The media's contribution to the Armstrong Lie

[Race Radio]

"according to lawyers familiar with the investigation" is said over and over. There is no way the Feds are talking to a journalist......wonder who those lawyers are?

Perhaps one is Brian Daley?

 

[frenchfry]

This reads like a primer in the talking points, many of them repeated more than once in this 2 page propoganda sheet:

But a decision on whether to indict America's most famous cyclist in performance-enhancing drug case is not imminent and the federal investigation has encountered serious hurdles, according to lawyers familiar with the matter

Who's lawyers?

Armstrong has never been found to have failed a drug test

So far, Landis, whose credibility is open to question, is the only person to say publicly he saw Armstrong doping

So Armstrong has been tested hundreds of times over the years for banned substances

In their hunt for a violation of law, investigators have covered a lot of old ground in Armstrong's life

The Armstrong camp says Landis's motive is money — that he is seeking to cash in

With Landis's credibility at issue

Dutch investigator Emile Vrijman

Vrijman an investigator?

A cancer survivor and sports hero whose foundation has raised millions to help others.

 

[sniper]

note also that the SI article isn't mentioned anywhere

 

[Colm.Murphy]

N

This reads like a primer in the talking points, many of them repeated more than once in this 2 page propoganda sheet:



Who's lawyers?

Well done. You've boiled off the wax and found the bones of the propaganda.

Really nothing here. Perhaps, the Lance legal attack team was told that with Bonds and Clemens on the task sheet, his indictment is being pushed back to Summer. Maybe it will coincide with Le Tour? Perfect time to amplify the ensnarement. I imagine this will be touted as one of he most in-depth investigations in the history of the FDA, with the depths of the fraud being the reason it took so long. Exhausting to uncover such a complex and pervasive fraud.



















Vrijman an investigator?[/QUOTE]

 

[Colm.Murphy]

note also that the SI article isn't mentioned anywhere

No mention of Baxter experimental drugs, as there is no rebuttal point developed yet. All the other touchy items have a clear counter point. Why include any "open" topics?

No mention of the recent change in race policy that is allowing guys like Lance, GH, LL, CVV and DZ to race the Tour of California.

Instead they close with the thought of a seated jury made up of yellow bracelet wearing "believers". Now, that is just ego talking right there. It's not even close to reality. Most "common" folk I know think Lance took all the drugs, even before they get full facts.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Lets have a go -

(02-12) 08:12 PST WASHINGTON, CA (AP) --

Hmm, an AP piece from CA which is where Fabiani is based.

News reports since last fall have said criminal charges against seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong could be just around the corner. But a decision on whether to indict America's most famous cyclist in performance-enhancing drug case is not imminent and the federal investigation has encountered serious hurdles, according to lawyers familiar with the matter.

What is clear is that it will be some time before the probe ends and a decision is made.

All news reports I have read were from this year and said indictments could be made in "months" .

Lawyers familiar? No names or quotes. Not FDA people, looks like this is from LAs lawyers - lets move along..........

One of Armstrong's former teammates, Floyd Landis, made headlines last May when he accused Armstrong of cheating to win — using performance-enhancing drugs and teaching others how to beat drug testing. Speculation ran rampant that criminal charges soon would follow. They didn't.

They didn't because there was no rampant speculation.

A grand jury investigation based in Los Angeles appeared to be moving fast last summer. Then the published reports emerged. The new year and the Super Bowl, both reported target dates for a decision, came and went without charges.

In fact, the nine months since Landis made his allegations have only served to illustrate the difficulty of translating them into legal charges.

Jeez, did Yous start reading 'The Hogs' posts here?
They continue with the "Federal Investigation Takes Time" - hardly a shocking revelation.

Armstrong has never been found to have failed a drug test and there is a dispute over whether any forensic evidence exists that could be used against him. So far, Landis, whose credibility is open to question, is the only person to say publicly he saw Armstrong doping. Whether investigators have found other eyewitnesses among current or former Armstrong associates remains unclear.

More accurate to say "rarely failed a drug test" and according to the NYT other teammates have corroborated Landis story.

