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

[Velodude]

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?

Martha Stewart made no profit from insider trading. She avoided a loss of $45,000 on a stock that she was informed by her broker was about to go south.

Still she breached the law by having intimate insider information and she was sentenced to prison. Lying to Federal investigators did not help her cause.

She pales into insignificance when compared to the allegations against Armstrong that do have an effect on the wider community. Income tax fraud, money laundering, bribery, racketeering, blackmarket drugs, drugs without a prescription, transport of drugs over international borders, unlicensed medical procedures to rattle off a few.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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?"

Oh, its only an investigation about sponsors? Thats interesting to know.

Is that why the FDA involved?

 

[Polish]

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 RR.
Great article, classy guy.

BTW, 40 days ago the Grand Jury was still within the 18 months.
7 days ago would have been more promising. Warmer fuzzier feeling.
40 days ago - why only mentioning it now? Maybe to quell the chatter that the GJ Term has expired. Lots of chatter lately. Chitter chatter.

But hey, I'm not one to rock the boat. I will play along.
Company man. No swishy suit here.
"The Grand Jury has been extended until April 2012."
Sure. Ok. Lance indicments by April.
Of course. You need indictments before jail time.
You still say jail time for Lance of course. No backing down from that.

So indicments by April 1st. Fools Day.
Heck, fine by the end of the month for me.
Or maybe when the Hell of the North freezes over is more like it.

 

[aphronesis]

Oh, its only an investigation about sponsors? Thats interesting to know.

Is that why the FDA involved?

Can you show me the post where I said it's "about sponsors?"

Let me assist you: I was responding to RR's question to me as quoted, which followed from his reply to Cobblestoned. This being a "thread," suggests that there are sometimes connections between posts. His question to me had to do with acceptable bounds of criminality, not the specific federal agents involved.

If you're asking me what about the FDA charges or my opinion on them then pose the question that way. Anyone with passing knowledge of the case knows how and why the FDA is involved.

 

[Velodude]

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

Comment #4 is attributed to "Skippy" who has intimate knowledge of this thread of CN.

Someone taking Skippy's nick in vain?

 

[aphronesis]

She pales into insignificance when compared to the allegations against Armstrong that do have an effect on the wider community. Income tax fraud, money laundering, bribery, racketeering, blackmarket drugs, drugs without a prescription, transport of drugs over international borders, unlicensed medical procedures to rattle off a few.[/QUOTE]

Those are potential charges. Unless you know otherwise.

Bribery of whom? Pat McQuaid? Blackmarket drugs and drugs without a prescription? Come by the college neighborhoods in my city. Feds are tearing through those scenes?

If the medical procedures are unlicensed who should be prosecuting them and why? If I perform unlicensed medical procedures on myself in my home is ok? Does it become a crime when I'm on a bike team? Or only when the team is sponsored?


And most of them have zero effect on the wider community. In this case. Nor does Martha--obviously. These are quibbles over low-hanging fruit. When and if the charges hit, I'll be happy to talk about them. But going back to yesterdays discussion: which of those charges, if any, will do real damage to LA in terms of public perception and/or legal repercussions when they actually come?

 

[Cobblestoned]

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

yeah, but this was exactly what this case was about. At least that case I am talking about. There are/were so many.
"Fraud to the disadvantage of sponsor T-Mobile/Telekom"
There are no laws for public sporting fraud in Germany either. Not directly. And none of the sponsors took any actions or startet cases themselfes. No Adidas, no Telekom, no Giant......nothing. It was Mrs Bannenberg and her crew who did institute legal proceedings against Ullrich.
Prosecution had to work on this, while looking more and more overwhelmed and unwilling to continue.
Only that tick from the Coast days, who wanted to shine brightly. He ended empty handed too. Jan even **** on the money he still had to get from that real fraud.

For example, in the Sinkewitz-case, things were easy, because his sponsor Förstina just wanted money back from a commercial campaign/spot that was done shortly before.

Anyway, have fun measuring/calculating all this "fraud".

btw, German prosecutor also stated that Ullrich's "criminal energy" was quiet low considering the circumstances in that millieu at that time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Can you show me the post where I said it's "about sponsors?"

Let me assist you: I was responding to RR's question to me as quoted, which followed from his reply to Cobblestoned. This being a "thread," suggests that there are sometimes connections between posts. His question to me had to do with acceptable bounds of criminality, not the specific federal agents involved.

