Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[ChrisE]

I love when Dr rips people a new one, without ever insulting. Just using facts and their own words against them. Impressive.

Just let it keep being a spectator sport for you, digger. It will be better for your self esteem.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And these rules were sent down from a Higher Power? Set in stone to the point where it's more important to protect Armstrong's fraudulent wins than correcting a historical wrong?[/B]

I guess it all depends on whose legacy people are willing to protect more.

What?
Are you suggesting rules should just be changed because it is Armstrong??

They are the rules, set down by WADA - agreed and applied by USADA and the UCI. Of course any judgement on LA would tarnish all his wins (& his career) but the SOL is 8 years, so any sanctions from USADA can only be within that timeframe.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Who said I assume that? I never wrote anything of the sort. I basically said Joe the juror may have a hard time understanding this case and that could possibly result in aquittal.

We are talking about SCA, and RR's contention that it could be reopened if part of an LA plea deal was him giving up his wins.

Well are you "talking about SCA" or are you just "talking about" some RRs opinion on a plea deal?

Because if you are on about SCA - then it does not matter if LA pleads are not, but if any of his victories are taken away - and if there are then expect SCA to act.

 

[ChrisE]

Well are you "talking about SCA" or are you just "talking about" some RRs opinion on a plea deal?

Because if you are on about SCA - then it does not matter if LA pleads are not, but if any of his victories are taken away - and if there are then expect SCA to act.

RR wrote perhaps part of a plea deal would be him giving up his victories, thus re-opening SCA. I wrote that is another reason I do not think he will plea.

I tossed in that I thought he would get off if it went to trial (ie no plea) which would make all of this a moot point. This statement apparently is the source of confusion here between us and I could have been clearer on my intent with that statement.

So to clear this up, if it goes to trial, whatever that outcome would have no affect on him giving up his victories. It would be other entities that determine that, as you wrote.

If any victories are taken away, then as you say I would expect SCA to act if they are legally able to. I read your previous posts, but the proof will be what happens when/if that time comes because I contend this is a gray area still.

 

[Race Radio]

RR wrote perhaps part of a plea deal would be him giving up his victories, thus re-opening SCA. I wrote that is another reason I do not think he will plea.

I tossed in that I thought he would get off if it went to trial (ie no plea) which would make all of this a moot point. This statement apparently is the source of confusion here between us and I could have been clearer on my intent with that statement.

So to clear this up, if it goes to trial, whatever that outcome would have no affect on him giving up his victories. It would be other entities that determine that, as you wrote.

If any victories are taken away, then as you say I would expect SCA to act if they are legally able to. I read your previous posts, but the proof will be what happens when/if that time comes because I contend this is a gray area still.

I expect USADA to open a non-analytical positive case against him for 2005. I expect them to be successful. This will result in the money being returned to SCA. It could also open up a fraud case as well, with SCA collecting damages and penalties.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Alternative universe?

Actually outside these forums I have seen zero interest in his career because as a cyclist he no longer has one. The guy has retired and the world has moved on and there is too much real news happening on a daily basis. I really don't think that the public will particularly care whether a guy who retired 3 years or more (by the time it gets to court, if it ever does) was a doper. Most people have made up their minds anyway, they are either in the doper camp or the fanboy camp and nothing will sway either side one way or the other. Then there is the third and by far the largest group, to which it is just all old news. I am in that group and so are most of the guys I ride and race with. I asked my 18 year old son the other day whether he thought Armstrong doped. He shrugged his shoulders and said; 'yeah probably but they all doped back then anyway so I guess the best doper won'. He and his mates have new heroes now and things have moved on, they just don't care about it, its all just 'back in the day' for them.

When the indictments come? Which year is that? What I think will happen is that there will be long drawn out legal wrangling at the end of which it will all fizzle out or he will get a slap on the wrist. I think anyone on here who is still dreaming of a public stoning is deluding themselves.

I guess this is why Armstrong has spent millions of dollars on PR and his legal fees? Armstrong realizes that people care enough that he has aborted his long talked of political career and the biopic starring Matt/Jake/whoever, is never mentioned.

He's retired? No more Livestrong? How does he put fuel in the jet and pay the dream team?

I guess a guy who stocks shelves in the supermarket and gets cancer can just start a charity that raises millions of dollars. It never crossed your mind that Armstrong still rakes in millions because his stature as a sporting icon is based on his good name?