Investigators have many more witnesses to interview, and the assistant U.S. attorney supervising the investigation, Doug Miller, is set to handle an unrelated criminal case, according to lawyers familiar with the investigation.

The reports of an impending indictment led Armstrong's lawyers to reach out to the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles. Over the past month and a half, that office has assured Armstrong's legal team that no decision on whether to indict is imminent, according to the lawyers. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal probe is continuing.

Aha - so this is all from LA's legal team.

In line with Justice Department policy, Armstrong's lawyers will get time to argue privately against indictment if the government decides to move toward charging their client, three of the lawyers said.

The only certainty is that it will be quite a while before the Armstrong probe ends.

Thom Mrozak, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, and Mark Fabiani, a spokesman for Armstrong, declined comment.

So - no comment from US attorneys office or Fabricator - only comments from "lawyers".

The lead investigator in the Armstrong probe, Jeff Novitzky, was instrumental in getting federal criminal charges filed against baseball home run king Barry Bonds and seven-time Cy Young award winner Roger Clemens related to their alleged involvement with performance-enhancing drugs.

The Bonds trial is to begin in March; Clemens' case in July.

Armstrong, 39, stands near the end of a storied career, just as Bonds and Clemens did when they became the focus of investigations into steroid use

I'm struggling to keep my eyes open.

But there's one major difference: The probe of Armstrong seems to lack a defining event, the kind that led to charges against Bonds, who is accused of lying to a federal grand jury, or Clemens, who allegedly lied to a congressional committee in a nationally televised hearing.

"a defining event" - the one difference is that there have been numerous people coming forward with information on many 'defining events' spanning many years.

Armstrong, if anything, has been even more vehement than Clemens and Bonds in denying he engaged in doping.

Bigger the hole the harder to climb out of.

Plagued by a long history of abuse, the cycling world imposed drug testing long before major league baseball tightened its rules and tests. So Armstrong has been tested hundreds of times over the years for banned substances. He has never been found in violation.

Hard to fail a traditional test when you pay off the UCI - would have been better to write "never been found in violation, yet".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Page 2.

In their hunt for a violation of law, investigators have covered a lot of old ground in Armstrong's life. Among the questions they have asked: Did Armstrong lie about drug use in a civil suit in a Texas state court in 2005? Did he admit to doctors 15 years ago that he used performance-enhancing drugs?

Starting in the late 1990s, did Armstrong defraud the U.S. Postal Service, a team sponsor, by colluding with teammates to cover up doping? Did he engage in mail fraud and money laundering by trafficking in banned substances?

All valid questions - what did the (Armstrong) lawyers say.......

Armstrong's lawyers complain that their client is the focus of a criminal probe in search of a legal theory.

...........ok, not much of a denial there.

"Typically, when federal prosecutors initiate investigations they already know the crime that they are investigating — drug dealing, public corruption, organized crime," said former federal prosecutor Michael Pelgro, who has no involvement to the Armstrong probe.

"Here it appears the prosecutors are trying to determine what the credible facts are and then trying to determine whether those facts amount to a federal crime," said Pelgro, now a private attorney in Boston who defends corporations and their executives in criminal investigations.

Or perhaps it started as one type of investigation and mushroomed in to something much larger.

The credibility of Landis

Landis took a banned performance-enhancing drug to win the Tour de France in 2006. He denied it for five years before changing his story last May at the same time he turned against Armstrong.

In between, Landis raised more than $1 million from now-former friends to fight the drug allegation and publish a book.

The Armstrong camp says Landis's motive is money — that he is seeking to cash in with a False Claims Act lawsuit aimed at potentially recovering millions of dollars from Armstrong for denying his own drug use.

With Landis's credibility at issue, lawyers on all sides agree Landis is unlikely to be called as a prosecution witness if charges were brought against Armstrong.

Landis's switch from denial to admission would be "fair game for cross-examination" by Armstrong's lawyers if prosecutors ever put Landis on the witness stand, said Brian O'Neill, a leading California trial lawyer at Jones Day in Los Angeles.

