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

[aphronesis]

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?

I posed it as a question upthread. With question marks So as not to be merely rhetorical. No one wanted to answer. theHog did. Most chose to argue old ground, all of which "WE know."

The rest of your paraphrase is backward. Not does it effect their daily lives, but will their daily lives be such that they "care?" (However you define that--seems to be that tuning in and viewing equates with caring in these parts. There's a large bibliography on that subject. You're likely not interested though)

"Care," enough for the case to have traction and, ultimately, mark some mild reconfiguration of values--as expressed or maintained here. (Assuming LA has the high profile many assume.)

Alternatively, will it do the usual hypocritical and compensatory work of running cover for business as usual in other public and commercial endeavors.

There are two distinct aspects to this: aside from the list I enumerated for you last night. One is the more prosaic hit to LA (personally/financially) and his institution; the other has to do with the reach of the case and its implications, which many have argued go beyond Balco.

So it's not strictly that people won't care--other than in the stark indignant terms sometimes suggested here, but what social and legal transgressions they will be asked to care about? And how will those be squared back with LA's celebrity image. Or will they be left hanging--irreconcilable.

The example of Martha upthread doesn't gell with this separation precisely because she was the individual making the call. So your gibberish about principal principals is relevant in the parameters of the case.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I posed it as a question upthread. With question marks So as not to be merely rhetorical. No one wanted to answer. theHog did. Most chose to argue old ground, all of which "WE know."

The rest of your paraphrase is backward. Not does it effect their daily lives, but will their daily lives be such that they "care?" (However you define that--seems to be that tuning in and viewing equates with caring in these parts. There's a large bibliography on that subject. You're likely not interested though)

"Care," enough for the case to have traction and, ultimately, mark some mild reconfiguration of values--as expressed or maintained here. (Assuming LA has the high profile many assume.)

Alternatively, will it do the usual hypocritical and compensatory work of running cover for business as usual in other public and commercial endeavors.

There are two distinct aspects to this: aside from the list I enumerated for you last night. One is the more prosaic hit to LA (personally/financially) and his institution; the other has to do with the reach of the case and its implications, which many have argued go beyond Balco.

So it's not strictly that people won't care--other than in the stark indignant terms sometimes suggested here, but what social and legal transgressions they will be asked to care about? And how will those be squared back with LA's celebrity image. Or will they be left hanging--irreconcilable.

The example of Martha upthread doesn't gell with this separation precisely because she was the individual making the call. So your gibberish about principal principals is relevant in the parameters of the case.

So - you are saying people won't care?
Ok - I am sure that makes sense.

So people won't care if the case goes ahead? Right?

 

[DirtyWorks]

It may simply mean that they don't agree with the same conclusions drawn from that evidence.

Great! We're done here. Aphronesis has all the answers and they are always right. Might as well close down the forums. What a relief!

You know, facts4lance.com had some really good stuff on there to perfect your world view. Check it out sometime.

 

[aphronesis]

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?

Talk about churning the same topics over an over again. What's the point of your reply?

Inaction in your area cannot be applied to other cases.

The 'medical procedures' for team-wide doping program require strictly controlled drugs. So, your question as posted is moot.

The cycling team is a legal vehicle funded under conditions stipulated in a contract. That contract apparently had anti-doping provisions. Those anti-doping provisions were violated. Various Federal agencies have a great, multi-faceted opportunity to generate doping fear in sports federations like the USOC and NCAA.

No effect in the wider community? Doping in cycling has already killed plenty of kids with heart attacks and given a number of them chronic illnesses. Check Greg Strock's story sometime. USA Cycling had coaches that **required** doping for years. No, no impact there.[/QUOTE]

I was asked a question and provided content. I responded. I raised none of the above issues in any of my posts.

Talk about attacking the messenger.

I've read the story. Seems a bit backward if kids having heart attacks is going to be curtailed through such a top-down endeavor. Might be more proximate means of changing that situation. What's the number, you reckon, of kids in this country suffering heart attacks and chronic illness from means other than drugs in sport?

If this is the issue you want solved, fine. Is defending the case on those grounds the most effective or far-reaching means of reaching that end?

 

[aphronesis]

So - you are saying people won't care?
Ok - I am sure that makes sense.


So people won't care if the case goes ahead? Right?

I'll put it in plain terms for you and RR: if and when the case goes ahead, what exactly is it that people are presumed to care about?

LA cheating? Defrauding sponsors? Illegal drugs? Bribery of a cycling institutions? Some, all, more? How will it be framed in such a way that they're going to care? Or will they only care than a sports here wasn't what he was presented to be?

Which ones?

 

[Race Radio]

I'll put it in plain terms for you and RR: if and when the case goes ahead, what exactly is it that people are presumed to care about?

