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

[MarkvW]

Laughable, I'm as Liberal as you can get and more like a socialist. It would be more insulting to me if you called me a Conservative Republican than if you called me a Communist. Anyway, nice try!

The Armstrong thread is about criminal acts, not political affiliations....

You get a look at Velodude's post? Very informative and to the point. No excuse for you to feign confusion or ignorance after that.

He makes good points, but he's not taking your extreme position. "Beyond a reasonable doubt." You're talking slam dunk city--he's not. Show the proof that makes the slam dunk.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

He makes good points, but he's not taking your extreme position. "Beyond a reasonable doubt." You're talking slam dunk city--he's not. Show the proof that makes the slam dunk.

Here is a quote from Velodude;

"Persons running the RICO criminal enterprise are culpable. That is why Lance Armstrong falsely disassociated himself from ownership, directorship and management control of Tailwind when Floyd's allegations hit the fan in 2010."

I have no doubt that this is true. I also don't detect any ambiguity in his statement. Slam dunk. We both believe Armstrong to be guilty. How is my belief in Armstrong's guilt distinguishable from Velodude's? The verdict is guilty, not extremely guilty.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I read Velodude's post again...

He makes good points, but he's not taking your extreme position. "Beyond a reasonable doubt." You're talking slam dunk city--he's not. Show the proof that makes the slam dunk.

Just a brief comment on admissable evidence and related Federal crimes leading to Tailwind being declared a criminal enterprise for a RICO suit.

You have first hand eyewitness evidence from at least 3 US Postal riders that the team was on a doping program and the drugs were supplied by the team. This is in breach of the USPS/Tailwind contract covering 2002-2004 and numerous Federal laws relating to carriage, prescriptions and administering.

Funds were raised from the sale of team Trek bikes (120+ bikes per year) to fund the team doping program. By the manner the bikes were sold there will be a paper trail as admissable evidence to a bank account not in Tailwind's name or incorporated into Tailwind's books & income tax return.

The above involves money laundering and income tax evasion. The minimum of two Federal crimes within a 10 year period required for a RICO proceedings.

Persons running the RICO criminal enterprise are culpable. That is why Lance Armstrong falsely disassociated himself from ownership, directorship and management control of Tailwind when Floyd's allegations hit the fan in 2010.

Mark, I assume you're reading the same thing I am.

 

[Neworld]

You are asking me to support a belief that I do not have. I do not believe that Armstrong is not a target.

Aren't you saying, "I believe that Armstrong IS a target!"

NW

 

[Velodude]

I think your wrong here. Armstrong doesn't need to be stripped of his wins for SCA to appeal or take the matter to court. They were done over. The rules of arbitration were broken and SCA were "set up". Thats enough for the case to be heard again and this time in court.

There's also enough there to suggest that if Armstrong had tested positive in 2001 that he'd be banned for two years and not ridden the Tour thus not collected the 5m. There's now enough evidence to suggest that he had leaned on officials to overlook the doping and not be as tested as often.

SCA will wait for a judgement in the federal case. They won't be waiting for stripping of titles. Thats pointless. He still won those Tours by the laws of the day. You can't change that. Regardless if there's a retrospective stripping.

Its more about how the hearing was handled. One party turned up and played fair the other didn't. Believe you me judges and law makers never look kindly on those who attempt to BUCK arbitration. Its a sin of the highest order.

They will come down hard on Armstrong and SCA will collect 20m.

When you say:

The rules of arbitration were broken and SCA were "set up"

it may be grounds for an appeal within a specified time but not so if the parties settled the proceedings, signed releases and was recognised by the arbitrators.

A proceedings that have been settled can only "revived" as another proceeding if the settlement was obtained by fraud or there was a breach of a condition of settlement.

Armstrong was boasting he had won the case. If the terms of settlement were confidential, which is usual, then the case can be re-litigated on that ground.

But for SCA to recover any amounts paid to Tailwind (to be paid to Armstrong as a bonus) for a TdF win that win has to be removed from the record books. From my reading if Armstrong won in 2004, which he did, then SCA was under a legal obligation to pay Tailwind full stop. Hence the settlement to bring forward an incontestable outcome.

 

[Neworld]

Here's a little intermission topic for discussion... and sorry if this have already been addressed (send me a link of where to look if it has already been posted please).

