“It’s hard to see why the United States Attorney’s office backed off,” said Golden Gate University law professor and dean emeritus Peter Keane. “The bottom line for both agencies was this: Was Lance Armstrong doping? So why would one agency, USADA, move forward and strip Armstrong of everything while another agency, the U.S. Attorney’s office, dropped everything?
“The U.S. Attorney will have to come up with some fairly substantial explanations as to why he didn’t go forward with this,” Keane added.
I agree. People will be whining about Lance not being criminally charged well into the indefinite future.Race Radio said:
Hope so! But what pressure can be put on Birotte to restart the DOJ case? If Birotte is close to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, then it's hard to see -- beyond a bit of embarrassing PR, which might not be enough -- what exactly would force the DOJ's hand.Race Radio said:
No, this has been brought up before. Statute of limitations doesn't apply since individuals were active and keeping it covered up.MarkvW said:I agree. People will be whining about Lance not being criminally charged well into the indefinite future.
But the fundamental problem with the statute of limitations remains.
Statute of limitations does still apply in a conspiracy case. What changes is the time at which you begin the clock. Considering the fed case has to do with misuse of government funds, its hard to imagine that the last overt act for which the feds would be charging Armstrong was at anytime other than pretty far in the past:Zweistein said:No, this has been brought up before. Statute of limitations doesn't apply since individuals were active and keeping it covered up.
Care to explain why the austrian anti-doping agency denied that germans were involved with Humanplasma, yet confirmed investigating athletes from several other countries, including Russia, Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria? Care to explain why the lab specifically denied the rumours of german athletes when admitting to having carried out transfusions on 30+ athletes from several disciplines and nations, including austrians and while naming the organisers (Matschiner, Mayer, Kessler)? Care to explain why Matschiner denied, with "99% certainty", that any german athletes were among the ~35 athletes who visited Humanplasma, while discussing bringing BB's from HP to athletes from Italy, Russia, Netherlands, Denmark and Austria? Care to explain why we know that HP's clientele included ~10 cyclists, a handful of rowers, at least a handful of track athletes and triathletes and at least 7 austrian skiers (not on that list), which does not gel with ARD's report?Bavarianrider said:In the winter of 2007/2008 german media reported about a possible doping scandal within German biathlon. Even a list of the involved athletes was published on the internet.
Only 2 days later the TV stages officialy appolgized, saying they made a big mistake and so on.
What you have to know, it was the ARD the state owned premier TV station of Germany. Most german biathletes are working for the state as soldiers or police officers.
No more explanation needed i guess
That's quite the unsmileyface. Maybe has good reason to worry.gooner said:Good to see the media flag up the political pressure to stop all this.
As noted in Thursday’s New York Times, the website StandUpForLance.com was purchased by Hoagland, the chairman of Restore America’s Voice Foundation, to support the cyclist as he fights a doping scandal.
“We thought, here’s a guy getting a raw deal,” said Hoagland. “We were planning on taking out national ads.”
But now Hoagland, like many others, is having second thoughts about Armstrong’s innocence and has shelved any plans for the site.
From the NY Daily News article linked a few posts above, it looks like Sensenbrenner has no comment and Rubio didn't respond to a request for comment...no word about Conyers.Big Daddy said:What are the US Congressmen saying now that the USADA evidence shows that Armstrong doped? It appears that they actively supported a doper.
gooner said:New York Daily News says investigators are still furious with Birotte for closing the fed case. Talks about political influence and possible corruption involved.
I think Armstrong and Birotte thought once they closed to the Federal case that USADA could go nowhere with their case.Lukenwolf said:I wonder why nobody goes for Birotte's throat. He had the power to subpoena the guys, but USADA got their testimonies without being able to do so. Birotte is so corrupt, he makes a 3rd world dictator look like Gandhi. They should also oust all those Senators and Congressmen who had been bought by BribeStrong. This makes the worlds 'greatest country' look like the Federal Banana Republic Of Americaland.
Its very strange. Strange indeed. Armstrong was known to barter off health care to those with sick family members etc. but it had to be more than this.Pazuzu said:I'd love to know what was behind Birotte's decision. Maybe it's all above board. But... so much about it is suspicious - the timing (droping the case while agents were feverishly collecting info with the expectation that charges would be filed soon), the reported lack of consultation, Fabiani's reported conections, the attempts at political interference by Armstrong's operatives in the USADA's case, & THE FACT THAT THE FEDS REFUSED TO SHARE THEIR EVIDENCE WITH USADA.
Pazuzu said:I'd love to know what was behind Birotte's decision. Maybe it's all above board. But... so much about it is suspicious - the timing (droping the case while agents were feverishly collecting info with the expectation that charges would be filed soon), the reported lack of consultation, Fabiani's reported conections, the attempts at political interference by Armstrong's operatives in the USADA's case, & THE FACT THAT THE FEDS REFUSED TO SHARE THEIR EVIDENCE WITH USADA.
While I have the same questions as you do, I think the quoted part above can be explained pretty easily. USADA is not a law enforcement agency. They cannot charge anyone with a crime. As such a law enforcement agency passing around possible trial evidence probably violates some standards.Pazuzu said:THE FACT THAT THE FEDS REFUSED TO SHARE THEIR EVIDENCE WITH USADA.
Depends on the terms and conditions (T&C) of entering the Livestrong program. And whether the person consents to the use of their data, etc in the T&C.Dear Wiggo said:Is that even legal? To threaten to use your charity's database against someone?