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

[MarkvW]

Actually I have no idea - but what controlled substances?

You are doing a lot of guessing and speculating. If you remember you made a comment that Bonds & Thomas received immunity - I asked from what and you went silent.
Would that not be a logical first place to see what happened with them as it probably will relate to Tyler?

I do hope Tyler is this central don figure - who can escape sanction from (well, we're not sure) by ratting out his friends and former team mates. How will Lance escape this predicament if the Feds are even going after the riders? Tune in tomorrow for The Days of Our Lance.

Like I said, my theory depends upon Tyler taking (PED) controlled substances. Any substance. It doesn't matter. What matters is that Tyler's not going to admit to it without a grant of immunity--and the feds would want to hear the whole story. On the other hand, if Tyler had no criminal secrets, then he might not have needed or received immunity.

I don't mean to cast Tyler as a Don figure (although I take that risk of being accused of that whenever I deviate from a strict fixation on Lance). Rather, I'm using Tyler to make the point that the feds had a lot of people who bought steroids and EPO before them and that they would not pass up the opportunity to take down PED rings (or help foreign countries do so). But of course you are free to recast my point in whatever form you choose.

U.S. v Tammy A. Thomas. 08-10450 (9th Cir.) Is a super-good discussion of her case.

Bonds is easy. Just google ["barry bonds" perjury immunity ] and you'll find tons of news stories.

 

[MarkvW]

I did not have to agree with you about Tyler's grant of immunity. It was common knowledge after being confirmed by his lawyer after the "60 Minutes" interview.

There, Maserati! Is that good enough for you? From a bona fide hater, too! You've gotta believe it now!

Or were you trolling me the whole time?

 

[MarkvW]

I did not have to agree with you about Tyler's grant of immunity. It was common knowledge after being confirmed by his lawyer after the "60 Minutes" interview.

Tyler had an AAF with Rock Racing after his sample showed the presence of a drug known as DHEA. DHEA is a prohibited anti doping substance but not a controlled substance at law and, as Dr Maserati pointed out over your head, can be purchased over the counter and on the internet without a prescription. It still remains so after some legislative attempts in 2009 to make it a controlled substance.

You are entering into the exclusive domain of conspiracy theorists - wild hypotheticals.

Yeah! It's a wild hypothetical that the feds are probably investigating organized criminals who distribute controlled substances to cyclists.

What was I thinking??? How could anything deter the federal government from its obsessive pursuit of Moby D~ck, er . . .Lance Armstrong!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Like I said, my theory depends upon Tyler taking (PED) controlled substances. Any substance. It doesn't matter. What matters is that Tyler's not going to admit to it without a grant of immunity--and the feds would want to hear the whole story. On the other hand, if Tyler had no criminal secrets, then he might not have needed or received immunity.

I don't mean to cast Tyler as a Don figure (although I take that risk of being accused of that whenever I deviate from a strict fixation on Lance). Rather, I'm using Tyler to make the point that the feds had a lot of people who bought steroids and EPO before them and that they would not pass up the opportunity to take down PED rings (or help foreign countries do so). But of course you are free to recast my point in whatever form you choose.

U.S. v Tammy A. Thomas. 08-10450 (9th Cir.) Is a super-good discussion of her case.

Bonds is easy. Just google ["barry bonds" perjury immunity ] and you'll find tons of news stories.

Perjury? Well, duh .......... what controlled substances had they to confess to get the deal. Will Tyler be placed in Witness Protection?

There, Maserati! Is that good enough for you? From a bona fide hater, too! You've gotta believe it now!

Or were you trolling me the whole time?

What ..... I've been trolling you since before you set off for pretend law school.

 

[MarkvW]

Perjury? Well, duh .......... what controlled substances had they to confess to get the deal. Will Tyler be placed in Witness Protection?


What ..... I've been trolling you since before you set off for pretend law school.

Feds really care about investigating dope dealers. The "Lance Armstrong Investigation" must include a dope ring investigation or investigations, while it might include an investigation of the great white whale himself.

You're looking at immunity the wrong way. You're looking at it from the POV of a target. If you look at it from the point of view of the small fry, you'll understand it much easier. The feds don't care about Ty and they wanted him to open up so the could go after their targets. It is like a straight trade--5th Amendment in exchange for full-bore loquaciousness--everybody wins. When you're dealing with a target, the calculus is a lot different--then you have to weigh your punitive goals into the immunity decision by weighing what you're likely to get from the witness (evidence) against what you are giving up (time and punishment). With Tyler, the feds weren't seeking his punishment, so the immunity decision was easy. Same with Tammy and Barry. They were small fry. The feds wanted BALCO.

 

[The Plediadian]

Perjury? Well, duh .......... what controlled substances had they to confess to get the deal. Will Tyler be placed in Witness Protection?


What ..... I've been trolling you since before you set off for pretend law school.