So teams/riders like Gewiss, Festina, ONCE, Kelme, Tmobile, Liberty Seguros...all had team doctors, blood storage facilities etc...

Where were USPS/Disco's blood storage facilities? Sure Lance stored some blood in his apartment fridge, possibly procured from Shumi, but what about the road side team transfusion...where did all that blood come from and where/who was storing it? Certainly there are a lot more involved that could add to the extent of the doping process within USPS/Disco.

NW

 

[MarkvW]

Aren't you saying, "I believe that Armstrong IS a target!"

NW

No. But I do believe it is possible that he is a target. That's the most I'll draw from the secret proceedings.

 

[peterst6906]

No. But I do believe it is possible that he is a target. That's the most I'll draw from the secret proceedings.

In this instance, that is a very conservative approach. Nothing at all wrong with it, but there is a mound of reporting that shows the smoke is there.

It shouldn't be too much of a leap to conclude where the fire is.

Just some links between the origins of the case (ie. Landis' claims in 2010 and Novitzky starting on LA back in 2008) and the subsequent investigation:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/100729
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/politics/Big-Fish.html?page=all
http://deadspin.com/5821286/despite...-work-cheating-at-sports-is-still-not-a-crime
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrongs-new-nemesis-federal-agent-jeff-novitzky
http://bicycling.com/blogs/dailylance/tag/jeff-novitzky/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2005820,00.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-littman/lance-armstrongs-hunter_b_591660.html
http://yaleherald.com/sports/let-lance-livestrong-anti-anti-doping/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59234.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/sports/cycling/05armstrong.html?_r=1&hp
...
...
...
ad infinitum

They are not all wrong at this stage, especially as even in that quick group there are some highly respected traditional media companies.

Even Lance's legal team believe the investigators or someone involved in the GJ process has been leaking information to damage Lance (and complained to possibly gain access to sources for the press):

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2011/07/armstrongs_new_lawyers_go.php

All of that has been established way back in this thread.

LA has to be a target.

 

[ihatehills]

Hi all,
Lately this forum reads like a bunch of 4 year olds bickering in the back seat.
How about a rest in the constant attempts to correct each other?
Could we try some posts that actually further the reader’s knowledge of the situation?
Some plain old gossip would be an improvement
Thanks

 

[peterst6906]

Hi all,
Lately this forum reads like a bunch of 4 year olds bickering in the back seat.
How about a rest in the constant attempts to correct each other?
Could we try some posts that actually further the reader’s knowledge of the situation?
Some plain old gossip would be an improvement
Thanks

Feel free to start. Money where the mouth is and all that...

Though I think you'll find it difficult to add new details at this point as everything factual and a whole lot of additional conjecture is already in the thread. It's all in a holding cycle right now until something else leaks out or indictments are released.

No new details = lots of circular discussion

But I seem to remember from postings a few weeks ago that April 2012 is the expiry of the extension. So my guess is, by some Tuesday in April, we'll have a lot more to talk about: either LA's greatest victory or the indictments that will bring everything down.

 

[andy1234]

Hi all,
Lately this forum reads like a bunch of 4 year olds bickering in the back seat.
How about a rest in the constant attempts to correct each other?
Could we try some posts that actually further the reader’s knowledge of the situation?
Some plain old gossip would be an improvement
Thanks

That's what happens when people desperately wish they were a part of something that they are not. Instead they have to console themselves with arguing over the minutest detail, with anyone who will listen.

I imagine its what a Star Trek convention must be like.

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

Guys, guys just observe the inanity and the insanity. Anyway we can only talk about Lance and not other posters

 

[doolols]

you can try to save your blunder more if you like, but i did not see anyone stating jones went to prison for doping

You're actually really clever, do you know that? Well done!

So we've gone from DM saying she went to prison for perjury, nothing to do with doping.

You said "so she had nothing to do with doping?"

We point out your mis-reading, and that the prison term was nothing to do with doping.

And now you say that DM is accusing other people of saying she went to prison for doping, and blather on about wanting proof of this.

Class act. It takes real skill to twist words and meanings like that. Have you ever thought of being a lawyer? I understand there's a case going on that might need good lawyers.

Anyhow, the saddle and the open road are calling ...

