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

[ChrisE]

Ok everyone, enough with the "babbling". Let's play nice here.

Susan

Susan, I'm a little confused.

The last few days have had some pretty interesting arguments and discussion. Then, palmerq thinks some posts need to be deleted and now you are warning us again.

All of these discussions center around LA being indicted, possible charges, and results of it all.

Why are the mods giving us grief?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Mainly because use of the word "babbling" is insulting and has nothing to do with LA?

Susan

 

[spetsa]

Mainly because use of the word "babbling" is insulting and has nothing to do with LA?

Susan

bab·ble (bbl)
v. bab·bled, bab·bling, bab·bles
v.intr.
1. To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds
2. To talk foolishly or idly; chatter:

Insulting, really?

 

[BillytheKid]

I think we should just agree to disagree without the name calling, but as far a posting here is concerned, I've decided again there's not much point to it. Positions that have been stated are restated. I don't think I'll post again until there's action or non-action against Armstrong is taken.

 

[Race Radio]

My use of "Babble" was not focused on a specific person, there has been confusion and cross talk on both sides of the topic.

Back on topic. Hellebuyck had his sanction extended all the way back to 2001. Considering USADA did not oversee the sport until Aug 2004 this is a big change. They issued a retro ban based on him lying to USATF almost a decade ago.

Humm, Wonder what Armstrong told UASC in 2005 about the 1999 positives? Certainly he told the truth and nothing but the truth

Let the obfuscation begin!

 

[spetsa]

My use of "Babble" was not focused on a specific person, there has been confusion and cross talk on both sides of the topic.

Back on topic. Hellebuyck had his sanction extended all the way back to 2001. Considering USADA did not oversee the sport until Aug 2004 this is a big change. They issued a retro ban based on him lying to USATF almost a decade ago.

Humm, Wonder what Armstrong told UASC in 2005 about the 1999 positives? Certainly he told the truth and nothing but the truth
Let the obfuscation begin!

This is one of the points that is hard for me to get around in the entire saga that is playing out in front of us. People would not even have heard of Livestrong, let alone bought into the nonsense if USAC was not complicit in this entire scam. If people in that organization are not held accountable, it will be a joke.

 

[ChrisE]

Mainly because use of the word "babbling" is insulting and has nothing to do with LA?

Susan

Oh, I thought you meant we were "babbling" and to cut it out.

 

[Race Radio]

This is one of the points that is hard for me to get around in the entire saga that is playing out in front of us. People would not even have heard of Livestrong, let alone bought into the nonsense if USAC was not complicit in this entire scam. If people in that organization are not held accountable, it will be a joke.

Agreed.

They ignored the 99 positives. Multiple teammates told them of doping on the team, they ignored it. They knew the "Most tested athlete" claim was false but never corrected it. They saw the Hct tests from prior to the Bio Passport that showed huge swings in HCT over the season, but did nothing.

 

[ChrisE]

Agreed.

They ignored the 99 positives. Multiple teammates told them of doping on the team, they ignored it. They knew the "Most tested athlete" claim was false but never corrected it. They saw the Hct tests from prior to the Bio Passport that showed huge swings in HCT over the season, but did nothing.

They ignored the 99 positives because they were not per official protocol or obtained via a method to where LA could defend himself.

We have been over this before.

 

[spetsa]

Agreed.

They ignored the 99 positives. Multiple teammates told them of doping on the team, they ignored it. They knew the "Most tested athlete" claim was false but never corrected it. They saw the Hct tests from prior to the Bio Passport that showed huge swings in HCT over the season, but did nothing.

I would imagine that the IRS investigators have taken a very close look at some personal banking records of many individuals associated with USAC.

 

[Race Radio]

They ignored the 99 positives because they were not per official protocol or obtained via a method to where LA could defend himself.

We have been over this before.

Couple it with the statements they already had from teammates who discussed team wide doping, dumping of drugs, borderline Hct readings, and you have a good case for Non-analytical positive. Regardless, they did nothing. They ignored it. Kyle, Marion, plenty of sanctions being handed out. USAC looked the other way.

In the end it does not really matter, Wonderboy and his buddies are done. No amount of ignoring evidence by USAC will save him.

 

[doolols]

LA's evil twin, Juan Pelota, has just Tweeted: "Adios, Selena". Capitalised and with a full stop (period) at the end. Nice to see correct punctuation.

Anyway, it's probably a reference to the fact that Selena Roberts' (Sports Illustrated) contract expired at the end of December last year, and she's left the magazine to pursue new digital media ventures. Lance on the ball, as usual.

