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

[MarkvW]

Also note that SOL's are a defense. It probably has nothing to do with the indictments in this instance because they already know that regardless of what happens, Armstrong's defense team will raise it. That will be the first battle, but at this point, because of the timing, the SOL doesn't really betray anything. If they feel confident in their case for when the SOL runs, they can take all the time they feel they need. I am betting (call me crazy) that the government is pretty well researched up on making their case regarding any SOL issue.

That's using a lot of words just to say that federal prosecutors understand the statute of limitations as it applies to their INVESTIGATION.

 

[Velodude]

That's using a lot of words just to say that federal prosecutors understand the statute of limitations as it applies to their INVESTIGATION.

Counselor, it applies to the indictments not the investigation.

What was the reason for hauling Stephanie McIlwain of Oakley before the Grand Jury in 2010 relating to an incident that occurred in a hospital room 14 years prior?

The genesis of indictments can occur outside the SOL or the SOL commences on the last date of a series of offenses.

 

[MarkvW]

Counselor, it applies to the indictments not the investigation.

What was the reason for hauling Stephanie McIlwain of Oakley before the Grand Jury in 2010 relating to an incident that occurred in a hospital room 14 years prior?

The genesis of indictments can occur outside the SOL or the SOL commences on the last date of a series of offenses.

Show me an indictment, then.
The criminal conduct must occur within the limitation period. Admissible evidence is not so limited.
Your last sentence is incoherent.

A lot of crimes that might have been committed by Lance are not now indictable due to the statute of limitations. Some other crimes still may be indictable, but we have no idea what evidence the feds have of those crimes. And we have no idea who the targets of the federal investigation are at this time.

 

[Polish]

So were the official donations to the UCI Armstrong made perhaps only effected when there were too many leaks? The initial payment may have been cash only. When the existence of donation leaked (monumental error by Verdruggen?), Armstrong had to make it official. Pay twice. Delays could come from the terms he set. He never pays a penny without clear to him path back to his own wallet.

What are these "too many leaks" you refer to? I don't remember ANY "leaks" at all - but it was many years ago. I may have forgotten lol. Refresh my memory, who leaked prior to Verdruggin's boast?

And do you find it curious that Verdruggin said in public back in 2005 that "Lance wanted to keep the donations secret"?

That seems to suggest a donation not a bribe.
Lance was never one to boast.

But anyway, back to the "many leaks"
Can you name a few?
TIA.

 

[Polish]

You missed my point. They weren't protecting the peloton they were protecting Armstrong - period. Again risk free doping.
.

There were NO major riders busted at the Tour when Lance was Patron.

It was either a peloton-wide "Blanket of Protection", or those years were the cleanest years in a long time.

I believe the former.
Hard for some to BELIEVE, but it is TRUE.

 

[Velodude]

There were NO major riders busted at the Tour when Lance was Patron.

It was either a peloton-wide "Blanket of Protection", or those years were the cleanest years in a long time.

I believe the former.
Hard for some to BELIEVE, but it is TRUE.

Lance runs parallel with Al Capone in Chicago during the 1930's prohibition era.

Capone bribed the Chicago law enforcement and judiciary to avoid arrest and prosecution. Lance did likewise with UCI to avoid AAFs.

The Feds brought in Eliot Nesswho was "untouchable" as to bribes and made huge in roads into cleaning up Chicago criminal corruption. In modern day the Feds brought in Jeff Novtizky and Lance's cycling omerta was broken and everyone is singing.

 

[MarkvW]

There were NO major riders busted at the Tour when Lance was Patron.

It was either a peloton-wide "Blanket of Protection", or those years were the cleanest years in a long time.

I believe the former.
Hard for some to BELIEVE, but it is TRUE.

Microdosing blood boosters under careful supervision wasn't detectable during much of the EPO Era. Probably still isn't. I tend to believe the riders and commentators who say that only people who weren't careful got caught. And it is fair to say that the UCI wasn't aggressively pursuing anti-doping either.

Viewing Armstrong as an anomaly gives the UCI too much credit. Cheating was widespread in Lance's era. The talking point that gets stressed by the haters is that Lance was somehow the "worst" cheater and that the other cheaters were somehow "better" than Lance. All the contenders were cheating, though. Take Armstrong out of the mix and other dopers win his TdFs. Having a "better" cheater as the new updated winner of the TdFs doesn't do much for the integrity of the race, the racers, or the UCI.