 

[python]

You're actually really clever, do you know that? Well done!

thanks but i did nothing but quote maserati's own words that you continue to deny and interpret instead of direct reading. THOSE are maserati's real direct words. NOT MINE !

the SIMPLE point i made was that the false absolutes expressed in those quotes ('Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping' ) are the very reason for continued arguments where both parties (larry and dm) claim to agree on most issues regarding armstrong doping.

and what you completely chose to miss was that I asked maserati the very same question he often asked other posters and actually asked larry. nothing more and nothing less. it's you who somehow missed the simple irony and went on blathering. cheers.

 

[thehog]

When you say:

it may be grounds for an appeal within a specified time but not so if the parties settled the proceedings, signed releases and was recognised by the arbitrators.

A proceedings that have been settled can only "revived" as another proceeding if the settlement was obtained by fraud or there was a breach of a condition of settlement.

Armstrong was boasting he had won the case. If the terms of settlement were confidential, which is usual, then the case can be re-litigated on that ground.

But for SCA to recover any amounts paid to Tailwind (to be paid to Armstrong as a bonus) for a TdF win that win has to be removed from the record books. From my reading if Armstrong won in 2004, which he did, then SCA was under a legal obligation to pay Tailwind full stop. Hence the settlement to bring forward an incontestable outcome.

Good post and good discussion.

The way I'm seeing it that arbitration is a conciliatory process. The concept being that both parties are encouraged to come to agreement/settlement themselves.

Judgments are rare in such cases. Judges will often recommend to one or both parties the manner in which they should agree rather than make a ruling.

From the videos posted you can see how the process works. Its conducted around a small table and many of the witnesses aren't wearing ties etc. There"s joking between the lawyers and Armstrong etc.

With this in mind and the spirit which is intended SCA were "set up". The Armstrong team who took out the action had stacked the witnesses and doctored the evidence. SCA were never going to receive a fair hearing regardless of the non-entry of the doping clauses. In essence the hearing was hijacked and should be annulled.

With a new hearing SCA would question why Armstrong was attempting to conceal his doping from the hearing and hide the fact that his victories were won outside of the rules of the sport. The 2001 TdS positive/AAF could be shown that SCA entered the contract unaware that Armstrong going to defraud them - fair terms? They would have to pay the 5m without knowing he was doing so under false pre tense.

This is how they'd overturn the settlement. A ruling in the Federal trial would make this a simple case as they'd reference it at every turn rather than present the evidence themselves.

The stripping of victories means little. Armstrong would claim he won under the rules of the day and the sporting bodies gave him the victories. He would argue the money has been spent long ago and significant time has passed not to warrant any change in the settlement.

What I'm saying is aborting the arbiritration process is lot more serious in the eyes of the law than doping and thats where SCA would focus their appeal.

Judges are not really going to rule on the laws of sporting bodies but they will come down hard on those who break the laws of the land.

 

[Cloxxki]

Indeed Hog, a lot of reason to believe that Tailwind was a bit more certain about Armstrong's win than presented beforehand, and not on sporting grounds because of being the more capable or talented racer.
- UCI bribe and
- TUE procedure well established
- Ferrari secured for exclusive deal (timing?)
- furthermore team doping program to help him better than other captains would be able to get

And then when it became a case, outright perjury, witness tampering, etc.

When does perjury expire for appeal? Forgot english legal term.

 

[thehog]

Indeed Hog, a lot of reason to believe that Tailwind was a bit more certain about Armstrong's win than presented beforehand, and not on sporting grounds because of being the more capable or talented racer.
- UCI bribe and
- TUE procedure well established
- Ferrari secured for exclusive deal (timing?)
- furthermore team doping program to help him better than other captains would be able to get

And then when it became a case, outright perjury, witness tampering, etc.

When does perjury expire for appeal? Forgot english legal term.

There no real expiry date. If a ruling was made in the Federal case and Armstrong was still alive along with Tailwind Directors then they would apply to have the case reheard. A judge could say its been too many years and means little today. But i doubt that very much.

SCA signed a contract in good faith. Armstrong/Tailwind had the upper hand as they knew they had UCI etc etc etc in their pocket and more than likely could win the Tour without worrying about being caught or doping etc. SCA would not have factored that into their risk on the 5m.