LA cheating? Defrauding sponsors? Illegal drugs? Bribery of a cycling institutions? Some, all, more? How will it be framed in such a way that they're going to care? Or will they only care than a sports here wasn't what he was presented to be?

Which ones?

Already answered this, multiple times. You choose to pretend I have not so you can further clog this thread with your babble.

Yeah, they guy with 3 million twitter followers goes to jail for bribing his way out of a positive drug test....nobody will care. It was all part of the game. Everyone bribes the UCI so why care?

So tell us, how large does Armstrong's crimes have to be for you to care? Does Armstrong get a pass on all crimes or just the doping ones?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'll put it in plain terms for you and RR: if and when the case goes ahead, what exactly is it that people are presumed to care about?

LA cheating? Defrauding sponsors? Illegal drugs? Bribery of a cycling institutions? Some, all, more? How will it be framed in such a way that they're going to care? Or will they only care than a sports here wasn't what he was presented to be?

Which ones?

My apologies - I had this crazy whacky idea that law enforcements agencies, am well you know, actually enforced laws.

I had no idea it was like X-factor and people had to actually care.

 

[aphronesis]

So, you are right and only fools interpret the facts as you present them any other way. Great! We're done here. Aphronesis has all the answers and they are always right. Might as well close down the forums.

What a relief! You know, facts4lance.com had some really good stuff on there to perfect your world view. Check it out sometime.

If I thought nothing would come of it, I would have said so, days ago. Can not the same be applied to the many posters who have said jail time, public and financial ruin are all equally imminent?

This seems to be the place exclusively for those wishing to hone that world view as well.

 

[Race Radio]

If I thought nothing would come of it, I would have said so, days ago. Can not the same be applied to the many posters who have said jail time, public and financial ruin are all equally imminent?

This seems to be the place exclusively for those wishing to hone that world view as well.

I have never said imminent. It will be years before Armstrong's lawyers have bled him of his cash and he goes to prison.

 

[Microchip]

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

I see. There'd be no denying that she really did hear the confession.

 

[Digger]

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.

This post really needs to be bookmarked. An insider into the investigation said 'it's not that we can't get people to talk, it's that we can't get them to stop crying while they are talking.'

 

[aphronesis]

So you have formed the view that LA must be in a dire situation that would require recuperation. You need to seek counseling from Polish

You inferred from the use of the words "flea bitten local rag" that the piece was not of quality journalism. The READERSHIP of the "flea bitten local rag" includes the likes of you and myself who are capable of reading on line news. Aspen News advertising rates would take that into consideration.

What was poignant in the extract from Nitzke's article I had drawn was that Nitzke had properly highlighted that in these type of high cost and high profile prosecutions the ends justified the means. It is not just about the individual defendant but the intended secondary or incidental effect in the wider community of prosecuting a high flyer's "malfeasances" (I am sure you used that word wrongly believing LA was a deity and must hold public office in some form )

I don't take it as dire. He's the creature he made himself. I see no need to be an apologist for that. You're sure about a lot of things about me and mostly wrong. I don't think he's either of those things. He's a racer who parlayed his success into a cultural cache during a period of runaway cultural inflation and jingoism. Nothing more. He built on and co-opted the victim rhetoric (some call it the soft edge of neo-liberalism) that emerged from the culture wars of the 1980s and 90s, transformed it into something saleable and sold it back to public ready for heroes again during a period of neo-conservatism.

Yes, that was Nitze's argument: replete with the Ness reference and the pathological "gets his man at all costs" super sleuth. That to me is moralizing, not poignant. So there are some of the terms of our disagreement.

And knowing the demographics of Aspen as you probably do, it's a safe bet that they'll also be of two minds of the case when it hits.

And my question and/or argument (however you like it) has to do with whether the recooked moral presented by Nitze is still one that will "sell." in this country when the case(s) break?

You're right. SSDD as Polish says.

 

[Race Radio]

I see. There'd be no denying that she really did hear the confession.

Given she told several people, including a reporter, that she heard the confession it will not be surprising to see that her GJ testimony is different from he SCA testimony

 

[DirtyWorks]

But, until you get to potential money laundering, tax evasion, etc. and some drug transportation, does that seem to merit Federal charges? I'm not sure.

And that right there is another example of smoothing over what likely happened.


It's not some 'money laundering.' It has to be much bigger than that. How big? At least 7 years worth and a sketchy non-profit, and an IPO too. How big is that? Pretty big!

'Some drug transportation' isn't just Tailwind had a drug mule. It takes LOTS of people and money and illegal acts across borders to run an international illicit drug program for 7+ years.

