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

[Race Radio]

Read the article a couple times, attempting to understand it. Hard to believe that 7 hours of testimony could be condensed into one basic thought - that McIllvain didn't know about LA's drug use and that after between 5 and 14 years, memory recall isn't so good. The remaining 6 hours 55 minutes of testimony must be very interesting. (It sounds more like McIllvain and her lawyer are so tight-lipped about that day, that they didn't have much to go on to make an article out of it.)

Testimony was likely more focused on the pressure that was put on her to modify her story.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not sidestepping and not simply about the govt. being able to make a case about it. Commas separate terms in sentences for a reason. Let's try numbers instead though:

1. Can the govt. make a case about it?
2. Will it decide to do so?
3. What kind of case can and will it end up making?
4. What will be the ultimate rationalization (the perceived societal good achieved) used to justify making the case?
5. How will that rationalization be filtered and argued for and by various publics?
6. What will be the legal and cultural ramifications of such a case if made. Or if it fails?

Those are many reasons and questions. They have far reaching implications as barometers for cultural and other politics in this country. Perhaps for many it's just about the integrity of bike racing and the sanctity of cancer victims--and the overall absurdity of American culture. That's fine, I've been involved with all (Sometimes I have to go to Radioshack as well and see the ridiculous Livestrong neck chains worn by the employees--but anyway). I, however, am more interested in the ramifications of the issues set out above.

If that's muddy or too few I don't know how to be both lucid and complex enough to match the rigorous posting criteria and standards as set for this particular thread..

I didn't think a simple question could be so difficult for you to answer.

To assist you - perhaps if you actually just answered the question instead of asking questions that don't explain anything, that would be a start.

 

[Polish]

Lance need not worry about becoming irrelevent here in The Clinic.
Check out the number of posts in this thread - its over 9000 lol.

 

[aphronesis]

I didn't think a simple question could be so difficult for you to answer.

To assist you - perhaps if you actually just answered the question instead of asking questions that don't explain anything, that would be a start.

Answered it upthread today two posts (of mine back) and over a month ago.

"Asking questions that don't explain anything" is that a koan or something forbidden by the forum?

 

[aphronesis]

Are you of the opinion that the government will intervene and pull the pin before or after the indictments have been delivered?

If so does not the government run the real risk of adding to the costs to date in either situation by LA taking legal redress for damages against the Feds attempts at prosecution?

Don't know. I'm sure it would, but again, I'm not suggesting that this is strictly a matter of cost analysis (no matter how that's invoked by Fabiani, Aspen or whoever). I'm asking how it's going to play on various levels.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Answered it upthread today two posts (of mine back) and over a month ago.

"Asking questions that don't explain anything" is that a koan or something forbidden by the forum?

No, its certainly not forbidden and you are more than entitled to use obfuscation in your answers.

 

[Neworld]

Sure Doc. Got a link yet that he's going in on the Federal case as a principal. You're missing the point: viewership is not condemnation. Look at the level of apathy in this country.

Poor people without hope are not apathetic...they're usually angry at rich liars that have taken their money directly or indirectly. Got any poor hopeless people in America? Try Millions!

We get it...you 'think' that no one will care about LA and his hubris, stealing federal money or cheating. Cool.

Anything else?

NW

 

[Race Radio]

http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=6973

Charles Pelkey examines the Grand Jury Process. Polish is not going to like this but he sees the GJ's term running until April 2012. Multiple witnesses have testified to the GJ in the last 40 days so it is still active.

 

[Anti-doping]

http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=6973

Charles Pelkey examines the Grand Jury Process. Polish is not going to like this but he sees the GJ's term running until April 2012. Multiple witnesses have testified to the GJ in the last 40 days so it is still active.

Thanx, after month with just babble-BS, finaly something interesting to read in this tread.

 

[Cimacoppi48]

http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=6973

Charles Pelkey examines the Grand Jury Process. Polish is not going to like this but he sees the GJ's term running until April 2012. Multiple witnesses have testified to the GJ in the last 40 days so it is still active.

Thanks for the link. Interesting that Charles' US Attorney friend is leaning toward thinking there will be no indictments. My former AUSA friends, two of them, see it the other way, especially because there have been witnesses heard within the past six weeks. Both my friends noted that the holidays are upon us and that they don't expect indictments in a major case such as this around the holidays. Indicting at Christmas time makes the gov look naughty and not nice. Best to wait until the new year. Again, the expense incurred thus far in the investigation points toward indictments.

One thing Charles did not address is witness intimidation effectively tolling the statutes of limitations.

 

[Cobblestoned]

http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=6973

Charles Pelkey examines the Grand Jury Process. Polish is not going to like this but he sees the GJ's term running until April 2012. Multiple witnesses have testified to the GJ in the last 40 days so it is still active.

