Subpoenas issued -- Armstrong's goose is cooked

[avanti]

Stapleton was CEO at one point as well.

JFI: This is Bill Stapleton, now with Capital Sports, not Bob Stapleton who runs the Columbia HTC team.

 

[Tim_sleepless]

How was Tailwind organized? Different departments, say financial/sponsor contact, racing etc. with each having its own managerial chain, or was it just one big mess?

As a big room, with a raised pedastal at one end, with a big throne on it. On smaller chairs around the throne sat the Director Sportif, Head Mechanic, Lord Privy Seal of the Bloodbank, Minster of Hookers, and Chief of Tax fraud and Charity Embezzlement. Levi would be running around in a Jesters outfit, while Hincapie hovered around behind his lordship, occasionally saying "do you think that's really wise, sir" in his best Dad's Army fashion. Landis would occasionally peek in from outside, and be shouted at and told to "clean my bike, weirdo!"

 

[Oldman]

I hope you are employing irony with that statement, because while you present facts, describing Weisel as some kind of savior is wrong. Having been a pre-Weisel USCF member and recently returned to the sport, nothing has changed. There aren't even more races or racers. We're still churning out about the same number of Continental pros too.

The people running the USCF were ethically challenged and Weisel's public record suggest he is cut from the same ethical cloth as Lance Armstrong. More of the same sociopaths. Meanwhile the general membership is summarily neglected in favor of what, I'm not entirely sure.

If you want to do some reading on the recent history of American Cycling, Les Earnest knows where many bodies are buried. http://www.google.com/search?q=les+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You missed a few things while you were gone. Weisel, a master's racer with a noteworthy ego; packed a Master's team with retired pros and hired Eddie B as a coach. Most were squeaky clean guys of great credentials, some where not. Weisel then sought to basically buy USA Cycling and managed with some funds to secure a decision making role for himself. Steve Johnson, President of USACycling was one of his Masters team members from the start and until he had control of the organization.
Some may characterize Weisel's involvement as a saving grace; it's pretty clear what he was saving it for.

 

[Cobblestones]

As a big room, with a raised pedastal at one end, with a big throne on it. On smaller chairs around the throne sat the Director Sportif, Head Mechanic, Lord Privy Seal of the Bloodbank, Minster of Hookers, and Chief of Tax fraud and Charity Embezzlement. Levi would be running around in a Jesters outfit, while Hincapie hovered around behind his lordship, occasionally saying "do you think that's really wise, sir" in his best Dad's Army fashion. Landis would occasionally peek in from outside, and be shouted at and told to "clean my bike, weirdo!"

Not the answer I was looking for, but pretty funny. What was JB's job? Consort? Royal ball scratcher?

 

[Benotti69]

Not the answer I was looking for, but pretty funny. What was JB's job? Consort? Royal ball scratcher?

he was the throne.....

 

[Tim_sleepless]

Not the answer I was looking for, but pretty funny. What was JB's job? Consort? Royal ball scratcher?

Groom of the Stool

 

[Anonymous]

The thing is... Tailwind started their relationship with the post office for US Postal a couple of years before Lance was on the team and 3 years before he won the tour.

It will be interesting to see how they show that he had control over Tailwind's actions... and when that happened? 1999? After 1 tour? I'm not sure how realistic that is.

Tailwind obviously wasn't just a shell company for Lance... but that doesn't mean he didn't assume defacto control at some point. I don't think you can really claim that Lance conspired with others to create it as a way to circumvent law when he wasn't around at its creation.

Did they, or was tailwind formed in about 2001?

I hope you are employing irony with that statement, because while you present facts, describing Weisel as some kind of savior is wrong. Having been a pre-Weisel USCF member and recently returned to the sport, nothing has changed. There aren't even more races or racers. We're still churning out about the same number of Continental pros too.

The people running the USCF were ethically challenged and Weisel's public record suggest he is cut from the same ethical cloth as Lance Armstrong. More of the same sociopaths. Meanwhile the general membership is summarily neglected in favor of what, I'm not entirely sure.

If you want to do some reading on the recent history of American Cycling, Les Earnest knows where many bodies are buried. http://www.google.com/search?q=les+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Sorry, I thought the irony was obvious as I had covered Weasel and Lances corruption of US cycling pretty extensively in previous posts. I was being ironic.

 

[sartain]

I hope you are employing irony with that statement, because while you present facts, describing Weisel as some kind of savior is wrong. Having been a pre-Weisel USCF member and recently returned to the sport, nothing has changed. There aren't even more races or racers. We're still churning out about the same number of Continental pros too.