They were deceived pure and simple. Stripping of victories means little now. They won't be arguing the point of the original case they will be arguing that they were defrauded in the original contract and at the hearing.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

My post 10424

You're actually really clever, do you know that? Well done!

So we've gone from DM saying she went to prison for perjury, nothing to do with doping.

You said "so she had nothing to do with doping?"

We point out your mis-reading, and that the prison term was nothing to do with doping.

And now you say that DM is accusing other people of saying she went to prison for doping, and blather on about wanting proof of this.

Class act. It takes real skill to twist words and meanings like that. Have you ever thought of being a lawyer? I understand there's a case going on that might need good lawyers.

Anyhow, the saddle and the open road are calling ...

Here it is.....

If they show that Armstrong trafficked in drugs, laundered money, transported drugs, hired others to transport drugs, intimidated witnesses, impeded an investigation, etc. then he is in serious trouble. If he is stupid enough to fight this in court he will go to prison.

There is plenty in the public domain that shows Armstrong is facing multiple, serious, expensive, legal entanglements that will take years and millions of $$$. Coupled with a shrinking income this will result in a high likelihood of serious financial issues

There is plenty in the public domain to support that this could happen. You do not have to be a "hater", or sleeping with a prosecutor, to understand this......but it is much easier to toss out insults and bait then to discuss the actual topic

Firstly - can you calm down a bit, we are actually in agreement of a lot of things, the only difference is for me is that he does not end up in prison.

I didn't distort things - in fact it was even in the piece you quoted.





This appears to be the basis for you believing he will end up in jail.

What 'tons of evidence' do you believe the prosecution can show? That LA was the leader of the team? An ass? The biggest benefactor? Sure, but what evidence ties him to crimes? (And indeed what crimes?)

I count 6 areas that Race Radio has delineated and I'll bet the actual counts of those charges will bemultiples of that number.

Yes, she lied about the doping - it does not matter what she lied about except that she lied to the Feds, which is perjury.
Doping is not a crime, which is why she got canned for perjury.


I think the Feds will find enough evidence of racketeering, however I am not yet hopeful that they will be able to, as you say directly link Armstrong to it.

Did he know about it? Yes? Did he benefit from it? Yes. The Feds will have a tough time proving that Armstrong knew what was going on.
I would be quite happy for LA to do some prison time - but I doubt that will happen (although his tax affairs could prove interesting) - but even if he does not do a day he will be stripped of what he most craved, the adulation -as he will be viewed as the biggest fraud in sports history..

Hardly meaningless - Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping.
As Armstrong will be a target, not a witness he wont be questioned by the Feds (like Jones) but on a stand. Even if he lies there (big if) they do not usually pursue perjury charges.



No doubt Armstrong is the name and that he will be the center of any media focus.
But as for doing jail time - as I said, others will be in a more direct firing line than LA - so even though I would love to see it these types usually have enough distance from any crimes and the money to fight/reduce exposure jail time.

I am calm, it's just that you keep repeating stuff that is not true and which gives Armstrong somewhat of a pass.

I know you and I agree about 99% which makes your interpretation of the evidence even more annoying.

Whatever it is that makes Armstrong seemingly unassailable to you, serves to exonerate him in the eyes of the idolaters.

A lot of the evidence will be in the form of eyewitness testimony from those who've made deals. Armstrong is isolated now. Who's going to take the fall, Knaggs or Stapleton?

--------------------------------------------------------------

None of this has anything to do with being clever or twisting words. It has to do with reading what people wrote. I actually made an important point which isn't minor.

It's the same nonsense as when people said Clinton was sanctioned for lying and lying only. Clinton was sanctioned for lying about a consensual affair, an immaterial lie which he should never have been questioned about as consensual affairs are not illegal or even related to illegal activity.

 

[Dallas_]

Flush hand!

From the videos posted you can see how the process works. Its conducted around a small table and many of the witnesses aren't wearing ties etc. There"s joking between the lawyers and Armstrong etc.

With this in mind and the spirit which is intended SCA were "set up". The Armstrong team who took out the action had stacked the witnesses and doctored the evidence. SCA were never going to receive a fair hearing regardless of the non-entry of the doping clauses. In essence the hearing was hijacked and should be annulled.

