US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

Page 106 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
<snip>... Like so much of Coyle's Armstrong nonsense lives on despite it's awfulness. I just don't want any more zombie assumptions springing to life.


Coyle should have killed off the myth that cancer sculpted Armstrong's body and improved his power to weight ratio through losing the weight from shedding of surplus muscle.

In his study Coyle presented Armstrong's weight from 1992 to 1999 as having increased!

But you cannot hold a persuasive myth down as Discovery Education still perpetuate in the "Science of Lance Armstrong".

"Body weight: He was 20 pounds lighter after cancer, but with the same strength."

And wasn't it Ferrari who claimed cancer caused a power loss in Armstrong so the high cadence pedaling was developed to compensate?
 
Velodude said:
Coyle should have killed off the myth that cancer sculpted Armstrong's body and improved his power to weight ratio through losing the weight from shedding of surplus muscle.

In his study Coyle presented Armstrong's weight from 1992 to 1999 as having increased!

But you cannot hold a persuasive myth down as Discovery Education still perpetuate in the "Science of Lance Armstrong".


And wasn't it Ferrari who claimed cancer caused a power loss in Armstrong so the high cadence pedaling was developed to compensate?


shouldn't this now be closed down and reopened as an undead thread: triathalons, enablers, obsessions, irrelevance?
 
Feb 4, 2010
547
0
0
Good to know the legal expertise, direct line to accurate inside information, and direct experiential knowledge that the regular posters of the I hate LA clinic threads hasn't diminished. :)
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Race Radio said:
Even casual observers can see that there is evidence of, at the least, witness tampering.

Yes, but you know that they won''t go ahead with tampering charges if they don't indict for the reasons he'd tampered in the first place.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
9000ft said:
Good to know the legal expertise, direct line to accurate inside information, and direct experiential knowledge that the regular posters of the I hate LA clinic threads hasn't diminished. :)

Good to know that you have maintained your perfect record of adding nothing to the discussion
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
DirtyWorks said:
Making stuff up is not welcome. What is your source for insufficient evidence being the primary reason the investigation was dropped? Please be specific.

Insufficient Evidence is the most LOGICAL and the most LEGAL explanation as to why Grand Juries do not indict. Logical and Legal.

As far as the "Lance Armstrong Investigation" is concerned, Fed Spokesman Thom Mrozek said that "the decision was made with a full and fair consideration of all the relevant evidence and law."

IE, the investigation is legally over because of insufficient evidence.
Most rational people will agree with that. Its true.

And I welcome you to prove me wrong.
It is not hard, btw, to prove something wrong.

For example - many have said that people would be "thrown under the bus" during the investigation and trial. WRONG. Never happened.

Oh, but that must be because of "witness tampering!". Wrong again. There was a Federal Investigation and there was no witness tampering indictment. No indictments or trial period. So wrong again. See how easy this is?

But no indictment just means there is a Borat/WonderBoy Conspiracy. OMG, will the Wrongness ever end? Nope. LoL.

BTW, over ten years ago when people started asking me if I thought Lance doped, I would say "if anyone could get away with it, it would be Lance" and then give a wink. And not because of any grand conspiracies or bribes, but because of lazer focus and meticulous nature. The guy weighs his food and is anal about everything bikewise FCOL.

And you know, when people ask me today - I give the same answer I have always given. I usually throw in the "SSDD" line also, which is the same as insufficient evidence it turns out.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Polish said:
Insufficient Evidence is the most LOGICAL and the most LEGAL explanation as to why Grand Juries do not indict. Logical and Legal.

The Grand Jury was never given the opportunity to indict, they were dismissed before they could give their position.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Race Radio said:
The Grand Jury was never given the opportunity to indict, they were dismissed before they could give their position.

And to explain the dismissal one could cite insufficient evidence or one could cite a Borat/WonderBoy conspiracy. Or other reasons.

I choose the legal and logical path of insufficient evidence.
 
Polish said:
And to explain the dismissal one could cite insufficient evidence or one could cite a Borat/WonderBoy conspiracy. Or other reasons.

I choose the legal and logical path of insufficient evidence.[/quote]

You can choose the words "legal" and "logical" but it does not make you any more correct than others' theories.

There has never been an announcement that stated "insufficient evidence" was the reason for ending the investigation.

I guess if you just keep repeating your mantra words it gives you hope that others will possibly join your bandwagon and believe this is the real reason.....

ssdd maybe
 
Feb 4, 2010
547
0
0
Race Radio said:
Good to know that you have maintained your perfect record of adding nothing to the discussion

Discussion?? LOL

This whole thread from it's inception has been like one of those Simpson's episodes where some trivial thing happens then the rumor mill kicks into high gear and before you know it the world is ending and the whole town riots complete with burning overturned cars in the streets.

You guys just build and build on each other. You did it before the case was dropped, had a short period of mourning, then began stroking each other to newer and newer heights of unquestionable evidence.

None of you guys seems to be able to admit that you don't know everything there is to know about Lance Armstrong and that your vision of him is absolutely correct. With a few exceptions, no one can seem to bring themselves to just say "I don't Know." It's all about the agenda that is collectively enriched through interwebz speculation (IE: the circle jerk) till like it did last month, comes tumbling down. You can't keep a good mob down though and the community (circle) is encouraging each other to bigger and better heights till most likely (or maybe not, who knows?) the whole thing will come tumbling down again.

