Urine Trouble

[Mambo95]

Two words for ya:



Extraterritorial jurisdiction

Unless US Postal are accused of war crimes, genocide or terrorism, then good luck using that in court.

 

[Barrus]

Unless US Postal are accused of war crimes, genocide or terrorism, then good luck using that in court.

Not necessarily there are also other cases in which it can be of consequence and defrauding the federal government could well be one of those circumstances.

 

[BotanyBay]

The trafficking aspect will have to be corroborated by the people involved-the team underlings, if you will. They will have to fold and give testimony.

Correct. And we know that several of his past teammates have either been seen exiting the courthouse where the Grand Jury sits, or they've acknowledged having met with investigators.

 

[mmedeast]

Those are two of many possible angles. The media's job is to attract readers, so don't rule out innovations in the way they tell this story.

Also, the Mozilo comparison is weak again. Finance was/is a huge employer. Pharmstrong most decidedly not. Mozilo plays at another level of political gamesmanship that Team Pharmstrong didn't get started until AFTER the investigation got going.

Please don't get the impression that I'm supporting either side. I'm waiting to see how this falls out.

I know there more than the 2 possible angles I presented. I was just stating what seems like an obvious line between Bonds, Clemmons and Armstrong. If you are the average uninterested American sitting in your living room watching Sports Center and all you know about Lance is that he won some race in France a few times, was ESPN's athlete of the year, runs some cancer foundation and dates starletts, then it's a pretty easy line to draw, particularly if ESPN or others present it as a doping scandal.

As for Mozilo, I know it's not a parallel with Armstrong. He brought it up already in a tweet yesterday. That was solely the reason I mentioned it, and I can easily see this being the diversion a lawyer or public relations company uses, parallel or not. And you mean to tell me that LiveStrong wouldn't be classified as a large employer? I can hear that arguement now too, "We help keep scientists working, care givers available....."etc..

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I'm not trying to defend him (frankly I don't really care what happens). But if Novisky comes just armed with the cases put forward here, then LA's lawyers are just going to laugh in his face, because they are weak and low level arguments. Anyone who's watched few episodes of some courtroom drama and has a bit of common sense could get him acquitted.

Novitsky's an expert at this. None of us are. He'll come up with something better (probably going after Tailwind executives for fraud and getting LA for perjury).

Is Barry Bonds charged with trafficking and misappropriation of public money? Was Marion Jones?

Here? You know you're in an internet forum, right? I don't know about you, but I'm no federal prosecutor.

Hence my liberal use of the word CONJECTURE. That's sort of a smart way of saying I'm guessing and p*ssing in the dark. I'm only hoping that I hit the toilet...

As to Bonds and Jones. Who cares? Are their (all three including LA) cases all EXACTLY the same? Probably not. Drawing that sort of inference will only get you in trouble, since it's not founded on any sort of material evidence - or even reality. I'm entirely sure that there were so many differences between the cases (and the backgrounds of the accused), that trying to compare them all together is ludicrous. Well beyond any sort of 'apple vs. orange' comparrison.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What matters here is that Mr LA used US Tax payer dollars to buy, traffic & use PED's-regardless if the deed was committed overseas which by itself is fraud.

Only if LA did have ownership during that time. IF not then how could he have used taxpayers dollars to buy / traffic PED’s? They will or HE will try to hang his hat on ...just a employee.

 

[Mambo95]

As to Bonds and Jones. Who cares? Are their (all three including LA) cases all EXACTLY the same? Probably not. Drawing that sort of inference will only get you in trouble, since it's not founded on any sort of material evidence - or even reality. I'm entirely sure that there were so many differences between the cases (and the backgrounds of the accused), that trying to compare them all together is ludicrous. Well beyond any sort of 'apple vs. orange' comparrison.

My point with Bonds and Jones was that it didn't need trafficking and defrauding the government charges to bring them to court, and it will probably be the same with LA.

 

[BotanyBay]

Only if LA did have ownership during that time. IF not then how could he have used taxpayers dollars to buy / traffic PED’s? They will or HE will try to hang his hat on ...just a employee.

If he didn't have any ownership, then he wouldn't have needed to be the plaintiff in the SCA case. If it was as simple as he had a contract with Tailwind, and Tailwind didn't pay his bonus in 2004, then it would have been a situation of Lance suing Tailwind. But he had ownership. That's why he sued.

 

[BotanyBay]

My point with Bonds and Jones was that it didn't need trafficking and defrauding the government charges to bring them to court, and it will probably be the same with LA.

I never said we needed to solely look at Armstrong. They went after his urine and so (at some point), I'm on a jury and I believe it to be his urine.

