Urine Trouble

[Colm.Murphy]

I agree with your prediction, but the use of PED's is not a big crime in the U.S. This is the great danger of settling in on just PED use. Acquisition, distribution, and varied fraud claims carry more criminal penalties.

If the samples are used to strengthen multiple felonies, then it is a great effort. In case it isn't 100% obvious by now, I think that the outcome may be a plea/conviction on an assortment of minor crimes. I don't want it to be, but I'm staying open to the potential the myth lives on.

This is about fraud. Frauding the US Govt out of a metric ton of cash. Stealing money from the US Govt is a crime.

If Lance was using PED's when the contracts they agreed to said he could not, it is fraud. If they omitted the material fact that the team had a doping program when the contracts they agreed to, year after year, said this was forbidden, then that is fraud. The fraud exists because the US Govt would never have paid, due to the breech of the contract, had they known the truth. Lance and his crew omitted, concealed, however you want to express it, that they were doping.

This is not about doping to win. If he got 5th, and doped, it still would have been fraud, regardless of what the outcome was. This is not about "using govt money to buy drugs", since even if the doping products were free, the doping on its own is the problem. This is not about the USPS "getting their money's worth" since the damage is that they had money taken from them under false pretenses and material omissions of fact, facts that were the duty of Tailwind to make known.

These guys committed a long, organized, methodical stretch of frauding the US Govt.

 

[MarkvW]

Odds against perp walk

That guy has hired the Fabricator Fabiani to grease the skids in Congress. Congress is the body that funds the investigation. The same one that hasn't walked a single perp in the widespread mortgage fraud? Team Armstrong's money is just as good as the bank's money.

I want to see every principal in Tailwind perp walked. I do. The Pharmstrong defense would only need to create doubt about any samples brought into court to eliminate them as a threat. I'm sure they can find a doctor (the doctor from 30 Rock works for me) to make something up.

It's early days yet. I think the perp walk is at one extreme end of possible results. The other end of the spectrum is nothing happens to the Team Pharmstrong.

There won't be a perp walk. If Armstrong is charged, he'll surrender without fanfare and voluntarily appear for arraignment. He's no Blagojevich.

 

[python]

This is about fraud. <snip>.

you sentiment is right but if the fed follows your advice on how and what to test armstrong will definitely walk and laugh.

i repeat why on earth 99 samples would be tested for dehp ?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

you sentiment is right but if the fed follows your advice on how and what to test armstrong will definitely walk and laugh.

i repeat why on earth 99 samples would be tested for dehp ?

Why are you seizing on that notion?

I doubt they would test the 99 sample for DEHP. My guess is they would test for DEHP during years when they would have information as to when Lance got transfusions, to support any eye-witness testimony to support that claim.

From the info out there, they were not transfusing until after the EPO test came about, so most likely the 2002 season.

It is most logical to consider any DEHP test that might be used would only be used on samples from that year on, and when there is some corroboration of testimony that can tied it together nice and tight.

Eye witness: Lance got his transfusion with us on July xx, 2003.

DEHP test on July xx-1, 2003 shows DEHP of x
DEHP test on July xx, 2003 shoes DEHP of y.

Does this hep you understand?

 

[BroDeal]

I don't see that testing for DEHP gains anything. Any results can easily be explained by an IV for dehydration or intravenous feeding or whatever.

What the feds should be asking for is the items seized from Astana's garbage at the 2009 TdF when all IVs were considered doping.

 

[MacRoadie]

Judge Adolph Canales (Dallas) dismissed findings that LA was gassed.

Wrong, nice (yet pathetic) try though. Canales simply disqualified one of the arbitrators (Thibault de Montbrial) because of perceived conflicts of interest in violation of AAA rules. He made no ruling whatsoever (as it wasn't a matter before his court) with regard to the samples.