Hope writes again. And he's not a betting man too. More a guessing and assuming man too.
It might be a hard hit for Polish and me that the aforementioned assistant U.S. attorney says he’s beginning to believe there won’t be indictments.

Mighty ducks.

 

[Race Radio]

Thanks for the link. Interesting that Charles' US Attorney friend is leaning toward thinking there will be no indictments. My former AUSA friends, two of them, see it the other way, especially because there have been witnesses heard within the past six weeks. Both my friends noted that the holidays are upon us and that they don't expect indictments in a major case such as this around the holidays. Indicting at Christmas time makes the gov look naughty and not nice. Best to wait until the new year. Again, the expense incurred thus far in the investigation points toward indictments.

One thing Charles did not address is witness intimidation effectively tolling the statutes of limitations.

True. There is zero chance there will not be indictments from this. The only questions are who, how many, and when.

 

[sherer]

True. There is zero chance there will not be indictments from this. The only questions are who, how many, and when.

really, unless you work for the governtment and are preparing the indictments no one really knows.

The article linked above doesn't seem to even know what the atcual charges will be, what laws this is against or any of that.

No one even really knows what this is looking into, doping, money fraud etc etc.

This could just as easily die a death no matter how much people on here want the opposite

 

[Race Radio]

really, unless you work for the governtment and are preparing the indictments no one really knows.

The article linked above doesn't seem to even know what the atcual charges will be, what laws this is against or any of that.

No one even really knows what this is looking into, doping, money fraud etc etc.

This could just as easily die a death no matter how much people on here want the opposite

Of course, they are still talking to witness just for fun. Their goal is to spend as much money as possible in the witch hunt then walk away because the Feds, unlike Lance, are just a bunch of quitters.

The myth has a few months left. The best strategy is to pretend it will never come to an end.

 

[fatandfast]

Radio is right unfortunately. There will be some people going to court as an outcome of the investigation, period. There is no way that Novitzky and company have spent this amount of time and money chasing ghosts. The obvious disappointment is that a year and a half in the marquis names have not been snared yet.
The Bonds trial and other sports complete f-ck ups have probably really pressurized the prosecutors office to have a stronger case to start. Bond's appeal may take years so recent history of him remaining free for years both before and after trial had to be a disappointment at every level. If Armstrong faces similar charges he will play very different as a media darling than Bonds. Armstrong is probably saving up good deeds and smiling celebs if he is put on trial. He will have a much more positive PR approach that Bonds did not have available

 

[aphronesis]

Poor people without hope are not apathetic...they're usually angry at rich liars that have taken their money directly or indirectly. Got any poor hopeless people in America? Try Millions!

We get it...you 'think' that no one will care about LA and his hubris, stealing federal money or cheating. Cool.

Not sure who we are, or that you do get. Actually, "we" went well past the issue of just people caring yesterday.

First, not that no one will care, but that the numbers and extent of "caring" will be far less than some here would like to believe, second if poor people need some hope, they're not going to obtain it through the proxy vengeance of seeing LA and his friends prosecuted. That kind of gratification only leads to a perpetuation of the same.

The amount of money LA and his friends took is a drop compared to the relative disenfranchisement of hopeless people in this country, and many are not stupid enough to think that chasing him or dozens like him is going to make their lives better. Is it going to keep them warm and fed at night reviewing the latest developments in the trial?

I doubt it. Maybe some readers have that benefit; many you describe don't. And if they do, they aren't hopeless but by self-design.

Seems this thread has been over the same old ground for a year now: if the case goes forward it won't be about sports cheating in which case people won't care about the cheating; if it's about the larger charges they also won't care as much as some would like to believe relative to the large degree of corruption in the world.

As to whether they "stole" the money, that's also been debated to death and it's debatable whether the money will be demonstrably shown to have been stolen. Maybe in the Qui Tam case. Depends in part on who the new witnesses are and how the case is organized.

So what was your question?

 

[Granville57]

http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=6973

Charles Pelkey examines the Grand Jury Process. Polish is not going to like this but he sees the GJ's term running until April 2012. Multiple witnesses have testified to the GJ in the last 40 days so it is still active.

Very interesting. And buzz words!

However, the simple fact that the grand jury’s time has expired shouldn’t be considered definitive. If the U.S. Attorney’s office decides to continue pursuing the case, they have the option of empaneling a second grand jury, which would have full access to the records and transcripts from the first.

At first glance, RICO does provide for a broader time horizon in that it requires a defendant to have committed at least two acts of “racketeering activity” within 10 years of commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.

RICO’s 10-year window also covers the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, which may be at issue here, since we’re dealing with allegations of moneys being transferred across international borders in order to advance a criminal conspiracy.

