• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Sea Turtle Haemoglobin?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
QuickStepper said:
Moose:

I am not "BPC". I don't know who that is. I happen to be a California lawyer, a cyclist, and someone who followed the Balco debacle closely. Flame me all you want. But I'm certainly not who you think. I'm just a guy with a different point of view (evidently) than you, who has been around the block more than a few times with the justice system and happen to know how things work.

Right now there's a feeding frenzy, created mostly by the Rupert Murdoch-owned WSJ, which has run wild with the Landis nonsense, and as a result, every other major media outlet in the country (actually mostly just wire service reports) have picked up the story. Look at a more respected paper though like the Los Angeles Times....you won't find hardly a word about this...and don't you think that's strange...the hometown paper where this alleged "investigation" is taking place isn't even reporting it. Go figure.

Let's put it this way. Bryan Daly and the other white-collar guys at Sheppard Mullin have forgotten more about criminal law than Douglas Miller ever knew. You're right though, this is going to be fun to watch.

QS,
There are a lot of lawyers in California, many of which are terrible, some of which are good. Saying you're a lawyer means nothing. Has the LA Times covered this?

Let's see:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/22/sports/la-sp-0523-landis-whistleblower-20100523

Check out this article by your "respected paper". To them, Bruyneel is Armstrong's "longtime coach." Have a read. It's hilarious.

http://www.latimes.com/sns-ap-cyc-bruyneel-bikes,0,6634103.story

More Landis stuff:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_blog/2010/05/is-.html

Yeah, hardly "a word". Look, you sound as though you have an agenda. If you're being paid by Lance or his people, they're wasting their money. And you're wasting bandwidth, because no matter how badly you lie and how badly you want this to blow over, this investigation is going ahead.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
Visit site
Moose:

I didn't say the Times didn't cover the Landis allegations. I said they aren't reporting the actual nature of the investigation which is allegedly being conducted by Novitzky. From the time the WSJ first reported it shortly after the Tour started, until today, there has only been one brief blurb, which simply repeated that the "NY Daily News" was reporting that Lemond had received a subpoena. But there's no real information about the scope of the investigation, who are the alleged targets, or anything else of real substance.

And no, I'm not being paid by Lance or any of his business associates. I wish I was getting paid, but for now the monetary compensation is being directed to Sheppard Mullin.

Nope, I'm just a guy who has been a cyclist. I've been in practice for more than 30 years, I'm a partner at a well-known LA law firm, and have had extensive jury trial experience. I'm sure some people wouldn't be impressed, and I don't share these details to try to impress you. My only real purpose is so that you'll know (a) I'm not some other person, including "BPC" whoever that is, and (b) I have some independent experience with the federal judicial system here in the Central District of California. I decided to sign up here because, while I realize most people are convinced that Armstrong doped and that he's lying, much of what seems to pass for knowledge of how the Grand Jury system actually works, and how the feds choose to utilize their limited resources is, IMHO, way off the mark. I know that no one wants to hear anything other than that Lance Armstrong is going to be taken down, but that may just be some very wishful thinking. I could be wrong, but my experience tells me otherwise.

And finally, as for an "agenda"....I pay taxes. I hate government waste as much as the next guy. And having followed Balco, that should have been child's play, given that it was mostly confined to the Bay Area, and yet it consumed more than $50 million dollars of federal resources and got what? A couple of minor convictions of some really low level people? Balco was simple compared to what's been reported in the papers about this latest foray. International travel all over Europe, South America, Australia and the U.S. Hundreds of people of all different nationalities. Events that potentially stretch back to 1999 and beyond that. And in the midst of all of that, you've got internicine fueds and huge egos, reputations, cancer foundations, and hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate interests at stake. Balco was nothing compared to this, and that's why I don't think it's really going anywhere once the politicos and lobbyists get some of the really very powerful US Senators lined up. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
 
QuickStepper said:
Moose:

I didn't say the Times didn't cover the Landis allegations. I said they aren't reporting the actual nature of the investigation. From the time the WSJ first reported it shortly after the Tour started, until today, there has only been one brief blurb, which simply repeated that the "NY Daily News" was reporting that Lemond had received a subpoena. But there's no real information about the scope of the investigation, who are the alleged targets, or anything else of real substance.

