US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[Race Radio]

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.

It's called the "Lance Effect"

 

[Polish]

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.

Are you saying there was insufficient evidence in the CountryWide Case too?
I didn't follow that case too closely. Any leaks in that case?

CountryWide handled my mortage btw. Good customer service IIRC.
Never had to talk to them, but their billing was consistent and professional.

 

[mewmewmew13]

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.

Hey Dr Mas I think you just got a back-handed compliment.

No I'm not 'playing'...I just stated a fact.

No the Feds didn't say they "looked at the evidence and dropped the case".

No I am not 'suggesting conspiricy...blah blah.." but you would like me to sound like a nut case hater which I am neither.

Your 'waa waa' and other playground words aren't helping you today P.
sinking ship...

 

[9000ft]

That is funny, given that you post almost exclusively in threads about Lance
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/search.php?searchid=2034296

I smell obsession

Nah, you guys are just much more entertaining and I only have limited time to spend on the interwebz. (and if you're not here for entertainment what are you here for?) My post count is minuscule compared to the faithful.

 

[Polish]

No the Feds didn't say they "looked at the evidence and dropped the case".

I did not say the Feds said that.
That is what I said - notice there were no quotes when I said it.
Dr Mas would have picked up on that.

But I did quote the Feds a few posts earlier.
I put their quote in quotes btw.
Thought I made that clear. Maybe not lol.
And again, the Feds said they looked at the evidence fairly...and dropped the case.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I did not say the Feds said that.
That is what I said - notice there were no quotes when I said it.
Dr Mas would have picked up on that.

But I did quote the Feds a few posts earlier.
I put their quote in quotes btw.
Thought I made that clear. Maybe not lol.
And again, the Feds said they looked at the evidence fairly...and dropped the case.

"Which 'Fed' and how many said that?"

 

[Cal_Joe]

Hey Dr Mas I think you just got a back-handed compliment.

No I'm not 'playing'...I just stated a fact.

No the Feds didn't say they "looked at the evidence and dropped the case".

No I am not 'suggesting conspiricy...blah blah.." but you would like me to sound like a nut case hater which I am neither.

Your 'waa waa' and other playground words aren't helping you today P.
sinking ship...

This is from an article that RR likes to quote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/concerns-over-closure-of-federal-investigation-into-armstrong-and-us-postal

[The] US Attorney didn’t agree that there was sufficient evidence of crimes.

I am starting to wonder if anyone actually reads the links, or if they assume that a poster's interpretation of a news article is accurate.

My advice? Do some fact checking on posters.

 

[mewmewmew13]

This is from an article that RR likes to quote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/con...al-investigation-into-armstrong-and-us-postal

Quote:
[The] US Attorney didn’t agree that there was sufficient evidence of crimes.


I am starting to wonder if anyone actually reads the links, or if they assume that a poster's interpretation of a news article is accurate.

My advice? Do some fact checking on posters.

Cal you are not learning from Polish are you?

I did read this link and your interpretation of the news article sounds like it might be not quite fact. I did not assume that your interpretation was accurate.

You shortened a sentence to make it sound like those words
were out of the US Attorney's mouth.

It should read:
"However, NPR also adds that a person with knowledge of the decision said that US Attorney didn’t agree that there was sufficient evidence of crimes."

.."'person with knowledge"...I wonder who that might have been???

 

[patricknd]

This is from an article that RR likes to quote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/concerns-over-closure-of-federal-investigation-into-armstrong-and-us-postal



I am starting to wonder if anyone actually reads the links, or if they assume that a poster's interpretation of a news article is accurate.

My advice? Do some fact checking on posters.

or if they just don't give a damn. most minds are made up, why waste time reading?

 

[Cal_Joe]

Cal you are not learning from Polish are you?

I did read this link and your interpretation of the news article sounds like it might be not quite fact. I did not assume that your interpretation was accurate.

You shortened a sentence to make it sound like those words
were out of the US Attorney's mouth.

It should read:
"However, NPR also adds that a person with knowledge of the decision said that US Attorney didn’t agree that there was sufficient evidence of crimes."

.."'person with knowledge"...I wonder who that might have been???

An anonymous source. Exactly the same type of source that has been the basis for all news articles that have appeared since the investigation was ended.

The question is, why should you, or anyone else, favor one anonymous source over another?

Congratulations for reading the article this time around.

