Urine Trouble

[MarkvW]

It Needn't Be Lance-Centric

In which case, your posts are still misleading.



As noted above, the Gendarmes have transfusion equipment in their possession from 2009.

We also have the early-warning Chaperone system, etc. Heck, even the isolation and intimidation of teammate Contador looked a bit like extortion. Same with claiming he was riding for free (extorting the Charity), when in fact he was receiving a salary.

And, to suggest that there was no pattern in Lance's behavior is just plain silly.

Lance mounted the 'hope rides again' campaign. This has buoyed the hopes for at least one finding against him. I am hopeful, are you?



Thus, whether it is Floyd's testimony and wire-tapping evidence, or whether it is events in and around the 2009 Tour, we have lots of time left on the RICO clock.

Now, we can continue to argue - non-lawyer to non-lawyer. And, you are not doing very well I am afraid.

Or, you can accept that whoever is paying Novitzky's salary has already asked all of the stupid questions like whether or not they are pursuing RICO, and whether or not they can readily satisfy the tests associated with it.

But, stupid is as stupid does. If you want to further a stupid assertion that the Feds are too stupid to think about such things, go right ahead.

Dave.

The whole world does not revolve around Armstrong. Michael Ball, for instance is probably very nervous right now. The person who actually sold Floyd his dope is probably very nervous right now. Perhaps the whole network of people who supplied Floyd have been compromised. There is a whole load of righteous targets that Novitzky is doubtless working on. If any undercover or wiretap work was done, well . . .WOW.

Your argument assumes that the feds are out to get Lance, in particular. That just can't be true. You are asserting that the federal investigation is stupid if it continues without a prospect of nailing Lance. It is not stupid if it nails others, and I have great confidence that others will be indicted--I just have no confidence that Lance will be indicted (criminally).

RICO predicate acts are federal crimes. Nothing that you recite looks like a federal predicate offense, nor is there anything that suggests Lance's personal agreement to the commission of a predicate act.

Nothing I've seen on this forum indicates anything like a chargeable federal crime. By the way, a prosecutor's conviction rate would tend to inversely relate to that prosecutor's indictment rate.

My premise is straightforward: The facts that are publicly available make it more likely that Lance will not be indicted. I have yet to see anything resembling a good argument that it is more likely that Lance will be indicted (but I have been compared to a 4 year old and my argument has been called stupid).

The ad hominem argument, the "you're a Lance lover" argument, the "word on the street" argument, the "I have superior knowledge" argument, and the "why are you here" argument are arguments unworthy of grown-ups.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The whole world does not revolve around Armstrong. Michael Ball, for instance is probably very nervous right now. The person who actually sold Floyd his dope is probably very nervous right now. Perhaps the whole network of people who supplied Floyd have been compromised. There is a whole load of righteous targets that Novitzky is doubtless working on. If any undercover or wiretap work was done, well . . .WOW.

Your argument assumes that the feds are out to get Lance, in particular. That just can't be true. You are asserting that the federal investigation is stupid if it continues without a prospect of nailing Lance. It is not stupid if it nails others, and I have great confidence that others will be indicted--I just have no confidence that Lance will be indicted (criminally).

RICO predicate acts are federal crimes. Nothing that you recite looks like a federal predicate offense, nor is there anything that suggests Lance's personal agreement to the commission of a predicate act.

Nothing I've seen on this forum indicates anything like a chargeable federal crime. By the way, a prosecutor's conviction rate would tend to inversely relate to that prosecutor's indictment rate.

My premise is straightforward: The facts that are publicly available make it more likely that Lance will not be indicted. I have yet to see anything resembling a good argument that it is more likely that Lance will be indicted (but I have been compared to a 4 year old and my argument has been called stupid).

The ad hominem argument, the "you're a Lance lover" argument, the "word on the street" argument, the "I have superior knowledge" argument, and the "why are you here" argument are arguments unworthy of grown-ups.

True - but you appear to be the one who is fixated with Armstrong.