And no, I'm not being paid by Lance or any of his business associates. I wish I was getting paid, but for now the monetary compensation is being directed to Sheppard Mullin.

Nope, I'm just a guy who has been a cyclist. I've been in practice for more than 30 years, I'm a partner at a well-known LA law firm, and have had extensive jury trial experience. I'm sure some people wouldn't be impressed, and I don't share these details to try to impress you. My only real purpose is so that you'll know (a) I'm not some other person, including "BPC" whoever that is, and (b) I have some independent experience with the federal judicial system here in the Central District of California. I decided to sign up here because, while I realize most people are convinced that Armstrong doped and that he's lying, much of what seems to pass for knowledge of how the Grand Jury system actually works, and how the feds choose to utilize their limited resources is, IMHO, way off the mark. I know that no one wants to hear anything other than that Lance Armstrong is going to be taken down, but that may just be some very wishful thinking. I could be wrong, but my experience tells me otherwise.

Fair enough. I respect that. Everyone has their own opinion, and I understand your background may give you some insight that others do not have.

But when you say, "Novitsky has overstepped his mandate.", first, what was his mandate, and how did he overstep it? So far, the guy hasn't said a word. The "overstepping his mandate" and "better use of tax dollars" argument is straight from the Lance camp, and, frankly, they're the last arguments that I'd expect to see from a disinterested and experienced California attorney.

What I would expect to see is an interest in a fruitful investigation. If Lance is innocent of the charges, fine. If he's guilty, he would be the perpetrator of a massive fraud not just in terms of money but in terms of people's hopes and trust.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
Visit site
I didn't say I was "disinterested." Perhaps my last edit (where I addressed the question of "agenda") crossed with your post. I'm anything but disinterested.
 
QuickStepper said:
I didn't say I was "disinterested." Perhaps my last edit (where I addressed the question of "agenda") crossed with your post. I'm anything but disinterested.

I should have been clearer. I meant disinterested in the sense of an objective third-party observer. And you didn't answer the question. You said Novitsky overstepped his mandate. What was his mandate and how did he overstep it?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Visit site
+1 QuickStepper,
but with all due respect, I beg to differ.

Novitzsky, the chief investigator in the Balco Scandal, kicked some major keester. In a sport that MATTERS (in the USA at least). Led to Congressional Hearings.

Bond's megabucks cannot buy happiness anymore:(

And Marion Jones did Jail Time. Incarceration:(

That said, Lance and company will have Novitzsky wearing a LiveStrong bracelet when all is said and done. BUT it will be a hard earned and awesome victory. Should not be minimized in my opinion.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
QuickStepper said:
And finally, as for an "agenda"....I pay taxes. I hate government waste as much as the next guy. And having followed Balco, that should have been child's play, given that it was mostly confined to the Bay Area, and yet it consumed more than $50 million dollars of federal resources and got what?

A couple of general thoughts. While it took me a while in reading the forum to figure this out, generally speaking over 99% of the "new posters" to the forum are actually a single individual. Strange, but true. Hence the reason people assumed that you were he...

As far as "an agenda", I guess that referring to LeMond as "a clown" automatically tends to give the impression that you have some sort of "pro Lance agenda", whether you do or you don't. Let's face it, he's a polarizing figure, and Armstrong has gone out of his way to popularize the perception of him as "clown" (even going as far as allegedly employing a PR firm to smear him).

So, you have to understand the context in which your possibly well-intended comments are viewed.

Lastly, as far as the issue of the government's role in something like this? Well, it's a pretty valid question. I have my own thoughts, but they're pretty complex, somewhat biased and way too much to post in a single internet post. Ultimately though, I think it's worth it and I'm glad they're doing it. Then again, cycling is my workplace so I have an obvious bias. I certainly agree that when it comes to fraud and pharmaceuticals, this is certainly among the bottom priorities, but it's not insignificant. This reporthere should at least give you some insight to the fact that illegal traffic in performance-enhancing drugs is a problem worth investigating.

As far as the end game? I think it's way too early to even speculate. I'm not a lawyer and to be honest my knowledge of the legal system is mostly confined to arguing a speeding ticket on my bicycle on my own behalf (I won!), and watching Law and Order episodes (every host house I've ever stayed in seems to have this on in the background).