Yes, Tyler will testify and be put in the Witless Protection program, and he will be living with Mike(Dirt)Ball as his live in gardener.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Feds really care about investigating dope dealers. The "Lance Armstrong Investigation" must include a dope ring investigation or investigations, while it might include an investigation of the great white whale himself.

You're looking at immunity the wrong way. You're looking at it from the POV of a target. If you look at it from the point of view of the small fry, you'll understand it much easier. The feds don't care about Ty and they wanted him to open up so the could go after their targets. It is like a straight trade--5th Amendment in exchange for full-bore loquaciousness--everybody wins. When you're dealing with a target, the calculus is a lot different--then you have to weigh your punitive goals into the immunity decision by weighing what you're likely to get from the witness (evidence) against what you are giving up (time and punishment). With Tyler, the feds weren't seeking his punishment, so the immunity decision was easy. Same with Tammy and Barry. They were small fry. The feds wanted BALCO.

You're right I am looking at immunity the wrong way.

I want my "controlled substances immunity" that you promised some posts back - now your only offering immunity from something he won't ever be charged with.

 

[Velodude]

Yeah! It's a wild hypothetical that the feds are probably investigating organized criminals who distribute controlled substances to cyclists.

What was I thinking??? How could anything deter the federal government from its obsessive pursuit of Moby D~ck, er . . .Lance Armstrong!

Counselor, you presented a scenario riddled not with fact but with speculations.

Your hypothetical scenario contained only speculations which included the Feds had granted Tyler immunity so he could answer questions freely about LA.

But fact is Tyler’s lawyer has informed the public in an interview on Velonews on May 25, 2011 he was granted with immunity.

He also points out that Lance Armstrong wanted Tyler to join him in a coordinated response which would obviously presume a joint defense, no doubt prospective. Rejected by TH. Non target Lance making his bed.

Your scenario continues about fairy tale criminal possession and criminal delivery of drugs by TH when the AAF related to a non controlled drug, DHEA.

You are continuing your usual efforts of obfuscation when the ridiculousness of your arguments is exposed.

Remember the absurdity of your argument that Fifth Amendment protection exists though immunity is granted? You came under wide spread heavy criticism and absented yourself from the forum for some time after that pearler which you refused to let go.

 

[MarkvW]

You're right I am looking at immunity the wrong way.

I want my "controlled substances immunity" that you promised some posts back - now your only offering immunity from something he won't ever be charged with.

I'm not offering immunity. Tyler GOT immunity. That's the very point you were disputing so aggressively. But feel free to recast my point to suit your needs.

 

[MarkvW]

Counselor, you presented a scenario riddled not with fact but with speculations.

Your hypothetical scenario contained only speculations which included the Feds had granted Tyler immunity so he could answer questions freely about LA.

But fact is Tyler’s lawyer has informed the public in an interview on Velonews on May 25, 2011 he was granted with immunity.

He also points out that Lance Armstrong wanted Tyler to join him in a coordinated response which would obviously presume a joint defense, no doubt prospective. Rejected by TH. Non target Lance making his bed.

Your scenario continues about fairy tale criminal possession and criminal delivery of drugs by TH when the AAF related to a non controlled drug, DHEA.

You are continuing your usual efforts of obfuscation when the ridiculousness of your arguments is exposed.

Remember the absurdity of your argument that Fifth Amendment protection exists though immunity is granted? You came under wide spread heavy criticism and absented yourself from the forum for some time after that pearler which you refused to let go.

Yes! I was speculating! You got me. If you don't want to believe that the feds are investigating drug dealers with the grand jury, then good for you! Zero your mind in on Lance Armstrong and only Lance Armstrong and just BELIEVE that the feds are doing the same thing. BELIEVE! BELIEVE! BELIEVE!

And my point about the Fifth Amendment was very badly made. I deserve serious abuse for that--even abuse delivered in semi-literate form. But if that's the best you can do to riddle my argument that the Grand Jury is also investigating drug dealers, then your post is weak city!

And once you buy the argument that the feds are also investigating PED drug dealers in cycling, then you just can't believe that the investigation is ONLY about Lance Armstrong. Can you handle that?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes! I was speculating! You got me. If you don't want to believe that the feds are investigating drug dealers with the grand jury, then good for you! Zero your mind in on Lance Armstrong and only Lance Armstrong and just BELIEVE that the feds are doing the same thing. BELIEVE! BELIEVE! BELIEVE!

And my point about the Fifth Amendment was very badly made. I deserve serious abuse for that--even abuse delivered in semi-literate form. But if that's the best you can do to riddle my argument that the Grand Jury is also investigating drug dealers, then your post is weak city!

And once you buy the argument that the feds are also investigating PED drug dealers in cycling, then you just can't believe that the investigation is ONLY about Lance Armstrong. Can you handle that?