What I'm saying is aborting the arbiritration process is lot more serious in the eyes of the law than doping and thats where SCA would focus their appeal.

Judges are not really going to rule on the laws of sporting bodies but they will come down hard on those who break the laws of the land.

My sentiments exactly.

Could SCA produce a trump card?

eg Pay up WonderBoy or else we ask the relevant authorities to persue a perjury charge.

I still think that a perjury charge could be one of the more serious charges he may face.

Does perjury lead to the same house as Marion was forced to stay at?

stay tuned
.

 

[ChrisE]

LBM -

It seems you're saying that anybody can lie on the stand or to the GJ about anything, as long as their lies don't pertain to the "subject" being investigated?

So, if I ever get subpenaed and they ask me to state my name, I can say "Larry Bud Melman"? Then, shoot my finger at them when it pizzes them off?

When does lying go from being "innocent" or "irrelevant" to obstruting justice?

 

[Velodude]

My sentiments exactly.

Could SCA produce a trump card?

eg Pay up WonderBoy or else we ask the relevant authorities to persue a perjury charge.

I still think that a perjury charge could be one of the more serious charges he may face.

Does perjury lead to the same house as Marion was forced to stay at?

stay tuned
.

That has the characteristics of a threat. And threats are usually in breach of the law. Check the equivalent Texas criminal code.

If the arbitration was conducted under the laws of Texas the matter of perjury, once proven, could be brought before the Texas A-G.

In a lot of jurisdictions the court has an obligation to refer breaches of other jurisdiction's laws to that jurisdiction.

 

[MarkvW]

In this instance, that is a very conservative approach. Nothing at all wrong with it, but there is a mound of reporting that shows the smoke is there.

It shouldn't be too much of a leap to conclude where the fire is.

Just some links between the origins of the case (ie. Landis' claims in 2010 and Novitzky starting on LA back in 2008) and the subsequent investigation:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/100729
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/politics/Big-Fish.html?page=all
http://deadspin.com/5821286/despite...-work-cheating-at-sports-is-still-not-a-crime
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrongs-new-nemesis-federal-agent-jeff-novitzky
http://bicycling.com/blogs/dailylance/tag/jeff-novitzky/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2005820,00.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-littman/lance-armstrongs-hunter_b_591660.html
http://yaleherald.com/sports/let-lance-livestrong-anti-anti-doping/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59234.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/sports/cycling/05armstrong.html?_r=1&hp
...
...
...
ad infinitum

They are not all wrong at this stage, especially as even in that quick group there are some highly respected traditional media companies.

Even Lance's legal team believe the investigators or someone involved in the GJ process has been leaking information to damage Lance (and complained to possibly gain access to sources for the press):

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2011/07/armstrongs_new_lawyers_go.php

All of that has been established way back in this thread.

LA has to be a target.

I discount the media heavily because there is a dearth of sources. They are all churning the same few facts over and over again, just like we are. I've seen commentary that suggests Lance will be indicted, commentary that suggests that he won't, and fence sitting commentary. And it't all over the same few facts. I haven't yet seen a lawyer come out and say Lance will be indicted. After all this time, that is where the media is.

Assuming that Lance was once a target, would the feds still be chasing Lance without a provable case after all this time? Maybe, but I doubt it. Spending millions in a an effort to catch a popular public figure, and coming up with nothing would be politically very unattractive. A large segment of the population are predisposed against the idea of a using federal criminal money to police sports. And no media outlet is suggesting that there are sealed indictments. If you pressed any media commentator to say why Lance is still a target, I doubt he'd do any better job of making his case than you just did.

The motive behind Lance's defensive actions are ambiguous. Clearly he is being investigated and clearly his doping actions are under investigation. Those two things, by themselves, are enough to justify his hyperkinetic legal and PR counterattack. Lance may be defending for other reasons (like he thinks he's a GJ target), but he is surely defending because he is afraid for his reputation and its monetary value. Lance would defend his reputation fiercely even if he wasn't a GJ target (i.e., in a Bonds situation, for example). Lance's behavior doesn't convince me he's a target.

