Tailwind Sport 2005

[Velocentric]

Nope!

Susan

we all seem to be taking this very seriously, almost personally. Remember folks, most of what we post & share here is purely for our own education and satisfaction. As great as it would be to be able to make a difference to this continuing saga it's out of our hands.

Relax people, it's Friday

 

[Granville57]

I clearly don't, Landis didn't allege it - he said it happened, it is up to you whether you believe him or not.

Not all teams sell their bikes, although many do - and if USPS/Tailwind were selling them legitimately then they would be able to account for them all.

But, remember what Robert Burns, Trek's general counsel said:


And we are not talking small sums here:

Can we expand on that a bit? Even if some bikes were being sold for exorbitant funds, doesn't that seem like one of the riskier and perhaps sloppier ways of raising funds for dope? Considering the wealth of guys like Weisel and his inner circle, wouldn't they already have plenty of unaccounted funds hidden away with which to finance such a program? That of course assumes that Weisel was in on it, which I believe he was. Selling bikes just seems like an unnecessarily slow way to do it.

(Not that I don't think it happened for less than scrupulous reasons. It was many years ago that Floyd was bemoaning the lack of quality bikes on USPS for training and his own racing. The excuse given at the time seemed to be "If you're not Lance, don't expect much from the sponsor." So something was clearly not being handled well.)

 

[sniper]

The only thing the information at the top of the thread points out is some flagrant use of misinformation (lies to media) outside a court of Law.

Let's argue for a minute that Tailwind was a scheme to separate people from some of their money with no intent of ever having to show any kind of return to the same investors.
1. The legal system has few consequences for this misbehavior. Tailwind's principals variously characterize it as 'risky' and thus eliminate their liability. If it was me, no Series-7 (or whatever) license and no money, I'd be prosecuted with vigor. But Weisel and others have deep pockets and financial industry certifications.
2. Because there's practically no consequences, no one on the State's side will pursue it. On top of that, there's jurisdictional machinations that would make my head explode.
3. Let's kick it up to the Federal level and try to get the SEC's attention. No dice. They wouldn't touch Madoff after being repeatedly tipped off about the guy's fraud. The scale of the Tailwind fraud is microscopic in comparison.

I'm not opposed to pursuing the issue, but the violations have to be obvious and have serious penalties with lots of anonymous people in government signing off before anyone on the enforcement side will move.

It's clear there is an enormous amount of information out of Team Pharmstrong that is inconsistent and probably not true. But there's no consequences in the media for telling and retelling lies. None.

Today's lesson: Might make right. Again.

not very many have suggested there will be any direct consequences.
If anything, the data pointed out in this thread show black on white that Mr. A to the R to the Mstrong is incredible (literally, I mean)
Recall also that this is the only statement LA has made with regards to the investigation. And immediately he hits rockbottom and needs to be saved out by his lawyer, who comes up with some BS excuse.

If LA has been as sloppy as this case suggests, I bet Novitzky is by now swimming in evidence against him.

 

[Granville57]

(btw, it was all I could do to copy and paste all those previous comments before the mods nuked 'em. Fun reading. Now back to the program...)

 

[The Hitch]

(btw, it was all I could do to copy and paste all those previous comments before the mods nuked 'em. Fun reading. Now back to the program...)

Could you pm me them?

 

[eleven]

You missed the point.

I didn't say he defrauded Tailwind but its investors. I've read way that he and Bruyneel had assured everyone there was no doping going on.

The deception and fraud was at an investor level not to Tailwind itself.

A damaged investor from said claim of fraud would need to demonstrate damages.

What damages, exactly, did any investors face? No shareholder, employee or officer of any sponsors has claimed damages.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Wonder if this will get edited by the Mod?

I can't help but chuckle when I think of Lance saying this after the allegations broke:

"... if I walk away with one word to sum this all up - credibility. Floyd lost his credibility a long time ago."

And He thinks his is intact?

Lance likes his credibility.
His standards are low that way.

 

[eleven]

And clearly it's the only charge ever leveled against this crew so how could anybody ever give it any creedence.

The other charges aren't relevant to the lack of evidence that USPS or its officers sold bikes - as every other team does - and used those funds to fund a doping program.