If you're asking me what about the FDA charges or my opinion on them then pose the question that way. Anyone with passing knowledge of the case knows how and why the FDA is involved.

Ah, the one I responded to.
Thanks for the "assistance" although I have no idea why you wrote all this "what about the sponsors" if you didn't even believe it:

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.

 

[Race Radio]

Oh, its only an investigation about sponsors? Thats interesting to know.

Is that why the FDA involved?

And the FBI, DEA, and IRS

 

[Race Radio]

Snip

I guess I should not expected you to actually answer anything.......so Armstrong should not be charged with anything. He is above the law.

Maybe when he gets out of prison he can start with Steven Seagal in a remake?

 

[Race Radio]

yeah, but this was exactly what this case was about. At least that case I am talking about. There are/were so many.
"Fraud to the disadvantage of sponsor T-Mobile/Telekom"
There are no laws for public sporting fraud in Germany either. Not directly. And none of the sponsors took any actions or startet cases themselfes. No Adidas, no Telekom, no Giant......nothing. It was Mrs Bannenberg and her crew who did institute legal proceedings against Ullrich.
Prosecution had to work on this, while looking more and more overwhelmed and unwilling to continue.
Only that tick from the Coast days, who wanted to shine brightly. He ended empty handed too. Jan even **** on the money he still had to get from that real fraud.

For example, in the Sinkewitz-case, things were easy, because his sponsor Förstina just wanted money back from a commercial campaign/spot that was done shortly before.

Anyway, have fun measuring/calculating all this "fraud".

btw, German prosecutor also stated that Ullrich's "criminal energy" was quiet low considering the circumstances in that millieu at that time.

All of the media reports did say sponsors....but they also clearly referred to defrauding the public. I can't see anything in US law that would equate.

Notice Jan was not charged with bribing foreign officials, transporting drugs across state lines and international boarders, Witness tampering, trafficking, money laundering, or tax evasion. Doubt lance will have the same luck

 

[Cobblestoned]

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




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.

Doc, I spent hundreds of hours standing by my man Jan, kicking the sheit out of every single useless hater (part of the trollgroup and another internet phenomenon, btw) for month and years (ok, some even had some points and were more moderate and minimum as aseptic as you)....and you say I lie ?

Oh man, that really makes me sad.

 

[Polish]

I see the FDA getting the Biggest Bang out of the investigation.
They do not care about Fraud or RICO or Jetfuel & Hookers.

They care about the drug rings.

The FDA trip to Europe to meet with Interpol, CONI, WADA, French authorities and others has already led to a few busts I bet.
CONI went after people, Big Mat Docter chased down by the AESCLP(sp?), the actions against the Puerto guys under Spanish Health Laws.

Lots of stuff going on behind the scenes chasing down drug ring evil does is my feeling.....and not a waste of taxpayer money by the way. I will admit that. Seems the FDA is doing AOK with the investigation.

 

[Velodude]

Those are potential charges. Unless you know otherwise.

Bribery of whom? Pat McQuaid? Blackmarket drugs and drugs without a prescription? Come by the college neighborhoods in my city. Feds are tearing through those scenes?

If the medical procedures are unlicensed who should be prosecuting them and why? If I perform unlicensed medical procedures on myself in my home is ok? Does it become a crime when I'm on a bike team? Or only when the team is sponsored?


And most of them have zero effect on the wider community. In this case. Nor does Martha--obviously. These are quibbles over low-hanging fruit. When and if the charges hit, I'll be happy to talk about them. But going back to yesterdays discussion: which of those charges, if any, will do real damage to LA in terms of public perception and/or legal repercussions when they actually come?

I used the appropriate description of "allegation" (Definition: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.)

Bribery. Read the forum. Armstrong made conceded unprecedented "donations" to the UCI coinciding with periods of a drug positive (he admitted to team mates he arranged to have that positive go away) and a prospective damaging UCI commissioned "independent" investigation into his 1999 "B" samples.

Armstrong himself, Verbruggen (former UCI president) and a UCI board member informed that Armstrong had "donated" amounts far in excess of the admitted amounts of $125,000 by McQuaid.

LA Foundation (Livestrong) made two research donations totalling $2m (Livestrong expends only as an "awareness" charity) to two parties who assisted him in his SCA skirmish.

It is against the Federal law to administer medical procedures without a license. One of the problems Barry Bonds created for himself was that despite his immunity he would not properly respond to probing on this issue about the administering of drugs (supplied by BALCO).