Can you point out who has ever said that the investigation is only about Lance?

 

[Velodude]

Yes! I was speculating! You got me. If you don't want to believe that the feds are investigating drug dealers with the grand jury, then good for you! Zero your mind in on Lance Armstrong and only Lance Armstrong and just BELIEVE that the feds are doing the same thing. BELIEVE! BELIEVE! BELIEVE!

And my point about the Fifth Amendment was very badly made. I deserve serious abuse for that--even abuse delivered in semi-literate form. But if that's the best you can do to riddle my argument that the Grand Jury is also investigating drug dealers, then your post is weak city!

And once you buy the argument that the feds are also investigating PED drug dealers in cycling, then you just can't believe that the investigation is ONLY about Lance Armstrong. Can you handle that?

You are aware that the Associated Press global news agency park observers outside the Grand Jury rooms in Los Angeles every Wednesday to identify witnesses.

Can you name any of the witnesses identified to date that would support your hypothesis, which is all it is, that this FDA investigation embraces crimes related to doping in cycling and not just Lance Armstrong?

Furthermore, as a GJ has been empaneled and sitting for over 18 months there must be a target or targets to bring down indictments. Who do you hypothesize the"doping in cycling" targets will be?

 

[MarkvW]

You are aware that the Associated Press global news agency park observers outside the Grand Jury rooms in Los Angeles every Wednesday to identify witnesses.

Can you name any of the witnesses identified to date that would support your hypothesis, which is all it is, that this FDA investigation embraces crimes related to doping in cycling and not just Lance Armstrong?

Furthermore, as a GJ has been empaneled and sitting for over 18 months there must be a target or targets to bring down indictments. Who do you hypothesize the"doping in cycling" targets will be?

I'm just saying that the feds are surely investigating the drug dealers, whomever they may be. If you want to believe that they are only investigating Lance, just repeat that mantra over and over and over.

 

[Oldman]

I'm just saying that the feds are surely investigating the drug dealers, whomever they may be. If you want to believe that they are only investigating Lance, just repeat that mantra over and over and over.

The Feds are more concerned about drug counterfeiters and distribution/finance networks. The only interest a simple dealer provides is a gateway to the bigger finance and production network. Dealers are only slightly more exciting than users (who are not interesting at all unless they're perjorous liars).
They can't bust riders for possession without the evidence. They can't bust them for simple dealing without the product. They can bust people for the finance/production/racketeering from emails. Popo can sing along with Tyler for a fine duet.

 

[python]

Can you point out who has ever said that the investigation is only about Lance?

i may disagree with mark's angle, but i don't understand why would you need to oversimplify and essentially distort his point.

 

[doolols]

The Feds are more concerned about drug counterfeiters and distribution/finance networks. The only interest a simple dealer provides is a gateway to the bigger finance and production network. Dealers are only slightly more exciting than users (who are not interesting at all unless they're perjorous liars).
They can't bust riders for possession without the evidence. They can't bust them for simple dealing without the product. They can bust people for the finance/production/racketeering from emails. Popo can sing along with Tyler for a fine duet.

I like this post. Sounds a lot more realistic than many going before it.

 

[thehog]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/drew-brees-tops-the-power-100-in-2012.html

CSE evaluated about 600 of the best-performing athletes from a pool of 3,000 based on statistics, the popularity and viewing audience of their sports, endorsement earnings, and their reach on social media. Nielsen/E-Poll N-Score data, based on surveys that evaluate such factors as players’ name and face awareness, appeal, influence, and trustworthiness, were also included to measure athletes’ endorsement potential. (Here’s more about the methodology.)

As Brees rose to the top, last year’s most powerful athlete, Peyton Manning, fell to 51st place because of injuries. Golfer Phil Mickelson dropped from No. 4 to No. 18 after a disappointing season. Lance Armstrong, No. 8 last year, fell off the list entirely. The pro cyclist announced his retirement in February and came under scrutiny for alleged drug use; Armstrong denied doping allegations.

 

[Cloxxki]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/drew-brees-tops-the-power-100-in-2012.html

CSE evaluated about 600 of the best-performing athletes from a pool of 3,000 based on statistics, the popularity and viewing audience of their sports, endorsement earnings, and their reach on social media. Nielsen/E-Poll N-Score data, based on surveys that evaluate such factors as players’ name and face awareness, appeal, influence, and trustworthiness, were also included to measure athletes’ endorsement potential. (Here’s more about the methodology.)

As Brees rose to the top, last year’s most powerful athlete, Peyton Manning, fell to 51st place because of injuries. Golfer Phil Mickelson dropped from No. 4 to No. 18 after a disappointing season. Lance Armstrong, No. 8 last year, fell off the list entirely. The pro cyclist announced his retirement in February and came under scrutiny for alleged drug use; Armstrong denied doping allegations.