Armstrong was an officer of Tailwind Sports - unless they can account for every cent - this ties him to the money/distribution side.
Tailwind was still in business until the end of Discovery in 2007 - well within the SOL.

 

[Cheat Or Be Cheated]

It seems to me that if the prosecutors are inventive then there are a lot of options. For example, when the conspiracy set its sites on Radio Shack Inc., it engaged in an elaborate ruse to hide the fraud. This ruse involved transmission of blood values purportedly showing that Lance Armstrong was not breaking the doping rules of the sport. Those values were transmitted via interstate wires. Along with blood values, Lance Armstrong, by use of services such as Twitter, frequently used the internet to deflect allegations of doping. In fact, Armstrong and his team pre-planned and carried out a violation of the doping rules during the 2009 Tour de France using infusion equipment. The ruse to trick the scheme's victims into thinking that Amrstrong and his team were racing within the rules was an act of wire fraud.

 

[BroDeal]

Ahh, the reaction of two who just suffered the idiocy of a BPC post.

For those who might be tempted to respond to BPC's nightly trolling: Cheat Or Be Cheated == BPC.

 

[Cheat Or Be Cheated]

You've got to admit it was a funny post. The investigation should now charge him for using twitter?

 

[D-Queued]

...

Nothing I've seen on this forum indicates anything like a chargeable federal crime.

...

Now we are going with the because you say so argument?

Are you Johann, and is this what the eyeball test is telling you?

C'mon even an educated person like yourself has to admit that this is a pretty thin argument from an anonymous poster on an Internet Forum.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Tailwind Officer?

True - but you appear to be the one who is fixated with Armstrong.

Armstrong was an officer of Tailwind Sports - unless they can account for every cent - this ties him to the money/distribution side.
Tailwind was still in business until the end of Discovery in 2007 - well within the SOL.

A lot of people were officers of ENRON, but only a few (too damn few) were charged. Okay. Lance was an officer of Tailwind. It still leaves the question: What did Lance do (or agree to do as part of a RICO organization) that is a federal crime? Federal prosecutors don't throw mud hoping that something will stick--they come loaded for big game. The feds won't seek an indictment of Lance if they don't have a strong case.

Where's the beef?

 

[Dallas_]

A lot of people were officers of ENRON, but only a few (too damn few) were charged. Okay. Lance was an officer of Tailwind. It still leaves the question: What did Lance do (or agree to do as part of a RICO organization) that is a federal crime? Federal prosecutors don't throw mud hoping that something will stick--they come loaded for big game. The feds won't seek an indictment of Lance if they don't have a strong case.

Where's the beef?

Well AC ate clean beef. Novitzky is chewing on tainted beef all the way to the GJ.

chaio

 

[D-Queued]

A lot of people were officers of ENRON, but only a few (too damn few) were charged. Okay. Lance was an officer of Tailwind. It still leaves the question: What did Lance do (or agree to do as part of a RICO organization) that is a federal crime? Federal prosecutors don't throw mud hoping that something will stick--they come loaded for big game. The feds won't seek an indictment of Lance if they don't have a strong case.

Where's the beef?

We are closing in on some agreement here.

Most folks appear to agree with you. The Feds come loaded for big game. They won't seek an indictment of Lance if they don't have a strong case.

You don't know who they will charge with what? Sounds like everything is in order then.

And, since we have pretty good insight that the Feds have not moved on past Lance, it remains completely within the realm of possibility that they could indict him, and that they would have a strong case behind that indictment.

Get some popcorn and grab a seat.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A lot of people were officers of ENRON, but only a few (too damn few) were charged. Okay. Lance was an officer of Tailwind. It still leaves the question: What did Lance do (or agree to do as part of a RICO organization) that is a federal crime? Federal prosecutors don't throw mud hoping that something will stick--they come loaded for big game. The feds won't seek an indictment of Lance if they don't have a strong case.

Where's the beef?

Hey - you're back talking about Lance again.

