The fun begins - SCA now asking for money back...

[MarkvW]

Not that long ago I am sure he believed this would all disappear. Now he is facing the absolute worst case doomsday scenario as a high probability outcome.

5hit just got real!!

I wouldn't think that Armstrong going to prison is a "high probability outcome."

I'd suggest that the mere fact of investigation does not imply a likelihood of charging or conviction of a crime.

The qui tam is a serious threat with the potential for a doomsday financial outcome, but we have no way of evaluating the evidence in that case. There is only guessing at this stage, not probabilities.

I don't think anyone has presented a credible argument that SCA has a strong case. They have to get by the settlement agreement they signed.

Looks like the Times is negotiating with Lance. That case looks good, but it doesn't look like it will inflict "doomsday" on Lance.

This place sometimes turns into an echo chamber for worst/best case scenarios.

 

[Aleajactaest]

You are correct. My recollection was that Birotte was not named the US attorney until after the investigation was initiated. That is not correct.

Now, explain why he stopped an investigation that could have involved the very incidents that are now being investigated by another office, and why that office has chosen to leave him completely blind to that fact when his office would certainly have mounds of evidence they could use. Not only that, but why did that other office leak their investigation shortly after Briotte announced he had no regrets about stopping his investigation (when it was clear that he was one of the few in the office who felt that way)? Because that was a slap in the face. Period. That was a political move. Period. You don't embarrass a US Attorney like that by accident. You don't leak not only that he was wrong about there being no investigation, but that you aren't including him in on your game unless you want to cast him in a specific light.

So please, answer the questions presented because you have been smearing RR for a year about this, and I want to see how you can continue to deny that there just might be some validity to his assertion. So please, spare me the speech about being such a meanie that you can't make it through my posts...

Never look for a conspiracy. The simplest answer usually true. They didn't think they needed to talk to Briotte. It's hardly the first time seperate agencies of the government have plowed the same ground. Usually to get credit first is possible. Look at congress. Every single time there is some incident, six different committees all have hearings with the same 6 witnesses. Each claims to be right.

Additionally, in this case, the don't want Briottes stink on their case as they clearly don't think his investigation should have been closed.

 

[MarkvW]

You are correct. My recollection was that Birotte was not named the US attorney until after the investigation was initiated. That is not correct.

Now, explain why he stopped an investigation that could have involved the very incidents that are now being investigated by another office, and why that office has chosen to leave him completely blind to that fact when his office would certainly have mounds of evidence they could use. Not only that, but why did that other office leak their investigation shortly after Briotte announced he had no regrets about stopping his investigation (when it was clear that he was one of the few in the office who felt that way)? Because that was a slap in the face. Period. That was a political move. Period. You don't embarrass a US Attorney like that by accident. You don't leak not only that he was wrong about there being no investigation, but that you aren't including him in on your game unless you want to cast him in a specific light.

So please, answer the questions presented because you have been smearing RR for a year about this, and I want to see how you can continue to deny that there just might be some validity to his assertion. So please, spare me the speech about being such a meanie that you can't make it through my posts...

When one prosecutor tells the public that an investigation has been stopped and another prosecutor knows that statement to be false, then the prosecutor who knows the statement to be false is going to correct it. That is because the second prosecutor does not want to be confronted with an apparent lie if he does end up charging the suspect. First, that apparent lie looks bad and the second prosecutor does not want his office to be perceived as dishonest. Second, it eliminates an argument that the second prosecutor surely would have to face from the charged suspect.

The idea that one US Attorney is going to politically embarass another US attorney makes no sense whatsoever. The Attorney General is the boss of them all and the last thing he is ever going to want to have to address is inter-office infighting. Any infighting reflects badly on the Office of the Attorney General.

You don't have the faintest idea of prosecutorial decision-making.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

When one prosecutor tells the public that an investigation has been stopped and another prosecutor knows that statement to be false, then the prosecutor who knows the statement to be false is going to correct it. That is because the second prosecutor does not want to be confronted with an apparent lie if he does end up charging the suspect. First, that apparent lie looks bad and the second prosecutor does not want his office to be perceived as dishonest. Second, it eliminates an argument that the second prosecutor surely would have to face from the charged suspect.

The idea that one US Attorney is going to politically embarass another US attorney makes no sense whatsoever. The Attorney General is the boss of them all and the last thing he is ever going to want to have to address is inter-office infighting. Any infighting reflects badly on the Office of the Attorney General.

You don't have the faintest idea of prosecutorial decision-making.

And you don't have the faintest idea of who leaked the fact that there is a new investigation. Plus, they did embarrass him. Just read the news reports *******.

If fact, for an attorney, you haven't the faintest idea of many things legal as has been proven time and again. Sad.

But you keep explaining away why you continue to foreclose something that to anyone with an eye and half a brain should be questioning...oh wait, I forgot, you don't want Birotte to be mad at your intertubes personality...you know, the one where you keep lying about who you are to everyone. The same one you keep smearing RR with...and then turning around and whining like a puppy because I call you out on your BS.

Hey, did you ever prove that Frankie "helped" Armstrong dope, or are you just going to let that lie keep hanging out there?