The people running the USCF were ethically challenged and Weisel's public record suggest he is cut from the same ethical cloth as Lance Armstrong. More of the same sociopaths. Meanwhile the general membership is summarily neglected in favor of what, I'm not entirely sure.

If you want to do some reading on the recent history of American Cycling, Les Earnest knows where many bodies are buried. http://www.google.com/search?q=les+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Nothing really new here, but I will just leave this link for those who may not have see it.

http://www.petitiononline.com/usacref/petition.html

There is SO much stink coming off this smoldering pile of S***

 

[hfer07]

Not the answer I was looking for, but pretty funny. What was JB's job? Consort? Royal ball scratcher?

the cookie getter

 

[SpartacusRox]

In the end... who "actually" calls the shots isn't as important as who's "on the hook" for calling the shots.

I firmly believe Lance probably drove most decisions for Postal for quite some time. What I'm interested to see is legally how much he was named as decision maker.

If Lance isn't named as CEO, team manager, board member or any other kind of responsible position within the organization on a document... then regardless of whatever real power he had... he's legally just an employee. Just like Lebron James may have the power to force the Heat to hire whatever coach he wants... legally he's got no decision making power. He's just an employee.

Regardless of reality... if there isn't a documentation trail showing Lance had true legal authority to direct the team granted from the board of directors... then he's not going to be liable for things the team did. He'd then only be liable for his own personal actions... not others actions under the banner of the team.

It wouldn't even matter if he told people on the team "You either are going to dope or you're fired."... because he'd legally not have the ability to fire anyone.

An excellent synopsis of the critical issue. Of course that is not what most people on here want to hear but I think the scenario you paint is highly likely.

 

[Race Radio]

In the end... who "actually" calls the shots isn't as important as who's "on the hook" for calling the shots.

I firmly believe Lance probably drove most decisions for Postal for quite some time. What I'm interested to see is legally how much he was named as decision maker.

If Lance isn't named as CEO, team manager, board member or any other kind of responsible position within the organization on a document... then regardless of whatever real power he had... he's legally just an employee. Just like Lebron James may have the power to force the Heat to hire whatever coach he wants... legally he's got no decision making power. He's just an employee.

Regardless of reality... if there isn't a documentation trail showing Lance had true legal authority to direct the team granted from the board of directors... then he's not going to be liable for things the team did. He'd then only be liable for his own personal actions... not others actions under the banner of the team.

It wouldn't even matter if he told people on the team "You either are going to dope or you're fired."... because he'd legally not have the ability to fire anyone.

So if I understand you correctly some guy in the Mafia can escape conviction if he just doesn't register his loansharking business and makes sure he is never named as an officer of said business?

Who knew it was so simple?

 

[python]

In the end... who "actually" calls the shots isn't as important as who's "on the hook" for calling the shots.

I firmly believe Lance probably drove most decisions for Postal for quite some time. What I'm interested to see is legally how much he was named as decision maker.

If Lance isn't named as CEO, team manager, board member or any other kind of responsible position within the organization on a document... then regardless of whatever real power he had... he's legally just an employee. Just like Lebron James may have the power to force the Heat to hire whatever coach he wants... legally he's got no decision making power. He's just an employee.

Regardless of reality... if there isn't a documentation trail showing Lance had true legal authority to direct the team granted from the board of directors... then he's not going to be liable for things the team did. He'd then only be liable for his own personal actions... not others actions under the banner of the team.

It wouldn't even matter if he told people on the team "You either are going to dope or you're fired."... because he'd legally not have the ability to fire anyone.

i've pleaded ignorance re the us corporate law multiple times - so my position is nothing but that of absorbing and learning. however, why on green earth are you ignoring the nyt clear quote from a famous legal expert:

“If he is holding himself out as someone that was clean and he was profiting from it, it wouldn’t have any impact on his exposure to fraud charges,” Richman said. “It doesn’t matter what official position he had or did not have with the company.”

yeah, common sense and the reality may not be inked in the contracts. but who in their right mind would doubt that a control freak armstrong bent on dominating everything and with the extensive public evidence to prove so, was 'just a rider'.

though not a legal mind myself, i can't imagine novitzky will have any difficulty to find several witnesses that will testify under oath as to the true nature of decision making when it comes to armstrong core interests.

ps. look at the entire track vs lemond case. it's apparent lemond was able to show with legal means that armstrong tried to influence a company he did not hold a direct seat in, to exact revenge on his critic. very easy to see how he'd behave (on his own team !) where he believed he was a major influence and a stakeholder.

 

[SpartacusRox]

So if I understand you correctly some guy in the Mafia can escape conviction if he just doesn't register his loansharking business and makes sure he is never named as an officer of said business?