I know enough to know that people with a lot of money get a better bite at the apple, and I know that LA and Co. have a lot of money, and he's connected to even more. I also know that sometimes wealthy people are convicted. Realistically, any finding or admission of guilt would get Armstrong out of cycling for a period of time, possibly a long one, and personally I think that's a positive thing. More than that though, I'm hoping that the governing bodies which allowed this to happen are held accountable
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
It's pretty funny how anyone expressing a slightly different view around here must have an "agenda" or be a paid plant. There is way more homogeneity in message amongst the "anti-lance/doping" crowd here than in the message of the few who are in some way on the other side of the non-debate. (there can be no debate here because the clinic regulars won't allow it).
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
Visit site
Moose and a couple of others asked "What is his mandate" in reference to criminal investigator Jeff Novitzky. Fair question.

This is from the FDA's website, the "Mission Statement" of the Criminal Investigations unit:

"Mission
"As the criminal investigative arm of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the mission of the Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) is to conduct and coordinate investigations of suspected criminal violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and other related Acts; the Federal Anti-Tampering Act (FATA); and other statutes including applicable Title 18 violations of the United States Code (USC); and to collect evidence to support successful prosecutions through the federal or state court systems as appropriate"

Here's what the Food and Drug Act covers:

"The Food and Drugs Act of 1906 was the first of more than 200 laws that constitute one of the world's most comprehensive and effective networks of public health and consumer protections. Here are a few of the congressional milestones:

"The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was passed after a legally marketed toxic elixir killed 107 people, including many children. The FD&C Act completely overhauled the public health system. Among other provisions, the law authorized the FDA to demand evidence of safety for new drugs, issue standards for food, and conduct factory inspections.

"The Kefauver-Harris Amendments of 1962, which were inspired by the thalidomide tragedy in Europe (and the FDA's vigilance that prevented the drug's marketing in the United States), strengthened the rules for drug safety and required manufacturers to prove their drugs' effectiveness.

"The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 followed a U.S. Senate finding that faulty medical devices had caused 10,000 injuries, including 731 deaths. The law applied safety and effectiveness safeguards to new devices."

"Today, the FDA regulates $1 trillion worth of products a year. It ensures the safety of all food except for meat, poultry and some egg products; ensures the safety and effectiveness of all drugs, biological products (including blood, vaccines and tissues for transplantation), medical devices, and animal drugs and feed; and makes sure that cosmetics and medical and consumer products that emit radiation do no harm."


There are a whole host of other laws that impact the FDA. Among them are:

Federal Meat Inspection Act
(March 4, 1907)
Federal Trade Commission Act
(Sept. 26, 1914)
Filled Milk Act
(March 4, 1923)
Import Milk Act
(Feb. 15, 1927)
Public Health Service Act
(July 1, 1944)
Trademark Act of 1946
(July 5, 1946)
Reorganization Plan 1 of 1953
(March 12, 1953)
Poultry Products Inspection Act
(Aug. 28, 1957)
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
(Nov. 3, 1966)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(Jan. 1, 1970)
Controlled Substances Act
(Oct. 27, 1970)
Current regulations listing schedules of controlled substances Current regulations listing schedules of controlled substances
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act
(Oct. 27, 1970)
Egg Products Inspection Act
(Dec. 29, 1970)
Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act
(Jan. 13, 1971)
Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Oct. 6, 1972)
Government in the Sunshine Act
(Sept. 13, 1976)
Federal Anti-Tampering Act
(Oct. 13, 1983)
Sanitary Food Transportation Act
(Nov. 3, 1990)
Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA)
(Oct. 27, 1992)
Bioterrorism Act of 2002
(June 12, 2002)
Project BioShield Act of 2004
(July 21, 2004)


Note that I've highlighted the only federal act that could conceivably provide any jurisdiction over what is commonly referred to as "doping" i.e., the use of any substance defined as an "anabolic steriod." Essentially the Controlled Substances Act gives the FDA authority to enforce and prosecute violations of that Act. What types of violations are described in the Act as it pertains to anabolic steroids?

Essentially, it's unlawful to manufacture them, import them, possess them, advertise them, export them, unless one is specifically registered with the FDA and permitted to engage in such activities. Manufacturing or advertising them for sale without the proper authority is punishable by not more than 4 years and not more than a $30K fine. Unauthorized possession (for a first offense) is punishable by not more than 1 year and a $1,000 fine (or both). Secondary and tertiary offenses can increase the penalties to 2 years/$2,500 and 5 years/$3,500.