Curiously, in the press release issued by HowryBreen (they would be Armstrong's attorneys, and the law firm of one Tim Herman), there is zero mention of any samples or any ruling on said samples. Seems like that would be kinda significant news that they'd want to include, dontcha think?

Dallas Judge Agrees with Lance Armstrong in Legal Case

Judge Canales agreed with Armstrong’s attorney Tim Herman that arbitrator Montbrial had a clear and ongoing conflict of interest in the case and that his appointment violated the provisions of American Arbitration Association rules which require that all arbitrators be “impartial and independent.” Montbrial represents an author and publisher who are both defendants in a libel and slander suit brought by Armstrong in France. Armstrong and Tailwind had asked Judge Canales to disqualify Montbrial.

He didn't even rule on the issues being arbitrated as that too was not before his court, he simply ordered SCA to appoint a new arbitrator.

SCA was given until February 1 to appoint a new arbitrator.

That was the extent of his ruling and his "agreement" with Armstrong. Gotta love the spin in that press release title though.

Now, once again, I asked for a cite (as in a link to an article or other independantly verifiable source of proof like the one I happily provided to you).

 

[python]

Why are you seizing on that notion?

because in 99 epo doping with full therapeutic dozes (as opposed to micro) was the dope fashion of the day. dehp is a test for blood transfusions which were introduced much later to avoid epo test. you lumped up many tests that would require a wagon filled with armstrong urine.

they ain got that luxiry. thus i'm trying to drain the situation of hype as there is plenty already along with unnecessary confusion.

I doubt they would test the 99 sample for DEHP. My guess is they would test for DEHP during years when they would have information as to when Lance got transfusions, to support any eye-witness testimony to support that claim.

ok but again, if they got the samples. i seriously doubt they do and i explained this above.

From the info out there, they were not transfusing until after the EPO test came about, so most likely the 2002 season.

zorzoli estimates transfusions were in full swing since 2003.

but it's moot. the le monde outline only talked about the 99 samples. none other.

 

[Angliru]

This is being talked about in an existing thread (or threads) but I would like to request that this thread remain up on it's own on the strength of the title.

I would like to nominate this thread's title for title of the year. I don't see any future title beating it. Classic!

 

[Polish]

Why did AFLD announce in the first place?

Is Novitzky starting to play cat-and-mouse with Lance?

Ok, Lance, you want to run a bogus AP article up the flagpole suggesting the case is cold?

We can play that game too...

Let us know how much you like hardball.

Dave.

Le Monde leaked the latest story of the pee, not Novitzky.
I would think Novitzky would NOT want the news to become public.
Just further evidence of the Feds urinating away taxpayer dollars sigh.

BTW, Le Monde initially leaked the pee story 6 plus years ago.
Coming out in dribs and draps ever since. Dribbling out.
"Lance's 1999 pee pee is dirty". SPDD SPDD SPDD.

So why is the US GOV only investigating now?
Lance is protected by the 6th Amendment btw. Fair and Speedy Trial.
Everyone has known about Lance's pee for many years now. SSDD.
Ignorance of the pee is no defense.

Maybe Novitzky is PO'd that Lance did not copy him when Lance sent the
"doping heads up warning " e-mail to the UCI and WADA in 2004?
Maybe Novitzky was too busy with Barry Bonds to notice?
That is not a valid excuse.

And anyway, does the US GOV even have the RIGHT to test Lance's old pee?
4th amendment gives the citizens protection against illegal search and seizure.
Barry Bond's rights were trampled a bit too iirc....
I think the ACLU needs to get involved in these cases.

 

[BotanyBay]

The samples. What about them?

I think this question needs another thread, just to keep it on-track.

OK, so let's say we've got urine samples. They're Lance's and they're positive for EPO. Let's suppose we're in a jury room and everyone is in absolute agreement on this. A hypothetical.

What's the charge we're debating?

• It can't be perjury from the SCA case, because that would not be the fed's jurisdiction (Texas would have to go after him for that).