Who knew it was so simple?

In criminal jurisdiction it's called; 'beyond reasonable doubt' and the burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the prosecution. The scenario that he describes would make it almost impossible to reach that level of evidential sufficiency. Of course that is if that is the actual situation.

 

[Anonymous]

Heres another interesting old article

http://velonews.competitor.com/2008/08/road/old-doping-accusations-lead-to-altercation_82154

picked up on this as one of the two people involved has just started following me on twitter.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

So if I understand you correctly some guy in the Mafia can escape conviction if he just doesn't register his loansharking business and makes sure he is never named as an officer of said business?

Who knew it was so simple?

This really gets to the heart of my example/question yesterday.

At what point is an employee more than an employee (legally)?

If Lebron James tells the team management that in order for him to sign with them that they must do something against the law/rules such as speak to another free agent before the appropriate date and they do so, does he have any liability/culpability?

 

[sartain]

In criminal jurisdiction it's called; 'beyond reasonable doubt' and the burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the prosecution. The scenario that he describes would make it almost impossible to reach that level of evidential sufficiency. Of course that is if that is the actual situation.

I guess it depends on what your definition of is is?

 

[kurtinsc]

i've pleaded ignorance re the us corporate law multiple times - so my position is nothing but that of absorbing and learning. however, why on green earth are you ignoring the nyt clear quote from a famous legal expert:


yeah, common sense and the reality may not be inked in the contracts. but who in their right mind would doubt that a control freak armstrong bent on dominating everything and with the extensive public evidence to prove so, was 'just a rider'.

though not a legal mind myself, i can't imagine novitzky will have any difficulty to find several witnesses that will testify under oath as to the true nature of decision making when it comes to armstrong core interests.

ps. look at the entire track vs lemond case. it's apparent lemond was able to show with legal means that armstrong tried to influence a company he did not hold a direct seat in, to exact revenge on his critic. very easy to see how he'd behave (on his own team !) where he believed he was a major influence and a stakeholder.

Don't get me wrong.

Lance saying HE was clean, then doping, and profiting from that leaves HIM open to fraud charges.

What he's looking for protection from is the rest of his TEAM doping.

If he can be shown to be directing a program of doping for the US Postal team, that puts him in a different position then just having doped himself. Any proof of doping for the team, even if it doesn't directly implicate him, exposes him to charges.

If he can seperate himself from Tailwind... then he's only in trouble if he DIRECTLY is implicated.

 

[kurtinsc]

Did they, or was tailwind formed in about 2001?

An entity called Tailwind run by Mark Gorski signed the 1-year contracts with the US post office for 1996, 1997 and 1998.

I have no idea if the name was the same legal entity every time or if at some point post 1996 it went from some sort of joint-proprietorship to a LLC.

 

[Anonymous]

Some points to contemplate:

Why would Armstrong make such a public response regarding his ownership stake if he didn't know that there was something there he didn't want to have legal association with?

To anyone talking about Floyd being a "rat." What do you call a man who obviously had a say so in the actions of a company who tries to bow out and throw all the blame on his partners when the Feds start to investigate? If you want to ever talk about a "rat," then Mr Armstrong has shown us precisely what one is.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Don't get me wrong.

Lance saying HE was clean, then doping, and profiting from that leaves HIM open to fraud charges.

What he's looking for protection from is the rest of his TEAM doping.

If he can be shown to be directing a program of doping for the US Postal team, that puts him in a different position then just having doped himself. Any proof of doping for the team, even if it doesn't directly implicate him, exposes him to charges.

If he can seperate himself from Tailwind... then he's only in trouble if he DIRECTLY is implicated.

So if a team member or employee (i addition to Floyd) testifies that Lance instructed or instigated someone to dope?

 

[kurtinsc]

So if a team member or employee (i addition to Floyd) testifies that Lance instructed or instigated someone to dope?

I'm not 100% sure Floyd has even alleged that (though I'm not at well read on the e-mails as I bet some of you are).

As I understand it... Floyd alleges that Bruyneel told him to go to Lance to get the dope (which opens up issues with being a drug dealer... but that's another point). He also said stuff about having conversations with Lance about doping and how to avoid being caught... and how it was pretty much required to win.

Did he say that Lance TOLD him to dope up in there? I didn't get that feeling... but I only read it once.


If Lance was directly pressuring people and there is testimony from various sources to that affect... then he's likely going to be liable for the team's doping and whatever fraud may come from that... even if he's never proven to have doped personally.

If pressure came from other parties... and those people refuse to turn on Lance... he might be shielded legally.

