Opinion: Will Armstrong do jail time?

[mwbyrd]

Seriously? Actually, the ignorance is quite entertaining.

Frankie's wife, correct?

My question wouldn't apply to you. You are directly involved in the whole LA fiasco. Have you and Frankie been affected, most definitely.

 

[mwbyrd]

It appears you are repeating talking points, not reality.

*The UCI has admitted Armstrong made at least $125,000 in donations.
*Ferrari had an exclusive deal with Armstrong. He worked with no other GT riders
*LeMond has been talking about doping in the sport for decades. Armstrong likes to pretend everything is all about him....when it clearly isn't.

RR,

How about this then...Why when L'equipe said they tested samples from the 99 Tour, they stated they found tainted samples in multiple riders, yet the only name released was LA. Why weren't the names of the other riders released?

My only point is that it's easy to say LA was 'the only one'. But how do we 'REALLY' know?

The only reason we talk about LeMond and Doping are his repeated remarks/attacks against Armstrong.

 

[jimbob_in_co]

So I went back and read your posts:

jimbob_in_co: "I was never an employee, just a sucker who gave a fair amount of my time and money. As for disgruntled, I'm guilty as charged"


It looks like you don't like the LAF. I can understand that.

I'm a pretty easy going person (really, I am) and have been hacking HTML and surfing around the WWW since late 1994, but I had to update your above quoted post a little for clarity, and have to say it was kind of uncool in its original format. Originally I linked to a post detailing my reasons in response to your repeated inquiries, and you come back with another my early posts, unreferenced, for your own purposes.

My 'anti-troll shield' is being redeployed.

PS Identifying fellow forum members by actual name in the public mesages (in any forum, not just here) is also considered 'to be in bad taste'.

"but then that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller

 

[Berzin]

And yet, he still finished 4th in the final TT. I guess it is possible to get a result without being completely doped, contrary to what I've read on the internets.

I don't see how your logic works here. This would be true if he hadn't doped AT ALL, but he was doping the whole time he rode for this team. He just got one blood bag thrown out in the middle of one Tour.

This doesn't take into account the doping throughout the year, or whatever he was taking aside from the transfusion.

If he hadn't come into the race fully doped, he wouldn't had made the Tour team.

 

[Berzin]

RR, How about this then...Why when L'equipe said they tested samples from the 99 Tour, they stated they found tainted samples in multiple riders, yet the only name released was LA. Why weren't the names of the other riders released?

Does this line of reasoning make Armstrong's samples any less tainted?

My only point is that it's easy to say LA was 'the only one'. But how do we 'REALLY' know?

It doesn't matter whether he was the only one or not. It doesn't make him any less culpable. Listen, I've argued the same point about the Valverde suspension, but Operation Puerto was much bigger in scope and so many athletes wound up not getting caught this it just made the few sanctions that were handed out a complete farce in my book.

The only reason we talk about LeMond and doping are his repeated remarks/attacks against Armstrong.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[mwbyrd]

I'm a pretty easy going person (really, I am) and have been hacking HTML and surfing around the WWW since late 1994, but I had to update your above quoted post a little for clarity, and have to say it was kind of uncool in its original format. Originally I linked to a post detailing my reasons in response to your repeated inquiries, and you come back with another my my early posts, unreferenced, for your own purposes.

My 'anti-troll shield' is being redeployed.

PS Identifying fellow forum members by actual name in the public mesages (in any forum, not just here) is also considered 'to be in bad taste'.

"but then that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller

What are you talking about? Hacking HTML and surfing the WWW since 1994?

Yeah, I went back and read the thread that you referenced and copied exactly what you wrote (maybe I didn't put your name in front of the post, my bad). But I was wondering about your dislike for LAF and found it. Just put it up on the thread to let you know, "I get it".

As for trolling, it's an open forum, I haven't attacked anyone, just asked questions about the reasoning behind there posts.

 

[Hugh Januss]

RR,

How about this then...Why when L'equipe said they tested samples from the 99 Tour, they stated they found tainted samples in multiple riders, yet the only name released was LA. Why weren't the names of the other riders released?

My only point is that it's easy to say LA was 'the only one'. But how do we 'REALLY' know?

The only reason we talk about LeMond and Doping are his repeated remarks/attacks against Armstrong.

