Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[Merckx index]

Great article for any remaining fanboys. All the key talking points/fallback positions are here, but this one is sort of new, a twist on the everyone-was-doing-it theme:

Then there are Armstrong's vicious attacks against his accusers...These legal assaults and personal attacks were completely abhorrent and immoral. But it's worth pointing out that after 1999, Lance Armstrong quickly became a very profitable business, call it Armstrong, Inc. Like it or not, in the business world, highly aggressive legal maneuverings are standard practice.

Look at American tech icons like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. They didn't hesitate to sue any perceived threats. They thrived on crushing the competition, large or small. Amazon's Jeff Bezos isn't content to threaten every bookstore in America; he wants to rewrite the rules of an entire publishing industry. Why? Because it's good for his business. As a bike rider and sportsman, what Armstrong did was reprehensible. As a vastly profitable multi-national corporation, it was pretty much standard practice.

And in addition to doing so much good for cancer, LA also did so much good for the Postal Service:

Never mind that the Postal Service actually did something seemingly impossible by sponsoring Armstrong's team: They found a way to make money and save taxpayers a small fortune. We are actually to believe that harm has come to the reputation of an organization so flawed that "going postal" is slang for an underappreciated and overworked employee shooting fellow underappreciated and overworked employees.

And for his teammates:

Lance Armstrong made the dreams of his teammates come true. It was his dedication, talent and sheer will that put them on winning Tour de France teams. Every rider who rode with Armstrong was worth more in the marketplace for having been on a winning Tour team. Why did Tyler get his own team? Why did Floyd Landis get his own team? Why did they get a chance to win the Tour on their own? Because they rode with Lance Armstrong. Why did Hamilton and Landis continue to use PEDs after they left Armstrong's team? Because they felt they had to if they had a chance to compete.

 

[Page Mill Masochist]

Sentiment has changed. For the better!

Here ... some tool named Stuart Stevens tries to defend Lance.

His piece is shallow and foolish. But now ... what's changed ... is the comments section.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Weak rebuttals by fans of Lance.

But...but....



Armstrong is getting his due for the callous and greedy life he lived. Nothing more.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Amen to that. Except that the snitches, guilty as they are, deserve a break. We needs us our snitches. I likes me some snitches. Yessssss.

Good choice going from inept attorney to pure intertubes trolling. Go with your strengths.

 

[MarkvW]

Good choice going from inept attorney to pure intertubes trolling. Go with your strengths.

You're a master baiter, I'll give you that.

 

[Fatclimber]

....
His piece is shallow and foolish. But now ... what's changed ... is the comments section.

Yes I was quite delighted to read through the comments and find only 3 (of 30-40) comments backing armstrong. One was that RR dude..

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

What I am advocating is that we not put all the guilt on the most conspicuous one and pretend that by doing that we have cleaned up the sport.

Who are you saying this to? You'll note that many riders past and present are h subject of scrutiny on this forum. You'll also note that man, many other riders have been sanctioned for doping offences over the years, including removal of grand tour wins. Are you saying Armstrong shouldn't be subject to the same? Are you saying that Armstrong shouldn't receive even stronger sanctions and penalties given that the scope of his doping related offenses and behaviour over the years (which has negatively impacted many people, not just fellow riders) shouldn't be more serious in recognition of him being to any reasonable observer, the worst of the worst?

 

[Cobber]

The sponsors made me do it!

During my interview, Armstrong added details to his some of his much-criticized responses to Oprah. For instance, while he refused to lay blame elsewhere for suing people who spoke truthfully about him, he asserted that companies with which he signed endorsement contracts expected him to refute allegations. If he didn't, Armstrong believed, he might have lost those deals. If Armstrong's claim is true, would it excuse those lawsuits? Hardly. But it offers some explanation as to why he sued people he knew were telling the truth.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mo...e-armstrong-interview/?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp

 

[frenchfry]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mo...e-armstrong-interview/?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp

Where have we seen this before:

Soon we began corresponding privately

Lance seduces the "journalist" by sucking him into thinking he is a special bro

then:

and last week Armstrong invited me to his house in Austin for an interview

Bingo! The invitation to the warm surroundings of his home, where Armstrong has already worked his magic on many an unsuspecting scribe.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Where have we seen this before:



Lance seduces the "journalist" by sucking him into thinking he is a special bro

then:



Bingo! The invitation to the warm surroundings of his home, where Armstrong has already worked his magic on many an unsuspecting scribe.

Exactly ff!
Classic sociopath charm

Expect more to come

 

[Benotti69]

Sports Illustrated should just ignore Armstrong and only report his legal cases.

But SI are just as much part of the problem in sports today. Where are there articles criticising Nike, trek and all the others who backed Armstrong when it was obvious he was a doper?

Armstrong still doesn't get it. Good, that means he is still on a spiral downwards.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But SI are just as much part of the problem in sports today. Where are there articles criticising Nike, trek and all the others who backed Armstrong when it was obvious he was a doper?