One of my favorite ridiculous arguments is the "old news" argument. The reality of these scandals is that they stay with the perpetrator forever. This is going to destroy someone who most believed had a good chance of being a major political figure, like a Governor and POTUS.

You speak of heroes? You realize the absurdity of stating that your son may have new ones? The Armstrong fraud helps to completely eradicate the idea of heroes, that is if it even still existed.

How much is Armstrong worth? I've seen figures over $100M. What do you believe that was based on if it wasn't based on his image?

Your post is more a reflection of your short attention span and being an Armstrong apologist, than the media circus and sensationalism which will accompany Armstrong's walk into the Federal Pen.

 

[Cimacoppi48]

I expect USADA to open a non-analytical positive case against him for 2005. I expect them to be successful. This will result in the money being returned to SCA. It could also open up a fraud case as well, with SCA collecting damages and penalties.

I would also expect the SCA matter to be included as a count of mail/wire fraud/conspiracy/perjury in an indictment of all these guys. USADA can't order the return of the money, but a criminal court can and will.

 

[Cloxxki]

What about the SCA entitlement when not Arstrong himself, but one of his teammates was proven (or admittedly) doped during that prticular TdF? Or does SCA need Armstrong himself to be doped, or without the official win, to have a claim?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I expect USADA to open a non-analytical positive case against him for 2005. I expect them to be successful. This will result in the money being returned to SCA. It could also open up a fraud case as well, with SCA collecting damages and penalties.

There may be a plea in the criminal case but I don't believe the Fed's will accept a deal if it doesn't include substantial jail time.

Armstrong has upped the ante too much to avoid prison.

He also better have a lot of money socked away in Switzerland and the Bahamas because after the lawyers and SCA he's going to have to face the federal whistleblower lawsuit.

All of the fanboys who protested the pursuit of Armstrong because of the expense of the US attorneys, are going to find that Armstrong will have funded his own demise.

The United States and other jurisdictions are going to go after everything he has and they will get it while he is sitting in prison.

 

[Neworld]

SCA was in a no win situation under that contract. LA won 6, didn't get popped for PEDs. End of story.

You are right, at that time despite thinking he was a doper, he didn't get 'popped'.

Whether LA lied or not is not the issue at all because it couldn't be proven at that time. Having a he said/she said arbitration hearing resulted in zero for SCA. Besides, LA shamed them out of 5 million....their dumbasses shamed themselves out of the other 2.5.

When Lance lied it did, and will matter. At that time lying earned him 7.5 Mil. In the future, when the complex federal investigation ties together his use of fed funds to buy drugs, trafficing, lying, coercing... they will have a case, dot the 'i's and crost the 't's and question him under oath. He may plea bargain or fight but may end up being proven guilty. Then it will matter in the SCA case and in that scenario he will lose more than 7.5 mil.

Also when you look at it from clinic POV, they should have known LA was doped up and would win vs the other poor victim cyclists. It is their own fault for not reading DPF and doing their homework, and for taking that "bet" he wouldn't win in the first place. You and race radio should have contacted SCA and warned them off of such a wager lol.

Oh so now the 'clinic' POV has merit and the SCA should've consulted these pages. Maybe SCA should've chatted to you, Polish, Fatandfatter and Concussivestoner.

Your hatred has made your reasoning skills take a vacation. If something in the future happens then we can revisit this issue real time, along with your buddy neworld who seems to have the same issues with timeframes that you do with facts. Until then, the score after the "process" is LA $7.5 million, SCA zero.

The only score that matters is justice, not hatred. Do you care about justice?

PS: about joe juror understanding anything...I think in our state of global recession, with job losses all throughout the US of A, Americans walking away from their houses, and a portion of American the size of Germany without ANY health care...when he/she learns that some of his/her tax dollars went to supply Lance to buy drugs, to win silly bike races in France, and is now worth over 100mil... ya, that's all they will understand, and that is all they will hear. I wonder if they think the Fed investigation is a waste of tax dollars then?

NW

 

[ChrisE]

I expect USADA to open a non-analytical positive case against him for 2005. I expect them to be successful. This will result in the money being returned to SCA. It could also open up a fraud case as well, with SCA collecting damages and penalties.

I thought the payout was after 6 victories, ie 2004. Taking away 2005 would have no impact on SCA, right?