 

[aphronesis]

Ah, the one I responded to.
Thanks for the "assistance" although I have no idea why you wrote all this "what about the sponsors" if you didn't even believe it:

Nice redaction. The post says "all 'about sponsors.'" And has. I didn't say I didn't believe what I claimed, but nowhere there or anywhere else did say it was strictly about sponsors.

As for writing things one doesn't believe, what about you and George? You don't believe that and yet posed the question.

I'd opine there are many who have no idea your posts contain the vast majority of their contents. And yet there we are.

 

[aphronesis]

I used the appropriate description of "allegation" (Definition: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.)

Bribery. Read the forum. Armstrong made conceded unprecedented "donations" to the UCI coinciding with periods of a drug positive (he admitted to team mates he arranged to have that positive go away) and a prospective damaging UCI commissioned "independent" investigation into his 1999 "B" samples.

Armstrong himself, Verbruggen (former UCI president) and a UCI board member informed that Armstrong had "donated" amounts far in excess of the admitted amounts of $125,000 by McQuaid.

LA Foundation (Livestrong) made two research donations totalling $2m (Livestrong expends only as an "awareness" charity) to two parties who assisted him in his SCA skirmish.

It is against the Federal law to administer medical procedures without a license. One of the problems Barry Bonds created for himself was that despite his immunity he would not properly respond to probing on this issue about the administering of drugs (supplied by BALCO).

I have read the forum. Sadly. Just because one doesn't rehearse every shred of evidence posted by the faithful over the past several months does not mean that one is ignorant of those facts and circumstances. It may simply mean that they don't agree with the same conclusions drawn from that evidence.

Reciting the litany of federal agencies involved along with possible federal charges (and Amrstrong's malfeasance) does not make them any closer to being so in either media-driven or legal "realities." Providing links from flea-bitten local rags doesn't make it so either

I have asked this question some five or six times now and none of the many who are taking issue with my posts are willing to speculate on and separate out these futures.

 

[Cobblestoned]

All of the media reports did say sponsors....but they also clearly referred to defrauding the public. I can't see anything in US law that would equate.

Notice Jan was not charged with bribing foreign officials, transporting drugs across state lines and international boarders, Witness tampering, trafficking, money laundering, or tax evasion. Doubt lance will have the same luck

No, Jan wasn't charged with that, but, like always when you put Jan and Lance together, you get the complete package.
Also, all German stars moving to Suisse are considered as tax-refugee-frauds by public law anyway.
There was also prison time for Ullrich in the air. Because of false affidavit in one of all these cases and law confusion. But too confusing for everyone involved I guess.
I guess that would equate to some US laws.

Please never say something like "I can't". We know you can. Yes you can.

 

[Cobblestoned]

I used the appropriate description of "allegation" (Definition: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.)

Bribery. Read the forum. Armstrong made conceded unprecedented "donations" to the UCI coinciding with periods of a drug positive (he admitted to team mates he arranged to have that positive go away) and a prospective damaging UCI commissioned "independent" investigation into his 1999 "B" samples.

Armstrong himself, Verbruggen (former UCI president) and a UCI board member informed that Armstrong had "donated" amounts far in excess of the admitted amounts of $125,000 by McQuaid.

LA Foundation (Livestrong) made two research donations totalling $2m (Livestrong expends only as an "awareness" charity) to two parties who assisted him in his SCA skirmish.

It is against the Federal law to administer medical procedures without a license. One of the problems Barry Bonds created for himself was that despite his immunity he would not properly respond to probing on this issue about the administering of drugs (supplied by BALCO).

It's not forbidden to donate. Bribery is done with black suitcases through dark channels.

 

[Velodude]

I have read the forum. Sadly. Just because one doesn't rehearse every shred of evidence posted by the faithful over the past several months does not mean that one is ignorant of those facts and circumstances. It may simply mean that they don't agree with the same conclusions drawn from that evidence.

Reciting the litany of federal agencies involved along with possible federal charges (and Amrstrong's malfeasance) does not make them any closer to being so in either media-driven or legal "realities." Providing links from flea-bitten local rags doesn't make it so either

I have asked this question some five or six times now and none of the many who are taking issue with my posts are willing to speculate on and separate out these futures.

Which question? Is there a question in the above post?

The "flea bitten local rag" (Aspen Times) article if you had read properly was written by a part time resident of Aspen, Paul Nitze, who lives in Washington DC. In Washington he appears to be connected to the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University. Not your local rag reporter typecast.