EDIT: BTW, how did you know the anonymous leak was a US Attorney? Man, they wanted to stay anonymous, so they're going to be really p!ssed off at your intertubes persona.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

troll babble

You sir are a joke that takes himself seriously.

 

[MarkvW]

And you don't have the faintest idea of who leaked the fact that there is a new investigation. Plus, they did embarrass him. Just read the news reports *******.

If fact, for an attorney, you haven't the faintest idea of many things legal as has been proven time and again. Sad.

But you keep explaining away why you continue to foreclose something that to anyone with an eye and half a brain should be questioning...oh wait, I forgot, you don't want Birotte to be mad at your intertubes personality...you know, the one where you keep lying about who you are to everyone. The same one you keep smearing RR with...and then turning around and whining like a puppy because I call you out on your BS.

Hey, did you ever prove that Frankie "helped" Armstrong dope, or are you just going to let that lie keep hanging out there?

I note you make an absurd post. Then defend it with another absurd post, coupled with a personal attack. When you've got the facts . . . When you've got the law . . . When you have neither the facts nor the law . . .

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I note you make an absurd post. Then defend it with another absurd post, coupled with a personal attack. When you've got the facts . . . When you've got the law . . . When you have neither the facts nor the law . . .

You are an expert on having neither facts nor law, so I will defer to your expertise.

Anyway, even if I am wrong, I will still have a heavily imbalanced scorecard against your legal expertise.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I note you make an absurd post. Then defend it with another absurd post, coupled with a personal attack. When you've got the facts . . . When you've got the law . . . When you have neither the facts nor the law . . .

And again Mr. Jokie, ever provide the proof Frankie "helped" Lance dope? Nope? I wish I could find another word that rhymes with dope...

Oh, and many people consider "reality" a "personal attack." The truth always affects the liar that way.

 

[MarkvW]

And again Mr. Jokie, ever provide the proof Frankie "helped" Lance dope? Nope? I wish I could find another word that rhymes with dope...

Read Wikipedia. He doped to support lance in the '99 Tour. He's a doper. He supported Lance the doper. Those facts can't fairly be disputed.

But he quit on his own, and shortly thereafter left the team. And I'm unaware of any lies he's told. In the pantheon of doping cheats who helped Lance win, he comes off by far the best.

 

[Scott SoCal]

When one prosecutor tells the public that an investigation has been stopped and another prosecutor knows that statement to be false, then the prosecutor who knows the statement to be false is going to correct it. That is because the second prosecutor does not want to be confronted with an apparent lie if he does end up charging the suspect. First, that apparent lie looks bad and the second prosecutor does not want his office to be perceived as dishonest. Second, it eliminates an argument that the second prosecutor surely would have to face from the charged suspect.

The idea that one US Attorney is going to politically embarass another US attorney makes no sense whatsoever. The Attorney General is the boss of them all and the last thing he is ever going to want to have to address is inter-office infighting. Any infighting reflects badly on the Office of the Attorney General.

You don't have the faintest idea of prosecutorial decision-making.

This is just a bad post and you are giving Holder credit he does not deserve.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Read Wikipedia. He doped to support lance in the '99 Tour. He's a doper. He supported Lance the doper. Those facts can't fairly be disputed.

But he quit on his own, and shortly thereafter left the team. And I'm unaware of any lies he's told. In the pantheon of doping cheats who helped Lance win, he comes off by far the best.

You didn't write "supported" you wrote "helped" and the difference is measurable and distinct. You also didn't write that he "helped" Lance win, you wrote that he "helped" Lance dope. Again a measurable and distinct difference. Words have meaning.

 

[MarkvW]

....

You have got to be kidding! "Helped" vs. "Supported?" Are you pulling my leg?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You have got to be kidding! "Helped" vs. "Supported?" Are you pulling my leg?

Show me where Frankie "helped Lance dope" (your words) or STFU. Seriously, the lady doth protest too much methinks.

 

[Ferminal]

Can we please settle down and move on. Not sure how relevant Frankie Andreu's doping is to SCA getting their money back.

 

[Jeremiah]

I wouldn't think that Armstrong going to prison is a "high probability outcome."

I'd suggest that the mere fact of investigation does not imply a likelihood of charging or conviction of a crime.

The qui tam is a serious threat with the potential for a doomsday financial outcome, but we have no way of evaluating the evidence in that case. There is only guessing at this stage, not probabilities.

I don't think anyone has presented a credible argument that SCA has a strong case. They have to get by the settlement agreement they signed.

Looks like the Times is negotiating with Lance. That case looks good, but it doesn't look like it will inflict "doomsday" on Lance.

This place sometimes turns into an echo chamber for worst/best case scenarios.

What alternative reality do you live in?

SCA has a great case. Lance presented the credible argument. Good shot he'll go to prison too.

People with power have their chance to strike and he should be very worried. If he's lucky he won't get more than a year, but he's going.

You're the one living in the echo chamber because evidently you believe the nonsense you spew.

BTW, I thought you had resigned from the forums?