Just like the Enron officers did the other officers know the full story about how the team was run?
I don't think Lance can use the excuse that he didn't know there was doping in the team.

 

[MacRoadie]

A lot of people were officers of ENRON...

Yes, 17 board members and innumerable officers to be exact. Tailwind had 7 board members (including Armstrong) and 5 officers..

 

[MarkvW]

okay

Now we are going with the because you say so argument?

Are you Johann, and is this what the eyeball test is telling you?

C'mon even an educated person like yourself has to admit that this is a pretty thin argument from an anonymous poster on an Internet Forum.

Dave.

None of the proponents of the 'Lance is going down' school have proposed a definite crime that Lance has done that fits within the 5 year SOL. RICO is not a magic wand; you need predicate crimes (among other elements). Everything that's been tossed at me; I've tried to address.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

The whole world does not revolve around Armstrong. Michael Ball, for instance is probably very nervous right now. The person who actually sold Floyd his dope is probably very nervous right now. Perhaps the whole network of people who supplied Floyd have been compromised. There is a whole load of righteous targets that Novitzky is doubtless working on. If any undercover or wiretap work was done, well . . .WOW.

Novitsky has shown the penchant for using wiretaps. He did it back with Balco, then Ball, and used Floyd. To think he stopped, or decided not to employ that tact with Lance is silly.

Your argument assumes that the feds are out to get Lance, in particular. That just can't be true. You are asserting that the federal investigation is stupid if it continues without a prospect of nailing Lance. It is not stupid if it nails others, and I have great confidence that others will be indicted--I just have no confidence that Lance will be indicted (criminally).

They are out to get Lance and his gang. They've called so many who are directly and exactly related to Lance, to think otherwise is idiotic. Tyler, Lim, Popo, McIlvain, etc. etc. I think it will nail Lance and his gang. I think they will bring RICO charges against him.

RICO predicate acts are federal crimes. Nothing that you recite looks like a federal predicate offense, nor is there anything that suggests Lance's personal agreement to the commission of a predicate act.

I find your simpleton views and deductions to be, frankly, insulting to the general IQ around these parts. Granted, many are not on the same station but I have very solid channels to info and find them to be both reliable and exacting in their predicitons.

As to predicate offenses, this is not so tough despite you making it out to be. Bribery (including sports bribery & foreign corrupt practices act violations), Fraud (mail and wire fraud of the USPS), Drug Trafficking (Controlled Substances Act and Travel Act violations, hence the FDA connections), Obstruction of Justice (destruction of evidence), Money Laundering (bikes for Drugs)... Is that enough? The basis for bringing any of these charges on their own can also be under consideration. We just don't know, now do we? For you to sweepingly brush off these serious issues is juvenile. These are not so easily dismissed in considering how, if combined together, they could assemble a very strong RICO case. Indictment on that would be instant seizure of all assets, and only those they can show were not obtained as part of the scheme will they be able to recover.

Nothing I've seen on this forum indicates anything like a chargeable federal crime. By the way, a prosecutor's conviction rate would tend to inversely relate to that prosecutor's indictment rate.

Conviction rate means nothing in my view. It all rests upon how far they want to push this. Again, ignoring these issues as Federal crimes is plain dumb. Of course they are Federal crimes. Crossing state lines for mail fraud, wire fraud... You objectivity is simply vapor. It is fine to think he will get away without being convicted. It is pure and utter ignorance to think he won't be charged with multiple felonies, possibly being hammered with a RICO charge.

My premise is straightforward: The facts that are publicly available make it more likely that Lance will not be indicted. I have yet to see anything resembling a good argument that it is more likely that Lance will be indicted (but I have been compared to a 4 year old and my argument has been called stupid).