You appear to be on an intense lone ranger crusade to support LA (to repair the failings of others on this forum?).

You have made a lot of errors. Some mea culpas should be forthcoming to obtain some credibility.

 

[Velodude]

It's not forbidden to donate. Bribery is done with black suitcases through dark channels.

Except if they have a sinister purpose and would have remained undisclosed until LA was forced to admit under oath during the SCA deposition hearing of an unknown amount paid at an unknown time to an unknown person through unknown means.

 

[aphronesis]

Which question? Is there a question in the above post?

The "flea bitten local rag" (Aspen Times) article if you had read properly was written by a part time resident of Aspen, Paul Nitze, who lives in Washington DC. In Washington he appears to be connected to the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University. Not your local rag reporter typecast.

You appear to be on an intense lone ranger crusade to support LA (to repair the failings of others on this forum?).

You have made a lot of errors. Some mea culpas should be forthcoming to obtain some credibility.

.

Question: many posts on this thread have equated, or implied, media fall-out for LA with legal repercussions. I disagree. Many suggest a direct continuum between legal repercussions, social (via the media) disgrace and financial ruin. I don't see it that way.

I am on no quest to recuperate LA. I would not have hung out with him in high school, nor recently. As far as I can see, I don't share his values on any level--beyond an interest in cycling. That does not mean I agree with all the conclusions drawn about his circumstances within this thread.

Sure. Which ones.

Well, Hopkins. I didn't know. Of course everyone I ever knew at Hopkins (and in D.C. policy circles) were masters of the fine detail and social direction. Infallible to a man and woman.

Not sure what I didn't read properly? His bio? What does that have to do with the READERSHIP of the paper? No matter how many times you link it?

Did you read it properly? Despite his roughshod no nonsense rhetoric even Nitze expresses an ambivalence of outcome given the known facts--one stunningly absent from this forum on certain days.

Should I open a thread inviting links for all the colossal and short sighted public claims made by wonks associated with policy institutes, ivies and other Atlantic seaboard schools?

 

[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.

Just quoting this excellent, awesome piece on Lance Armstrong, found by our outstanding user and great friend, Race Radio.

Not that it gets buried in those boring question and answer treatises.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Except if they have a sinister purpose and would have remained undisclosed until LA was forced to admit under oath during the SCA deposition hearing of an unknown amount paid at an unknown time to an unknown person through unknown means.

There isn't much worse and unpopular than some rich donators telling us in a hurry that they have donated something, is there ?

It's those silent and stealth donators who are mostly appreciated. Lance is such an sympathetic guy....and so busy all the time to do all that good.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.

Question: many posts on this thread have equated, or implied, media fall-out for LA with legal repercussions. I disagree. Many suggest a direct continuum between legal repercussions, social (via the media) disgrace and financial ruin. I don't see it that way.

I am on no quest to recuperate LA. I would not have hung out with him in high school, nor recently. As far as I can see, I don't share his values on any level--beyond an interest in cycling. That does not mean I agree with all the conclusions drawn about his circumstances within this thread.

Sure. Which ones.

Well, Hopkins. I didn't know. Of course everyone I ever knew at Hopkins (and in D.C. policy circles) were masters of the fine detail and social direction. Infallible to a man and woman.

Not sure what I didn't read properly? His bio? What does that have to do with the READERSHIP of the paper? No matter how many times you link it?

Did you read it properly? Despite his roughshod no nonsense rhetoric even Nitze expresses an ambivalence of outcome given the known facts--one stunningly absent from this forum on certain days.

Should I open a thread inviting links for all the colossal and short sighted public claims made by wonks associated with policy institutes, ivies and other Atlantic seaboard schools?

Thats not a question - thats a statement.

Yes, we know you disagree.
Some long stuff that if there are indictments that Lance won't be a principal, or if he is a principal there will be other principals and Lance wont be the principal principal.
People will go Lance who? They won't care - but if they do care do they really care? Does it effect their daily lives?

 

[AngusW]

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.

Good post, Cobblestoned. Your English has shown much improvement since you first started posting here. I like the play on one of Armstrong's comeback 2.0 slogans, very clever. Also a great reference to the topical ducks combined with an American cultural reference to a Hollywood B movie with at least one sequel. Excellent work - I can see your participation in the forums is broadening your knowledge of English-speaking culture outside the bounds of cycling. I look forward to your next post.