It could be a scenario where everyone says:

Johan told me to dope.
Lance never said anything... but I'm sure he knew.
Lance says he never knew.
Despite everyone suspecting it, there isn't enough evidence showing Lance doped for the fraud charge... it's all connected to other riders.
Johan is liable... but Johan decides to retire to Belgium.


I don't know if that would fly... but it may be where Lance is positioning himself.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

I'm not 100% sure Floyd has even alleged that (though I'm not at well read on the e-mails as I bet some of you are).

As I understand it... Floyd alleges that Bruyneel told him to go to Lance to get the dope (which opens up issues with being a drug dealer... but that's another point). He also said stuff about having conversations with Lance about doping and how to avoid being caught... and how it was pretty much required to win.

Did he say that Lance TOLD him to dope up in there? I didn't get that feeling... but I only read it once.


If Lance was directly pressuring people and there is testimony from various sources to that affect... then he's likely going to be liable for the team's doping and whatever fraud may come from that... even if he's never proven to have doped personally.

If pressure came from other parties... and those people refuse to turn on Lance... he might be shielded legally.

It could be a scenario where everyone says:

Johan told me to dope.
Lance never said anything... but I'm sure he knew.
Lance says he never knew.
Despite everyone suspecting it, there isn't enough evidence showing Lance doped for the fraud charge... it's all connected to other riders.
Johan is liable... but Johan decides to retire to Belgium.


I don't know if that would fly... but it may be where Lance is positioning himself.

i think I needed to be clearer, I am saying what if someone corroborates Floyd's assertions from the team or who was an enployee. Let's try and keep the premise narrowly defined within the law (which is why i created my scenario yesterday) and then go from there.

Scenario: Someone from tailwind testifies that Lance was involved/instructing instigating the team to encourage breaking the rules/laws. Where does that leave him legally?

 

[powerste]

<Snip>

It could be a scenario where everyone says:

Johan told me to dope.
Lance never said anything... but I'm sure he knew.
Lance says he never knew.
Despite everyone suspecting it, there isn't enough evidence showing Lance doped for the fraud charge... it's all connected to other riders.
Johan is liable... but Johan decides to retire to Belgium.


I don't know if that would fly... but it may be where Lance is positioning himself.

Methinks that's the only thing we can all be 100% certain of at this point in time

 

[kurtinsc]

i think I needed to be clearer, I am saying what if someone corroborates Floyd's assertions from the team or who was an enployee. Let's try and keep the premise narrowly defined within the law (which is why i created my scenario yesterday) and then go from there.

Scenario: Someone from tailwind testifies that Lance was involved/instructing instigating the team to encourage breaking the rules/laws. Where does that leave him legally?

Well, it would obviously have to be more then 1 person. But if there is enough testimony showing that he was driving the team's doping actions, then one would assume he's liable. You can't escape your own actions.

The difference is that if he (or someone else) is shown to be the CEO/Boss of Tailwind, they would possibly have some liability for fraud resulting from doping even if they weren't directly connected to it. As the man in charge of the company... they would be responsible for all orders coming from the company's management structure... not just the ones coming from their mouth.

Lance can't escape anything that he's proven to directly have said/did (though "proof" is somewhat debateable). He's trying to excape charges that the company might be responsible for that he is not directly tied to in any way... by positioning himself as "just an employee". Obviously if overwhelming evidence comes forward that says "Lance did this" or "Lance ordered us to do this"... then he's going to have to answer for it. But if the evidence says "Johan told us to do this"... Lance is looking for protection from that. The CEO of Tailwind likely won't get that protection.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Well, it would obviously have to be more then 1 person. But if there is enough testimony showing that he was driving the team's doping actions, then one would assume he's liable. You can't escape your own actions.

The difference is that if he (or someone else) is shown to be the CEO/Boss of Tailwind, they would possibly have some liability for fraud resulting from doping even if they weren't directly connected to it. As the man in charge of the company... they would be responsible for all orders coming from the company's management structure... not just the ones coming from their mouth.

Lance can't escape anything that he's proven to directly have said/did (though "proof" is somewhat debateable). He's trying to excape charges that the company might be responsible for that he is not directly tied to in any way... by positioning himself as "just an employee". Obviously if overwhelming evidence comes forward that says "Lance did this" or "Lance ordered us to do this"... then he's going to have to answer for it. But if the evidence says "Johan told us to do this"... Lance is looking for protection from that. The CEO of Tailwind likely won't get that protection.

OK, so that being out of the way now...

Let's say they get testimony from various people that indicate he was directing activities and making decisions (legal ones, like who gets hired)?

What status does that confer upon him legally? is he now a de-facto manager?