So what charges am I deliberating, and (I guess I needed to add this), who is the defendant?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If he didn't have any ownership, then he wouldn't have needed to be the plaintiff in the SCA case. If it was as simple as he had a contract with Tailwind, and Tailwind didn't pay his bonus in 2004, then it would have been a situation of Lance suing Tailwind. But he had ownership. That's why he sued.

I understand that at that time USPS was not the team sponser for 2004. I know at some point he was an owner. I think they will intend to show he was not an owner during the USPS days. Not in such a way as to direct funds? I am not sure and honestly I am just trying to take the other side of the argument.

 

[Mambo95]

So what charges am I deliberating, and (I guess I needed to add this), who is the defendant?

And I was just saying that getting LA on trafficking charges will be a non-started (IMO)

None of us know who the real target is or the charges. I've just been stating which ones seem unlikely to work (again IMO).

The thing with speculation is that others may speculate in a different direction - it's just opinion.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Thanks for the info.

Knew the part about Floyd, but the other stuff thanks.

My pleasure.

 

[BotanyBay]

I understand that at that time USPS was not the team sponser for 2004. I know at some point he was an owner. I think they will intend to show he was not an owner during the USPS days. Not in such a way as to direct funds? I am not sure and honestly I am just trying to take the other side of the argument.

When you're paid and merely told what to do, you're en employee.

When you're at the upper ranks, but not necessarily a partner, you're an officer.

When you've got voting equity, you're a partner (part owner).

As far as team ownership goes, the sponsor is just the sponsor. They just lease the rights to be the "name" of the team. But somewhere, Lance went from being a mere employee of Tailwind to being an officer, and then to being a partner.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

When you're paid and merely told what to do, you're en employee.

When you're at the upper ranks, but not necessarily a partner, you're an officer.

When you've got voting equity, you're a partner (part owner).

As far as team ownership goes, the sponsor is just the sponsor. They just lease the rights to be the "name" of the team. But somewhere, Lance went from being a mere employee of Tailwind to being an officer, and then to being a partner.

Yes I agree. I just have an idea that his legal team will try to go the route which I am suggesting. I understand your points and agree with them. He has to have some type of legal play or else he would not be so smug? I am just guessing.


Oh and we had better quit discussing this back and forth or else I will be called out for trolling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not trying to defend him (frankly I don't really care what happens). But if Novisky comes just armed with the cases put forward here, then LA's lawyers are just going to laugh in his face, because they are weak and low level arguments. Anyone who's watched few episodes of some courtroom drama and has a bit of common sense could get him acquitted.

Novitsky's an expert at this. None of us are. He'll come up with something better (probably going after Tailwind executives for fraud and getting LA for perjury).

Is Barry Bonds charged with trafficking and misappropriation of public money? Was Marion Jones?

You're not trying to defend him?? Frankly you don't care? yet you call this investigation a waste of money and you think LA's lawyers will laugh at Novitzky?

You do realise that Armstrong is an officer of Tailwind?

 

[BotanyBay]

You're not trying to defend him?? Frankly you don't care? yet you call this investigation a waste of money and you think LA's lawyers will laugh at Novitzky?

You do realise that Armstrong is an officer of Tailwind?

I think what we're trying to do is separate "weak arguments" from the strong ones. I think you know that I'm no Armstrong defender.

But if I were in Lance's shoes, and someone tried to introduce 12-year-old urine evidence against me, and that evidence had been stored in private, non-judicial hands (and even re-tested without my consent or presence), I'd be working very hard to discredit it. And I don't think it would be very hard.

In other words, I hope they've got a lot more than Floyd and some 12 Y/O urine.

 

[Mambo95]

You're not trying to defend him?? Frankly you don't care? yet you call this investigation a waste of money and you think LA's lawyers will laugh at Novitzky?

You do realise that Armstrong is an officer of Tailwind?

Where have I called it a waste of money? I said that if it's all focused on a low level trafficking charge* then it would be a waste of money.

If they come at him with just that then they will laugh at him.

However, I expect Novitsky to have something more substantial.

I'm just trying to inject some perspective here. They were transporting dope for maybe a dozen people - small time. This isn't a Howard Marks operation.


*Willy Voet was caught trafficking red handed and got a $4000 fine. Do you think that would be a satisfactory outcome from the money that Novitsky has spent?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Very strong. But, that is just an opinion. I have no knowledge of what the grand jury has seen/heard. That at team of investigators went to Europe and commenced the Letters Rogatory process shortly after returning, says it all. Armstrong is in their sights. I have to think Armstrong has received a target letter from the US Attorney, but this is not something his PR team would be announcing to the public.