Lance's first five TdFs are inviolate because of the 8 year UCI limitation period. In August, it will be six. The only hope for any kind of professional sanction against Lance depends upon both an indictment and the release of information by the feds. The GJ information is not going to get unsealed in time. The only way that information damaging to Lance's TdF wins is going to get out is if it becomes public in the nature of a motion or a trial. Then the appropriate sporting body would have to process the information and seek sanctions. I'm not hopeful for anything becoming public before August. I doubt that a mere indictment could serve as the basis for a professional sanction.

So maybe Lance has one TdF that is possibly exposed if he is indicted. Assuming he is, he will surely seek to delay any hearing that would expose any facts that would trigger a professional sanction. It shouldn't be too hard for Kreker to continue any such hearing until after July, 2013. After all, all he easy kind of doping and doping fraud cases are barred by the 5 year SOL. The remaining possible charges are both complicated and international. A one year, plus, delay is not at all unusual. And that assumes that Lance doesn't plead to a nondoping offense or offenses. If he so pleads, all the GJ testimony remains sealed.

It seems that the haters hopes for professional sanctions against Lance version.1.0 are doomed to be dashed and that Lance will, for all time, be a 7-time winner of the TdF. Doesn't say anything good about the pro peloton, or Armstrong, but there you have it. "The Rules" say Lance is the winner. Arguing that Lance "really" isn't the winner won't fly unless you want to pick which cycling rules "count," and which don't.

In my opinion, the UCI, the pro peloton, and its sponsors should be punished for the ugly "soup" they have brewed. Don't financially support them. Omerta flourishes when consumers financially support pro cycling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Microdosing blood boosters under careful supervision wasn't detectable during much of the EPO Era. Probably still isn't. I tend to believe the riders and commentators who say that only people who weren't careful got caught. And it is fair to say that the UCI wasn't aggressively pursuing anti-doping either.

Viewing Armstrong as an anomaly gives the UCI too much credit. Cheating was widespread in Lance's era. The talking point that gets stressed by the haters is that Lance was somehow the "worst" cheater and that the other cheaters were somehow "better" than Lance. All the contenders were cheating, though. Take Armstrong out of the mix and other dopers win his TdFs. Having a "better" cheater as the new updated winner of the TdFs doesn't do much for the integrity of the race, the racers, or the UCI.

No, Mark.
As has often been pointed out to you I do not hate Armstrong. So you can park that thought.
No one has suggested that there were "better" cheaters than Lance, thats a silly thought that you wrote.
It is however viewed that Armstrongs cheating did extend beyond doping, this is due to the rather large donations that he paid to the UCI.
I trust that clears things up for you.

Lance's first five TdFs are inviolate because of the 8 year UCI limitation period. In August, it will be six. The only hope for any kind of professional sanction against Lance depends upon both an indictment and the release of information by the feds. The GJ information is not going to get unsealed in time. The only way that information damaging to Lance's TdF wins is going to get out is if it becomes public in the nature of a motion or a trial. Then the appropriate sporting body would have to process the information and seek sanctions. I'm not hopeful for anything becoming public before August. I doubt that a mere indictment could serve as the basis for a professional sanction.

So maybe Lance has one TdF that is possibly exposed if he is indicted. Assuming he is, he will surely seek to delay any hearing that would expose any facts that would trigger a professional sanction. It shouldn't be too hard for Kreker to continue any such hearing until after July, 2013. After all, all he easy kind of doping and doping fraud cases are barred by the 5 year SOL. The remaining possible charges are both complicated and international. A one year, plus, delay is not at all unusual. And that assumes that Lance doesn't plead to a nondoping offense or offenses. If he so pleads, all the GJ testimony remains sealed.

It seems that the haters hopes for professional sanctions against Lance version.1.0 are doomed to be dashed and that Lance will, for all time, be a 7-time winner of the TdF. Doesn't say anything good about the pro peloton, or Armstrong, but there you have it. "The Rules" say Lance is the winner. Arguing that Lance "really" isn't the winner won't fly unless you want to pick which cycling rules "count," and which don't.

In my opinion, the UCI, the pro peloton, and its sponsors should be punished for the ugly "soup" they have brewed. Don't financially support them. Omerta flourishes when consumers financially support pro cycling.

As also been pointed out to you the SOL for sporting sanctions kick in when an investigation is launched - as this started (at the latest) by May 2010 that means that potentially his 'victories' in 2002 are also in jeopardy.

