The media's contribution to the Armstrong Lie

[Race Radio]

Nevertheless, SI published it on their website.



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?

You are using legal terms you do not understand. If George, Landis, Tyler, Kristen, and others all say they saw Armstrong using drugs that is direct testimony, not hearsay.

Hearsay would be if I testified about what some of his former teammates told me they saw.

 

[Anonymous]

Nevertheless, SI published it on their website.

and so did every other web site so it means absolutely nothing. they picked up the same PR drivel as everybody else. seriously, do a search. it was sent out by a pro.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

and so did every other web site so it means absolutely nothing. they picked up the same PR drivel as everybody else. seriously, do a search. it was sent out by a pro.

And it is by this that one can see the value of having access to search controls at a "Google", or the like.

Amplify the support.

Bury the bad.

Mr. Casey could be in for some very uncomfortable times ahead.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nevertheless, SI published it on their website.



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?

If Landis says he saw Armstrong doping and that LA gave him PEDs (which he has) thats direct evidence, not hearsay.

Straight away that puts him in trouble with the FDA (distribution) and USADA (doping).

Add to that who purchased it and from what funds - which brings in Tailwind Sports, guess who is a member of Tailwind?

 

[Ferminal]

Ummm

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

No... unless they are going to prosecute Lance for "taking performance-enhancing drugs in Girona".

 

[offbyone]

If Landis says he saw Armstrong doping and that LA gave him PEDs (which he has) thats direct evidence, not hearsay.

Straight away that puts him in trouble with the FDA (distribution) and USADA (doping).

Add to that who purchased it and from what funds - which brings in Tailwind Sports, guess who is a member of Tailwind?

No offense, but aside from arguing semantics, you seem to be missing the point.

If, as you say,

Landis says he saw Armstrong doping and that LA gave him PEDs

,was considered evidence which they can achieve a conviction on, then tell me why haven't they indicted lance yet, because if I recall, Landis already said all that?

So again, back to my original point, they are not going to indict lance simply on the basis of a couple people's word vs lance's word. If they thought they could convict him on such evidence, they would have already indicted him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No offense, but aside from arguing semantics, you seem to be missing the point.

If, as you say,

,was considered evidence which they can achieve a conviction on, then tell me why haven't they indicted lance yet, because if I recall, Landis already said all that?

So again, back to my original point, they are not going to indict lance simply on the basis of a couple people's word vs lance's word. If they thought they could convict him on such evidence, they would have already indicted him.

Simply because this is an investigation in to a team wide doping distribution - as much as LA wants to make this about him (and no doubt he is the headline grabber) it isn't.

The FDA will be looking at everyone involved and how it was put together and financed, this means trawling through thousands of documents (LeMond gave 70,000 alone) to strengthen their case.

 

[offbyone]

Simply because this is an investigation in to a team wide doping distribution - as much as LA wants to make this about him (and no doubt he is the headline grabber) it isn't.

The FDA will be looking at everyone involved and how it was put together and financed, this means trawling through thousands of documents (LeMond gave 70,000 alone) to strengthen their case.

lol, i hope you aren't counting on lemond's "documents" to be the prime evidence against lance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

lol, i hope you aren't counting on lemond's "documents" to be the prime evidence against lance.

Laugh all you want - but guess whats in there?

The SCA case and the tape with McIlvain admitting she heard LA confess to taking PEDs.

Its called incriminating information and its how you build a case, block by block- so you bring in someone and remind them of the penalty of perjury you sit them down and ask questions for 7 hours...... I doubt Stephanie was laughing after it.

 

[Dallas_]

The fact is Fabiani was emailing this article out to dozens of members of the press withing seconds of if going live.

So this is how the media can keep a myth alive.

In this thread discussing this article http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/02/12/state/n074628S42.DTL


yet all these are very similar

http://www.newser.com/article/d9lbe...big-hurdles-decision-on-charges-not-near.html

http://www.statesman.com/sports/inv...rmstrong-stalls-1250254.html?cxtype=ynews_rss

http://www.cbssports.com/general/story/14681109/no-decision-imminent-in-lance-armstrong-probe

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014209514_lancearmstrong13.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/13/986317/armstrong-probe-far-from-conclusion.html

http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/article/durangoherald4852.htm


The word 'hurdles' appears in every article.

Now I see. A spin doctor emails to all. How can a spin doctor make a living from emailing pure BS?

Now if bloggers controlled the media, the truth would surface a lot earlier!

continued entertainment here: cheers

 

[Oldman]

So this is how the media can keep a myth alive.

In this thread discussing this article http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/02/12/state/n074628S42.DTL


yet all these are very similar

http://www.newser.com/article/d9lbe...big-hurdles-decision-on-charges-not-near.html

http://www.statesman.com/sports/inv...rmstrong-stalls-1250254.html?cxtype=ynews_rss

http://www.cbssports.com/general/story/14681109/no-decision-imminent-in-lance-armstrong-probe

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014209514_lancearmstrong13.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/13/986317/armstrong-probe-far-from-conclusion.html

http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/article/durangoherald4852.htm


The word 'hurdles' appears in every article.