Maybe his PR team wouldn't announce a letter but they would probably disguise such a development in a hasty and unplanned retirement to prevent the team from folding.

Mambo, you are direly short on facts. Why don't you go read up before your postulations reveal too much about yourself?

 

[Mambo95]

Google, Popovic, carabinieri and get back to us ...

Popvych still lives in Italy and is a current cyclist so that falls into the "b) it's an on going problem and/or on their own door step" section.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think what we're trying to do is separate "weak arguments" from the strong ones. I think you know that I'm no Armstrong defender.

But if I were in Lance's shoes, and someone tried to introduce 12-year-old urine evidence against me, and that evidence had been stored in private, non-judicial hands (and even re-tested without my consent or presence), I'd be working very hard to discredit it. And I don't think it would be very hard.

In other words, I hope they've got a lot more than Floyd and some 12 Y/O urine.

All fair - but the LA fans are trying to separate this new information from the bigger picture.

Whatever case the Feds take a key part of that is showing that PEDs were used by the team.
In a case like this where someone has not been caught in the act it is all about case building - from sourcing to purchase to distribution and usage.

 

[Mambo95]

Mambo, you are direly short on facts. Why don't you go read up before your postulations reveal too much about yourself?

We are all short of facts. But if LA stands trial for trafficking as the focus then you will be very disappointed in the outcome. So will Novitsky.

If you think you know what the charges are and what the sentences are available, then please tell us. That's what we're discussing.

A lot of posters say 'you know nothing' without saying what they know. Everyone likes to learn.

 

[Mambo95]

All fair - but the LA fans are trying to separate this new information from the bigger picture.

I'm guessing by 'LA fans', you're putting in me, wrongly, in that category. I'm not fan (I always preferred Ullrich), I'm just not a hater. I see him no different than any other doper.

What I was separating was BBs theory about trafficking, which I thought wouldn't fly. I think a professional like Novisky will have something more substantial up his sleeve.

You appear to have fallen into the trap of thinking any poster not denouncing Armstrong is a fan. Not the case. Here's an analogy. Some Christians think that evolution is rubbish and the world is 6000 years old. Other Christians are more reasonable and believe evolution and think that the world is 4.5 billion years old. This doesn't mean they're atheists - they just a little more circumspect. It's the difference between fundamentalism and reasoned thinking. This is the problem with this forum when it comes to LA - it's black or white and grey is dismissed by one side as the other.

 

[SC1990]

I'd rather wait for these to actually get tested so we can see what (if anything) is in the samples, rather then wild specualtion about how this is the end of the world for 'fanboys.'

My question would be what will the Clinic do if they all come back negative, defeating the old myth of 7 positives and so on? Obviously we know what would happen if they come back positive (much 'hoo har we told you so 'na na na-na na' etc), but the other possibility needs to be entertained.

Please try and keep the insults to a minimum.

 

[Berzin]

Having EPO in your own body is not evidence of trafficking EPO imo.

He'll have to explain where he got it, hence the "trafficking".

Having "plastics' in your blood is no big deal.

Is this a scientific conclusion? I think not. Just more fanboy/apologist lunacy.

Not a FDA/Federal offense to transfuse your own blood on French Soil is it?
Was legal to hydrate out of plastic bags 99-05.

You don't "hydrate" with your own blood. You are grasping at straws with your play on semantics.

What if Lance swears under oath and the samples show otherwise.

Good luck with that one.

What is "truer" - Lances word or some old potentially tampered samples?

Neither are "truer". As for "potentially tampered samples", this trite phrase belongs in the rubbish bin alongside "chain of custody".

For the defense to hang their hat on something so absolutely bogus, that's when we know the sauce on the Livestrong dinner table is pathetically weak.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm guessing by 'LA fans', you're putting in me, wrongly, in that category. I'm not fan (I always preferred Ullrich), I'm just not a hater. I see him no different than any other doper.

What I was separating was BBs theory about trafficking, which I thought wouldn't fly. I think a professional like Novisky will have something more substantial up his sleeve.

You appear to have fallen into the trap of thinking any poster not denouncing Armstrong is a fan. Not the case. Here's an analogy. Some Christians think that evolution is rubbish and the world is 6000 years old. Other Christians are more reasonable and believe evolution and think that the world is 4.5 billion years old. This doesn't mean they're atheists - they just a little more circumspect. It's the difference between fundamentalism and reasoned thinking. This is the problem with this forum when it comes to LA - it's black or white and grey is dismissed by one side as the other.

No - I haven't.
I just read your posts and they are all the same, there is nothing reasoned in them. All your pots look to defend LA at every turn, ..... saying things like Novitzky will be laughed at etc is not reasoned thinking. There is nothing grey in your arguments.