The most interesting thing to me though is the aforementioned:

...two attorneys whose clients have testified to the grand jury within the last 40 days.

It might be awhile yet.

That's OK, I can wait.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Poor people without hope are not apathetic...they're usually angry at rich liars that have taken their money directly or indirectly. Got any poor hopeless people in America? Try Millions!

We get it...you 'think' that no one will care about LA and his hubris, stealing federal money or cheating. Cool.

Not sure who we are, or that you do get. Actually, "we" went well past the issue of just people caring yesterday.

First, not that no one will care, but that the numbers and extent of "caring" will be far less than some here would like to believe, second if poor people need some hope, they're not going to obtain it through the proxy vengeance of seeing LA and his friends prosecuted. That only leads to a perpetuation of the same. The amount of money LA and his friends took is a drop compared to the relative disenfranchisement of hopeless people in this country and many are not stupid enough to think that chasing him is going to make their lives better. Is it going to keep them warm and fed at night reviewing the latest developments in the trial?

I doubt it? Maybe you have that benefit.

Seems this thread has been over the same old ground for a year now: if the case goes forward it won't be about sports cheating in which case people won't care about the cheating; if it's about the larger charges they also won't care as much as some would like to believe relative to the large degree of corruption in the world.

As to whether they "stole" the money, that's also been debated to death and it's debatable whether the money will be demonstrably shown to have been stolen. Maybe in the Qui Tam case sure

So what what was your question?

If the Ullrich case brought to light one thing, then it is the fact that you can't measure or calculate that "fraud".
State of Germany (or better, Mrs. Bannenberg and Mr.Apostel) of course would have been able to stretch this case over decades and decades, Ullrich mentioned and bashed once a week all the time, but in the end with no proof or result.
Ullrich didn't care about the money. He wanted piece, while knowing that in the end, they wouldn't have been able to measure or judge anything.
Besides that, Ullrich is still considered "not guilty", did pay around 250.000€ to state, after recieving around 250.000€ by T-Mobile for breaking his contract. lol
Someone had to do a proper calculation, which of course also has to include the benefits from Ullrich.
Hard to get for the haters, yes, there was also benefit.
Anyone here to do this and measure Lance's or Jan's benefit for their sponsors and do a proper cost-benefit calculation ?

Will all the people give their money and status back they have earned with Lance ? Don't think so.

btw, to all those genius question-asking linkmachines not liking opinions.
Can you explain the huge amount of hate circulating in german forums about the sooo baaaad Ullrich for years ?
Maybe haters are an internet phenomenon and always there, not dependable on the person's deeds or person itself ?
Everyone needs haters. Better hated than not recognized. (oh wait, that internet-law, ok people might not notice, I just go on )

You did something wrong when there are no haterz.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=6973

Charles Pelkey examines the Grand Jury Process. Polish is not going to like this but he sees the GJ's term running until April 2012. Multiple witnesses have testified to the GJ in the last 40 days so it is still active.

YO! Read the comments. You think "Tim" is on this thread?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If the Ullrich case brought to light one thing, then it is the fact that you can't measure or calculate that "fraud".
State of Germany (or better, Mrs. Bannenberg and Mr.Apostel) of course would have been able to stretch this case over decades and decades, Ullrich mentioned and bashed once a week all the time, but in the end with no proof or result.
Ullrich didn't care about the money. He wanted piece, while knowing that in the end, they wouldn't have been able to measure or judge anything.
Besides that, Ullrich is still considered "not guilty", did pay around 250.000€ to state, after recieving around 250.000€ by T-Mobile for breaking his contract. lol
Someone had to do a proper calculation, which of course also has to include the benefits from Ullrich.
Hard to get for the haters, yes, there was also benefit.
Anyone here to do this and measure Lance's or Jan's benefit for their sponsors and do a proper cost-benefit calculation ?

Will all the people give their money and status back they have earned with Lance ? Don't think so.

btw, to all those genius question-asking linkmachines not liking opinions.
Can you explain the huge amount of hate circulating in german forums about the sooo baaaad Ullrich for years ?
Maybe haters are an internet phenomenon and always there, not dependable on the person's deeds or person itself ?
Everyone needs haters. Better hated than not recognized. (oh wait, that internet-law, ok people might not notice, I just go on )

You did something wrong when there are no haterz.

You are the one who is meant to be the German, remember? You tell us.

One thing I will say is that Ullrich supporters are very gracious in their hope that Lance gets off - no hate there, in fact a lot of love, kinda creepy.

The good news for you is that of there are no indictments - (pretty big if I know), then it allows USADA to start sanctioning all the riders.

 

[Cobblestoned]

You are the one who is meant to be the German, remember? You tell us.

One thing I will say is that Ullrich supporters are very gracious in their hope that Lance gets off - no hate there, in fact a lot of love, kinda creepy.