 

[The Plediadian]

Lance runs parallel with Al Capone in Chicago during the 1930's prohibition era.

Capone bribed the Chicago law enforcement and judiciary to avoid arrest and prosecution. Lance did likewise with UCI to avoid AAFs.

The Feds brought in Eliot Nesswho was "untouchable" as to bribes and made huge in roads into cleaning up Chicago criminal corruption. In modern day the Feds brought in Jeff Novtizky and Lance's cycling omerta was broken and everyone is singing.

So what you are saying is like Capone and Escobar the Armstrong base statement is Plata O Plomo? Silver or lead?
That seems very far fetched considering the amount of individuals. Someone would have spoken up by now,verdad?

 

[MarkvW]

No, Mark.
As has often been pointed out to you I do not hate Armstrong. So you can park that thought.
No one has suggested that there were "better" cheaters than Lance, thats a silly thought that you wrote.
It is however viewed that Armstrongs cheating did extend beyond doping, this is due to the rather large donations that he paid to the UCI.
I trust that clears things up for you.



As also been pointed out to you the SOL for sporting sanctions kick in when an investigation is launched - as this started (at the latest) by May 2010 that means that potentially his 'victories' in 2002 are also in jeopardy.

You are right about the UCI SOL. My apologies. Rule 307 says it all.

 

[Velodude]

So what you are saying is like Capone and Escobar the Armstrong base statement is Plata O Plomo? Silver or lead?
That seems very far fetched considering the amount of individuals. Someone would have spoken up by now,verdad?

By now, they have spoken.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You are right about the UCI SOL. My apologies. Rule 307 says it all.

Its UCI rule 368, or Article 17 of the WADA code.

 

[The Plediadian]

By now, they have spoken.

Why were "they," whomever "they" are not speaking during Armstrongs career.
I only remember a couple former cyclists accusing Lance of doping, but never ever saying Lance was the Godfather of the Peloton.
Reading this blog it is almost as if I am reading about the Gulags and Joseph Stalin.

 

[Velodude]

Show me an indictment, then.
The criminal conduct must occur within the limitation period. Admissible evidence is not so limited.
Your last sentence is incoherent.

A lot of crimes that might have been committed by Lance are not now indictable due to the statute of limitations. Some other crimes still may be indictable, but we have no idea what evidence the feds have of those crimes. And we have no idea who the targets of the federal investigation are at this time.

Counselor, that was no minor edit - it was a major reconstruction!

Crimes that have been committed by Lance fall under the Tailwind umbrella. I believe this also will relate to his bribes as one bribe, the $100,000 as conceded by McQuaid as an Armstrong offering, was paid by CS&E which became a part owner of US Postal Cycling in 2004 and then co-owner with Tailwind of Discovery Channel Pro 2005-2007.

Tailwind & CS&E I expect will be determined by the Feds to be enterprises involved in criminal conspiracies.

The running of the clock for the SOL will commence on the date the last act relating to the conspiracies occurred. This I expect for both corporations will be 2007. For CS&E this will depend on the right date extracted from McQuaid for the $100,000 donation - 2005 or 2006 or 2007.

Of course we can have adjustments for tolling on witness tampering and extensions for overseas evidence collection.

 

[Velodude]

Why were "they," whomever "they" are not speaking during Armstrongs career.
I only remember a couple former cyclists accusing Lance of doping, but never ever saying Lance was the Godfather of the Peloton.
Reading this blog it is almost as if I am reading about the Gulags and Joseph Stalin.

If they did breach the covenants of the cyclists' omerta code they were ostracized and marginalized with no future in cycling.

Christophe Bassons, a known clean TdF rider, spoke out against Armstrong and cycling generally in a newspaper column dung the 1999 Tour and was told by his team to withdraw during the TdF because of all the animosity towards the team by other teams. Armstrong personally berated Bassons.

Jesus Manzano broke the code in 2004 after he nearly died from incompetent drug administering. The riders held a pre race sit down strike as a protest against Manzano's revelations.

Armstrong had a nasty feud against Filippo Simeoni for breaking the omerta code and revealing Simeoni's doping relationship with Armstrong's "friend", Dr Ferrari. Armstrong was accused of witness tampering by the Italian authorities (Ferrari was before the Italian courts) as he succeeded in publicly humiliating Simeoni during the 2004 TdF. Armstrong publicly called Simeoni a "liar".