The far more serious penalties for violations of the Controlled Substances Act are found here:

§ 848. Continuing criminal enterprise.

(a) Penalties; forfeitures

Any person who engages in a continuing criminal enterprise shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 20 years and which may be up to life imprisonment, to a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $2,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, and to the forfeiture prescribed in section 853 of this title; except that if any person engages in such activity after one or more prior convictions of him under this section have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 30 years and which may be up to life imprisonment, to a fine not to exceed the greater of twice the amount authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $4,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $10,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, and to the forfeiture prescribed in section 853 of this title.

(b) Life imprisonment for engaging in continuing criminal enterprise

Any person who engages in a continuing criminal enterprise shall be imprisoned for life and fined in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, if -

(1) such person is the principal administrator, organizer, or leader of the enterprise or is one of several such principal administrators, organizers, or leaders; and

(2)

(A) the violation referred to in subsection (c)(1) of this section involved at least 300 times the quantity of a substance described in subsection 841(b)(1)

(B) of this title, or

(B) the enterprise, or any other enterprise in which the defendant was the principal or one of several principal administrators, organizers, or leaders, received $10 million dollars in gross receipts during any twelve-month period of its existence for the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a substance described in section 841(b)(1)(B) of this title.

(c) ''Continuing criminal enterprise'' defined

For purposes of subsection (a) of this section, a person is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise if -

(1) he violates any provision of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter the punishment for which is a felony, and

(2) such violation is a part of a continuing series of violations of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter -

(A) which are undertaken by such person in concert with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management, and

(B) from which such person obtains substantial income or resources.

(d) Suspension of sentence and probation prohibited

In the case of any sentence imposed under this section, imposition or execution of such sentence shall not be suspended, probation shall not be granted, and the Act of July 15, 1932 (D.C. Code, secs. 24-203 - 24-207), shall not apply.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(continued below)
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
Visit site
Sorry for the length of the above, but let's assume for the moment that Armstrong, Landis, and others participated in activities which involved possessing, buying, importing or exporting anabolic steroids. Let's further assume it was an ongoing program, and thus falls within the definition of the Act's "Continuing Criminal Enterprise." That could prove problematic. Perhaps for both the athletes but also for the government. Why? Here's a thought:

There has been some speculation that given the fact that much of the allegations against those close to Armstrong (i.e., Landis' allegations) date back to 2000-02 (and let's assume that Andreu's use of EPO also falls within that time frame, although my recollection is that his claimed use dates back to 1999), could be either "tolled" or prosecuted separately utilizing RICO. I think both of these are not well taken.

Keep in mind that the statute of limitations under the Controlled Substances Act is 5 years. Anything beyond the five year period is not fair game, and it would be a complete waste of time to conduct an investigation into anything going back beyond that period.

First, the concept of "tolling" really has no applicaiblity in criminal law. "Tolling" or more properly "equitable tolling" is a concept that is utilized in civil law, and it permits a party to avoid the statute of limitations by demonstrating that the plaintiff who failed to otherwise timely file a claim within the statute was either incompetent (a minor, disabled, lacked capacity, etc), or outside the jurisdiction of the court unavoidably (e.g., engaged in military service outside the U.S., etc.). Such a concept really has no applicability to criminal complaints, indictments, etc. Assuming that criminal activity went undetected, well, that's the breaks, and once it's too late, it's too late.

Secondly, under RICO, the thought is that given an "ongoing criminal racketeering enterprise" this allows the government to go after conduct which occurred prior to the running of the statute, but rely on the "last act" so long as that last act is within the SOL. That's all well and good but with the Controlled Substances Act, as you can see above, it has it's own definitiion of "ongoing criminal enterprise" and using ordinary rules of statutory construction, it's unlikely that a Federal District Court would allow prosecutors to use a more generalized RICO claim where here there is a specific and concrete definition which has a defined statutory limitations period.

In short, it's going to be a stretch for this grand jury investigation to come up with much of anything within the last five years that Landis would know anything about that could be a basis for a prosecution by the FDA.