You make it sound like he woke up one morning, called Weisel and threw something together... Once.

if the case goes forward out of all these possible charges how do you think it will be framed for a public?

The way the SI story and 60 minutes ended up, it's all bad news for Wonderboy. The guy is on the celebrity destruction end of the media cycle. Defending it looks like facts4lance.com.

Bicycling and Velonews will still defend him at all costs. The rest of mainstream media will rewrite the AP version depending on the local outlet's bias. WSJ might make something nice. SI did a really good job in their last article. They might do something, but it would have to be special to them.

 

[thehog]

Both 60 minutes & SI very much held back to make sure their stories were legally factual. They really didn't get a chance to tell us the guy is a super arsed pric on the biggest scale. Next time they will because there's no way way any longer Armstrong is going to litigate like he used to....it will be a free run for the press.

All Super D1ck will come back with is shiesse like this:

20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.

I agree the guy is a total joke now.

And that right there is another example of smoothing over what likely happened.


It's not some 'money laundering.' It has to be much bigger than that. How big? At least 7 years worth and a sketchy non-profit, and an IPO too. How big is that? Pretty big!

'Some drug transportation' isn't just Tailwind had a drug mule. It takes LOTS of people and money and illegal acts across borders to run an international illicit drug program for 7+ years.

You make it sound like he woke up one morning, called Weisel and threw something together... Once.



The way the SI story and 60 minutes ended up, it's all bad news for Wonderboy. The guy is on the celebrity destruction end of the media cycle. Defending it looks like facts4lance.com.

Bicycling and Velonews will still defend him at all costs. The rest of mainstream media will rewrite the AP version depending on the local outlet's bias. WSJ might make something nice. SI did a really good job in their last article. They might do something, but it would have to be special to them.

 

[aphronesis]

And that right there is another example of smoothing over what likely happened.


It's not some 'money laundering.' It has to be much bigger than that. How big? At least 7 years worth and a sketchy non-profit, and an IPO too. How big is that? Pretty big!

'Some drug transportation' isn't just Tailwind had a drug mule. It takes LOTS of people and money and illegal acts across borders to run an international illicit drug program for 7+ years.



You make it sound like he woke up one morning, called Weisel and threw something together... Once.

If it's what "likely" happened than it isn't smoothing it over until it hits; is it? I've said repeatedly that I'll be happy to discuss charges when they come.


I'm not defending him or it. You make it sound as if it were on the level of arms sales and moving street drugs from country of origin to the street--in scale and negative impact. A bit sensationalistic.

 

[Swede1]

The result for Barry Bonds seems to indicate Lance Armstrong also won't get a big punishment.

 

[Oldman]

If it's what "likely" happened than it isn't smoothing it over until it hits; is it? I've said repeatedly that I'll be happy to discuss charges when they come.


I'm not defending him or it. You make it sound as if it were on the level of arms sales and moving street drugs from country of origin to the street--in scale and negative impact. A bit sensationalistic.

You might notice that the "war on drugs" for marijuana is losing some gas and now the border security is the issue rather than the drugs on a political level. That's fine for recreational stuff.

When it comes to Big Pharma and compromising their patent rights and general security of "legal" drugs it is a far bigger deal. You had best believe that Federal oversight is motivated by more than their lust to see a fraud in jail. Add enough International money moving around, not paying taxes and funding whatever other lucrative criminal enterprise may be en vogue and alot of people get interested. It's way past Lance; who is becoming an As_terisk bigger than Bond and Clemens combined.

 

[aphronesis]

You might notice that the "war on drugs" for marijuana is losing some gas and now the border security is the issue rather than the drugs on a political level. That's fine for recreational stuff.

When it comes to Big Pharma and compromising their patent rights and general security of "legal" drugs it is a far bigger deal. You had best believe that Federal oversight is motivated by more than their lust to see a fraud in jail. Add enough International money moving around, not paying taxes and funding whatever other lucrative criminal enterprise may be en vogue and alot of people get interested. It's way past Lance; who is becoming an As_terisk bigger than Bond and Clemens combined.

I have been saying for some time that it's way past Lance. I agree with you on the rest as well in theory: that intellectual and patent rights for industries are current concerns--they mark new thresholds for definitions of crime and damage. The scale of drug movement and amount of unclaimed monies still haven't been shown though in this case--not as I recall.

 

[Velodude]

The result for Barry Bonds seems to indicate Lance Armstrong also won't get a big punishment.

Any punishment, custodial, home detention or monetary fine, for Federal offenses relating to trafficking team drugs that happens to be in breach with the USPS contract will see LA's podium finishes being stripped during the 8 year UCI SOL period.

