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

[spetsa]

We must be talking past each other because I don't get what you're saying. My point is that I would expect to see warrants in a tax / fraud case and I haven't heard of any. The absence of warrants indicates (to me) an absence of PC to support a warrant. That indicates they haven't got sufficient evidence to charge Lance with an articulable crime (yet).

The only known "absence" of warants is your absence of knowledge one way or the other

 

[Race Radio]

Good job!

Pretending there is no evidence, no witnesses, no possibility of charges is always a great way to troll. Add claims of being a lawyer followed by intentionally incorrect legal claims and you have the troll trifecta!

Next up, "Never tested positive" "Most tested athlete in history" and "Greg LeMond doped"

 

[MarkvW]

So you think Lance doped and did all the other things in Blue - and yet the Feds who you admit will investigate "thoroughly" - will be unable to find illegal activity?

I'm sure they found LOTS of criminal activity. But finding criminal activity and making a provable criminal case at trial are two VERY different things.

Look at John Gotti. The feds used mega-super-enormous resources to investigate him, and they failed to successfully prosecute him for years.

Look at Bonds. The feds had great evidence of doping, but he walked on the doping charges.

The feds don't indict on merely "finding illegal activity." They indict when they believe they have enough admissible evidence to convince twelve people off the street that a SPECIFIC crime has been committed, beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[MarkvW]

We must be talking past each other because I don't get what you're saying. My point is that I would expect to see warrants in a tax / fraud case and I haven't heard of any. The absence of warrants indicates (to me) an absence of PC to support a warrant. That indicates they haven't got sufficient evidence to charge Lance with an articulable crime (yet).

The only known "absence" of warants is your absence of knowledge one way or the other

Or anybody else. Nobody has reported the service of a warrant on Lance or his associates.

 

[fatandfast]

It really is fascinating what this one bike racer brings out in people, both pro and con.

Not much con here. Lots of elite athletes with praise and respect for each others abilities. Armstrong appears in demand,doing charity work and extensive travel because of it. For the hate forum it has to be disgusting for yet another writer to include that Lance has a running total of more than 400 million raised.

 

[Race Radio]

Look at John Gotti. The feds used mega-super-enormous resources to investigate him, and they failed to successfully prosecute him for years.

Are you saying Armstrong is going to resort to Jury tampering like Gotti did?

Look at Bonds. The feds had great evidence of doping, but he walked on the doping charges.

Bonds was not charged with doping.

Ever heard of a sealed indictment?

 

[MarkvW]

No, incriminating evidence is incriminating evidence.

And a tautology is a tautology.

 

[Race Radio]

Not much con here. Lots of elite athletes with praise and respect for each others abilities. Armstrong appears in demand,doing charity work and extensive travel because of it. For the hate forum it has to be disgusting for yet another writer to include that Lance has a running total of more than 400 million raised.

Since when is a paid appearance "Charity work"? Raising money to pay for jet fuel and advertise a brand is admirable? Pointing out criminal activity is "Hate"?

Need to work on some new talking points.

 

[JRTinMA]

You may want to read the forum rules

6. No insulting other members.
11. Blatant lying, baiting, or teasing other members will not be tolerated.

Also, Frankie did not "Dope for years" and Floyd, Tyler, Betsy and Frankie are far from the only witnesses.

He only doped a little and was "cleanish" as Betsy has stated, of all people I can't believe you took that bait. Betsy needs to add it was when he was riding his worst and it will be a carbon copy of the dekker bs.

 

[MarkvW]

Are you saying Armstrong is going to resort to Jury tampering like Gotti did?



Bonds was not charged with doping.

Ever heard of a sealed indictment?

The "its already happened, but it's secret" is always possible. But you've been saying that for. . . . How many months?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He only doped a little and was "cleanish" as Betsy has stated, of all people I can't believe you took that bait. Betsy needs to add it was when he was riding his worst and it will be a carbon copy of the dekker bs.

Of course Betsy never said Frankie was "cleanish" -

I would like to comment on some of these posts regarding Frankie but I can't. I'm sure I'll be chided but respecting the integrity of the process at hand is more important than making corrections and/or setting people straight on this forum - some with a clear agenda.
I obviously can take criticism as well as the invective hurled at me. You can despise me but argue intelligently; however, that doesn't seem to be the case with some here. Calling Frankie "doper" when his career ended because he wouldn't get on a program is disingenuous. Paul Kimmage is an excellent example. Should Paul be labeled "doper" because he too used but stopped?
Comparing Frankie to Lance in terms of doping is just ignorant. Call Frankie a doper if you feel you must because he wasn't lily white but please acknowledge that he spent the majority of his career clean, refused to get on a program which deemed him "selfish" with a "bad attitude" and ultimately ended his career because he didn't dope but rode clean for the 2000 Tour.