Now I see. A spin doctor emails to all. How can a spin doctor make a living from emailing pure BS?

Now if bloggers controlled the media, the truth would surface a lot earlier!

continued entertainment here: cheers

That's why I suggested to the ever-thoughtful Flicker that the article looked like it was composed at Lance's dining room table.

 

[Cal_Joe]

<snip>
The word 'hurdles' appears in every article.

Maybe because it is the same article? Or am I missing something?

 

[patricknd]

It's an associated press article. Hello, wire service anyone?

 

[Oldman]

It's an associated press article. Hello, wire service anyone?

I didn't see anyone taking credit/responsibility for it when it was on SI.com. Anyone catch a source?

 

[Anonymous]

I didn't see anyone taking credit/responsibility for it when it was on SI.com. Anyone catch a source?

Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

same as everywhere else because it was the same article.

 

[eleven]

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?

that's because the hemassist story can not be confirmed..because it's simply not true.

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.

THAT, on the other hand, would be a compelling tale to add. They also blow right past the potential corrupting influence of the UCI payments and skip right past "never failed a test" without pointing out how tenuous that claim is.

 

[Race Radio]

that's because the hemassist story can not be confirmed..because it's simply not true.

SI and the Feds have confirmed it.

 

[eleven]

SI and the Feds have confirmed it.

no, SI has claimed they have proof. There is no proof because the story - as told in SI - isn't true. And even as SI tells it, no law was broken. "Having access" is a specious claim.

The Feds have confirmed nothing, of course. They don't comment on their own ongoing investigation.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

There is no proof because the story - as told in SI - isn't true. And even as SI tells it, no law was broken. "Having access" is a specious claim.

On your first point, I disagree. How is it "not true"?

As for now law being broken, how can the act of obtaining an experimental drug, not be illegal, or by extension, obtaining it not be a doping violation, or further be a violation of the USPS contract?

 

[eleven]

On your first point, I disagree. How is it "not true"?

How? By it not happening.

As for now law being broken, how can the act of obtaining an experimental drug, not be illegal,

read the SI article a bit more closely and I believe you'll see that the above claim was not made - though it was certainly heavily implied.

As for it being illegal, under what law would it be illegal to possess a substance currently under the drug approval process? I suppose there might be something, but I don't see what it would be.

 

[BotanyBay]

Laugh all you want - but guess whats in there?

The SCA case and the tape with McIlvain admitting she heard LA confess to taking PEDs.

Its called incriminating information and its how you build a case, block by block- so you bring in someone and remind them of the penalty of perjury you sit them down and ask questions for 7 hours...... I doubt Stephanie was laughing after it.

And I'd be willing to bet that she spent the week before this away from work and in her lawyer's conference room prepping for how to (legally) dance around those direct questions. She probably trained harder than someone on DWTS.

 

[Granville57]

And I'd be willing to bet that she spent the week before this away from work and in her lawyer's conference room prepping for how to (legally) dance around those direct questions. She probably trained harder than someone on DWTS.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I'm posting this here as I don't know where this article was apparently discussed and don't have the time to search for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110212/..._investigation
>
This AP piece has received a great deal of play world-wide. The article reads like a press release from Fabio. And that's pretty much what it is. Yost is not an investigative reporter. He's an AP hack who usually covers the Justice Department, recycling their press releases into news stories.

If he were a real reporter, he would have asked Fabio and Lance's reaching out attorneys whether or not Armstrong has received a target letter yet from the US Attorney's office. He might also have asked if Lance as volunteer/asked to testify before the Grand Jury.

What I found interesting in Yost's article was the comment about indictments being expected in January, then before the Superbowl and then by Valentine's Day. I don't recall seeing the latter two time points in the mainstream press. Where that was discussed, in fact a poll was set up, was here on The Clinic Forum. Do you suppose Armstrong's team is monitoring this forum and brought the musings here to Fabio's attention?

I loved this comment by Yost, "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." Lawyers on *all* sides? Is the AUSA on the case now discussing trial strategy and witness lists with the AP? I think not.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

How? By it not happening.

According to whom? It passed elgal muster to enter the SI piece, which they claim to have proof Lance obtained the HemAssist.

As for it being illegal, under what law would it be illegal to possess a substance currently under the drug approval process? I suppose there might be something, but I don't see what it would be.

So because you suppose there might be something but don't see what it would be, I guess that settles it? Given the stringent controls on experimental medicines, what makes you think it is "legal" to obtain something of that sort? Find that law, accommodating such a thing, and I will concede the point.

You fail to address the point of violating 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.

Ignoring this issue will not make it go away.

 

[jimmypop]

How? By it not happening.

Yeah, well, that's like, your opinion, man.

Those of us who live in reality know that the SI article was under intense scrutiny. If it didn't happen, a lawsuit would already have been filed by LA.

I can buy the lack of litigation by LA against overseas publishers, but when a US publication prints damning stuff like this and Armstrong doesn't sue, then that's all we need to know about the validity of the article contents.