• It can't be lying to a grand jury, because Lance has not testified in front of the grand jury. I assume that if he's been questioned by federal agents, Herman has told him not to answer any such questions.

So what are we deliberating?

My guess is that we're looking at a trafficking charge. And the positive samples are supporting evidence. And they wouldn't be asking for this evidence unless they've got plenty of OTHER EVIDENCE linking Lance to a trafficking operation.

Thoughts? And PR firm employees / fanboys, please don't derail this by disputing the validity of the samples. I want to know WHY we're discussing samples in this theoretical jury room.

 

[Mambo95]

My guess is that we're looking at a trafficking charge. And the positive samples are supporting evidence. And they wouldn't be asking for this evidence unless they've got plenty of OTHER EVIDENCE linking Lance to a trafficking operation.

Wouldn't trafficking have to involve trafficking into or out of the US, though? Didn't all the doping we know about happen in Europe? And LA probably wouldn't be personally involved in any trafficking anyway (he's just the end user).

I don't know what charges they're looking at, but trafficking seems a long shot to me.

Fraud seems to be the most likely, although I can't quite see where the fraud took place. On a similar note, what are the charges against Bonds, et al.

 

[Digger]

I think this question needs another thread, just to keep it on-track.

OK, so let's say we've got urine samples. They're Lance's and they're positive for EPO. Let's suppose we're in a jury room and everyone is in absolute agreement on this. A hypothetical.

What's the charge we're debating?

• It can't be perjury from the SCA case, because that would not be the fed's jurisdiction (Texas would have to go after him for that).

• It can't be lying to a grand jury, because Lance has not testified in front of the grand jury. I assume that if he's been questioned by federal agents, Herman has told him not to answer any such questions.

So what are we deliberating?

My guess is that we're looking at a trafficking charge. And the positive samples are supporting evidence. And they wouldn't be asking for this evidence unless they've got plenty of OTHER EVIDENCE linking Lance to a trafficking operation.

Thoughts? And PR firm employees / fanboys, please don't derail this by disputing the validity of the samples. I want to know WHY we're discussing samples in this theoretical jury room.

Who supplied and paid for the EPO in the samples.......

 

[Elagabalus]

Le Monde leaked the latest story of the pee, not Novitzky.
I would think Novitzky would NOT want the news to become public.
Just further evidence of the Feds urinating away taxpayer dollars sigh.

BTW, Le Monde initially leaked the pee story 6 plus years ago.
Coming out in dribs and draps ever since. Dribbling out.
"Lance's 1999 pee pee is dirty". SPDD SPDD SPDD.

So why is the US GOV only investigating now?
Lance is protected by the 6th Amendment btw. Fair and Speedy Trial.
Everyone has known about Lance's pee for many years now. SSDD.
Ignorance of the pee is no defense.

Maybe Novitzky is PO'd that Lance did not copy him when Lance sent the
"doping heads up warning " e-mail to the UCI and WADA in 2004?
Maybe Novitzky was too busy with Barry Bonds to notice?
That is not a valid excuse.

And anyway, does the US GOV even have the RIGHT to test Lance's old pee?
4th amendment gives the citizens protection against illegal search and seizure.
Barry Bond's rights were trampled a bit too iirc....
I think the ACLU needs to get involved in these cases.

Fanboy! Re-hinge thyself!

 

[Polish]

I think this question needs another thread, just to keep it on-track.

OK, so let's say we've got urine samples. They're Lance's and they're positive for EPO. Let's suppose we're in a jury room and everyone is in absolute agreement on this. A hypothetical.

What's the charge we're debating?

• It can't be perjury from the SCA case, because that would not be the fed's jurisdiction (Texas would have to go after him for that).

• It can't be lying to a grand jury, because Lance has not testified in front of the grand jury. I assume that if he's been questioned by federal agents, Herman has told him not to answer any such questions.

So what are we deliberating?

