• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!

The media's contribution to the Armstrong Lie

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
I have written about here, and other forums for years. The story has been know for years. Wonderboy was a bit too vocal about getting a hold of the killer new stuff.

It is not surprising that what he tells people today is much different then what he said 13 years ago when he wasn't the subject of a Federal investigation.

Yes, the HemAssist story is old - not an SI revelation by any stretch..

Boasting to a team mate 13 years ago is NOT a Federal Offense.
Lance boasting is normal. Proven track record there.

And did your friend see Lance USE Hemassist?
If so, maybe it was the same type of HemAssist Frigo used?
Did your friend analyse the HemAssist?
Did your friend testify before the Grand Jury under oath?

Frankly Race, your stories have been proven wrong time and again.
You have talked for years about Lance flushing Floyd's blood too. False.
And that $500,000 bribe was never proven true.

I do agree that IF Lance used Hemassist the Fed's will find out.
And if Lance did NOT use HemAssist the Fed's will prove that too.

The PROOF will soon be unveiled.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Yes, the HemAssist story is old - not an SI revelation by any stretch..

Boasting to a team mate 13 years ago is NOT a Federal Offense.
Lance boasting is normal. Proven track record there.

And did your friend see Lance USE Hemassist?
If so, maybe it was the same type of HemAssist Frigo used?
Did your friend analyse the HemAssist?
Did your friend testify before the Grand Jury under oath?

Frankly Race, your stories have been proven wrong time and again.
You have talked for years about Lance flushing Floyd's blood too. False.
And that $500,000 bribe was never proven true.

I do agree that IF Lance used Hemassist the Fed's will find out.
And if Lance did NOT use HemAssist the Fed's will prove that too.

The PROOF will soon be unveiled.

False indeed, it was just the doctor doing the honors.
Never proven true indeed, it was a mere 125.000.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Barrus said:
the problem is the only unnamed source that could say this with certainty is LA, or someone needed to be wth him 24/7 for several years.

Except Armstrong is under no legal obligation to prove he did not have access to Hemassist.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Colm.Murphy said:
So that I can clearly understand, please tell me if I have this right:

Your "source" is claiming that the SI article, for which is a USA publication and governed by the laws of New York state, forewent any legal review, vetting, or source verification and fact checking, and published materials that were patently false and damaging to the reputation of Lance Armstrong?

I never made such a claim. I referred quite specifically to certain charges and the fact that it was approved by SI's editorial board - vetters, verifiers, fact-checkers.

And further, that Lance Armstrong and his counsel has chosen, to this day, to permit the information to stand, ignoring the legal recourse he could have taken to prevent the publication of such materials?

I never made that claim.

And on top of that, it is your claim that the published assertion that Lance (or his associates) obtained an experimental medicine produced by Baxter is false, and that SI's "source" who states that the US Federal agents have documentation of this are in fact incorrect?

Yes, SI's "source" who states that US Federal Agents have documentation of this is incorrect.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
eleven said:
Yes, SI's "source" who states that US Federal Agents have documentation of this is incorrect.

Ahhh, yes. Your source inside the Federal investigation is better then SI?


eleven said:
Except Armstrong is under no legal obligation to prove he did not have access to Hemassist.
If the Feds have evidence to the contrary then yes he does have some explaining to do
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
sniper said:
False indeed, it was just the doctor doing the honors.
Never proven true indeed, it was a mere 125.000.


Oh, so a Doctor flushed the blood out of spite.
Maybe Lance told him to? Yea, thats it.

$500,000 bribe never happened. Talked about a lot though. Talk talk.
Exaggerations and falsehoods go figure. Interns could do better.
Never any credible sources given.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Oh, so a Doctor flushed the blood out of spite.
Maybe Lance told him to? Yea, thats it.

$500,000 bribe never happened. Talked about a lot though. Talk talk.
Exaggerations and falsehoods go figure. Interns could do better.
Never any credible sources given.

Why did Armstrong tell so many people about the $500,000 bribe if it never happened? Are you calling Armstrong a liar?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Why did Armstrong tell so many people about the $500,000 bribe if it never happened? Are you calling Armstrong a liar?

Of course he is a liar.
Boastful too.

It is a bit hard to believed that YOU believed him lol.

"I bribed the UCI $500,000"
"I have access to super drugs"

blah blah blah.

Finding evidence to back up Lance's boasts will be very hard indeed.
Impossible in many cases.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Ahhh, yes. Your source inside the Federal investigation is better then SI?

You'll find out soon enough. We can then compare notes between your "decade" of knowledge about this (never reported, of course) and the information I've offered.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
eleven said:
Except Armstrong is under no legal obligation to prove he did not have access to Hemassist.

Uh, you were the person who said he did not have access to Hemassist on the basis of unnamed sources. My statement is that unless that source is LA that source would have no way of knowing unless he was around him 24/7 for multiple years. So, what are you now suddenly saying you don't have sources anymore, because that post of yours does seem to imply that
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
eleven said:
You'll find out soon enough. We can then compare notes between your "decade" of knowledge about this (never reported, of course) and the information I've offered.