 

[eleven]

I clearly don't, Landis didn't allege it - he said it happened, it is up to you whether you believe him or not.

Landis alleged it. That makes it an allegation. in other words, it's an alleged sale of treks for doping money. Whether you believe Landis or not doesn't change the nature of the charge - it remains an allegation.

Not all teams sell their bikes, although many do - and if USPS/Tailwind were selling them legitimately then they would be able to account for them all.

It doesn't matter that not every team on earth sells their bikes. The fact is many do, and do it frequently. Selling bikes is not a sign of doping.

But, remember what Robert Burns, Trek's general counsel said:


And we are not talking small sums here:

Again, that's not relevant to any allegation that bikes were sold to fund doping programs.

 

[BotanyBay]

The other charges aren't relevant to the lack of evidence that USPS or its officers sold bikes - as every other team does - and used those funds to fund a doping program.

Do you have an inventory of such evidence?

 

[Race Radio]

A damaged investor from said claim of fraud would need to demonstrate damages.

What damages, exactly, did any investors face? No shareholder, employee or officer of any sponsors has claimed damages.

I assume you are referring to the Qui Tam case. You should have an answer to that soon but in the meantime this should give you an idea of what they would be looking for

http://www.bafirm.com/articles/qt-over/fca-damages_and_penalties.html

 

[Dr. Maserati]

High Praise indeed



Your Holiness, during SCA Lance said he was an athlete with an equity position in Tailwind. What is this "serious omission" you speak of?



Ms Macur already knew this. She knew this when she asked Lance the question back in July. It is THE REASON she asked Lance the question in the first place. (Again, we discussed this in the forums back then.)

IIRC, back then there was a "leak" of info that the GJ investigation was not going after individual riders, but going after leaders and managers and muckymucks.

Juliet knew from the SCA testimony that Lance had an equity stake in Tailwind. So she asked about it. Great question btw.

Lance gave his "only a rider" spiel, and his lawyer had to clear up the statement soon after - which he did.

But anyway, TSF, what info should Dr M send to Juliet that she did not already know way back when?

You have a poor recolection of events.

Macur did not ask the question - Armstrong addressed a number of reporters before Stage 10 of the TdF.

The NYT were the first to put LA's denial online -but in that piece Macur did not mention the SCA testimony, that was added later that day.

 

[D-Queued]

Do you have an inventory of such evidence?

The bikes are an interesting angle with respect to Lance's Directorship.

A few if's here:

If bikes were sold
If those sales were receipted and/or checks used
If those sales were unreported
If even one purchaser can be identified

Then there is an interesting paper trail with respect to tax fraud.

If checks were not used, but $10k plus was provided in cash, was that cash reported when the purchaser left the US to visit the Tour? Was the 10k+ in cash reported on the way back to the US?

All of this may be peripheral, but is interesting.

Personally, I think the biggest thing is that Lance (and Herman) was caught in a series of lies about activities material to his cycling career - including sworn statements. Whatever case Novitzki et al build, the pattern of lying will be a nice thing to have in their pocket.

BTW - it was awesome digging by Dr. M to find the filing.

Dave

** edited by mod**

 

[BotanyBay]

No doubt that a good federal prosecutor's office can find the trail, find the buyers, etc. Lance is either going to have a drug case on his hands or a tax case.

Of course, if he gets a tax case, he'll just pretend to be a good ol boy from Texas who don't know "nuthin 'bout bizness".

 

[ergmonkey]

Let's argue for a minute that Tailwind was a scheme to separate people from some of their money with no intent of ever having to show any kind of return to the same investors.
1. The legal system has few consequences for this misbehavior. Tailwind's principals variously characterize it as 'risky' and thus eliminate their liability. If it was me, no Series-7 (or whatever) license and no money, I'd be prosecuted with vigor. But Weisel and others have deep pockets and financial industry certifications.
2. Because there's practically no consequences, no one on the State's side will pursue it. On top of that, there's jurisdictional machinations that would make my head explode.
3. Let's kick it up to the Federal level and try to get the SEC's attention. No dice. They wouldn't touch Madoff after being repeatedly tipped off about the guy's fraud. The scale of the Tailwind fraud is microscopic in comparison.