 

[MarkvW]

Counselor, that was no minor edit - it was a major reconstruction!

Crimes that have been committed by Lance fall under the Tailwind umbrella. I believe this also will relate to his bribes as one bribe, the $100,000 as conceded by McQuaid as an Armstrong offering, was paid by CS&E which became a part owner of US Postal Cycling in 2004 and then co-owner with Tailwind of Discovery Channel Pro 2005-2007.

Tailwind & CS&E I expect will be determined by the Feds to be enterprises involved in criminal conspiracies.

The running of the clock for the SOL will commence on the date the last act relating to the conspiracies occurred. This I expect for both corporations will be 2007. For CS&E this will depend on the right date extracted from McQuaid for the $100,000 donation - 2005 or 2006 or 2007.

Of course we can have adjustments for tolling on witness tampering and extensions for overseas evidence collection.

Bribery doesn't seem likely. All you could prove is a donation. What is the proof of a quid pro quo?

 

[thehog]

If they did breach the covenants of the cyclists' omerta code they were ostracized and marginalized with no future in cycling.

Christophe Bassons, a known clean TdF rider, spoke out against Armstrong and cycling generally in a newspaper column dung the 1999 Tour and was told by his team to withdraw during the TdF because of all the animosity towards the team by other teams. Armstrong personally berated Bassons.

Jesus Manzano broke the code in 2004 after he nearly died from incompetent drug administering. The riders held a pre race sit down strike as a protest against Manzano's revelations.

Armstrong had a nasty feud against Filippo Simeoni for breaking the omerta code and revealing Simeoni's doping relationship with Armstrong's "friend", Dr Ferrari. Armstrong was accused of witness tampering by the Italian authorities (Ferrari was before the Italian courts) as he succeeded in publicly humiliating Simeoni during the 2004 TdF. Armstrong publicly called Simeoni a "liar".

The UCI said they were going to sue Manzano as well. Manzano was a Fuentes client was he not?

 

[MarkvW]

If they did breach the covenants of the cyclists' omerta code they were ostracized and marginalized with no future in cycling.

Christophe Bassons, a known clean TdF rider, spoke out against Armstrong and cycling generally in a newspaper column dung the 1999 Tour and was told by his team to withdraw during the TdF because of all the animosity towards the team by other teams. Armstrong personally berated Bassons.

Jesus Manzano broke the code in 2004 after he nearly died from incompetent drug administering. The riders held a pre race sit down strike as a protest against Manzano's revelations.

Armstrong had a nasty feud against Filippo Simeoni for breaking the omerta code and revealing Simeoni's doping relationship with Armstrong's "friend", Dr Ferrari. Armstrong was accused of witness tampering by the Italian authorities (Ferrari was before the Italian courts) as he succeeded in publicly humiliating Simeoni during the 2004 TdF. Armstrong publicly called Simeoni a "liar".

Lance was always supported by the peloton. His fellow racers supported his doping! Bassons didn't belong in the pro peloton-it has no tolerance for honest racers.

 

[Velodude]

Bribery doesn't seem likely. All you could prove is a donation. What is the proof of a quid pro quo?

A "donation" falteringly claimed by McQuaid for a Sysmex machine paid as late as 2007 when the manufacturer promoted the machine was used during the 2005 TdF?

It becomes a question of intent.

Armstrong benefited post 2005 through the UCI commissioning (in a race against WADA) of a flawed report on the scientific analysis of the 1999 "B" samples with Verbruggen's Dutch lawyer pal, Vrijman.

As Armstrong was the beneficiary of that ridiculously flawed report any payment by him to the UCI or its office holders at or after the time of that report's commissioning and release would be aligned as a bribe.

 

[Velodude]

Lance was always supported by the peloton. His fellow racers supported his doping! Bassons didn't belong in the pro peloton-it has no tolerance for honest racers.

Counselor, hence the code of omerta.

 

[Polish]

Microdosing blood boosters under careful supervision wasn't detectable during much of the EPO Era. Probably still isn't. I tend to believe the riders and commentators who say that only people who weren't careful got caught. And it is fair to say that the UCI wasn't aggressively pursuing anti-doping either.
.

Agree, but would like to add...
Any of Lance's rival's caught microdosing EPO during the Lance ERA?
Nope, not a one.

If microdosing EPO was hard to pull off - there would have been positives.
"But only Lance would try". Sorry guys, bogus.
And if microdosing were easy - no exclusive advantage to Lance.