 

[MarkvW]

This is just a bad post and you are giving Holder credit he does not deserve.

You have got to look at this in context. Federal prosecutors only make comments on ongoing investigations in EXTREMELY rare circumstances.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Can we please settle down and move on. Not sure how relevant Frankie Andreu's doping is to SCA getting their money back.

Okay, I am done. It's pointless anyway.

 

[MarkvW]

What alternative reality do you live in?

SCA has a great case. Lance presented the credible argument. Good shot he'll go to prison too.

People with power have their chance to strike and he should be very worried. If he's lucky he won't get more than a year, but he's going.

You're the one living in the echo chamber because evidently you believe the nonsense you spew.

BTW, I thought you had resigned from the forums?

When the criminal case got dismissed, the "people with power" were the bad guys. Now the "people with power" are the avenging angels?

And, if SCA loses, is that also going to be the product of corruption, or influence?

Sure there's not a little bit of wish fulfillment going on here?

 

[Jeremiah]

When the criminal case got dismissed, the "people with power" were the bad guys. Now the "people with power" are the avenging angels?

And, if SCA loses, is that also going to be the product of corruption, or influence?

Sure there's not a little bit of wish fulfillment going on here?

More silliness from delusionalville.

Regarding your "people with power" stupidity. Lance Armstrong had a lot of power a year ago, didn't he? Birotte appeared to have power. Now he doesn't even know wtf is going on... My how things change.

Really, just go away. You constantly advance these inanities like this "people with power" bs. It doesn't even make sense on any level at all and stands up to zero scrutiny...

Under what "theory" does SCA lose?

Wish fulfillment? Wtf is wrong with you? You don't "wish" to see justice done? What do you wish for btw?

You really think that every single fraudulent assertion Armstrong made does not matter and Armstrong will prevail?

What a clown....

SCA are gamblers. Why don't you place a bet with them and tell us how it goes?

 

[MarkvW]

More silliness from delusionalville.

Regarding your "people with power" stupidity. Lance Armstrong had a lot of power a year ago, didn't he? My how things change.

Really, just go away. You constantly advance these inanities like this "people with power" bs. It doesn't even make sense on any level at all and stands up to zero scrutiny...

Under what "theory" does SCA lose?

Wish fulfillment? Wtf is wrong with you? You don't "wish" to see justice done? What do you wish for btw?

You really think that every single fraudulent assertion Armstrong made does not matter and Armstrong will prevail?

What a clown....

SCA are gamblers. Why don't you place a bet with them and tell us how it goes?

Hey! You're the one who started on about the "people with power!" Can't see how the "people with power" are going to affect the SCA case one way or the other.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

More silliness from delusionalville.

Regarding your "people with power" stupidity. Lance Armstrong had a lot of power a year ago, didn't he? Birotte appeared to have power. Now he doesn't even know wtf is going on... My how things change.

Really, just go away. You constantly advance these inanities like this "people with power" bs. It doesn't even make sense on any level at all and stands up to zero scrutiny...

Under what "theory" does SCA lose?

Wish fulfillment? Wtf is wrong with you? You don't "wish" to see justice done? What do you wish for btw?

You really think that every single fraudulent assertion Armstrong made does not matter and Armstrong will prevail?

What a clown....

SCA are gamblers. Why don't you place a bet with them and tell us how it goes?

And Armstrong will settle, and he will get to continue to suggest his theories were correct...SSDD

 

[MarkvW]

There may very well be a settlement. I'm not saying SCA WILL win, I'm saying that SCA has a very big problem with the settlement agreement.

 

[Jeremiah]

And Armstrong will settle, and he will get to continue to suggest his theories were correct...SSDD

If Armstrong does not settle I'm sure the sentencing judge will make him wish he did. I have the feeling we're going to find out how much $$ being a free man is worth to Armstong. He'll get at least a year but the max penalty for witness intimidation alone is pretty severe.

I see where Armstrong gets his balls though with all of these parasite defenders and enablers. God help us.

His theories, good grief, I thought he was out of here after Borat dropped the case last year.

 

[MarkvW]

If Armstrong does not settle I'm sure the sentencing judge will make him wish he did. I have the feeling we're going to find out how much $$ being a free man is worth to Armstong. He'll get at least a year but the max penalty for witness intimidation alone is pretty severe.

I see where Armstrong gets his balls though with all of these parasite defenders and enablers. God help us.

His theories, good grief, I thought he was out of here after Borat dropped the case last year.

The sentencing judge? Are you so sure he's going to be convicted of something? He hasn't even been charged yet!

Or does the fact of investigation presuppose eventual conviction?

 

[Jeremiah]

There may very well be a settlement. I'm not saying SCA WILL win, I'm saying that SCA has a very big problem with the settlement agreement.

They have no problem at ALL, with Herman's opening statement.

http://platform.atavist.com/data/files/organization/2/pdf/scaarmstrong-1360267325-74.pdf

If SCA has such a big problem then why did LA offer to settle already? Out of the goodness of his heart.

Bro, he's done and I have no idea what your angle is on all this but this constant piffle you spew is absolutely pathetic.