My guess is that we're looking at a trafficking charge. And the positive samples are supporting evidence. And they wouldn't be asking for this evidence unless they've got plenty of OTHER EVIDENCE linking Lance to a trafficking operation.

Thoughts? And PR firm employees / fanboys, please don't derail this by disputing the validity of the samples. I want to know WHY we're discussing samples in this theoretical jury room.

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

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

What if Lance swears under oath and the samples show otherwise.
What is "truer" - Lances word or some old potentially tampered samples?

 

[indurain666]

I see a lot of the discussion as if Novitzky is basing the whole investigation on results from testing the samples.

I don't think that is the case; I don't much about lawy and I really don't know what will it mean on court finding the samples are positive for EPO, steroids or else. It will definitely prove that Armstrong is a liar, something any cycling fan with an IQ> 70 already knows but it would help prove it to the public.

I think this is just a piece of the puzzle, small one, but needed.

Be as it may, I am pretty sure Mr. Armstrong is not having a good day today

And I want my livestrong bracelet money back!

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Le Monde leaked the latest story of the pee, not Novitzky.
I would think Novitzky would NOT want the news to become public.
Just further evidence of the Feds urinating away taxpayer dollars sigh.

BTW, Le Monde initially leaked the pee story 6 plus years ago.
Coming out in dribs and draps ever since. Dribbling out.
"Lance's 1999 pee pee is dirty". SPDD SPDD SPDD.

So why is the US GOV only investigating now?
Lance is protected by the 6th Amendment btw. Fair and Speedy Trial.
Everyone has known about Lance's pee for many years now. SSDD.
Ignorance of the pee is no defense.

Maybe Novitzky is PO'd that Lance did not copy him when Lance sent the
"doping heads up warning " e-mail to the UCI and WADA in 2004?
Maybe Novitzky was too busy with Barry Bonds to notice?
That is not a valid excuse.

And anyway, does the US GOV even have the RIGHT to test Lance's old pee?
4th amendment gives the citizens protection against illegal search and seizure.
Barry Bond's rights were trampled a bit too iirc....
I think the ACLU needs to get involved in these cases.

The US government is investigating now because Landis came forward with his charges and we are in the post-BALCO era with the likes of FDA investigator Jeff Novitsky on the trail of the miscreants. They are also investigating because the matter involved more than $30million of US tax payer funds potentially mis-appropriated.

The Sixth Amendment only applies after indictment. The time to trial is governed in Federal cases by the Federal Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, Sec. 2, Chapter 208, 3161 et sec. of the US Code

Once indicted, the trial must commence within 70 days unless the defendant makes motions or otherwise waives the requirement by tolling the running of days. For example, plea negotiations will toll the running. Many states have longer periods to trial--usually 180 days.

The ACLU handles only one type of case--1st Amendment Freedom of Expression matters.

Lastly, yes the US Government absolutely has the right to test Lance's pee and blood via criminal subpoena to gather evidence of a crime. If they want blood or urine now, they would need a warrant based on probable cause. Armstrong gave up any 4th Amendment rights to his old pee long ago.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Wouldn't trafficking have to involve trafficking into or out of the US, though? Didn't all the doping we know about happen in Europe? And LA probably wouldn't be personally involved in any trafficking anyway (he's just the end user).

I don't know what charges they're looking at, but trafficking seems a long shot to me.

Fraud seems to be the most likely, although I can't quite see where the fraud took place. On a similar note, what are the charges against Bonds, et al.

Maybe that's why the Gmen were talking to Interpol. Borders are borders. Europe's full of them. I'm not American, so I'm not sure where that stands in terms of Novitzky's investigation.

What sort of interplay can functionally happen between a US investigation and Interpol, in terms of pursuing something legal? I guess it rests on a TONNE of different national laws...

Maybe LA's not only going to get hooped in the States? If the stories are to be believed, he would have his hand in moving a lot of (illegally gotten and restricted) stuff over a whole lot of borders.