Now that doesn't mean that if there was also evidence of money laundering or claims of simple fraud (e.g., failure to report the sales of the bikes, failure to report the proceeds on someone's tax returns, etc.) that the grand jury couldn't also issue some other related indictments, but again, that's not the mandate of the FDA nor its criminal investigators.

Sorry to be so longwinded about this, but really, having read several of the other threads here on the forum, I think there are some real misconceptions about what the actual mandate of the FDA is, what laws it's tasked with enforcing and what the FDA administrators are likely to tolerate when a fellow like Novitzky wants to start traveling back and forth between the U.S. and Europe to interview Armstrong's bus driver who *maybe* saw some blood doping (or maybe didn't).

Oh, and blood doping may be within the mandate of the UCI or WADA, but it sure isn't within the mandate of the FDA, certainly not when it takes place in Europe.
 
I keep reading people making statements like $50 million is too much to go after LA. Therefore, if it cost over so much to go after a white color criminal we shouldn't? While $50M is a lot for me, it is not much for our government - a few miles of road repair.

My question to Quikstepper is where do you draw the line on where and what to spend our tax money on? If it's funny money (e.g Martha Stewart, worldcom execs, and the ilk), or most any other white color crime, we should look the other way and ignore it? If the projected cost to go prosecute is over $XX we should shouldn't do it? Therefore, the wealthy can exploit anything and everything and we'll look the other way because it may cost too much to prosecute? Celebrities, because so many of them have "good" pet organizations, are off limits too? Where is the line?

IMO, if someone broke the law, then we should go after them. Otherwise we would be a corrupt country.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
QuickStepper said:
Sorry for the length of the above, but let's assume for the moment that Armstrong, Landis, and others participated in activities which involved possessing, buying, importing or exporting anabolic steroids. Let's further assume it was an ongoing program, and thus falls within the definition of the Act's "Continuing Criminal Enterprise." That could prove problematic. Perhaps for both the athletes but also for the government. Why? Here's a thought:

There has been some speculation that given the fact that much of the allegations against those close to Armstrong (i.e., Landis' allegations) date back to 2000-02 (and let's assume that Andreu's use of EPO also falls within that time frame, although my recollection is that his claimed use dates back to 1999), could be either "tolled" or prosecuted separately utilizing RICO. I think both of these are not well taken.

Keep in mind that the statute of limitations under the Controlled Substances Act is 5 years. Anything beyond the five year period is not fair game, and it would be a complete waste of time to conduct an investigation into anything going back beyond that period.

First, the concept of "tolling" really has no applicaiblity in criminal law. "Tolling" or more properly "equitable tolling" is a concept that is utilized in civil law, and it permits a party to avoid the statute of limitations by demonstrating that the plaintiff who failed to otherwise timely file a claim within the statute was either incompetent (a minor, disabled, lacked capacity, etc), or outside the jurisdiction of the court unavoidably (e.g., engaged in military service outside the U.S., etc.). Such a concept really has no applicability to criminal complaints, indictments, etc. Assuming that criminal activity went undetected, well, that's the breaks, and once it's too late, it's too late.

Secondly, under RICO, the thought is that given an "ongoing criminal racketeering enterprise" this allows the government to go after conduct which occurred prior to the running of the statute, but rely on the "last act" so long as that last act is within the SOL. That's all well and good but with the Controlled Substances Act, as you can see above, it has it's own definitiion of "ongoing criminal enterprise" and using ordinary rules of statutory construction, it's unlikely that a Federal District Court would allow prosecutors to use a more generalized RICO claim where here there is a specific and concrete definition which has a defined statutory limitations period.

In short, it's going to be a stretch for this grand jury investigation to come up with much of anything within the last five years that Landis would know anything about that could be a basis for a prosecution by the FDA.

Now that doesn't mean that if there was also evidence of money laundering or claims of simple fraud (e.g., failure to report the sales of the bikes, failure to report the proceeds on someone's tax returns, etc.) that the grand jury couldn't also issue some other related indictments, but again, that's not the mandate of the FDA nor its criminal investigators.

Sorry to be so longwinded about this, but really, having read several of the other threads here on the forum, I think there are some real misconceptions about what the actual mandate of the FDA is, what laws it's tasked with enforcing and what the FDA administrators are likely to tolerate when a fellow like Novitzky wants to start traveling back and forth between the U.S. and Europe to interview Armstrong's bus driver who *maybe* saw some blood doping (or maybe didn't).