Do you actually read other peoples posts? As I have said, I have written about here, and other forums, for years. It was well known in the sport.

Wonderboy had a big mouth back in the day.
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Do you actually read other peoples posts? As I have said, I have written about here, and other forums, for years. It was well known in the sport.

Wonderboy had a big mouth back in the day.

We know the answer to that.
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
Visit site
eleven said:
I never made that claim.

Classic misdirection; he's not asserting that you made the claim, but looking for you to refute it. Refute it, or admit defeat and move on. At the very least, move on - but please stay for a bit first, because sometimes it's fun to watch the sharks at work.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Hey, what do you want to bet that Lance paid for the REFC decision for Contador. Us jackals have to get on the next carcass....
How long before LA's handlers start exploiting that diversion?
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Yes it does.

morals2.jpg


The did not fire because the management hid the drug use of the team and lies to the USPS. That is called fraud


Polish, yes it does. Is it clear enough for you?










/crickets
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Colm.Murphy said:
Polish, yes it does. Is it clear enough for you


Colm., you said "the USPS endorsement contract, you know, the one that requires them to adhere to the rules of the sport and the laws of the country? Yes, that one."

But the contract does not say that at all.
ReReRead it again. Move your lips as you read if you have to.

The contract gives the right to USPS to fire a rider if they are naughty.
They did not HAVE TO fire them, mind you - but they could have grrrrr.

The USPS also had the right to leave a rider on the team if they were naughty.
I am not saying the USPS did that, but it was up to the USPS to decide.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Do you actually read other peoples posts? As I have said, I have written about here, and other forums, for years. It was well known in the sport.

Wonderboy had a big mouth back in the day.

I've read what you wrote. That's a far cry from accepting it as fact, however. As I said, let's revisit this conversation in due time and we'll see whose observations hold up.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
jimmypop said:
Classic misdirection; he's not asserting that you made the claim, but looking for you to refute it. Refute it, or admit defeat and move on. At the very least, move on - but please stay for a bit first, because sometimes it's fun to watch the sharks at work.


You're asking me to refute this:
Your "source" is claiming that the SI article, for which is a USA publication and governed by the laws of New York state, forewent any legal review, vetting, or source verification and fact checking, and published materials that were patently false and damaging to the reputation of Lance Armstrong?

The problem is, I didn't claim any of that, nor would I have any need to refute it.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Do you actually read other peoples posts? As I have said, I have written about here, and other forums, for years. It was well known in the sport.

Wonderboy had a big mouth back in the day.
horse steroids, 98 Vuelta.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Colm., you said "the USPS endorsement contract, you know, the one that requires them to adhere to the rules of the sport and the laws of the country? Yes, that one."

But the contract does not say that at all.
ReReRead it again. Move your lips as you read if you have to.

The contract gives the right to USPS to fire a rider if they are naughty.
They did not HAVE TO fire them, mind you - but they could have grrrrr.

The USPS also had the right to leave a rider on the team if they were naughty.
I am not saying the USPS did that, but it was up to the USPS to decide.

I will try to make this as clear as possible.

This is fraud in the concealment.
The USPS team had a systematic doping program.
The contract states that they would terminate the contract if they violated the law or the rules of the respective sport.
The USPS team conspired to suppress and omit this fact from being known, by concealing it as a material fact.
It was the duty and responsibility of the signors of the contract (and ultimately the owners of Tailwind/CSE) to inform USPS that they had a systematic doping program.
They intentionally withheld this material fact, for had it been communicated, the USPS would have most certainly terminated the contract.

That they did not terminate the contract does not mean that they had been aware of the doping, chose NOT to terminate the contract, and thereby grant tacit permission for the doping to continue unabated. It means that they were never made aware of the violation of the terms of the contract.

That the USPS team continued to invoice and take the money from the USPS, for many years adds significant complication (aggravated), as with each act they are omitting this material fact of contract violation. This is the fraud. Wire/Mail Fraud, in the concealment.

It is my view that considering the structure of the company, pattern of acts, duration that it persisted, inclusion of obtaining/transporting drugs, and the extravagant fraud scheme, this could rise to the level of a RICO case. Go read some RICO law and let's argue that, too.

Really, it is clear you are equipped with enough wattage upstairs to understand this. It is a simple legal concept.

Dance around how you wish. When the music stops, your seat will be gone, and the myth of "Lance" will be revealed as a very impressive and highly engineered mirage. He will be implicated for his role in bilking the govt out of 30 - 60 million.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Colm.Murphy said:
I will try to make this as clear as possible.

This is fraud in the concealment.
The USPS team had a systematic doping program.
The contract states that they would terminate the contract if they violated the law or the rules of the respective sport.
The USPS team conspired to suppress and omit this fact from being known, by concealing it as a material fact.
It was the duty and responsibility of the signors of the contract (and ultimately the owners of Tailwind/CSE) to inform USPS that they had a systematic doping program.
They intentionally withheld this material fact, for had it been communicated, the USPS would have most certainly terminated the contract.