Trailer for 2011 SI article by Selena Roberts

 

[Race Radio]

LA's evil twin, Juan Pelota, has just Tweeted: "Adios, Selena". Capitalised and with a full stop (period) at the end. Nice to see correct punctuation.

Anyway, it's probably a reference to the fact that Selena Roberts' (Sports Illustrated) contract expired at the end of December last year, and she's left the magazine to pursue new digital media ventures. Lance on the ball, as usual.

Trailer for 2011 SI article by Selena Roberts

Dumb move by Wonderboy. Hummmm, wonder what Selena will write about now that she is not shackled by an star struck editor and advertisers who pressure the magazine to look the other way when their athletes miss behave?

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/02/02/selena-roberts-has-left-sports-illustrated/

An unshackled Selena is a bad thing for Wonderboy, he is just too stupid to realize it

 

[Benotti69]

Dumb move by Wonderboy. Hummmm, wonder what Selena will write about now that she is not shackled by an star struck editor and advertisers who pressure the magazine to look the other way when their athletes miss behave?

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/02/02/selena-roberts-has-left-sports-illustrated/

An unshackled Selena is a bad thing for Wonderboy, he is just too stupid to realize it

"I’ve been in the corporate media world for 25 years, and I thought, ‘why not do something different and shake it up a little bit?’”


Wonder who she is 'gonna shake up'?

Bet he wears a yella bracelet.

 

[Velodude]

LA's evil twin, Juan Pelota, has just Tweeted: "Adios, Selena". Capitalised and with a full stop (period) at the end. Nice to see correct punctuation.

Anyway, it's probably a reference to the fact that Selena Roberts' (Sports Illustrated) contract expired at the end of December last year, and she's left the magazine to pursue new digital media ventures. Lance on the ball, as usual.

Trailer for 2011 SI article by Selena Roberts

Armstrong is definitely in siege mentality mode.

Keeps on demonstrating his need for a couch when his handlers should have impressed upon him to get off the air waves.

 

[ChrisE]

Couple it with the statements they already had from teammates who discussed team wide doping, dumping of drugs, borderline Hct readings, and you have a good case for Non-analytical positive. Regardless, they did nothing. They ignored it. Kyle, Marion, plenty of sanctions being handed out. USAC looked the other way.

In the end it does not really matter, Wonderboy and his buddies are done. No amount of ignoring evidence by USAC will save him.

Couple it? It should not exist in the conversation when it comes to sanctions. Whether you are I believe he took EPO in 99 is irrelevant because of the method those results were obtained. I have no issue with the other stuff you say......

I'm still betting on LA fighting it because that is his makeup, UNLESS he can plea with little hit to his image and no jail time. IE "I pled to this minor charge to move on from this witch hunt".

Other than that, I am betting on the jury being comprised of at least a few that will not convict a celebrity (especially one involved with a large charity, regardless of what the clinic thinks of that) with pieced together charges from years ago outside of the US in a sport "real murkins" don't care about.

Call it LBM's idiot juror. They exist, you know. Sheesh OJ Simpson got off, it is not hard to imagine LA can as well.

 

[MarkvW]

Dumb move by Wonderboy. Hummmm, wonder what Selena will write about now that she is not shackled by an star struck editor and advertisers who pressure the magazine to look the other way when their athletes miss behave?

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/02/02/selena-roberts-has-left-sports-illustrated/

An unshackled Selena is a bad thing for Wonderboy, he is just too stupid to realize it

Your points are valid, but she is also losing a major shield. SI, in addition to being a sports promoter, is also a mighty fortress of legal protection for its reporters. Maybe she's got a book in her, though!

 

[spetsa]

Couple it? It should not exist in the conversation when it comes to sanctions. Whether you are I believe he took EPO in 99 is irrelevant because of the method those results were obtained.

And by what method were the results obtained from every athlete that has ever been sanctioned through an NAF?

 

[ChrisE]

Couple it? It should not exist in the conversation when it comes to sanctions. Whether you are I believe he took EPO in 99 is irrelevant because of the method those results were obtained.

And by what method were the results obtained from every athlete that has ever been sanctioned through an NAF?

What is your point?

The samples were stored for 5 years somewhere and were to be used experimentally. There was no B sample. These were not samples that were intended to be used for retroactive testing.

Like I say, this has been discussed many times in this thread. Do a search if you are confused.

 

[spetsa]

What is your point?

The samples were stored for 5 years somewhere and were to be used experimentally. There was no B sample. These were not samples that were intended to be used for retroactive testing.

Like I say, this has been discussed many times in this thread. Do a search if you are confused.

