Subpoenas issued -- Armstrong's goose is cooked

[Anonymous]

so lance seems to be now claiming no business links with Weisel (great name) as he is the major shareholder of the company tailwind.

He did do a book though where he and Thom are listed as authors

oh.. weisel in his office in 2002

 

[Cobblestones]

so lance seems to be now claiming no business links with Weisel (great name) as he is the major shareholder of the company tailwind.

He did do a book though where he and Thom are listed as authors

He can't keep his lies straight anymore. We saw that today. The prosecutor is going to have a field day with him. He's losing it.

 

[Anonymous]

lance wanted to buy the tour de france (and cycling)

and unrelated but interesting, a petition from 2005/6

another fascinating article showing lance;s effective ownership of us cycling http://tinyurl.com/2ubumu5 (slow loading)

Johnson, the widely quoted USA Cycling official, appears to suffer from a serious conflict of interest between his organization's role as a doping cop and his personal, institutional, and financial ties to the diversified business world surrounding Lance Armstrong. Financier Weisel is Armstrong's longtime patron, employer, investment manager, and friend. Weisel is also Johnson's longtime patron and friend and the founder of a nonprofit entity that employs him.

And then there's this little fact: Johnson essentially works for Armstrong. In addition to serving as chief operating officer of USA Cycling, Johnson is executive director of the USA Cycling Development Foundation, an affiliated nonprofit organization founded by Weisel, who serves as president of the board of directors, according to the foundation's most recently available IRS returns, filed in 2003. According to the foundation's current Web site, the board of directors now includes Lance Armstrong.

So weisel and lance have no business links? BUt as long ago as 2003 they were both on the board of directors at USA cycling development foundation.

so effectively, whilst weisel owned the US postal sponsored and Discovery sponsored teams, he and lance also pretty much owned US Cycling. Weisel bailed us cycling out in 2001, and then paid its chief operating officer his wages via a non-profit company he and armstrong were on the board of.

The next year )2000) Weisel took control of the governing side of bike racing, establishing the USA Cycling Development Foundation and placing himself and two other members of his foundation on the board of USA Cycling's predecessor, the U.S. Cycling Federation. Weisel now controlled America's top team as well its top cycling regulator.

The next year Weisel's team backed Armstrong to another Tour win, with Weisel in the pace car. Four more Armstrong Tour wins, and four more Weisel pace cars, followed.

In 2005, after Armstrong had retired upon winning his record-surpassing seventh Tour de France, Weisel's old cycling buddy and cycling-official protégé, Steve Johnson, fielded press calls and publicly dismissed allegations that Armstrong had won the 1999 Tour using banned drugs.

So basically, JOhnson was US cyclings drug regulator, and ALSO worked for lance. Fascinating

 

[Colm.Murphy]

He can't keep his lies straight anymore. We saw that today. The prosecutor is going to have a field day with him. He's losing it.

+1. Ding, Ding, Ding!

Crashed on his face the day of the Landis story breaking. Crashed all over France...

He is losing it. The media is simply not buying what he is selling.

 

[Benotti69]

lance wanted to buy the tour de france (and cycling)

i suppose it is the only way to stop Contador winning 8 TdFs

Seriously. That would have F**KED the sport of cycling up for a very long time. I cant see it happening now, thankfully, but these guys would only be interested in creaming it and not the sport itself. Close one

 

[B.Rasmussen]

http://www.letour.fr/2010/TDF/HISTO/us/palmares.html

i'm afraid riis still is the winner officially

IIRC they didn't take his win because it was too many years since the win (10 years is the number I recall, but very unsure). Some of Armstrong's wins are not as old, so he could lose some of them. I have no clue whether that changes the premise of the SCA case though.

 

[dbrower]

Your hypothetical would not be a basis upon which you could assert your 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. My guess is the prosecutor would treat you as a hostile witness and go to town on you. Under the facts you've laid out.

Someone else answered before: you don't have to testify to anything beyond your identity unless offered immunity; if given immunity, you may still perjure yourself by lying.