 

[Polish]

The only known "absence" of warants is your absence of knowledge one way or the other

No, it is the absence of tweets.
If Lance were served with a warrant, he would tweet about it.

"Feds here at 6am to take home computer. Kids homework on there."
and
"Where are the landscapers? Oops, Feds must be back again"
and
"Another visit by the Feds. Take what you want. You won't find anything. Most warranted athlete ever"

 

[BotanyBay]

For the hate forum it has to be disgusting for yet another writer to include that Lance has a running total of more than 400 million raised.

$400MM raised for "awareness". How much spent on "awareness" -vs-how much spent on research to actually fight the disease -vs- how much spent to pay for him to fly the Gulfstream and spend 15 mins at a hospital in Acapulco?

 

[Race Radio]

The "its already happened, but it's secret" is always possible. But you've been saying that for. . . . How many months?

No, I have not said they have been issued, not now and not for months.

Certainly the response to the claims of leaks could point to sealed indictments already being issued but I do not think this is the case. I do not think there have been sealed indictments.

 

[fatandfast]

Since when is a paid appearance "Charity work"? Raising money to pay for jet fuel and advertise a brand is admirable? Pointing out criminal activity is "Hate"?

Need to work on some new talking points.

I would say if he is or isn't paid to say "send your money to xyz" and people do as asked that would be charity work. When he sets up a motor home or cheesie display booth and people flock there to wear a yellow rubber bracelet and give wads of cash, I would call that fund raising. When he gets start money at lots of races, that is also fund raising.
If you look at Muddy Buddy and most of the others they get 501 status and raise money. When you look at the overall outcome of a cycling or fitness event the yields are small but most people think something is better than nothing. I don't work on any of Armstrong's talking points, but the two athletes that comment about his registration Utah help raise money for his causes.
Once people really know what the tax status of lots of teams/events are they may rethink who is making money and how. Armstrong is the poster boy for all the things people hate in non-profits and he does a good job at it.
The outrage of the overhead and balance contributed is different for everybody. I take it from your foam that you are not going to Canada or Utah to pal around with Lance but 1000's of other people are, and are going to happily give him coin on top of the entry fee. The guy is a money raising juggernaut

 

[JRTinMA]

Just curious anti-me & Frankie people (I'll refrain from calling you "haters"). How do you refer to Frankie when he raced the majority of his races clean? Is he still a "doper" when he didn't dope while others did?
I guess we're all bowlers then (that was very funny Deogal) -

Of course Betsy never said Frankie was "cleanish" -

Wrong again, see how she used "doper:, I used "cleanish". You can also use "mostly clean" or "majority...clean". Its all the same.

 

[Race Radio]

I would say if he is or isn't paid to say "send your money to xyz" and people do as asked that would be charity work. When he sets up a motor home or cheesie display booth and people flock there to wear a yellow rubber bracelet and give wads of cash, I would call that fund raising. When he gets start money at lots of races, that is also fund raising.
If you look at Muddy Buddy and most of the others they get 501 status and raise money. When you look at the overall outcome of a cycling or fitness event the yields are small but most people think something is better than nothing. I don't work on any of Armstrong's talking points, but the two athletes that comment about his registration Utah help raise money for his causes.
Once people really know what the tax status of lots of teams/events are they may rethink who is making money and how. Armstrong is the poster boy for all the things people hate in non-profits and he does a good job at it.
The outrage of the overhead and balance contributed is different for everybody. I take it from your foam that you are not going to Canada or Utah to pal around with Lance but 1000's of other people are, and are going to happily give him coin on top of the entry fee. The guy is a money raising juggernaut

I agree, Armstrong is talented in separating rubes from their cash....a modern day soapy smith. I would not agree that this is something to be praised as little of this cash goes to a good cause.

The vast majority of Armstrong public appearances are an effort to raise fund for the Lance Armstrong legal defense fund. He recently rode this event http://www.pelotonia.org/ it was billed as a "Landmark event" for Livestrong.....but it really was a $100,000 in cash and $100,000 in NetJets vouchers for Lance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wrong again, see how she used "doper:, I used "cleanish". You can also use "mostly clean" or "majority...clean". Its all the same.

No - you clearly said that she something that she did not.

If you think it is all the same, then that is your problem, not anyone elses.

 

[HL2037]

I trust Lance and his associates will be investigated thoroughly. There may or may not be charges. The idea that they "will" be indicted or that there is a "high probability" that they will be indicted is unsound. Nobody knows, and such predictions are useless.
...

So according to you it is useless to make predictions about whether Armstrong will be indicted or not. Yet you wrote this yourself:

I can safely say that Lance will never be indicted in the US for the crime of "organized crime on an international level." That is a 100% safe prediction.