 

[Polish]

Grand Jury terms can be extended or the matter can be held over for a new Grand Jury. Tell Fabio his client is not out of danger by a long-shot.

So you are saying there is a new Grand Jury.
Interesting. Exciting.
Or there has been an extension on the "Old One".
La Doyenne.

Do you have a link? Maybe your source told you this? Source's source?
Please advise.
Or as Neworld likes to say "cricket cricket"
Although I think the correct term is "chirp chirp"
Or "hop hop"
quack quack.

 

[Polish]

I expect USADA to open a non-analytical positive case against him for 2005. I expect them to be successful. This will result in the money being returned to SCA. It could also open up a fraud case as well, with SCA collecting damages and penalties.

And following the USADA's "non-analytical" positive case we could probably expect to see a "mucho-monetary" counter case from Lance?

Maybe the USADA can team up with the SCA. Pool their interests. Cut costs.
Maybe the SCA will say thanks but no thanks. Been there done that.

 

[BotanyBay]

I expect USADA to open a non-analytical positive case against him for 2005. I expect them to be successful. This will result in the money being returned to SCA. It could also open up a fraud case as well, with SCA collecting damages and penalties.

Not if he snorts it off a hooker's chi chi's before they get to him.

 

[Berzin]

What?
Are you suggesting rules should just be changed because it is Armstrong??

It's not about Armstrong, but about the seven consecutive victories in the Tour, which constitutes not just any run-of-the-mill fraud, but one of the biggest in the history of modern-day sport.

Why would any sporting delegation want this record on it's books, defended by a rule that can be easily be amended or disregarded this one particular time due to the egregiousness of the crime?

They are the rules, set down by WADA - agreed and applied by USADA and the UCI. Of course any judgement on LA would tarnish all his wins (& his career) but the SOL is 8 years, so any sanctions from USADA can only be within that timeframe.

These rules, agreed by USADA and the UCI, two federations that have been complicit in perpetuating the Armstrong myth.

You've got to be kidding me with this.

 

[Velodude]

Actually outside these forums I have seen zero interest in his career because as a cyclist he no longer has one. The guy has retired and the world has moved on and there is too much real news happening on a daily basis. I really don't think that the public will particularly care whether a guy who retired 3 years or more (by the time it gets to court, if it ever does) was a doper. Most people have made up their minds anyway, they are either in the doper camp or the fanboy camp and nothing will sway either side one way or the other. Then there is the third and by far the largest group, to which it is just all old news. I am in that group and so are most of the guys I ride and race with. I asked my 18 year old son the other day whether he thought Armstrong doped. He shrugged his shoulders and said; 'yeah probably but they all doped back then anyway so I guess the best doper won'. He and his mates have new heroes now and things have moved on, they just don't care about it, its all just 'back in the day' for them.

When the indictments come? Which year is that? What I think will happen is that there will be long drawn out legal wrangling at the end of which it will all fizzle out or he will get a slap on the wrist. I think anyone on here who is still dreaming of a public stoning is deluding themselves.

So you consider the law of the land should only be upheld when there exists a public interest?

Would certainly solve the problem of California prisons' overcrowding!

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Congratulations!

And following the USADA's "non-analytical" positive case we could probably expect to see a "mucho-monetary" counter case from Lance?

Maybe the USADA can team up with the SCA. Pool their interests. Cut costs.
Maybe the SCA will say thanks but no thanks. Been there done that.

Comedy Central!

I think you're going to find that "Lance" has a lot fewer resources than you believe him to have. The delay in the charges being brought hurts him much more than helps him.

 

[ChrisE]

The only score that matters is justice, not hatred. Do you care about justice?

PS: about joe juror understanding anything...I think in our state of global recession, with job losses all throughout the US of A, Americans walking away from their houses, and a portion of American the size of Germany without ANY health care...when he/she learns that some of his/her tax dollars went to supply Lance to buy drugs, to win silly bike races in France, and is now worth over 100mil... ya, that's all they will understand, and that is all they will hear. I wonder if they think the Fed investigation is a waste of tax dollars then?

NW

Yes, I care about justice but that is not what that conversation was about between the hog and me.....that discussion was about whether or not SCA should have just paid instead of fighting it. The end results prove me right, and he has spun his way to China trying to undo the facts. He hasn't replied lately so he is probably still digging himself out of the earth's crust somewhere.

