans that may be discovered.

 

[Fester]

I'll be amazed if Livestrong come out of this unscathed also. Surely there has to be some kind of fraud on the public or obtaining money under false pretences thing going on there, never mind any behind the scenes financial shenanigans that may be discovered.

I would agree with you Roland. But I hope it does. I think it would be stupid to through the baby out with the bath water. Armstrong has done a lot of good, hopefully they can put a "human fallibility" spin on this and save some of the -completely fictitious- legend. I am not sure, are these "foundations" in America money laundering fronts?

 

[Roland Rat]

I would agree with you Roland. But I hope it does. I think it would be stupid to through the baby out with the bath water. Armstrong has done a lot of good, hopefully they can put a "human fallibility" spin on this and save some of the -completely fictitious- legend. I am not sure, are these "foundations" in America money laundering fronts?

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure how much benefit Livestrong will be to the cancer community after all this goes down. If Livestrong can be passed over to good ambassadors, then great (Lemond taking over Livestrong would be an amusingly ironic twist), but how much good will Livestrong do?

An often missed point to this is that Livestrong is taking charity money away from other charities. People give to them instead of others, not as well as. And that's what makes LA's cynicism so distasteful (if proven) - he is effectively stealing not only from people who donate, but also from the people who need that donation and would otherwise have received it. If that charity money would be of more benefit elsewhere, then I wouldn't feel any great loss if Livestrong disappeared.