We see the snippets of the investigation of Lance because Lance is a public figure. But this isn't the "Lance Armstrong Investigation" any more than it is the Joe Papp or Michael Ball Investigation. It is an investigation big enough to engage multiple agencies over multiple years. It is reasonable to suggest that drug distributors, counterfeiters, EPO docs, etc. are also being investigated. Unless we know who these other subjects are, and how "big" they are, we can't evaluate the Lance Armstrong "piece" as it relates to the whole. Lance could be relatively minor and not a target (like Barry Bonds in the BALCO investigation) or he could be huge and not a target (like Sammy Gravano In the Gotti Investigation), or Lance is a target.

That's why I'm not convinced Lance is a target. I hope he is, but I'm just in wait and see mode. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

 

[Velodude]

I discount the media heavily because there is a dearth of sources. They are all churning the same few facts over and over again, just like we are. I've seen commentary that suggests Lance will be indicted, commentary that suggests that he won't, and fence sitting commentary. And it't all over the same few facts. I haven't yet seen a lawyer come out and say Lance will be indicted. After all this time, that is where the media is.

Assuming that Lance was once a target, would the feds still be chasing Lance without a provable case after all this time? Maybe, but I doubt it. Spending millions in a an effort to catch a popular public figure, and coming up with nothing would be politically very unattractive. A large segment of the population are predisposed against the idea of a using federal criminal money to police sports. And no media outlet is suggesting that there are sealed indictments. If you pressed any media commentator to say why Lance is still a target, I doubt he'd do any better job of making his case than you just did.

The motive behind Lance's defensive actions are ambiguous. Clearly he is being investigated and clearly his doping actions are under investigation. Those two things, by themselves, are enough to justify his hyperkinetic legal and PR counterattack. Lance may be defending for other reasons (like he thinks he's a GJ target), but he is surely defending because he is afraid for his reputation and its monetary value. Lance would defend his reputation fiercely even if he wasn't a GJ target (i.e., in a Bonds situation, for example). Lance's behavior doesn't convince me he's a target.

We see the snippets of the investigation of Lance because Lance is a public figure. But this isn't the "Lance Armstrong Investigation" any more than it is the Joe Papp or Michael Ball Investigation. It is an investigation big enough to engage multiple agencies over multiple years. It is reasonable to suggest that drug distributors, counterfeiters, EPO docs, etc. are also being investigated. Unless we know who these other subjects are, and how "big" they are, we can't evaluate the Lance Armstrong "piece" as it relates to the whole. Lance could be relatively minor and not a target (like Barry Bonds in the BALCO investigation) or he could be huge and not a target (like Sammy Gravano In the Gotti Investigation), or Lance is a target.

That's why I'm not convinced Lance is a target. I hope he is, but I'm just in wait and see mode. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Do you have meetings with all others who share this view in a telephone booth?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

<snipped to point>
--------------------------------------------------------------

None of this has anything to do with being clever or twisting words. It has to do with reading what people wrote. I actually made an important point which isn't minor.

It does - however it did not involve you, this is a different matter involving Python from another thread.

I made a distinction, which I believe is perfectly valid.
If you need me to explain or clarify a point then by all means ask away.
Or we can simply agree to disagree.

It's the same nonsense as when people said Clinton was sanctioned for lying and lying only. Clinton was sanctioned for lying about a consensual affair, an immaterial lie which he should never have been questioned about as consensual affairs are not illegal or even related to illegal activity.

I don't know the in and outs (boom, boom) of the Clinton case.

But if we were discussing Balco when it was first started and apply some of the same arguments here than some could conclude that Conte was looking at death row because he was caught making unapproved drugs, that were PEDs, and he was selling them and making huge profits, exposing himself to money laundering and tax issues etc.
He was the main man of that investigation and yet the custodial part of his sentence was just 4 months.
That is the main reason I am not rushing to assume that LA will end up serving jail-time. YMMV

 

[MarkvW]

. . . .But if we were discussing Balco when it was first started and apply some of the same arguments here than some could conclude that Conte was looking at death row because he was caught making unapproved drugs, that were PEDs, and he was selling them and making huge profits, exposing himself to money laundering and tax issues etc.
He was the main man of that investigation and yet the custodial part of his sentence was just 4 months.
That is the main reason I am not rushing to assume that LA will end up serving jail-time. YMMV

Minor point: Conte was not the manufacturer of the "the Clear". That dubious distinction belongs to Patrick Arnold.