You want SI to implicate companies who advertise in their publication? (nike)

To be fair, SI previously did a killer story on Wonderboy that had much more stuff than just Wonderboy's doping in it. They tried to tell Wade Exum's story and that didn't take off. They detailed the USOC/IOC anti-doping controversy policy too. Taking on the IOC/USOC was an act of courage for any publication, especially one with so much circulation/viewers.

Nike's marketing group needs a WADA ban.

 

[RownhamHill]

During my interview, Armstrong added details to his some of his much-criticized responses to Oprah. For instance . . . he asserted that companies with which he signed endorsement contracts expected him to refute allegations. If he didn't, Armstrong believed, he might have lost those deals. If Armstrong's claim is true, would it excuse those lawsuits? Hardly. But it offers some explanation as to why he sued people he knew were telling the truth.

What kind of excuse or explanation is that?

I'm sorry I had to aggressively lie about and attack the people I knew were actually telling the truth about my cheating, but you see if I hadn't, then some of the other people I was continuing to actively lie to, and at the time still believed in me (or at least tolerated my behaviour), might have revised their view on me, and then I might have faced some negative financial consequence?

No **** Sherlock.

It's only an excuse if the companies he'd signed deals with knew for a fact he was cheating, signed him up anyway, and then pressured him into aggressively defending himself.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Exactly ff!
Classic sociopath charm

Expect more to come

We'll know after reading the article......was he dopestar struck, or does he ream him....??

 

[D-Queued]

You want SI to implicate companies who advertise in their publication? (nike)

To be fair, SI previously did a killer story on Wonderboy that had much more stuff than just Wonderboy's doping in it. They tried to tell Wade Exum's story and that didn't take off. They detailed the USOC/IOC anti-doping controversy policy too. Taking on the IOC/USOC was an act of courage for any publication, especially one with so much circulation/viewers.

Nike's marketing group needs a WADA ban.

Even better would be an automatic AAF for any endorsement deal.

The athletes would all still sign, so no harm, no foul.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Behind Lance Armstrong’s decision to meet secretly with U.S. anti-doping authorities in late 2012 was his hope that he could lay the groundwork for the authorities to consider allowing him to compete in triathlons.

But unknown until now was the identity of the person who hosted and helped arrange the December meeting: former Colorado governor, August W. Ritter Jr., a lawyer and influential Democrat who is Mr. Armstrong’s friend.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/03/08/former-colorado-gov-ritter-hosted-lance-armstrong-meeting/

 

[Scott SoCal]

Behind Lance Armstrong’s decision to meet secretly with U.S. anti-doping authorities in late 2012 was his hope that he could lay the groundwork for the authorities to consider allowing him to compete in triathlons.

But unknown until now was the identity of the person who hosted and helped arrange the December meeting: former Colorado governor, August W. Ritter Jr., a lawyer and influential Democrat who is Mr. Armstrong’s friend.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/03/08/former-colorado-gov-ritter-hosted-lance-armstrong-meeting/

A little surprising. Although a former US Attorney I don't think Ritter is particularly well respected in the circles LA would need to pull the string.

Grasping at straws I suppose.

 

[reginagold]

A little surprising. Although a former US Attorney I don't think Ritter is particularly well respected in the circles LA would need to pull the string.

Grasping at straws I suppose.

Then Gov. Ritter and Lance co announced the big Colorado race in 2010. Friends for life after that?

http://www.bikerumor.com/2010/08/04...armstrong-announce-the-quiznos-pro-challenge/

 

[BroDeal]

Behind Lance Armstrong’s decision to meet secretly with U.S. anti-doping authorities in late 2012 was his hope that he could lay the groundwork for the authorities to consider allowing him to compete in triathlons.

But unknown until now was the identity of the person who hosted and helped arrange the December meeting: former Colorado governor, August W. Ritter Jr., a lawyer and influential Democrat who is Mr. Armstrong’s friend.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/03/08/former-colorado-gov-ritter-hosted-lance-armstrong-meeting/

MarkW will be p!ssed. He does not believe political figures would stoop so low to aid someone like Armstrong.

 

[MarkvW]

MarkW will be p!ssed. He does not believe political figures would stoop so low to aid someone like Armstrong.

The best explanations for the termination of the Armstrong criminal case continue to be difficulties in proving the case and/or legitimate resource allocation questions.

It's hard to buy the pitch that the DOJ is corruptly protecting Armstrong because of "influence" when it is right now investigating him on other criminal matters and is preparing to take him down, big time in the qui tam case.

The Armstrong investigation had HUGE statute of limitation problems. That ought to be obvious by now.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The best explanations for the termination of the Armstrong criminal case continue to be difficulties in proving the case and/or legitimate resource allocation questions.

How difficult is it for the Feds to get people to make admissions when many have spoken in public?

It's hard to buy the pitch that the DOJ is corruptly protecting Armstrong because of "influence" when it is right now investigating him on other criminal matters and is preparing to take him down, big time in the qui tam case.