Cheap entertainment I suppose. As I've said many times before. I don't find Mr Armstrong and his real or imagined malfeasance nearly as fascinating as the people who are obsessed with him. It's like tabloid movie star obsession. (OMG!!! Did you seewhat Lance tweeted today?!?! and those shoes, what was he thinking????? I think he's getting fat, don't you???) I wouldn't have nearly the same interest if the participants simply acknowledged it as good, dumb, tawdry entertainment and didn't take themselves so seriously.

IMO the best thing that can happen is if the"I hate LA more than you" thread goes on and on. Beats going to church. :)
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Curious....when did Borat enter all this? I thought he was still on the subway trying to catch the chicken that fell out of his lugage?
 
9000ft said:
Discussion?? LOL

This whole thread from it's inception has been like one of those Simpson's episodes where some trivial thing happens then the rumor mill kicks into high gear and before you know it the world is ending and the whole town riots complete with burning overturned cars in the streets.

You guys just build and build on each other. You did it before the case was dropped, had a short period of mourning, then began stroking each other to newer and newer heights of unquestionable evidence.

None of you guys seems to be able to admit that you don't know everything there is to know about Lance Armstrong and that your vision of him is absolutely correct. With a few exceptions, no one can seem to bring themselves to just say "I don't Know." It's all about the agenda that is collectively enriched through interwebz speculation (IE: the circle jerk) till like it did last month, comes tumbling down. You can't keep a good mob down though and the community (circle) is encouraging each other to bigger and better heights till most likely (or maybe not, who knows?) the whole thing will come tumbling down again.

Cheap entertainment I suppose. As I've said many times before. I don't find Mr Armstrong and his real or imagined malfeasance nearly as fascinating as the people who are obsessed with him. It's like tabloid movie star obsession. (OMG!!! Did you seewhat Lance tweeted today?!?! and those shoes, what was he thinking????? I think he's getting fat, don't you???) I wouldn't have nearly the same interest if the participants simply acknowledged it as good, dumb, tawdry entertainment and didn't take themselves so seriously.

IMO the best thing that can happen is if the"I hate LA more than you" thread goes on and on. Beats going to church. :)

Like it or not you just added several more paragraphs to the 'discussion'.

I guess that puts you in the category of 'you guys'...
sorry your standards of entertainment are lowering...;)
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
9000ft said:


If you took time to actually read the thread you would see that outside of Polish and a few repeated trolls most of what is discussed is based on links, media, widespread reporting.

Perhaps if you actually read the thread instead of trying to figure out how you are going to say "You guys suck" for the 100th time?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
mewmewmew13 said:
There has never been an announcement that stated "insufficient evidence" was the reason for ending the investigation.

Ahh, so you are going to go all "Dr Maseratti" on me.
Well played.

But c'mon, the Feds said they looked at the evidence and dropped the case.
So what does that mean to you? What does that mean to most people?

It does not matter that some people and media were suprised.
They thought there was sufficient evidence. Ample evidence.
WaaWaa they were wrong.

Unless you are suggesting conspiracy and illegal Federal activity?
Are you suggesting illegal Federal activity?
Those are fighting words. Serious words.
Need some links for those words yikes.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Race Radio said:
Fixed that for you.....

No RR, you are wrong.
The Feds never said that. It would be illegal for them to do that.
You are probably just joking anyway, but I had to bite:)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Polish said:
No RR, you are wrong.
The Feds never said that. It would be illegal for them to do that.
You are probably just joking anyway, but I had to bite:)

No. Not illegal. Just expedient.

Which is, of course, what happened.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Scott SoCal said:
No. Not illegal. Just expedient.

Which is, of course, what happened.

So Scott, why do you think it took 2+ years to come to an expedient decision? Oversea juntas, witness after witness, Interpol, AFLD, CIA, FBI, HomeLand Security, etcetcetc.

2 plus years to come to an expedient decision. Why?
2 words.
Insufficient Evidence.
SSDD SSDD SSDD.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Polish said:
No RR, you are wrong.
The Feds never said that. It would be illegal for them to do that.
You are probably just joking anyway, but I had to bite:)

I know you are joking, but I had to bite

The U.S. attorney who closed a nearly two-year investigation into the racing team of seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong rejected a recommendation from his assistants that he pursue criminal charges in the case.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203315804577209511653273618.html

‘no weaknesses in the case’.

the case was shut down was due to a one-man decision. The evidence against those involved was absolutely overwhelming. They were going to be charged with a slew of crimes but for reasons unexplained he closed the case saying it wasn't open for discussion,”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/con...al-investigation-into-armstrong-and-us-postal
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Race Radio said:
What happens when you are the Chief Marketing officer who attaches your brand to a toxic doper? You get fired





http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/03/radioshacks-chief-marketing-of.html

II have to say that Radioshack should have bailed after 2010. To push on was criminal especially in this economy and for the financial results Radioshack have been posting. He let his love of Lance spoilt his business decision making and his responsibilities to the company.

No chance Radiohasck will be sponsoring the team past August.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Polish said:
So Scott, why do you think it took 2+ years to come to an expedient decision? Oversea juntas, witness after witness, Interpol, AFLD, CIA, FBI, HomeLand Security, etcetcetc.

2 plus years to come to an expedient decision. Why?
2 words.
Insufficient Evidence.
SSDD SSDD SSDD.

U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. announced in a press release that his office "is closing an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team owned in part by Lance Armstrong."

He didn't disclose the reason for the decision, though Birotte has used discretion in pursing high-profile criminal cases before. Last February, his office closed an investigation of mortgage giant Countrywide Financial Corp.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/lance-armstrong-doping-investigation-dropped-no-charges_n_1253621.html

I'm pretty sure there was nothing to go after Countrywide for either.

Rich and Famous walk while the rest of us do the time. SSDD.