Someone playing hardball does not testify w/o immunity. With immunity, you testify or may spend time in jail for contempt (Anderson in the Bonds case). With immunity, you can't lie when you testify (the substance of the Bonds indictment).

If offered immunity, I would expect all riders, save one, and all low-level business people to sing like song birds. Whether Landis himself has any credibility becomes irrelevant if other credible witnesses appear, and become willing to testify in open court.

The sour-milk taste, his drinking, and his psychological condition are not relevant to the investigation once there is external corroboration, which seems like it will be coming quicker than many expect.

-dB

 

[Benotti69]

IIRC they didn't take his win because it was too many years since the win (10 years is the number I recall, but very unsure). Some of Armstrong's wins are not as old, so he could lose some of them. I have no clue whether that changes the premise of the SCA case though.

the bonus was for 6 wins, so if they take 2 or more, he may be in trouble with that, and his inbox is already full....

 

[Epicycle]

So why did Lance acquire a stake in Tailwind Sports? According to a 2001 Cyclingnews interview with Mark Gorski, Postal's general manager at the time and an owner of Tailwind, Armstrong was about to sign a new deal with the team -


CN: What do you say about the figure of $12 million that has been estimated for the team's budget? That would make you the biggest-spending team in the sport, ahead of Telekom and Mapei.

MG: That figure is for 2002-4 and it's not far off the mark, so our budget for 2002 is bigger than Telekom's is now. You have to understand that Lance Armstrong commands a substantial salary and that budget includes Lance. I anticipate that Lance's extension of his relationship with the Postal Service and our company will be the largest deal ever for a pro cyclist, and I don't think that's surprising given what he's accomplishing on and off the bike, both competitively and in the value he's bringing for the Postal Service and other sponsors.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/interviews/markgorski01.shtml


It's very reasonable to wonder if the new deal Lance received sometime in 2001-2002 included an ownership stake in Tailwind Sports.

 

[Anonymous]

It's very reasonable to wonder if the new deal Lance received sometime in 2001-2002 included an ownership stake in Tailwind Sports.

Ive come to the conclusion it was about 2002.

On a side note, did Weisel ever have a stake in trek.. I found this very strange quote from the trek v lemond stuff

The three-time Tour champion was warned off viewing his thoughts by the millionaire Thom Weisel, the owner of Trek cycles, the company who provide US Postal/Discovery with their bikes.

Seeing that Lemond's own chain of bikes and accessories are sold through Trek, Weisel reminded him that his contract with the company stipulated that he could not carry prejudice against the brand.

So Weisel owned tailwind, had his lackies in charge of US Cycling, was on the board of a "non profit" company with lance that paid the director of US cyclings wages, and had a financial share in trek?

 

[Cobblestones]

So is the investigation trying to put a wedge between Thom Wiesel and LA?

 

[mr. tibbs]

Landis and at least two other riders on the Postal Service team — Frankie Andreu and a rider who did not want his name published because he still works in the sport — told The New York Times that they were doping while on that squad.

JV, anyone? If he told the Times, he'll tell Nowitzky.

Also:

Richman said even if Armstrong was not directly involved in the ownership of Tailwind Sports as he claimed on Wednesday, he might still be implicated in fraud.

“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.”

-Daniel C. Richman, a professor at Columbia University and former federal prosecutor

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/sports/cycling/15armstrong.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hpw

 

[Anonymous]

So is the investigation trying to put a wedge between Thom Wiesel and LA?

It would seem that lance's plan is to claim no business interest together despite them having a book published and being on board of directors of the company that paid the head honcho at US cycling his wages.

If i can find that out in two hours, the feds must have a pile of stuff a mile high.

Question is, will Weisel protect himself and shaft lance. Weisel after all has invested in cycling for 30 years, he SAVED us cycling when it was millions in debt, he singlehandedly created the youth facilities and training programs to bring through todays crop of americans, he sorted out sponsors and bikes for lance, he is the god of cycling.. All lance did was cure cancer.

 

[Off the front]

It looks from Bill Stapleton's testimony in the same SCA case that technically Armstrong did not have a stake in Tailwind company during the USPS years.