Forget the USPS money, that may end up being a small concern for someone who could theoretically be implicated in a multi-national smuggling ring involving more than a few countries that are pretty serious about controlling the illegal movement of meds.

Perhaps Lance realized his dream, and he's actually a whole lot bigger than just one country...

If anyone has some useful information to flush this out (or to utterly flatten it), I'm waiting. Thanks.

 

[Mambo95]

Maybe that's why the Gmen were talking to Interpol. Borders are borders. Europe's full of them. I'm not American, so I'm not sure where that stands in terms of Novitzky's investigation.

I'm not American either, but I doubt that the Feds would spend money on an investigation into drug moving within Europe (where they have no jurisdiction), and the actual trafficking is probably done by non-US nationals (US nationals just being the users).

European authorities will assist where they can, but I doubt they'll open their own investigation into LA personally.

 

[Digger]

The US government is investigating now because Landis came forward with his charges and we are in the post-BALCO era with the likes of FDA investigator Jeff Novitsky on the trail of the miscreants. They are also investigating because the matter involved more than $30million of US tax payer funds potentially mis-appropriated.

The Sixth Amendment only applies after indictment. The time to trial is governed in Federal cases by the Federal Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, Sec. 2, Chapter 208, 3161 et sec. of the US Code

Once indicted, the trial must commence within 70 days unless the defendant makes motions or otherwise waives the requirement by tolling the running of days. For example, plea negotiations will toll the running. Many states have longer periods to trial--usually 180 days.

The ACLU handles only one type of case--1st Amendment Freedom of Expression matters.

Lastly, yes the US Government absolutely has the right to test Lance's pee and blood via criminal subpoena to gather evidence of a crime. If they want blood or urine now, they would need a warrant based on probable cause. Armstrong gave up any 4th Amendment rights to his old pee long ago.

Thank you for that - and for argument sake, from a legal perspective, would you acccept that Novitzky et al must have a strong case for them to be testing and contacting the French about these samples?

 

[veloracer]

As the world turns.... Just two comments:

1) Armstrong will be vindicated or hang shortly, he is now retired from sport.

2) Current TDF champion is caught with banned substance in his system and given a 'hall pass' to continue.


Interesting juxtapositions really.

 

[BotanyBay]

Who supplied and paid for the EPO in the samples.......

But do you need to know that the EPO made its way into his urine to establish this?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Thank you for that - and for argument sake, from a legal perspective, would you acccept that Novitzky et al must have a strong case for them to be testing and contacting the French about these samples?

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.

 

[BotanyBay]

Wouldn't trafficking have to involve trafficking into or out of the US, though? Didn't all the doping we know about happen in Europe? And LA probably wouldn't be personally involved in any trafficking anyway (he's just the end user).

I don't know what charges they're looking at, but trafficking seems a long shot to me.

Fraud seems to be the most likely, although I can't quite see where the fraud took place. On a similar note, what are the charges against Bonds, et al.

Trafficking is merely the process of buying, selling and transporting. It's not limited or restricted to border crossings.

 

[Mambo95]

Trafficking is merely the process of buying, selling and transporting. It's not limited or restricted to border crossings.

But has any of this been done in the US? Probably not.

Also, for trafficking, it's has to be incredibly difficult to make a case if you don't catch them in the act. Six+ years down the line will be nearly impossible.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

But has any of this been done in the US? Probably not.

That comes back to my question of how involved Novitzky got into it with the Euro cops and Interpol.

I'm not sure how it works with a US prosecutor going after a US citizen for deeds done outside of the country. All I can think of is that Interpol and some other Euro police are now involved (apparently the accused were moving illegal goods in/out of their countries), therefor further proceedings may involve those European countries/cops.

Proof is going to end up being proof. I just seem to get muddled as to who is going to end up scr*wing who in the end. Maybe it all stays within the Americans' perview, but maybe not...

I obviously don't know, and all that I've written is conjecture. Help me out, brainiacs...