You should really learn to shut up and read when you don't know what you are talking (typing?) about.
1. There was plenty of speculation both on this forum and others about the other positives. It is not that hard to figure most since the stages that the samples came from are known as is what riders would have been tested then. IIRC all (or nearly all) prologue samples were positive. LA's is the only one we know for sure simply because the UCI and LA were tricked into releasing his forms.
2. Nobody has said that Armstrong is the only one who doped, just that he is one who benefited the most. He is however the only one to hide behind a Cancer Charity any time doping questions are raised.
3.As has been said many times LeMond has been a proponent of clean cycling for some time. This forum went on at great length a year and a half ago about his (LeMond's) comments about Contadors estimated climbing output. As I recall many forumites who could be quantified as Bertie fanboys were taking a similar tack to what you are now.

Read more, post less, maybe you'll learn something.

 

[jimbob_in_co]

My 'anti-troll shield' is being redeployed.

"They seem to be firing at us, Captain. Shields are holding"
"Steady on, Mr. Chekov."

 

[mwbyrd]

You should really learn to shut up and read when you don't know what you are talking (typing?) about.
1. There was plenty of speculation both on this forum and others about the other positives. It is not that hard to figure most since the stages that the samples came from are known as is what riders would have been tested then. IIRC all (or nearly all) prologue samples were positive. LA's is the only one we know for sure simply because the UCI and LA were tricked into releasing his forms.
2. Nobody has said that Armstrong is the only one who doped, just that he is one who benefited the most. He is however the only one to hide behind a Cancer Charity any time doping questions are raised.
3.As has been said many times LeMond has been a proponent of clean cycling for some time. This forum went on at great length a year and a half ago about his (LeMond's) comments about Contadors estimated climbing output. As I recall many forumites who could be quantified as Bertie fanboys were taking a similar tack to what you are now.

Read more, post less, maybe you'll learn something.

Nice personal attack...counterpoints about my statements are made (as if they are FACT) and I counter with my reasoning and I'm the bad guy. Go figure....

 

[Hugh Januss]

Nice personal attack...counterpoints about my statements are made (as if they are FACT) and I counter with my reasoning and I'm the bad guy. Go figure....

I didn't say you are a bad guy, just maybe not very bright, that can't be helped.
My "counterpoints" are in fact FACTs.

I'll try to help you. Follow along, as best you can.
1.Plenty of speculation of other positives in 99 on this and other forums. FACT
2.Who is this person who has been saying Armstrong is the only doper?
3.You would have to do your own homework on this one, but LeMond has talked about other dopers like Contador. He has also come up with a number of suggestions for power testing and so on. I believe he also testified at the hearing of some other American doper, Floyd somebody?
Those are things that actually happened.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

RR,

How about this then...Why when L'equipe said they tested samples from the 99 Tour, they stated they found tainted samples in multiple riders, yet the only name released was LA. Why weren't the names of the other riders released?

My only point is that it's easy to say LA was 'the only one'. But how do we 'REALLY' know?

The only reason we talk about LeMond and Doping are his repeated remarks/attacks against Armstrong.

Easy.
Because when the journalist Damien Ressiot checked the numbers against the 99 positives the only doping control numbers he had were Armstrongs - which had been kindly given to Ressiot by Dr. Zorzoli of the UCI.

Funny thing is - all that was covered in the L'Equipe article you are attempting to bash...... you obviously never read it.

 

[oldschoolnik]

"They seem to be firing at us, Captain. Shields are holding"
"Steady on, Mr. Chekov."

"Captain, you'd better get Ahura up to the bridge, in case this one ends up coming aboard -- he doesn't seem to be want to answer any of our questions - maybe he just doesn't understand?"

 

[oldschoolnik]

And yet, he still finished 4th in the final TT. I guess it is possible to get a result without being completely doped, contrary to what I've read on the internets.

True, but the rest day was 5 days before the final ITT and who know's what other doping arrangements were made after they tossed his blood that day. Maybe they did it just to prove a point but then realized they needed FL's firepower in the mts and brought in some more of his blood via refrigerated panel courier

bottom line: Incomplete information.

 

[oldschoolnik]

What are you talking about? Hacking HTML and surfing the WWW since 1994?

Yeah, I went back and read the thread that you referenced and copied exactly what you wrote (maybe I didn't put your name in front of the post, my bad). But I was wondering about your dislike for LAF and found it. Just put it up on the thread to let you know, "I get it".

As for trolling, it's an open forum, I haven't attacked anyone, just asked questions about the reasoning behind there posts.