For a guy whose "motive is money" it is odd that Landis has told his story to publications that do not pay him.

When you have other people confirming Landis story his credibility will be a non issue.

Drug test disputes

Landis's accusations go beyond Armstrong to implicate the governing bodies of the sport.

For example, Landis said Armstrong and longtime coach Johan Bruyneel paid Hein Verbruggen, former president of the International Cycling Union, to cover up a 2002 test at the Tour de Suisse that purportedly showed Armstrong had taken the blood-booster EPO.

One problem: Armstrong won that Swiss race in 2001 but did not even compete there in 2002.

The 2002 Tour de Suisse part is not even worth discussing - except it shows the intent of the article.

No mention of the donation of $100,000....or was it $25,000 - or $125,000 -

Verbruggen said there was never any positive test. The president of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, said, "To my knowledge it is not possible to hide a positive result." The cycling body issued a statement denying changing or concealing a positive test result. Bruyneel said, "I absolutely deny everything (Landis) said."

Verbruggen said Armstrong made one visit to cycling's headquarters at Aigle, Switzerland, in 2002 after the center's new indoor training track opened. "We had a lot of the pupils and youngsters there," Verbruggen said. "It was a great thing for them to be in the picture with him."

Why has the UCI not released all the positives on the UCI website as they said they would?
Why have the UCI not released the details surrounding the donations? Or the receipt for the Sysmex machine?

Why not show some of the comments Verbruggen and Landis made in their email exchange?

The French sports daily L'Equipe reported in 2005 that Armstrong samples from 1999 showed traces of EPO after being retested in 2004.

Dutch investigator Emile Vrijman, appointed by cycling's governing body to investigate the handling of the urine tests by the French national anti-doping laboratory, said tests on the samples were conducted improperly and fell so short of scientific standards that it was irresponsible to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything."

But that wasn't the last word.

World Anti-Doping Agency chairman **** Pound countered that the Dutch investigator's report is full of holes. The issue faded, only to be resurrected in the criminal investigation.

Haha, Vrijman an investigator. "Traces" of EPO??

No-one ever explained how the EPO magically appeared in 6 of LA's samples.

The investigation's most recent high-profile event was a trip by U.S. investigators to France in mid-November for two days of talks with police officers and other officials from at least three European countries where Armstrong and some teammates competed and were tested.

They must have gone to France to see if they had any ideas on how to speed up the investigation.

The hunt for eyewitnesses

The Holy Grail in the Armstrong investigation would be credible witnesses who say they saw Armstrong take performance-enhancing drugs.

Three lawyers familiar with the probe said they believe prosecutors have heard from witnesses who say they "understood" Armstrong was doping. But investigators are seeking harder and more incriminating testimony than that.

Damn - if they're still hunting for eyewitnesses then no wonder charges aren't imminent.

3 (unnamed Armstrong) lawyers - who have not access to the investigation confirmed they do not know what they are not party too.

Even if investigators can overcome these obstacles and assemble evidence of a crime, prosecutors would have to enter a courtroom likely full of potential jurors well aware of Armstrong's compelling life story: A cancer survivor and sports hero whose foundation has raised millions to help others.

..... a compelling story - but not a true story.

 

[Granville57]

Ok, I got the ball in motion. Who will take the next paragraph? This will be fun.

Now Murph, it's grey and cold outside, and I'm a bit laid-up with an injury at the moment. Do you really expect me to limit myself to just one paragraph?
What you've handed me here is just too easy and too much fun.

Having just previewed this, it looks like I should probably break this into three segments.

Part 1

“Floyd Landis made headlines last May when he accused Armstrong of cheating to win...Speculation ran rampant that criminal charges soon would follow. They didn't.”

Speculation by what authoritative body? If I was under investigation by the Feds, and the timetable for collecting evidence was ever-expanding, I’m not sure I would exactly find that to be encouraging. But that’s just me.

“The new year and the Super Bowl, both reported target dates for a decision, came and went without charges.”

Reported by whom? Anyone actually attached to the investigation? Did I miss some public statement from the Feds?