 

[Velodude]

When I use few words they're dismissed and I'm mostly insulted and baited. When I use many it's pseudo-intellectual cover. (Which, by the way, is always the first charge to come from those who only recognize publicly legitimated experts and authorities.)

Rewriting history? Interesting. Which parts? Am I familiar with Postal team politics? Sure, to the extent of rumors at the time, what other racers told me or reported back and in light of more recent revelations corroborating much of what was word of mouth back then. The UCI bit? Sure. Transporting PEDS and blood doping, sure? Intimidation? Sure. Leveraging celebrity into a charitable front. Yes. Ferrarri, yes

But, until you get to potential money laundering, tax evasion, etc. and some drug transportation, does that seem to merit Federal charges? I'm not sure.

But more importantly all I have said for two days now is this, in few words just for you: if the case goes forward out of all these possible charges how do you think it will be framed for a public?

Secondly, given the amount of legal transformation that will be exerted on the evidence how much do you think it will still be about Armstrong when it arrives? How much do you think people will associate him directly with the charges within the larger circle of principals and what do you think that they will care about?

As a guide, the Federal offense of insider trading for Martha Stewart (that avoided her a $46,000 stock loss) got her a 5 months custodial sentence.

If the case goes forward the public are only required to know the list of all the indictments for which LA is charged which will be on the public record.

It will all be about Armstrong. He is the main target who brought fellow directors/shareholders of Tailwind Sports and CS & E along for the racketeering ride. It all re-focused after the Landis emails.

Rock Racing/Michael Ball, presumably the initial target, never obtained a UCI continental license to race professionally in Europe. Feds have been making a lot of European based investigations aligned to LA/US Postal through liaising with local authorities.

 

[Race Radio]

The result for Barry Bonds seems to indicate Lance Armstrong also won't get a big punishment.

Why?

They are completely different cases. Bonds was a witness who impeded an investigation.......Armstrong is the target of an investigation.

The charges against Armstrong will far more significant then those Bonds faces. The penalties will be more severe, and none of Armstrong's friends are going to go to prison like Greg Anderson did for Bonds.

The only similarities is they were both once paid to wear stuff made by Chinese prisoners.

 

[Oldman]

As a guide, the Federal offense of insider trading for Martha Stewart (that avoided her a $46,000 stock loss) got her a 5 months custodial sentence.

If the case goes forward the public are only required to know the list of all the indictments for which LA is charged which will be on the public record.

It will all be about Armstrong. He is the main target who brought fellow directors/shareholders of Tailwind Sports and CS & E along for the racketeering ride. It all re-focused after the Landis emails.
Rock Racing/Michael Ball, presumably the initial target, never obtained a UCI continental license to race professionally in Europe. Feds have been making a lot of European based investigations aligned to LA/US Postal through liaising with local authorities.

You're confusing what you believe with actual history. Wiesel started this sleighride to Hades before Lance was a name. While LA may have learned a thing or two he certainly wasn't the Architect of the grander schemes.

 

[aphronesis]

As a guide, the Federal offense of insider trading for Martha Stewart (that avoided her a $46,000 stock loss) got her a 5 months custodial sentence.

If the case goes forward the public are only required to know the list of all the indictments for which LA is charged which will be on the public record.

It will all be about Armstrong. He is the main target who brought fellow directors/shareholders of Tailwind Sports and CS & E along for the racketeering ride. It all re-focused after the Landis emails.

Rock Racing/Michael Ball, presumably the initial target, never obtained a UCI continental license to race professionally in Europe. Feds have been making a lot of European based investigations aligned to LA/US Postal through liaising with local authorities.

Yes, of course, the Ball history and the Landis emails are all here in the thread--and related ones. I understand the development of the case from Ball to Floyd.....

And the liaising with Europeans. Again, this has all been discussed here ad nauseam.

If the intent seems to be to keep this thread pristine for initiates who pop in for a Sunday read, maybe consider links to all the relevant and damning transitions as compiled here by the faithful.

To the above: wouldn't they have to prove that LA coordinated all of what you describe in order for it to be "all about him"? He was doing some training you know.

Proof that it happened (which I'm not disputing) and proof of how it was directed are two different things.

 

[Velodude]

You're confusing what you believe with actual history. Wiesel started this sleighride to Hades before Lance was a name. While LA may have learned a thing or two he certainly wasn't the Architect of the grander schemes.

The 2002-2004 contract between Tailwind & USPS is your starting point.

I don't believe Wiesel & Co were instrumental in arranging for the Trek bike sales to launder money to finance the drug program, employed Ferrari as a "consultant", engaged the dubious Spanish doctors, arranged for the bribe to the UCI to make the Swiss positive go away in 2002, were present when the team were administering drugs or infusing RBC rich blood, etc.