I don't think you and I have had a discussion on here before, but since you haven't let me fill you in on a common mistake people make when engaging me the first time.

One, because I am not in the pitchfork posse, things get attributed to me that I did not write or even think. You have done that twice above: one, by implying I do not want justice and two, implying I think it is a waste of taxpayer money.

The second one you cannot find anything on this forum where I said or ever implied that. For the first one, I wrote at one time I would like to see LA skate just to watch the meltdown in here. I backed off of that in a later post because I said it in haste; I want justice to be served and whatever the fallout is from that so be it. Justice includes confirming the govt. does all of the right things and those that are accused have their day in court, if that is the ultimate outcome. When people say stupid things, and some members of the pitchfork posse say alot of stupid things, about this whole ordeal I point them out. The means I get lumped in with polish as you did above. When thinking gets too hard some people just punt, so I understand your reaction.

As to your last paragraph, people do things against their best interest or in direct opposition to what should be plainfully obvious, for a variety of reasons.

Idiots will see no AAF's, perhaps they see witchunt, along with a bunch of confusing evidence that happened a long time ago with conflicting testimony. We will see what the result of that is if it goes to trial. How soon we forget the fiasco of the Bonds' verdict or the OJ verdict....yes, alot of rational individuals on those juries.

 

[thehog]

You are right, at that time despite thinking he was a doper, he didn't get 'popped'.



When Lance lied it did, and will matter. At that time lying earned him 7.5 Mil. In the future, when the complex federal investigation ties together his use of fed funds to buy drugs, trafficing, lying, coercing... they will have a case, dot the 'i's and crost the 't's and question him under oath. He may plea bargain or fight but may end up being proven guilty. Then it will matter in the SCA case and in that scenario he will lose more than 7.5 mil.



Oh so now the 'clinic' POV has merit and the SCA should've consulted these pages. Maybe SCA should've chatted to you, Polish, Fatandfatter and Concussivestoner.



The only score that matters is justice, not hatred. Do you care about justice?

PS: about joe juror understanding anything...I think in our state of global recession, with job losses all throughout the US of A, Americans walking away from their houses, and a portion of American the size of Germany without ANY health care...when he/she learns that some of his/her tax dollars went to supply Lance to buy drugs, to win silly bike races in France, and is now worth over 100mil... ya, that's all they will understand, and that is all they will hear. I wonder if they think the Fed investigation is a waste of tax dollars then?

NW

The part that will be interesting is the “exact” wording of the contract and what actually the term used for qualification of a victory. Then I’d like to understand secondary wording on “disqualification”. Would it actually mean a loss of the title, a doping positive or by proof that an infringement took place regardless of sanction or not.

It could be argued by SCA that if Armstrong did in fact test positive in 2001 TDS then he wouldn’t have been present for the next two editions thus not qualifying for the payment.

This where SCA will be watching – conspiracy to defraud.

It really isn’t as simple as x amount of victories = payment.

The is the reason why SCA pressed so hard trying to understand if doping had taken place at any time in his career leads me to believe that the specific wording doesn’t not pertain to doping at the Tour and losing the title.

I still maintain this alone will cause the most severe charges and jail time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's not about Armstrong, but about the seven consecutive victories in the Tour, which constitutes not just any run-of-the-mill fraud, but one of the biggest in the history of modern-day sport.

Why would any sporting delegation want this record on it's books, defended by a rule that can be easily be amended or disregarded this one particular time due to the egregiousness of the crime?

So, the simple answer is yes - you want Armstrong sanctioned differently and beyond the rules.

To the highlighted - officially Riis is still the victor of the 1996 TdF, because his admission was after the SOL.

These rules, agreed by USADA and the UCI, two federations that have been complicit in perpetuating the Armstrong myth.

You've got to be kidding me with this.

USADA are not a Federation - you are thinking of USAC.
USADA is the anti-doping agency, keep up - and you are not really in a position to give out about any agency when you are looking to have someone judged on who they are, not what they have done.

 

[Velodude]

And following the USADA's "non-analytical" positive case we could probably expect to see a "mucho-monetary" counter case from Lance?

Maybe the USADA can team up with the SCA. Pool their interests. Cut costs.
Maybe the SCA will say thanks but no thanks. Been there done that.