“In fact, the nine months since Landis made his allegations have only served to illustrate the difficulty of translating them into legal charges.”

Really? Who said there has been “difficulty” involved here? It still hasn’t even been a year since Landis’ accusations. Who in their right mind would expect an investigation, that spans multiple teams, over several years, and crosses many international borders, to be wrapped up nice and neat in just a few months? The Bonds and Clemens investigations are primarily domestic, and look at the time frame there.

“So far, Landis, whose credibility is open to question, is the only person to say publicly he saw Armstrong doping. Whether investigators have found other eyewitnesses among current or former Armstrong associates remains unclear.”

Well, doesn’t it all hinge on that? “Unclear” is a beautiful way to misdirect the general public. By “unclear” are they referring to the fact that the Feds have not yet released the details of their indictment? OK, sure. I can live with that. But to suggest that there hasn’t already been corroborating testimony would be optimistic, to say the very least.

“Investigators have many more witnesses to interview, and the assistant U.S. attorney supervising the investigation, Doug Miller, is set to handle an unrelated criminal case, according to lawyers familiar with the investigation.”

This paragraph is a special piece of work. It would seem to imply that, “Oh, there is just so much going on here, and we’re so under-staffed...we probably won’t be able to properly take care of this Armstrong thing.”

Again, I go back to what I previously stated. If I were under a federal investigation, I would hardly find comfort in the fact that delays were the result of yet more and more testimony from “many more witnesses.” But again, that’s just me.

 

[Granville57]

Part 2

“Over the past month and a half, [the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles] has assured Armstrong's legal team that no decision on whether to indict is imminent, according to the lawyers.”

And yet the investigation continues, no? So whose shoes would you want to be in?

“The only certainty is that it will be quite a while before the Armstrong probe ends.”

Hmmm, due to a lack of evidence or because of overwhelming amounts of evidence?

“The Bonds trial is to begin in March; Clemens' case in July.”

Wouldn’t that only confirm the fact that these cases don’t unfold overnight? It would seem the the key bit there is, “trial is to begin.”

“Armstrong, if anything, has been even more vehement than Clemens and Bonds in denying he engaged in doping.”

So does that just make him a bigger liar? Is that somehow suppose to exonerate him? Although I’m not sure you can really get more vehement than Clemens. He already did it in front of congress. I’d score one for Clemens in that regard.

“So Armstrong has been tested hundreds of times over the years for banned substances.”

Blah, blah, blah, blah, Marion, blah, blah, blah, blah, Bonds, blah, blah, blah, blah Ullrich, etc...

 

[Granville57]

Part 3

“Here it appears the prosecutors are trying to determine what the credible facts are and then trying to determine whether those facts amount to a federal crime."

Wouldn’t that be a description of many federal investigations?

“Landis took a banned performance-enhancing drug to win the Tour de France in 2006. He denied it for five years before changing his story last May.”

Interesting semantics. "A" PED, suggesting a single element. Fine then. Are they referring to synthetic testosterone, the one he was accused of using? Landis still denies using testosterone to win the Tour. He has never "changed his story" in regards to that.

“Landis raised more than $1 million from now-former friends to fight the drug allegation and publish a book.”

“Now-former friends.” Huh, no mention of the Champions Club?

“The Holy Grail in the Armstrong investigation would be credible witnesses who say they saw Armstrong take performance-enhancing drugs.”

Yes. That would be the Holy Grail, wouldn’t it? Of course the use of the term “credible” is conveniently put in place like wheels to attach to a goal post. Anyone that corroborates will immediately be deemed "not credible."

“Even if investigators can overcome these obstacles and assemble evidence of a crime, prosecutors would have to enter a courtroom likely full of potential jurors well aware of Armstrong's compelling life story: A cancer survivor and sports hero whose foundation has raised millions to help others.”

Interestingly enough, it would appear that that very paragraph is very much directed at the public from which the jury pool will be drawn. But then I’m a cynic.