Kayle must be really P*ssed. They never even had his A sample

 

[MarkvW]

My use of "Babble" was not focused on a specific person, there has been confusion and cross talk on both sides of the topic.

Back on topic. Hellebuyck had his sanction extended all the way back to 2001. Considering USADA did not oversee the sport until Aug 2004 this is a big change. They issued a retro ban based on him lying to USATF almost a decade ago.

Humm, Wonder what Armstrong told UASC in 2005 about the 1999 positives? Certainly he told the truth and nothing but the truth

Let the obfuscation begin!

I see your point, and it fits in with my more conservative reading of the report. The limitation period kicks in when the investigation commences (UCI Rule 307). If you lie to the investigators to beat the rap (Hellebuyck) your lying (fraud) will bar you from later claiming that the limitation period covers the subject matter of the investigation.

This case bears watching. If the relevant agencies want to cover Lance's needle-pocked derriere, they won't want this decision to stand. Tyler and Floyd sure ought to be enough to get a non analytical positive hearing process off the ground. Would the other retired Posties participate? George??

Thanks for the informative post RR.

 

[thehog]

Armstrong is definitely in siege mentality mode.

Keeps on demonstrating his need for a couch when his handlers should have impressed upon him to get off the air waves.

I also don’t think it’s a good policy to beat up on journalists in general. Not in his current position. But he is like a rabid dog. Its indicative that he will fight this thing to the very end.

 

[spetsa]

I see your point, and it fits in with my more conservative reading of the report. The limitation period kicks in when the investigation commences (UCI Rule 307). If you lie to the investigators to beat the rap (Hellebuyck) your lying (fraud) will bar you from later claiming that the limitation period covers the subject matter of the investigation.

This case bears watching. If the relevant agencies want to cover Lance's needle-pocked derriere, they won't want this decision to stand. Tyler and Floyd sure ought to be enough to get a non analytical positive hearing process off the ground. Would the other retired Posties participate? George??

Thanks for the informative post RR.

If you think guys like Tony Cruz, Damon Kluck, Kenny Labbe, Robbie Ventura, Micheal Creed, Patrick McCarty etc. are going to lie to save LA's *ss, you are nuts.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I will ignore the red herrings about me arguing just like Armstrongs lawyers - (since I did say he is guilty and will face some penalties)

But can you link to what doping related charges were served on Marion Jones? It might finally explain your confusion on the issue.

It's not a red herring. This is what a red herring is.

Red herring is a figurative expression in which a clue or piece of information is or is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual question.

The actual question; the only question on this thread is whether Armstrong is guilty. The answer to that question is so obvious as to be ridiculous.

You even say he's guilty but the issue is "proving" it, and after some of the arguments you've made, I can see why you might have problems with what constitutes proof.

I'm saying that Armstrong's defense will argue in the style you argue. They will argue that the jury didn't see what they obviously just saw, the same way you wrote twice that the reason Jones went to prison had nothing to do with doping and then denied it.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you didn't see what the prosecution just showed you."

This explains a lot about the thought processes which defense attorneys try to exploit in general and what the Armstrong lawyers will argue in particular.

How else will Armstrong get off? Floyd and Tyler are proven liars and therefore everything they say is a lie so you can throw that evidence out? 'The prosecution had 127 witnesses and every single one of them has some axe to grind against Armstrong or they cheated on a 3rd grade math quiz?'

Defense attorney's will argue anything, even the probabilities of DNA evidence. Why this doesn't impact their credibility and hurt their clients is evidently because people have no idea what it means to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys just take the shotgun approach and question everything, and the simple jurors who weren't able to find a way out of serving on the jury in the first place, are befuddled.

As to your Marion Jones compartmentalization of the charges, I guess Al Capone went to jail soley for tax evasion? It had nothing to do with racketeering and murder.

 

[aphronesis]

By public charges I take it you mean Armstrong, the alleged target, will not be indicted on any count by the Grand Jury.

It is rare for a Federal target not to be indicted. The statistics I read are about one in two thousand are un-indicted (0.05%).

The defense are not permitted to present their case and witnesses to the Grand Jury. It is only the prosecution and their witnesses. It is one sided so no objections, hearsay evidence is admissable, etc.

To answer your next question, once indicted by the Grand Jury the target will be a Defendant or one of the Defendants in a trial.

I would not be running a betting book with odds that Armstrong is not the target or that he won't be indicted.

I was being mildly facetious. Given how involuted the thread became, again, (if that's possible) despite the redirection given a few days ago.

On the one hand my question was factual as my understanding is that LA could simply be presented with the list of charges in private should a case be imminent.

I've said nothing about targets.

On the other hand, it was rhetorical.