As to Point 1, not really. Securities laws are all about protecting investors who rely upon the efforts and management of others to earn a return for the investors. See Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). Furthermore, even though a "meaningful cautionary statement" may be sufficient to protect directors when they make predictions about future performance prospects and other speculative events which might encourage investors to hand over money to the directors' company, such cautionary statements are not a defense to charges of material misstatements or omissions and/or fraud. The statements must also be specific enough about the particular risks to be "meaningful." So, there's no foolproof get-out-of-jail-free-card in simply saying "buyer beware." See Slayton v. American Express, 604 F.3d 758 (2d. Cir. 2010).

As to Point 2 re: the State's willingness to prosecute, maybe but maybe not. You're right that Tailwind Sports isn't exactly a big fish in capital markets terms, but then again there already is a formal government-funded investigation ongoing and it is of some relevance that a potentially defrauded claimant in this case is the government itself--providing a little extra incentive to pursue action, perhaps.

As to Point 2 re: head-exploding jurisdictional conflicts, I think seasoned prosecutors can handle it. Incorporating a poorly-accounted-for corporate entity in Delaware which will do business elsewhere throughout the United States is not particularly innovative.

As to Point 3, who knows why the SEC does what it does and when they do it? Yeah, we all know that the guys at the Commission both: 1) let Madoff run his scheme for a very long time; and 2) spent a lot of time in recent years watching porn on government computers during normal business hours (I am not making this up). But, the SEC does, nonetheless, strike awfully damn hard when it wants to, and it corners big fish and little fish alike.

Basically, as tends to be the case in business law, I don't see a lot of easy answers here for anyone. It takes a lot more than these few misstatements to nail somebody in a federal court; but, these misstatements can certainly be small building blocks for a persuasive fraud case depending upon what else is out there.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Can we expand on that a bit? Even if some bikes were being sold for exorbitant funds, doesn't that seem like one of the riskier and perhaps sloppier ways of raising funds for dope? Considering the wealth of guys like Weisel and his inner circle, wouldn't they already have plenty of unaccounted funds hidden away with which to finance such a program? That of course assumes that Weisel was in on it, which I believe he was. Selling bikes just seems like an unnecessarily slow way to do it.

(Not that I don't think it happened for less than scrupulous reasons. It was many years ago that Floyd was bemoaning the lack of quality bikes on USPS for training and his own racing. The excuse given at the time seemed to be "If you're not Lance, don't expect much from the sponsor." So something was clearly not being handled well.)

Sure.

Its wasn't really a risk as 'they' never expected the Feds to come looking.

Remember Tailwind was losing money and while Weisel could have (& did) financially support the team setting up any type of account (even secret) would be riskier than selling bikes.

 

[Polish]

You have a poor recolection of events.

Macur did not ask the question - Armstrong addressed a number of reporters before Stage 10 of the TdF.

The NYT were the first to put LA's denial online -but in that piece Macur did not mention the SCA testimony, that was added later that day.

Poor recollection of events? I am quoting your OP yesterday lol:

Remember this quote from Armstrong to the New York Times Juliet Macur about Tailwind Sports in July?


Quote:
&#8220]

BTW, Lance was granted his equity position after the USPS days...
He was just a rider back then...

Back then, Lance was very focused on winning the TdF.
Lazer like focus. Weighing food. Recon mountain repeats. Tent Sleeping.
Not sitting in on board meetings.

If you could uncover Tailwind Board Meeting Minutes from back in the USPS days showing Lance in attendance, THAT would be news....

 

[flicker]

Can we expand on that a bit? Even if some bikes were being sold for exorbitant funds, doesn't that seem like one of the riskier and perhaps sloppier ways of raising funds for dope? Considering the wealth of guys like Weisel and his inner circle, wouldn't they already have plenty of unaccounted funds hidden away with which to finance such a program? That of course assumes that Weisel was in on it, which I believe he was. Selling bikes just seems like an unnecessarily slow way to do it.

(Not that I don't think it happened for less than scrupulous reasons. It was many years ago that Floyd was bemoaning the lack of quality bikes on USPS for training and his own racing. The excuse given at the time seemed to be "If you're not Lance, don't expect much from the sponsor." So something was clearly not being handled well.)