 

[Granville57]

Redundancy

Oh Jeezus!
It looks like the good Dr. and I were on the same wavelength.
Sorry for all that!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh Jeezus!
It looks the good Dr. and I were on the same wavelength.
Sorry for all that!

Yip - but I appreciate you went in to a lot more detail and it was only on reading yours I spotted this beauty.....

“Landis took a banned performance-enhancing drug to win the Tour de France in 2006. He denied it for five years before changing his story last May.”

So, July 2006 + 5 years = July 2011.

Oooops.

 

[Granville57]

Yip - but I appreciate you went in to a lot more detail and it was only on reading yours I spotted this beauty.....


So, July 2006 + 5 years = July 2011.

Oooops.

You see, he's just not credible.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Well done!

Yip - but I appreciate you went in to a lot more detail and it was only on reading yours I spotted this beauty.....


So, July 2006 + 5 years = July 2011.

Oooops.

Certainly not a math major at University, was this fella? This article is a serious fail.

Not a mention of Popovych, comptuers taken, drugs removed from his house... Oh, sorry, Popo said it was by true. Nothing to see.

The Italian strike team probably wore yellow bracelets, so it's all good.

Just bumped over to the Lance twitter account. Seems very chatty, maybe even he is clinging to his type of fluff, floating reality on a lake of lies. Too bad his voyage is taking on water with every passing moment.

In the absence of "news", this drivel attempts to steers public perception. Unfortunately the tires on these "points" show their threads.

 

[Berzin]

This Sports Illustrated article really isn't good news for the haters, is it?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/02/12/armstrong.investigation.ap/index.html

 

[Colm.Murphy]

This Sports Illustrated article really isn't good news for the haters, is it?

I don't really see any "news", do you?

I see:

1. Regurgitated Armstrong PR spin.
2. A hack "journalist" propagating a very slanted view of an ongoing investigation, and a low-level hack at that.
3. Deliberate obfuscation of items, like the Tour de Suisse EPO positive that Landis clearly explained. Only one way for this to still be -mis-understood: willful ignorance.

I caution those who consider this article as "news" to really digest the piece and then review the portion of tis thread that addresses it. It falls apart very quickly.

The only thing that seems to be "news" is that the investigation is ongoing and an indictment might take longer than previously thought. Not sure how that make Armstrong look any better, considering the years effort they put into the secrecy of their extensive wrongdoings. Stands to reason it would take a serious amount of time to unwind the whole thing, develop leads, gather evidence and build their case.

 

[Anonymous]

This Sports Illustrated article really isn't good news for the haters, is it?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/02/12/armstrong.investigation.ap/index.html

um... this is the exact same article that Dr. Maserati, Granville57, and others just dissected point by point on the last two pages

 

[offbyone]

I don't really see any "news", do you?

I see:

1. Regurgitated Armstrong PR spin.
2. A hack "journalist" propagating a very slanted view of an ongoing investigation, and a low-level hack at that.
3. Deliberate obfuscation of items, like the Tour de Suisse EPO positive that Landis clearly explained. Only one way for this to still be -mis-understood: willful ignorance.

I caution those who consider this article as "news" to really digest the piece and then review the portion of tis thread that addresses it. It falls apart very quickly.

The only thing that seems to be "news" is that the investigation is ongoing and an indictment might take longer than previously thought. Not sure how that make Armstrong look any better, considering the years effort they put into the secrecy of their extensive wrongdoings. Stands to reason it would take a serious amount of time to unwind the whole thing, develop leads, gather evidence and build their case.

I think this represents a bit more. First of all, I am sure some of this is sports illustrated trying to make nice with lance after the previous article.

But what this really represents is a reality check. It cracks me up how many posts I read on this site stating armstrong's indictment is inevitable and just around the corner.
An indictment certainly isn't inevitable. They aren't going to indict him if they can't prove something significant. And when I say prove I mean that they have real evidence. However, I would gander that if they had solid evidence which directly linked armstrong to a doping incident then they would have indicted him by now. But all they got is a lot of he said she said and many of the sources are not exactly credible. They will not indict armstrong if all they got is a a couple people's words against his.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This Sports Illustrated article really isn't good news for the haters, is it?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/02/12/armstrong.investigation.ap/index.html

It is not a Sports Illustrated article - its the same Associated Press (AP) piece.