Yes, there is a difference between the indisputable facts, the probable facts and pure speculation. What you call each will differ from mine, as I do possess superior knowledge of the situation, as a benefit of my friends in Europe who are very tuned in, and my understanding of US laws (not a lawyer) but have studied up on this since Floyd popped this, and now understand quite a bit about the US legal process and corresponding criminal investigatory timelines. Regarding the SOL, the discovery of the predicate acts tolls the SOL, meaning the clock starts when they reasonably discovered they'd been frauded. Don't confuse this with the "last act" theory. The lengths at which they went to for the purpose of concealing their crimes also comes into play as it relates to the SOL. They tried very hard, and that permits latitude for a judge to toll the SOL, if necessary.

The ad hominem argument, the "you're a Lance lover" argument, the "word on the street" argument, the "I have superior knowledge" argument, and the "why are you here" argument are arguments unworthy of grown-ups.

I won't go so far as to call you a Lance lover or question why you are here. I will state I feel I know as much as any "outsider" could probably know, and certainly more than you if I base my estimate on your posts. For all we know you are Lance? Doubt it but really, who knows?

I feel that Lance committed some serious crimes with his cohorts. They broke many Federal laws over many years, in a structured and deliberate manner. The laws they broke are mostly "predicate acts" that can possibly warrant a RICO charge. Ignoring this, claiming it as "not true" or whatever, is just ignorance. They are very good criminals but in the end they became too greedy and with the Feds bearing down, the jig is up.

Go read up on some RICO cases (please), RICO procedure with the US DoJ, and then come back and tell us all the reasons why it does not fit for Lance and his gang. Many, many, many RICO cases have gone forward with far less. Until then, your bluster is simply a facade of post after post claiming "nothing I see..." and "publicly known facts....", IE some worthless prattle that is not even a discussion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

None of the proponents of the 'Lance is going down' school have proposed a definite crime that Lance has done that fits within the 5 year SOL. RICO is not a magic wand; you need predicate crimes (among other elements). Everything that's been tossed at me; I've tried to address.

Well you didn't really address the Tailwind issue - you mentioned some officers in Enron, but Tailwind is a very small company with only 11 people mentioned.

This is why LA tried to distance himself from Tailwind in pretty much his only public statement on the case since last May!

“It wasn’t my company,” Armstrong said. “I can’t make it clear enough to you. I don’t know. I didn’t know the company. I didn’t have a position. I didn’t have an equity stake. I didn’t have a profit stake. I didn’t have a seat on the board. I was a rider on the team. I can’t be any clearer than that.”

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Well you didn't really address the Tailwind issue - you mentioned some officers in Enron, but Tailwind is a very small company with only 11 people mentioned.

This is why LA tried to distance himself from Tailwind in pretty much his only public statement on the case since last May!

I love the "I didn't know the company" line. Absolute lie, of the highest order.

In hindsight, he was in full panic during the Tour last year. That is not the statement of a man with full capacity.

 

[jimmypop]

I love the "I didn't know the company" line. Absolute lie, of the highest order.

In hindsight, he was in full panic during the Tour last year. That is not the statement of a man with full capacity.

It seems clear now that he and his team started to assemble his potential defense and strategy as the gravity of coming events became obvious.

 

[Cheat Or Be Cheated]

I love the "I didn't know the company" line. Absolute lie, of the highest order.

In hindsight, he was in full panic during the Tour last year. That is not the statement of a man with full capacity.

I don't know if it was panic, but it's no secret he was having to fend off these allegations and deal with the lawyers during the tour. That he was able to do that is highly impressive.

I think this is something his lawyers must have checked because he's never retracted that as far as I know. Testimony from the SCA hearing was produced of him believing he was a part owner, but his agent said at the same trial that documents hadn't been officially registered for the time period it involved. There must be something to this.

 

[Cheat Or Be Cheated]

It seems clear now that he and his team started to assemble his potential defense and strategy as the gravity of coming events became obvious.

It was clear at the time. It was an ambush that completely tookover his preparation for the Tour from the ToC onwards. The fans were deprived of what could have been a really interesting last tour.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I love the "I didn't know the company" line. Absolute lie, of the highest order.

In hindsight, he was in full panic during the Tour last year. That is not the statement of a man with full capacity.