Should we give more credence to Floyd(once was a great rider, former TdF winner)Landis, Tyler(Born twin)Hamilton, or Micheal(Rocks' here to stay)Ball.

Truly have you ever believed anything(IMO) positivly lies these three have ever said?

 

[BotanyBay]

Should we give more credence to Floyd(once was a great rider, former TdF winner)Landis, Tyler(Born twin)Hamilton, or Micheal(Rocks' here to stay)Ball.

Truly have you ever believed anything(IMO) positivly lies these three have ever said?

The latter two have never reversed their respective positions. Yes, I believe Floyd now.

As someone mentioned (and it is true) that in law school, everyone is taught:

"The guilty attack the accuser. The innocent attack the evidence."

 

[flicker]

The latter two have never reversed their respective positions. Yes, I believe Floyd now.

As someone mentioned (and it is true) that in law school, everyone is taught:

"The guilty attack the accuser. The innocent attack the evidence."

In Floyds' case I would say,"once a liar always a liar." Or, "Fooled me once, shame on you." "Fooled me twice shame on me."

 

[D-Queued]

In Floyds' case I would say,"once a liar always a liar." Or, "Fooled me once, shame on you." "Fooled me twice shame on me."

And shame on you for not paying attention to the obvious and trying to pervert an honest statement.

Floyd lied. Yes. Then he came clean on the lie.

Those two statements are contradictory. You cannot claim he is always a liar as this proves otherwise. At this point it is more likely that a pattern of truth has emerged - notably because it fits with the facts.

When Floyd lied, it did not fit with the facts. What he has told us about Lance fits with the facts.

Your ongoing protestations, however, fly in the face of fact.

As John Adams said:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

Or, to quote Ayn Rand:

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

Your premises are wrong.

Dave.

 

[flicker]

I take it all back. When Floyd pays back all the money he took fradulently in his defense fund,(including the $25 he got from me for Positivly False), goes to trial in France for hacking the French doping agency, reveals which races he cheated in and returns the prize money and apologizes to the competitors and organizers of the events he cheated in, yes like Greg LeMond I will say, "I forgive Floyd."

Until then Floyd is, well, Floyd.

 

[BotanyBay]

In Floyds' case I would say,"once a liar always a liar." Or, "Fooled me once, shame on you." "Fooled me twice shame on me."

So if Lance were to turn around and admit he's been a doper for 20 years, by your logic, you'd not be allowed to believe it. Once a liar, always a liar.
So now I can understand the intransigence that you, Polish and others have.

I've lied before. So have you. Are people never to believe you ever again?

 

[flicker]

And shame on you for not paying attention to the obvious and trying to pervert an honest statement.

Floyd lied. Yes. Then he came clean on the lie.

Those two statements are contradictory. You cannot claim he is always a liar as this proves otherwise. At this point it is more likely that a pattern of truth has emerged - notably because it fits with the facts.

When Floyd lied, it did not fit with the facts. What he has told us about Lance fits with the facts.

Your ongoing protestations, however, fly in the face of fact.

As John Adams said:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

Or, to quote Ayn Rand:

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

Your premises are wrong.

Dave.

I like your quotations Dave. Ayn Rand is epic. Still Floyd is Floyd, we can't get around that. How exactly did Floyd gain the confidences of slimeball Ball. I put that judgement on Ball, but Ball is not stupid. Did you ever think how Floyd gained the confidence of Ball?

At the end of the day I would believe most barristers would consider Floyd a liar. At best Floyd manipulates the truth as it suits him, for Floyds' own purposes.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Poor recollection of events? I am quoting your OP yesterday lol:

Yes poor recollection of events (you said you remembered it from July posts) and you can add poor reading comprehension as well.

BTW, Lance was granted his equity position after the USPS days...
He was just a rider back then...

Back then, Lance was very focused on winning the TdF.
Lazer like focus. Weighing food. Recon mountain repeats. Tent Sleeping.
Not sitting in on board meetings.

If you could uncover Tailwind Board Meeting Minutes from back in the USPS days showing Lance in attendance, THAT would be news....

You might want to put in that Lance 'allegedly' was granted equity or will upset some because it is in direct conflict with Bill Stapleton who said Lance had 11.5% ownership of Tailwind during his testimony at the SCA case.