The Armstrong investigation had HUGE statute of limitation problems. That ought to be obvious by now.

I am not a lawyer, not even a pretend one - but I do know that the DOJ did not drop last years case but a State Attorney.

 

[Scott SoCal]

The best explanations for the termination of the Armstrong criminal case continue to be difficulties in proving the case and/or legitimate resource allocation questions.

It's hard to buy the pitch that the DOJ is corruptly protecting Armstrong because of "influence" when it is right now investigating him on other criminal matters and is preparing to take him down, big time in the qui tam case.

The Armstrong investigation had HUGE statute of limitation problems. That ought to be obvious by now.

The best explanations for the termination of the Armstrong criminal case continue to be difficulties in proving the case and/or legitimate resource allocation questions.

Your willingness to ride the crash all the way to the ground is impressive.

It's hard to buy the pitch that the DOJ is corruptly protecting Armstrong because of "influence" when it is right now investigating him on other criminal matters and is preparing to take him down, big time in the qui tam case.

Couple of things... It's not an election year and the Birotte decision looks shakier each passing day. I don't know if he's well liked at the DOJ... but it appears it's not so much.

The Armstrong investigation had HUGE statute of limitation problems. That ought to be obvious by now

I don't think Doug Miller or Mark Williams agreed with this. And if Birotte didn't think RICO would apply, why did he spend two years getting to that point? The last year of Postal sponsorship was in 2004. LA would have had to been indicted in 2009 to satisfy SOL. And why is their a new criminal investigation now? Did the Oprah interview suddenly expose a new angle to pursue vis-a-vis RICO?

I don't think so.

 

[WinterRider]

The best explanations for the termination of the Armstrong criminal case continue to be difficulties in proving the case and/or legitimate resource allocation questions.

It's hard to buy the pitch that the DOJ is corruptly protecting Armstrong because of "influence" when it is right now investigating him on other criminal matters and is preparing to take him down, big time in the qui tam case.

The Armstrong investigation had HUGE statute of limitation problems. That ought to be obvious by now.

The problem with your theory is that the only person connected to the case who agrees with you is Birotte. Everyone else who worked on the case thought it was a winner, and since Birotte canned the whole thing with no warning other people have taken it up and been very successful.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The best explanations for the termination of the Armstrong criminal case continue to be difficulties in proving the case and/or legitimate resource allocation questions.

It's hard to buy the pitch that the DOJ is corruptly protecting Armstrong because of "influence" when it is right now investigating him on other criminal matters and is preparing to take him down, big time in the qui tam case.

The Armstrong investigation had HUGE statute of limitation problems. That ought to be obvious by now.

Cite the source as ongoing criminal conspiracies toll SOL's. I wasn't aware that someone had addressed this "HUGE" SOL problem. Please provide us with this assessment because I would definitely like to see it.

And what is ACTUALLY obvious right now is that there is a very good case for tolling the SOL. It's like you live in bizarro world or something. I truly would like to know how the revelation that systematic doping was undertaken and actively and ruthlessly concealed adds up to it being "obvious" there was no case for tolling the SOL. Please, enlighten us.

EDIT: Oops, sorry, I just joined the troll echelon, didn't I?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

The best explanations for the termination of the Armstrong criminal case continue to be difficulties in proving the case and/or legitimate resource allocation questions.

It's hard to buy the pitch that the DOJ is corruptly protecting Armstrong because of "influence" when it is right now investigating him on other criminal matters and is preparing to take him down, big time in the qui tam case.

The Armstrong investigation had HUGE statute of limitation problems. That ought to be obvious by now.

My hunch is it was resources and/or lack of small p political will. Alternatively Birotte did not want to damage his reputation in the event of a loss. He may also have concluded that USADA would have a better shot at bringing LA down because their process was not criminal, and had a much lower threshold for success. USADA did not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury.

In addition USADA would not have been able to pursue Armstrong pending a lenghty criminal process. That is, we may not be where we are today, if Birotte had not "bagged" the criminal case.

At the end of the day, Birotte may have been correct from a strictly practical point of view because USADA did exacly what Birotte thought they could, they brought Armstrong down. That triggered the Oprah "confession" and bought LA a truckload of litigation.

On the SOL issue, USADA's strategy that the doping scheme was a conspiracy could also have worked in the criminal case. If Birotte could prove a conspiracy he could get around the SOL. However having to invlove conspirators in a criminal case, as opposed to just going after LA would have stretched the DOJ's resources to the max.

Some posters are confused. Birotte is not a State Attorney, he is a federal prosecutor in charge of a DOJ office in Los Angeles and thus was statutorily entrusted with the power as part of his job, to proceed or not proceed with a case.

In addition there is still a criminal investigation against LA underway regarding witness tampering. This case is separate and apart from the criminal fraud case and is based on Hamilton's and others complaints of intimidation by LA.