Its always a handy way to get articles highlighted - it is no wonder that Public Strategies had it highlighted as a requirement for new interns.

Requirements

Applicants should have advanced writing, research, and organizational skills and be motivated, fast learners, preferably with an interest in government, politics, or corporate strategy. Knowledge and experience writing in Associated Press (AP) Style is required. Potential fellow candidates should also have a strong academic background, be able to manage multiple projects at a time and maintain a professional and positive attitude to learn and participate in client-related projects.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think this represents a bit more. First of all, I am sure some of this is sports illustrated trying to make nice with lance after the previous article.

But what this really represents is a reality check. It cracks me up how many posts I read on this site stating armstrong's indictment is inevitable and just around the corner.
An indictment certainly isn't inevitable. They aren't going to indict him if they can't prove something significant. And when I say prove I mean that they have real evidence. However, I would gander that if they had solid evidence which directly linked armstrong to a doping incident then they would have indicted him by now. But all they got is a lot of he said she said and many of the sources are not exactly credible. They will not indict armstrong if all they got is a a couple people's words against his.

Again - it is not a SI article.

Only one person here has given a timeline for when the indictments are due - that is 'TheHog', if you find that humorous then good - as he is having a laugh.


Now what is amusing in your post is that you still believe this investigation is hinged on direct links to Armstrong's doping - as you should be aware by now, there is no law broken if LA has doped.

The investigation is about the purchase and trafficking of PEDs - this will involve lots of people - while there may not be anything to tie Armstrong directly by the end of the process his legacy will be in tatters........ and then he has USADA to think about.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

The investigation is about the purchase and trafficking of PEDs - this will involve lots of people - while there may not be anything to tie Armstrong directly by the end of the process his legacy will be in tatters........ and then he has USADA to think about.

Dare I add that it is my opinion that this is ultimately a racketeering case, as the SI - Robert article pointed out, and that is something with a very wide net and very grave consequences. If the length of time to investigate is ultimately a function of fulfilling the requirements needed to bring a RICO charge, then it would make sense.

All the fluff and spin will mean nothing should this come to fruition. Nothing.

 

[Race Radio]

Perhaps the best part in the article is what he writes that Fabiani was unavailable for comment! Classic spin.

The fact is Fabiani was emailing this article out to dozens of members of the press withing seconds of if going live. I wonder how much Yost was paid?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Perhaps the best part in the article is what he writes that Fabiani was unavailable for comment! Classic spin.

The fact is Fabiani was emailing this article out to dozens of members of the press withing seconds of if going live. I wonder how much Yost was paid?

My guess is he was promised a plum position over at Demand Media... plus some DM stock options.

Fabiani sending out this as if it were gospel. That is pathetic. He is a real snake, this Fabiani fellow.

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps the best part in the article is what he writes that Fabiani was unavailable for comment! Classic spin.

The fact is Fabiani was emailing this article out to dozens of members of the press withing seconds of if going live. I wonder how much Yost was paid?

don't think he did it himself.

there are PR firms that specialise in this. write it, send it off to them, pay $$$$, and watch google explode (do a search). all it takes is money!

 

[offbyone]

Again - it is not a SI article.

Nevertheless, SI published it on their website.

Only one person here has given a timeline for when the indictments are due - that is 'TheHog', if you find that humorous then good - as he is having a laugh.


Now what is amusing in your post is that you still believe this investigation is hinged on direct links to Armstrong's doping - as you should be aware by now, there is no law broken if LA has doped.

The investigation is about the purchase and trafficking of PEDs - this will involve lots of people - while there may not be anything to tie Armstrong directly by the end of the process his legacy will be in tatters........ and then he has USADA to think about.

I am well aware of that fact, and that is the point. If there is no evidence linking lance directly to the PEDs other than hearsay, then it is extremely doubtful he will be indicted. Do you disagree?