Some karma is starting to surface.
And that's with a whole army of yellow volunteers dedicated to promoting his glory.

Actually, with survey in mind, what does that say of institutions that still cough up his apprearance fee? Reason for fed scrutiny in itself? Paying 1000x the reasonable price for appearance of basically a loser, could be misunderstood for money laundring.

 

[sherer]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/drew-brees-tops-the-power-100-in-2012.html

CSE evaluated about 600 of the best-performing athletes from a pool of 3,000 based on statistics, the popularity and viewing audience of their sports, endorsement earnings, and their reach on social media. Nielsen/E-Poll N-Score data, based on surveys that evaluate such factors as players’ name and face awareness, appeal, influence, and trustworthiness, were also included to measure athletes’ endorsement potential. (Here’s more about the methodology.)

As Brees rose to the top, last year’s most powerful athlete, Peyton Manning, fell to 51st place because of injuries. Golfer Phil Mickelson dropped from No. 4 to No. 18 after a disappointing season. Lance Armstrong, No. 8 last year, fell off the list entirely. The pro cyclist announced his retirement in February and came under scrutiny for alleged drug use; Armstrong denied doping allegations.

So let me get this straight. A retired sportsman is no longer high of the list of most viewed sports people on the list. To even this out how many other retired sportsmen are on that list ?

 

[thehog]

So let me get this straight. A retired sportsman is no longer high of the list of most viewed sports people on the list. To even this out how many other retired sportsmen are on that list ?

The knife cuts deep.

 

[Velodude]

So let me get this straight. A retired sportsman is no longer high of the list of most viewed sports people on the list. To even this out how many other retired sportsmen are on that list ?

Suggest you study the selection criteria:

CSE evaluated about 600 of the best-performing athletes from a pool of 3,000 based on statistics, the popularity and viewing audience of their sports, endorsement earnings, and their reach on social media. Nielsen/E-Poll N-Score data, based on surveys that evaluate such factors as players’ name and face awareness, appeal, influence, and trustworthiness, were also included to measure athletes’ endorsement potential.

All the criteria apply to Armstrong who retired in February 2011 from road racing but competed in off road events, marathons & triathalons.

The article noted "Absent: Lance Armstrong" which interprets he was eligible but missed the cut.

Appeal, influence and trustworthiness would be now negative factors.

 

[Louison]

Suggest you study the selection criteria:



All the criteria apply to Armstrong who retired in February 2011 from road racing but competed in off road events, marathons & triathalons.

The article noted "Absent: Lance Armstrong" which interprets he was eligible but missed the cut.

Appeal, influence and trustworthiness would be now negative factors.

His point isn't about eligibility, but about how athletes who retire from pro sports tend to drop very far or completely off these lists.

 

[Velodude]

His point isn't about eligibility, but about how athletes who retire from pro sports tend to drop very far or completely off these lists.

Analyze the criteria on which all nominees are judged.

The first criteria - "the popularity and viewing audience of their sports" - was never a game winner in the US for cycling. No movement for or against LA

The second - "endorsement earnings" - is a shoe-in for Armstrong as all his sponsors have stuck by him and he runs at circa $20m pa, substantially more than most others on the list.

The third - "their reach on social media" - as of today LA has 3,236,047 followers on Twitter (plus 22,000 + for Juan Pelota). This makes him the first sportsman on the Twitter list at #100 preceded only by popstars, TV/moviestars, reality stars, news bureaus & a US President. He has, like this forum, numerous forums specifically and vigorously debating his triumphs and flaws.

Armstrong fails in the next segment which is a measure of his endorsement potential - "name and face awareness, appeal, influence, and trustworthiness, were also included to measure athletes’ endorsement potential".

Armstrong has lost potential for new endorsements. He is fortunate the old brigade has stuck by him but there will be no new blood.

 

[spetsa]

His point isn't about eligibility, but about how athletes who retire from pro sports tend to drop very far or completely off these lists.

Four words; "reach on social media". A retired Lance Armstrong found it neccessary to have a lackey tweet on his behalf 24/7, making him the number one twit. This only changed when the average person new what a real twit, not the tweeting kind, he really is. Has nothing to do with his active status. Has everything to do with his a**hole status.

 

[MarkvW]

The Feds are more concerned about drug counterfeiters and distribution/finance networks. The only interest a simple dealer provides is a gateway to the bigger finance and production network. Dealers are only slightly more exciting than users (who are not interesting at all unless they're perjorous liars).
They can't bust riders for possession without the evidence. They can't bust them for simple dealing without the product. They can bust people for the finance/production/racketeering from emails. Popo can sing along with Tyler for a fine duet.

The drug counterfeiter point is very insightful. That really would explain the sustained presence of the FDA and help explain the duration of the investigation. And trying to work up the drug distribution/support chain would be irrestistible for the feds (as well as easy to justify before Congress).