Oh, and blood doping may be within the mandate of the UCI or WADA, but it sure isn't within the mandate of the FDA, certainly not when it takes place in Europe.

You've emptied your Google search across two posts and not once covered any whistleblower issues. As well, who thinks it is ONLY the FDA? FBI and IRS, among others have been whispered about.

Further, you've barely touched the greater issue, not sure if you simply do not understand professional cycling, the history of the USPS team or if you are a shill but one thing is clear, you miss the greater exposure of liability: taking govt money and withholding the systemic doping program in place to help achieve the results, aka, defrauding the US Govt.

Rolling all of that up into RICO is no stretch at all.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
I don't spend much time here any more, but it still cracks me up when a number of brand new posters sign up during a race like the Tour de France, and instead of talking about the race, riders, transfer rumors, equipment, etc., they manage to find their way to a Clinic thread where they can stick up for Armstrong and try to discredit everyone else. People throw around a figure of $50 million like it's fact, when there's not really a lot known about the investigation. OK, the lawyers of a few riders have been contacted. LeMond's paperwork from the Trek lawsuit was subpoenaed, but that's a great thing because the work is done and paid for and gives a lot of information.

People talk trash about a witch hunt, but this Tour has looked awfully clean to me, and I give a lot of the credit to the things Landis told Ashenden and Catlin about modern doping techniques, which were confirmed by Bernard Kohl.

This worldwide investigation has to do with the quest to track down doping rings, guys who some how obtain products before they're on the market, possible bribes and corruption, racketeering, possible income tax evasion, and things I can't even dream of. If you're a doctor looking for huge amounts of EPO, do you go through normal channels, or do you have a supplier who stole them off the back of a truck?

The French and Italian authorities have worked hard to try to identify the links. using police and the courts and doping organizations. There are going to be a lot of people given strong incentives to spill what they know for the first time in their lives.

Lance is the big name in this investigation, but there are a lot of names out there, and those will lead to even more names. A lot of non-riders are still making money off doping today, and groups like the AFLD know that the same or similar drugs are being used in other sports, and it makes sense that suppliers wouldn't be pro cycling specific, as there are a lot of people in gyms, on university teams, etc., who want to cheat and are wiling to pay for help.

If Armstrong was removed from the equation, and the investigation centered around all the other people Landis named, and their suppliers, etc., would all of these people with fewer than ten posts be here trying to influence perception?
 
i just read Greg Lemonds blog about his feelings on the Ferrari era if you will.
he seemed to take a step back in the condemnation of LA. i say that because he
was saying if it were him,he could not do certain things. as in start the TDF with the accusations swirling around him. Lance is a different rider. you cannot win 7 tours and not be super focused. he may not like it, but the result sheet
is what it is. professional sports it a dog eat dog world, as long as nobody gets killed, who's to say? as soon as money changes hands,all bets are off. and you can quote me on that. just witness the new generation of riders getting there own degree of media frenzy.Cav,Alberto,Andy,Canc, and my favorite Valverde. same as it ever was,yo. my 2.5 cents.
 
Jul 15, 2010
53
0
0
Visit site
Tonnes of speculation. Keeping up with these posts is a full time job in itself.

But FWICS no one here is really influencing any perceptions. We shall know for certain what the investigations are and the resultant outcomes if any, in due course. Till then all being said is innuendo.

This topic has gone way OT. This Clinic is too much work.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
QuickStepper said:
......
....
......
......

More Trolling. Give it up!

It is worth baring in mind that Trek settled their case against LeMond by paying him an undisclosed amount.

That alone will tell you that the information LeMond has at his disposal scares the sh!te out of Trek/LA/JB so much that they did not want to get it to court.

Anyone know the timeline of the end of the case and does it coincide with Landis talking to LeMond about telling all?
 
Jul 6, 2010
99
0
0
Visit site
Anyone know the timeline of the end of the case and does it coincide with Landis talking to LeMond about telling all?
Case was settled at the very beginning of February... a bit 'too early' :rolleyes:

Given that LeMond is reportedly delighted to handle the Trek vs. LeMond files to the Feds, and is quoted saying it's an 'overwhelming' piece of evidence, there's really good chance that Trek/LA/JB are right to be scared...