Your key thesis that LA's actions shouldn't bother anyone because we haven't been "personally affected" is ridiculous. There are plenty of things that I read about where you say, "really? you said that?" or "really you did that" I recently read about a plumber who had somehow invested in Madoff and lost his savings - i neither know this plumber or have anything to do with Madoff - but damn it I can't be ****ed at Madoff, the SEC etc.. and want to see justice served. That's just one example of many.

 

[Race Radio]

RR,

How about this then...Why when L'equipe said they tested samples from the 99 Tour, they stated they found tainted samples in multiple riders, yet the only name released was LA. Why weren't the names of the other riders released?

My only point is that it's easy to say LA was 'the only one'. But how do we 'REALLY' know?

The only reason we talk about LeMond and Doping are his repeated remarks/attacks against Armstrong.

Dr. Mas has already answered your question....which has been covered over, and over, and over.

Even Trek had to struggle to come up with 3 quotes for their lawsuit. To read them now they seem tame. The fact remains that Greg has talked about doping for decades. It is only Armstrong and his groupie fans who think he only talks about Wonderboy.

 

[MacRoadie]

How about this then...Why when L'equipe said they tested samples from the 99 Tour, they stated they found tainted samples in multiple riders, yet the only name released was LA. Why weren't the names of the other riders released?

First things first. L'Equipe didn't 'test' anything, nor did they request any tests. They merely requested the results of previously commissioned retroactive testing utilizing a previously-unavailable test for EPO.

Second. As has been stated three more times (bringing the total to something in the neighborhood of 1,000,003), Armstrong was the only rider who's doping control forms were released to Ressiot. Did Ressiot only request Armstrongs? We don't know. Did he pick Armstrong because his article was on Armstrong? Possibly. Was it because Ressiot thought the odds that Armstrong doped were good? Also possible. Was it because he figured he couldn't ask for ALL the doping control forms from '99, so he'd go with the winner and take his chances? Again, possible.

My only point is that it's easy to say LA was 'the only one'. But how do we 'REALLY' know?

Of course it is easy to say LA was 'the only one': about as easy as it was for you to make the assertion up out of whole cloth and type it into your post. Trouble is, no one has ever said he was the only one (not in the media, in these forums, anywhere). One thing we DO 'REALLY' know, is that Armstrong WASN'T the only one.

The only reason we talk about LeMond and Doping are his repeated remarks/attacks against Armstrong.

The only thing YOU seem to talk about is your PERCEIVED notion that LeMond has focused his attacks against doping squarely on Armstrong, which history (and documents such as the Trek litigation briefs) has proven to be absolutely factually incorrect.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

This last part is especially true. Had Greg been out solely to smear Lance like some would have you believe, he would have dragged out the Trek lawsuit until the bloody end and all the nasty details came out. Instead, he settled, quite a bit before trial actually. It's also my understanding that he had most of the settlement money donated to charity.

 

[Merckx index]

Instead of a poll on whether or how much jail time LA might get, how about a poll on who is most likely to go to jail at all?

LA?
Bruyneel?
Stapleton?
Knaggs?
One of the wealthy investors?

 

[frenchfry]

RR,

How about this then...Why when L'equipe said they tested samples from the 99 Tour, they stated they found tainted samples in multiple riders, yet the only name released was LA. Why weren't the names of the other riders released?

My only point is that it's easy to say LA was 'the only one'. But how do we 'REALLY' know?

The only reason we talk about LeMond and Doping are his repeated remarks/attacks against Armstrong.

Nice try birdie man, but the other names were also released, the difference is that they didn't get as much attention. Fanboys often attempt to use the "why weren't the other names released" gimmick to divert attention from the truth.

Bo Hamburger - who also has the distinction of being the first rider positive when EPO testing started officially and who later admitted to using EPO among other PEDs.

Manuel Beltran - also positive in 2008 for EPO.

Joaquim Castelblanco - an unknown (at least to me) Columbian rider

Of the 12 samples found to contain EPO, 6 belonged to Armstrong. Interesting.

 

[sniper]

Of the 12 samples found to contain EPO, 6 belonged to Armstrong. Interesting.

Yes, and as clear as it all is, and as fraudulous the Vrijman report in 2005 was, what I still don't understand is how SCA came to pay that bonus.
They (their lawyers that is) could have dug in deeper, they could have shown with ease that LA is a fraud. Why didn't they? Anybody?

 

[thehog]

Yes, and as clear as it all is, and as fraudulous the Vrijman report in 2005 was, what I still don't understand is how SCA came to pay that bonus.
They (their lawyers that is) could have dug in deeper, they could have shown with ease that LA is a fraud. Why didn't they? Anybody?