You are contradicting yourself. I suspect you are doing it on purpose to derail the discussion. It would be useless and unsound of me to continue a discussion with you.

 

[python]

He only doped a little and was "cleanish" as Betsy has stated, of all people I can't believe you took that bait. Betsy needs to add it was when he was riding his worst and it will be a carbon copy of the dekker bs.

can you stay ontopic of armstrong ??

frankie and betsy have their own threads.

or you can find yourself banned, fanboy.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Back on topic or else......

Susan

 

[thehog]

What about the chic who wanted to smash Betsy's head in with a baseball bat? She's rooting for Lance. She's got lots of credibility. I like her credibility! LOL!!

Good post Hog. Keep up the good work.

 

[MarkvW]

So according to you it is useless to make predictions about whether Armstrong will be indicted or not. Yet you wrote this yourself:



You are contradicting yourself. I suspect you are doing it on purpose to derail the discussion. It would be useless and unsound of me to continue a discussion with you.

Thanks so much for the post!! I needed the laugh!

There is no such US crime as "organized crime on an international level." That is why I could confidently make my prediction. I was being sarcastic.

What I'd like to see is a detailed discussion of specific charges--not vague stuff like "he's bad and he's being seriously investigated, therefore there is a high probability he will be charged." The reason I'd like to see it is because people are asserting that Armstrong WILL be indicted, when that outcome is by no means certain.

I don't think I was derailing the discussion. It was seriously moribund when I started venting.

 

[Polish]

Thanks so much for the post!! I needed the laugh!

There is no such US crime as "organized crime on an international level." That is why I could confidently make my prediction. I was being sarcastic.

What I'd like to see is a detailed discussion of specific charges--not vague stuff like "he's bad and he's being seriously investigated, therefore there is a high probability he will be charged." The reason I'd like to see it is because people are asserting that Armstrong WILL be indicted, when that outcome is by no means certain.

I don't think I was derailing the discussion. It was seriously moribund when I started venting.

So you want specifics...

Ok, how about selling bikes on Ebay to International Communists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3h7yk4Hcg

John reminds me of so many posters here lol.
.
.
.

 

[Velodude]

I agree, Armstrong is talented in separating rubes from their cash....a modern day soapy smith. I would not agree that this is something to be praised as little of this cash goes to a good cause.

The vast majority of Armstrong public appearances are an effort to raise fund for the Lance Armstrong legal defense fund. He recently rode this event http://www.pelotonia.org/ it was billed as a "Landmark event" for Livestrong.....but it really was a $100,000 in cash and $100,000 in NetJets vouchers for Lance.

There are blurred lines between Armstrong and Livestrong.org in their conduct of charitable operations.

It is for the IRS to enforce compliance of a public charity for ongoing exemption status. Possibly the IRS have Livestrong.org in their cross hairs with his conduct.

Livestrong has not published on its website the 2010 audited financial statements although, according to their 2010 Annual Report, these documents exist and were completed in early 2011.

Livestrong.org had admitted on their website that their records have been undergoing an inspection. Whether this is a normal procedural compliance check or is abnormal is not stated.

To maintain exemption a charity must not be operated for the benefit of private interests. Notwithstanding that any transactions between the charity and related interests must be disclosed in the annual statements.

The 2006 Annual Financial Statements and Report did not disclose that $500,000 was paid by Livestrong.org in May 2006 to a medical facility employing Dr. Craig Nicholls. In 2006 Dr Nicholls was secretary of Livestrong and on the Board of Directors. No disclosure was made of this conflict of interest donation.

Dr Nicholls also provided an affidavit in 2005 during the 2005 SCA Tribunal case that he was in the hospital room at the relevant time when LA allegedly spouted his past PED use and claimed he heard no such conversation. Other witnesses could not identify Dr Nicholls as being in the room from his photograph.

Within days of becoming aware of Betsy Andreu's SCA tribunal affidavit Livestrong donated $1.5m to University of Indiana Hospital. The hospital resisted in identifying the doctors attending to LA. Was the prime purpose of this donation to personally benefit LA's legal position?

If Livestrong.org was paying a third party for costs relating to the Gulfstream jet, whether proper or not, and LA's personal legal costs these transactions should have been disclosed. No disclosure was made.

The issue of substantial share warrants to Livestrong and (equally) to LA for the sub licensing of the Livestrong brand and purchase of Livestrong.com was not disclosed in the Livestrong statements.

I would not be surprised if the IRS in their investigation of LA have included Livestrong. The IRS could slug him with an excise tax to the extent of the value of the non complying personal benefits he obtained from Livestrong and also withdraw Livestrong's tax exemption status.