The good news for you is that of there are no indictments - (pretty big if I know), then it allows USADA to start sanctioning all the riders.

No, dottore.
You know those games don't work with me.

I exactly asked exactly you a question. First.
btw, in case you didn't notice, I delivered an explanation. And it works.
Lance beeing evil is not the explanation. Can't be the explanation.

Now it's your turn. What is your opinion about that issue ?
I know you don't like opinions. Still waiting for yours about.....everything.
Which is quiet sad, considering the fact that this is a forum to exchange and share opinions and considering you delivered so many posts.
They either include a link or a question, or both.

That's your chance. Now.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, dottore.
You know those games don't work with me.

I exactly asked exactly you a question. First.
btw, in case you didn't notice, I delivered an explanation. And it works.
Lance beeing evil is not the explanation. Can't be the explanation.

You're right, that can't be the explanation as no-one has ever said he was.

Now it's your turn. What is your opinion about that issue ?
I know you don't like opinions. Still waiting for yours about.....everything.
Which is quiet sad, considering the fact that this is a forum to exchange and share opinions and considering you delivered so many posts.
They either include a link or a question, or both.

That's your chance. Now.

My opinion on what - German forums?
I am not on a German forum and wouldn't believe your version anyway, if I cared about a German forum I would join it and leave my opinion there.

 

[Race Radio]

If the Ullrich case brought to light one thing, then it is the fact that you can't measure or calculate that "fraud".
State of Germany (or better, Mrs. Bannenberg and Mr.Apostel) of course would have been able to stretch this case over decades and decades, Ullrich mentioned and bashed once a week all the time, but in the end with no proof or result.
Ullrich didn't care about the money. He wanted piece, while knowing that in the end, they wouldn't have been able to measure or judge anything.
Besides that, Ullrich is still considered "not guilty", did pay around 250.000€ to state, after recieving around 250.000€ by T-Mobile for breaking his contract. lol
Someone had to do a proper calculation, which of course also has to include the benefits from Ullrich.
Hard to get for the haters, yes, there was also benefit.
Anyone here to do this and measure Lance's or Jan's benefit for their sponsors and do a proper cost-benefit calculation ?

Will all the people give their money and status back they have earned with Lance ? Don't think so.

btw, to all those genius question-asking linkmachines not liking opinions.
Can you explain the huge amount of hate circulating in german forums about the sooo baaaad Ullrich for years ?
Maybe haters are an internet phenomenon and always there, not dependable on the person's deeds or person itself ?
Everyone needs haters. Better hated than not recognized. (oh wait, that internet-law, ok people might not notice, I just go on )

You did something wrong when there are no haterz.

I agree, the fraud charges against Jan were vague at best. He was smart to settle them with a plea deal instead of burning $$

This does not apply in the Armstrong case. Completely different laws and potential charges. There are no laws in the US for public sporting fraud. Any fraud charges would likely be focused on Armstrong, and his buddies, defrauding sponsors

 

[Race Radio]

Seems you don't get it. I'm not talking about hierarchies, I'm talking about systems. People not leaders. I thought you said you were down with OWS? There is a difference and it's considerable

It's not wholesale moral relativism. Are the laws being used to prosecute LA being put to the purpose for which they were established--the goods for which they were intended? How about the reasons behind speeding laws? Where? Which zones? What purpose do they serve?

Maybe the judge will. I don't know where you live. Should have stayed about 9 over the limit. Safer that way. Maybe you should fight it if you truly believe it's unfounded. Do you believe you shouldn't have been speeding or shouldn't have been caught?

Who's the moral relativist then?

Let's turn this around for the majority of those clamoring for justice on the board:

We get it! Thanks for the moral outrage! No one could possibly have formed that opinion without it being repeated 7 out of 12 posts for the last year at least.

So tell us, what crimes are they allowed to charge Armstrong with? If he wins an 8th Tour does this line get raised to say a DUI?

 

[aphronesis]

So tell us, what crimes are they allowed to charge Armstrong with? If he wins an 8th Tour does this line get raised to say a DUI?

I don't know. I'm not part of the investigation and don't know what's on the table. Perhaps you're a bit closer. Perhaps not. Not a matter of what's allowed, but of what is useful?

I didn't invoke the driving aspect. You point out that there is no sporting fraud in this country, only defrauding sponsors, right? If that is the case then this goes back to an old theme. Did the sponsors lose money? Did their product lines suffer? Turn invisible?

What a drag for the postal service. I don't think cycling fraud is what's ailing the postal service.

Which sponsors? Michelob? Anyone putting that "beer" in their bodies should check what it's made from before worrying about sporting fraud, PEDs and blood doping.

So what's your question? Is this the old "how many crimes does he have to be accused of before it's not ok?"