Only if his dream legal team are prepared to travel regularly to Leavenworth, Kansas!

 

[MarkvW]

A key part of Marion Jones Plea deal was giving up her medals. Giving up his Tour wins, at least 2005, could be part of Lance's

The NY Times has a copy of Marion Jones' plea agreement in a .pdf linked to an article called "Jones Pleads Guilty to Lying About Drugs." The article is dated 10/5/07.

That plea agreement is a deal to plead guilty to two counts of lying to federal investigations. Return of medals or awards or prize money was NOT a condition of that deal. There are never unstated conditions to a plea bargain (the judge has to know the whole deal).

Anyway, the idea that the feds could make Lance "give up" his Tour wins is a little bit silly. What would he do? Stand on a corner and say "I renounce my Tour wins" 500 times? Give back the glass sculpture? Maybe some yellow jerseys? Tour swag? Water bottles? Write a letter to ASO, apologizing for being such a bad boy?

Lance dominated a filthy race. He was the best doper where ALL his major challengers were dopers. Maybe he was protected. That just makes the whole race even more filthy. Pro cycling is a cesspool--Omerta, anyone? Wanna buy a race, Vino? Support Alpuerto Clenbutador?

Lance's "giving back" his wins would be like pouring excrement into the sewer. B.F.D.

But the Tours are still fun to watch!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The NY Times has a copy of Marion Jones' plea agreement in a .pdf linked to an article called "Jones Pleads Guilty to Lying About Drugs." The article is dated 10/5/07.

That plea agreement is a deal to plead guilty to two counts of lying to federal investigations. Return of medals or awards or prize money was NOT a condition of that deal. There are never unstated conditions to a plea bargain (the judge has to know the whole deal).

Anyway, the idea that the feds could make Lance "give up" his Tour wins is a little bit silly. What would he do? Stand on a corner and say "I renounce my Tour wins" 500 times? Give back the glass sculpture? Maybe some yellow jerseys? Tour swag? Water bottles? Write a letter to ASO, apologizing for being such a bad boy?

Lance dominated a filthy race. He was the best doper where ALL his major challengers were dopers. Maybe he was protected. That just makes the whole race even more filthy. Pro cycling is a cesspool--Omerta, anyone? Wanna buy a race, Vino? Support Alpuerto Clenbutador?

Lance's "giving back" his wins would be like pouring excrement into the sewer. B.F.D.

But the Tours are still fun to watch!

Give back the $9,500,000 to SCA would be a nice start.

 

[Polish]

The NY Times has a copy of Marion Jones' plea agreement in a .pdf linked to an article called "Jones Pleads Guilty to Lying About Drugs." The article is dated 10/5/07.

That plea agreement is a deal to plead guilty to two counts of lying to federal investigations. Return of medals or awards or prize money was NOT a condition of that deal. There are never unstated conditions to a plea bargain (the judge has to know the whole deal).

!

Even so, in hindsight, the plea deal was probably NOT a good idea.
Should be a wake up call for anyone considering a plea deal.

Of course, plea deals are proceded by indictments.
And indictments are preceded by an ongoing active Grand Jury.

So most people will never even be in a position to deal with a plea agreement lol.

 

[thehog]

The part that will be interesting is the “exact” wording of the contract and what actually the term used for qualification of a victory. Then I’d like to understand secondary wording on “disqualification”. Would it actually mean a loss of the title, a doping positive or by proof that an infringement took place regardless of sanction or not.

It could be argued by SCA that if Armstrong did in fact test positive in 2001 TDS then he wouldn’t have been present for the next two editions thus not qualifying for the payment.

This where SCA will be watching – conspiracy to defraud.

It really isn’t as simple as x amount of victories = payment.

The is the reason why SCA pressed so hard trying to understand if doping had taken place at any time in his career leads me to believe that the specific wording doesn’t not pertain to doping at the Tour and losing the title.

I still maintain this alone will cause the most severe charges and jail time.

I would add that SCA didn’t do a very good job at the hearing. Their lawyers really didn’t understand pro cycling and appeared to be over awed by Armstrong. They let him off the hook entirely. In saying that Armstrong played a game of evasiveness to a tee. The fact that the SCA lawyer didn’t know cycling meant Armstrong could jump around the complexities of the doping.

SCA should have been a lot more direct but it was arbitration and things generally don’t get too heated in such an environment.