Stapleton added that he did not think that Armstrong's ownership in Tailwind had been formalized prior to the 2004 Tour.

"It was certainly intended by the summer of 2004," Stapleton testified. "I don't think it was executed."

Whatever Armstrong said in the past when the precise nature of his dealings with Tailwind were not the main issue, it seems unlikely he would come out now and be so certain he was not an owner if he was not confident this was true.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Dim, thanks for all the info and links. I posted the SF Weekly link in the Landis links thread. You might want to put some of the other stuff you've gathered over there too for purposes of easy reference.

Again, great research work - lots of interesting info.

 

[luckyboy]

lance wanted to buy the tour de france (and cycling)

WTF?! That is seriously ****ed up. How have I never heard of that before? I would stop watching cycling if that happened.

Also, thanks for all the research & links Dim. Great stuff

 

[Big GMaC]

THE WITNESS:My days of the whereabouts program are done, man.

I wonder how much he wishes he could go back and stay true to this statement?

 

[Anonymous]

Dim, thanks for all the info and links. I posted the SF Weekly link in the Landis links thread. You might want to put some of the other stuff you've gathered over there too for purposes of easy reference.

Again, great research work - lots of interesting info.

there are so many links in there i dont even know which one is which anymore..
I am loving the wsj lance wants to buy the tour article though

 

[Beech Mtn]

there are so many links in there i dont even know which one is which anymore..
I am loving the wsj lance wants to buy the tour article though

I am trying to figure out if that WSJ article is the one that led to LA "feuding" with the paper (writing that letter to the editor and tweeting last year something snarky).

 

[Parrot23]

Grand jury has also issued subpoena to Trek for documents:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...trong_sponsor_trek_in_cycling_drug_probe.html

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is interesting, for sure.

He is denying things (ownership) which the good people on the forum impeached him on in about 20 minutes (SCA transcript). Trained legal folks will skewer him on that for sure.

He is getting separation on the issue of facilitating doping, which if you are the middle mgmt on the team (doctors, directors, etc) you could be getting set-up.

Pleading ignorance of riders doping on the team also comes off badly, and using the NFL as your analogy points to it as if it is assumed they were all doping but you should not be held for your teams actions.... Very weak.

This is the unglueing of Armstrong before our eyes. Yelling at the reporter, snapping at the heckler, crashing on his face in California, crashing all over France.... it is the end in slow motion.

20 minutes????

From when 'Publicas' posted the NYT piece to showing that it was a contradiction to the SCA testimony........ 10 minutes.

And that included reading the NYT piece, finding the SCA piece, copy and paste, and upload....

This was a CN Clinic bust!

 

[Anonymous]

I certainly think this weisel ownership of us cycling, lance and weisel on the board that pays the director needs to be looked at closer..

Why was this all brushed over in 2005-06?

 

[SpartacusRox]

It's gone way past Landis's emails. Federal investigator, grand jury, subpoenas. I don't expect people to hold back much once they're called in. The lower echelon will essentially get the choice between singing like a canary and federal prison. No wonder Armstrong doesn't have the focus as in previous years.

The ignorance shown regarding the judicial process is staggering on here. There is the immediate assumption that everyone who is or will be called to testify will support the Landis allegations.

Talk of federal prison is just dumb stuff, these threads get more like an online version of National Enquirer every day

 

[Cobblestones]

The ignorance shown regarding the judicial process is staggering on here. There is the immediate assumption that everyone who is or will be called to testify will support the Landis allegations.

Talk of federal prison is just dumb stuff, these threads get more like an online version of National Enquirer every day

Everybody who is called to testify should better tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, don't you agree?

 

[spectacle]

Really, can adverse inference in the legal sense be drawn from taking the fifth? Obviously it's as good as an admission to the public, but are you really sure it works that way legally? It's interesting if it works like that since it makes it far more damaging to take the Fifth.

no, an adverse inference cannot be drawn. the jury is specifically and clearly instructed that they are not to infer guilt or to make any judgments based upon a defendant's assertion of his constitutional right to refuse to testify or his refusal to take the stand.