Either way, the Lance MicroDosing Advantage Myth is bogus.

 

[The Plediadian]

If they did breach the covenants of the cyclists' omerta code they were ostracized and marginalized with no future in cycling.

Christophe Bassons, a known clean TdF rider, spoke out against Armstrong and cycling generally in a newspaper column dung the 1999 Tour and was told by his team to withdraw during the TdF because of all the animosity towards the team by other teams. Armstrong personally berated Bassons.

Jesus Manzano broke the code in 2004 after he nearly died from incompetent drug administering. The riders held a pre race sit down strike as a protest against Manzano's revelations.

Armstrong had a nasty feud against Filippo Simeoni for breaking the omerta code and revealing Simeoni's doping relationship with Armstrong's "friend", Dr Ferrari. Armstrong was accused of witness tampering by the Italian authorities (Ferrari was before the Italian courts) as he succeeded in publicly humiliating Simeoni during the 2004 TdF. Armstrong publicly called Simeoni a "liar".

Dr. F. is a family friend of the Armstrongs, someone who is invited to christenings and BBQs, no harm no foul with their relationships.

Off subject, whom was monitoring Manzanos' transfussions?
Simeoni was one who had issue with omerta yes. Only after he was caught though.

 

[Anonymous]

There were NO major riders busted at the Tour when Lance was Patron.

It was either a peloton-wide "Blanket of Protection", or those years were the cleanest years in a long time.

I believe the former.
Hard for some to BELIEVE, but it is TRUE.

Lance tested positive at the 1999 Tour. And then he got out of it. Special treatment. Book sales. Cash cow became apparent. Moo.

Interesting, Lance was only the "patron" during the Tour?
Maybe he paid off for everyone. He is so generous like that.

Pantani got busted 1999 Giro. I bet he was really mad about Lance not riding the Giro. Good thing though, when Lance did ride the Giro he whined because it was too hard of a race for him.

Berzin the 2000 Giro. SSDD

Frigo the 2001 Giro. Starting to see a pattern. Tough luck they busted Frigo on the way to the Tour later that year because if he'd gotten there, he would have been safe.

Pantani at the 2001 Giro too. Sick 'em UCI, sick 'em!

Garzelli at the 2002 Giro. Dude, seriously?

Rumsas 2002 TOUR. There goes your theory.

Simoni 2002 Giro. Cocaine. Probably visited The Yellow Rose.

Rumsas again Giro 2003. Donkey. Eeeeeawwww

Millar 2004, admitted but never tested positive. Where have I heard the phrase "never tested positive" before?

Frigo ejected from the 2005 Tour. Holes in your story.

Heras 2005 Vuelta. They always turned bad after they left the fold.

Dirty, dirty period in cycling. Sad. Will be remembered (really, it will be forgotten which is better anyway) as the dark ages.

Need to go take a shower.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr. F. is a family friend of the Armstrongs, someone who is invited to christenings and BBQs, no harm no foul with their relationships.

Off subject, whom was monitoring Manzanos' transfussions?
Simeoni was one who had issue with omerta yes. Only after he was caught though.

The family friend who didn't get a mention in Armstrongs first book.
I think the Feds might have a different view of their relationship and might indeed find harm and foul in paying large amounts to a doping Doctor.

 

[Velodude]

Dr. F. is a family friend of the Armstrongs, someone who is invited to christenings and BBQs, no harm no foul with their relationships.

Off subject, whom was monitoring Manzanos' transfussions?
Simeoni was one who had issue with omerta yes. Only after he was caught though.

Curiously Ferrari was not referenced in any capacity in Armstrong's first biography released in 2000 "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life".

The Ferrari/Armstrong secret relationship was "outed" in 2001 but Armstrong defended by falsely claiming Ferrari only acted as a data collector in Europe for his real coach, Chris Carmichael.

An association with Ferrari was extremely risky as it placed a rider on the high suspect list of doping.

Manzano was administered by the team quack with an unknown drug. He later found out it to be Oxyglobin, a veterinary hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier or blood substitute to which he had a reaction.

One of the prospective allegations against Armstrong as reported by Sports Illustrated is that he had possession of a similar unapproved product called HemAssist.

Simeoni was subpoenaed to appear as a witness in February 2002 at Ferrari's sporting fraud trial. Are you indicating he should have run the risk of perjury and honor the omerta code?

All the Festina 1998 riders involved in the doping ring finally confessed in a French court after initial resistance