The SCA case was settled once both parties realised that even with proof of doping the bonus would still need to be paid.

All that was needed was an acknowledgment of the win by ASO. Armstrong passed the tests of the day and was awarded the win. The contract makes no mention of doping just of a "legitimate" win authorised by the governing bodies.

 

[sniper]

The SCA case was settled once both parties realised that even with proof of doping the bonus would still need to be paid.

All that was needed was an acknowledgment of the win by ASO. Armstrong passed the tests of the day and was awarded the win. The contract makes no mention of doping just of a "legitimate" win authorised by the governing bodies.

Ok, I seeee. Much appreciated, Hog.
I was sort of in the dark about it.

 

[D-Queued]

The SCA case was settled once both parties realised that even with proof of doping the bonus would still need to be paid.

All that was needed was an acknowledgment of the win by ASO. Armstrong passed the tests of the day and was awarded the win. The contract makes no mention of doping just of a "legitimate" win authorised by the governing bodies.

The anti-doping clause was specifically removed from the contract. As this was agreed to prior to signing, that left SCA without much of a case on doping grounds specifically.

There would still seem to have been a fraud perpetrated, however.

From Lance's SCA Testimony:

Q. Okay. Have you actually seen the contract between my client, SCA Promotions, and Tailwind Sports?
A. Briefly.
Q. Obviously, you're -- you're deeply familiar with your contract with Tailwind that would require the payment of bonuses.
…
Q. Okay. So I noticed in -- in your most current contract with Tailwind, there's -- there's no provision regarding doping.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And there was one in your prior contract.
A. Uh-huh.

Good thing someone thought to remove any provision regarding doping.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

The anti-doping clause was specifically removed from the contract. As this was agreed to prior to signing, that left SCA without much of a case on doping grounds specifically.

There would still seem to have been a fraud perpetrated, however.

From Lance's SCA Testimony:



Good thing someone thought to remove any provision regarding doping.

Dave.

Nice pick up. I do like his responses to the questions. He really doesn't answer anything. Such a pestilent witness. I'm not sure it would be the same in a federal trial. I really wish I could find the video of the trial. It used to be out there.

There's a lot of milage in the SCA case. I wrote this in reply a few days back but got lost in a troll roll. I've pasted in again because I truly believe there will be SCA round 2 along with the whistleblower case and the Feds charges. The next 5 years will be tied up in court.

___

Its a strange one and I'm interested purely from a geeked legal perspective how SCA round 2 turns out.

Regardless if there was some wording in the final settlement to "no further legal recourse" that won't cover the fact the Armstrong not only lied himself but influenced others to lie.

SCA settled on the basis on the information that was presented.

Now the contract had zero provisions for drug use. The only catchment was if Armstrong was awarded the win by the ruling body then he collects the payout.

Trouble with this is now that he's lied it changes the perspective of the contract. ie if for example the SCA legal team and proven he had doped in the trial and then Armstrong was still awarded the win then there is argument that once the ruling body (ASO in this case) could have stripped him of the title after an investigation. The trial clearly shows Armstrong denying the use of drugs. Now ASO will never get around to residing the win but if the judge had this information at the time he could requested the payment to be held until ASO made some form of statement or began an investigation on the matter. If they didn't after "x" time the money would be awarded.

Its not perjury. The lying is inconsequential in arbitration but its an definite attempt to pervert the course of justice. Thats the bad part. Generally lying results in the course of justice being perverted. Fabrication also comes to mind.

Its simply not accepted to behave in this manner in arbitration and contract law. Its very serious.

Those who go on about statue of limitations etc. don't know what they're talking about. In the UK you see contract law being applied form the 1800's on property and the like. In the US you see contract law being applied from hand written notes on the bottom of beer coasters.

I understand the SCA have been told to "hold fire" on their suit until the Feds are finished. With Floyd as the star witness of the SCA I don't think Armstrong would stand a chance.

The entire topic needs its own thread.

 

[Dallas_]

Instead of a poll on whether or how much jail time LA might get, how about a poll on who is most likely to go to jail at all?

LA?
Bruyneel?
Stapleton?
Knaggs?
One of the wealthy investors?

According to the poll, LA is NOT going to the big house. Thats all settled then. That result should keep the fanboys happy.

Cant see the FEDS nailing Bruyneel for anything in the US. Possibley after the investigation, authorities in belgium could take an interest!

From what I have read, the last dude on your list is a person of interest! cheers