Ya - also LA's lie word is "absolutley" ...
(As confirmed by Landis in the Kimmage interview):

I talked to Lance because I figured if there was one guy that might be able to relate (to what I was going through it was him.) All he said was: “You have to learn how to say ‘no’ better. Just say no and stop talking,” that was his advice. Or say ‘Absolutely not.’ But for the most part I didn’t talk to people.

.

Needless to say "absolutley" made an appearance in his denial of ownership of Tailwind;

Armstrong, a seven-time winner of the Tour, said he did not know the people who issued his paychecks when the team was sponsored by the Postal Service through 2004, only that they were signed by the company that owned the team, Tailwind Sports. He said he had “absolutely” no knowledge of how Tailwind used its funds during that time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't know if it was panic, but it's no secret he was having to fend off these allegations and deal with the lawyers during the tour. That he was able to do that is highly impressive.
I think this is something his lawyers must have checked because he's never retracted that as far as I know. Testimony from the SCA hearing was produced of him believing he was a part owner, but his agent said at the same trial that documents hadn't been officially registered for the time period it involved. There must be something to this.

Really - I thought he was only riding the Tour for cancer awareness?

Perhaps you missed these documents BPC.

 

[Cheat Or Be Cheated]

Ya - also LA's lie word is "absolutley" ...
(As confirmed by Landis in the Kimmage interview):
.

Needless to say "absolutley" made an appearance in his denial of ownership of Tailwind;

The context is different. Not wanting to get caught up in a lie by long winded answers on doping is seperate from denying a contractual issue that the feds can veriliably check. This is not something he would have stated without getting some specific advice from the lawyers. But there is the chance the lawyers were wrong and he jumped the gun. We'll have to wait and see.

I saw the documents. They're filed after the sponsorship with US Postal had ended. They appear to vindicate Armstrong's statement, technically at least.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The context is different. Not wanting to get caught up in a lie by long winded answers on doping is seperate from denying a contractual issue that the feds can veriliably check. This is not something he would have stated without getting some specific advice from the lawyers. But there is the chance the lawyers were wrong and he jumped the gun. We'll have to wait and see.

I saw the documents. They're filed after the sponsorship with US Postal had ended. They appear to vindicate Armstrong's statement, technically at least.

You 'saw" the document - but you didn't read it too well.

Paragraph 4 on page 1 identifies the date of incorporation as June 25, 2002.

 

[Cheat Or Be Cheated]

You 'saw" the document - but you didn't read it too well.

Paragraph 4 on page 1 identifies the date of incorporation as June 25, 2002.

Presumably they have to file each year which is why this is a 2005 document and not a 2002 document. Was Armstrong's name on the documents before 2005? If so why don't we have a document before 2005? At the moment this appears to back up what Bill Stapleton said at the SCA trial - and we must remember Stapleton had no reason to lie at the time about Armstrong's legal status in relation to Tailwind. He said they agreed in principle a few years before 2005 that Armstrong should become an official board member but this wasn't officially enacted until late 2005. I did suspect there must be something to Armstrong's definitive statement on this at the tour. It had to be something that they had checked out.

 

[Dallas_]

Burke

John Burke of Trek is a director. Hells Bells, Greg was outflanked. Defending himself with a slingshot.

ciao

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Presumably they have to file each year which is why this is a 2005 document and not a 2002 document. Was Armstrong's name on the documents before 2005? If so why don't we have a document before 2005? At the moment this appears to back up what Bill Stapleton said at the SCA trial - and we must remember Stapleton had no reason to lie at the time about Armstrong's legal status in relation to Tailwind. He said they agreed in principle a few years before 2005 that Armstrong should become an official board member but this wasn't officially enacted until late 2005. I did suspect there must be something to Armstrong's definitive statement on this at the tour. It had to be something that they had checked out.

You "presumed" wrong.

The document I posted is an "Application for Certificate of Authority" for Texas, they do not get 'filed' yearly.

The original documents of incorporation would be in the State where Tailwind was originally incorporated in 2002, Delaware.