That they did not terminate the contract does not mean that they had been aware of the doping, chose NOT to terminate the contract, and thereby grant tacit permission for the doping to continue unabated. It means that they were never made aware of the violation of the terms of the contract.

That the USPS team continued to invoice and take the money from the USPS, for many years adds significant complication (aggravated), as with each act they are omitting this material fact of contract violation. This is the fraud. Wire/Mail Fraud, in the concealment.

It is my view that considering the structure of the company, pattern of acts, duration that it persisted, inclusion of obtaining/transporting drugs, and the extravagant fraud scheme, this could rise to the level of a RICO case. Go read some RICO law and let's argue that, too.

Really, it is clear you are equipped with enough wattage upstairs to understand this. It is a simple legal concept.

Dance around how you wish. When the music stops, your seat will be gone, and the myth of "Lance" will be revealed as a very impressive and highly engineered mirage. He will be implicated for his role in bilking the govt out of 30 - 60 million.

Where does the contract say the bolded part?
Please quote the contract if you would.

The contract gives the USPS the right to fire riders.
NOT the right to revoke sponsorship of the team and demand all their money back in the case of fraud.

Sheesh, do you think TailWind would have signed on for that lol?
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Where does the contract say the bolded part?
Please quote the contract if you would.

The contract gives the USPS the right to fire riders.
NOT the right to revoke sponsorship of the team and demand all their money back in the case of fraud.

Sheesh, do you think TailWind would have signed on for that lol?

Yes, it does, and they did. In fact, ALL US Federal contracts have standard language outlining things that must be complied with or the contract will be terminated, for a myriad of reasons. All of which you can read below.

So, again, you have missed the bigger, overall policy/guidelines. I have mentioned this before. But again, for you, I will illustrate where they are afoul.

US Federal Contracting Guidelines: http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241470.html

Look for Section V. UNIQUE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND ETHICAL RESPONSBILITIES. skim to subsection B., or read this pertinent portion:

B. False Claims and False Statements
Contractors must ensure that no false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements are made to a federal agency. 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A false representation with respect to a company's ability to comply with government contract requirements may subject the company and its management and employees to criminal liability. False statements can also arise in the submission of required reports during contract administration or in the submission of affirmative action reports. Depending upon the circumstances, a contractor that makes a false statement to the Government may face civil or criminal liability for such a statement. The civil and criminal False Claims Acts impose sanctions for the submission of false or fraudulent claims. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733; 18 U.S.C. § 287. When the Government relies upon a false statement in awarding a contract, and subsequently makes payments under that contract, the invoices may be considered a false claim. Lax billing oversight and failure to bill strictly in accordance with the contract can also lead to a false claim. In addition, non-compliance with TINA, the CAS, and the cost principles (see above) can give rise to false claim liability.


Also, consider this serious point:

VI. SOCIO-ECONOMIC OBLIGATIONS

"D. Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 200-690, obligates a non-commercial item Government contractor, who has a contract over $100,000, to meet certain requirements designed to keep the work place free of illegal drugs. In particular, a Government contractor must agree to (1) publish a statement and notify employees in writing that illegal drugs are prohibited in the work place; (2) publish and notify employees of the action the contractor will take against violators of the drug prohibition policy; (3) establish a drug-free awareness program for employees; (4) notify employees that compliance with the drug prohibition is a condition of employment, and that employees must notify the contractor of any violation of Federal or state drug abuse statutes occurring in the work place within 5 days of conviction; (5) notify the Government contracting agency within 10 days of receipt of an employee conviction notice; (6) take appropriate personnel action within 30 days of receipt of an employee conviction notice; (7) require that the convicted employee participate in an approved drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program; and (8) make a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free work place through the implementation of these requirements. The Drug-Free Workplace Act does not, however, require drug testing of employees."


Also, more here.

USPS Internal Purchasing Guidelines: http://www.usps.com/cpim/manuals/pm/pm.htm

Dig in.

You can't break the law and keep your contract. Fraud is a crime, last time I checks.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Where does the contract say the bolded part?
Please quote the contract if you would.

The contract gives the USPS the right to fire riders.
NOT the right to revoke sponsorship of the team and demand all their money back in the case of fraud.

Sheesh, do you think TailWind would have signed on for that lol?

Have you seen the rest of the contract or just a paragraph?

The team (The Company in the contract) entered into an agreement where it promised to fire any rider who took part in
inappropriate drug conduct prejudicial to the Team

Most rational people would say that pulling the bus over side of the road so the entire team could transfuse bags of blood would fit this description.

The team not only failed to fire the riders that doped but they actively encouraged and enabled it. They then actively worked to cover up this breach. This is a violation of the contract. Tailwind was in default.

regardless, I doubt you actually care much about this. Given your posting history disruption is your goal.
 

TRENDING THREADS