An obvious lesson - don't trust anyone. Read the links. Make up your own mind.

 

[Race Radio]

An anonymous source. Exactly the same type of source that has been the basis for all news articles that have appeared since the investigation was ended.

The question is, why should you, or anyone else, favor one anonymous source over another?

Congratulations for reading the article this time around.

An obvious lesson - don't trust anyone. Read the links. Make up your own mind.

Perhaps because multiple articles from multiple media sources say the same thing?.......the evidence was ignored

 

[Merckx index]

An anonymous source. Exactly the same type of source that has been the basis for all news articles that have appeared since the investigation was ended.

The question is, why should you, or anyone else, favor one anonymous source over another?

Let me count the reasons:

1) as your own post acknowledges, this is one anonymous source, vs. many that have appeared to support the view that there was plenty of evidence.

2) The US Attorney could have said, “I was pressured into dropping the case”, but because he allegedly said, “there wasn’t enough evidence”, we can be quite sure there wasn’t enough evidence. If he had been pressured, he of course would have been falling all over himself to tell some source that he was pressured. He would never, ever consider a more sanitized version for public consumption, even if that would avoid possible repercussions from his superiors. Right? And of course, if there were insufficient evidence, he would not mention this in his initial press release, because it's so much more likely that you would hide reasonable, fair, legal reasons for terminating an investigation than you would hide reasons that suggest political pressure. Right?

3) Whereas agents working on the case would have every motive to lie or distort their view of the evidence, right? Because if there in fact was not enough evidence, by lying about this and insisting that there was, they would be enhancing their relationships with the US Attorney, right? And by being unable to explain why, if there was so little evidence, they were caught by surprise by the announcement, they would be enhancing their credibility with the press, right?

4) Of course the agents might not have been lying, but sincerely deluded about the strength of the evidence. After all, the alleged statement of one man who was somewhat removed from the case should be given precedence over the word of numerous agents who were actually working on the case. Just as I tend to believe Assad’s version of what’s going on in Syria as more likely than that of numerous reporters in the middle of the action there. Right?

Congratulations for reading the article this time around.

An obvious lesson - don't trust anyone. Read the links. Make up your own mind.

And be sure that you selectively focus on one quote that supports the idea that there was not enough evidence, rather than these quotes that immediately preceded and followed that line:

According the NPR, sources indicated that charges were close to being brought against a number of individuals, which included fraud, witness tampering, mail fraud, and drug distribution. One source, NPR says, said there were ‘no weaknesses in the case’

“I talked to someone within the investigation but the reason why 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,” the source said.

It's easier to make up your mind when your mind knows just what to look for, isn't it?

 

[Velodude]

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.

Polish, your posts reflect your self perception.

And you self perception is visible in the avatars you select

 

[MarkvW]

After 29 days the Race-Radio advertised "overwhelming credible evidence" "appearance . . . of collusion" petition to the President of the United States to address the decision that "undermines a foundation of our legal system" has reached the grand total of one hundred and thirty nine signatures. That's right: 139! Only 24,861 more signatures to go before all its outraged sponsors will get their explanation!

But you only have one more day, because tomorrow the petition expires! Pick up the pace! Venga! Venga! More than a thousand signatures per hour are needed!

I just couldn't stay away. Guess I'm a little obsessed!!

Thanks to the great research of the Merckx index, we now know that "many" anonymous sources "have appeared to support the view that there was plenty of evidence." Without Merckx, I don't know what we'd do. I think we'd be stuck thinking that the same old anonymous cooperating witness's statement is just being recycled over and over in other forums! Or perhaps that people are just making stuff up!

I don't know how anonymous sources "appear," but that would be something very interesting to know. I'd love to know how they keep appearing while retaining their anonymity! I had been worried that a lone recycled source was Betsy Andreu! We know that Betsy can put words into other people's mouths, but we always have to worry that she might later change her mind and take them back!

It also appears that Merckx has come up with another great breakthrough in the case! He has heard the "word of numerous agents who were actually working on that case!" That's amazing work, Merckx! Not just that many agents are leaking information, but that they are speaking in harmony. Way to go!

I know that Race Radio told us "It's . . . Not . . . Over," but this is ridiculous! We must be on the verge of something really big. A new paragraph on somebody's weblog? Reconsideration? The empanelling of a new grand jury? The repeal of the statutes of limitation? Indictment? Trial? Conviction? Prison? Tearful appearance on Oprah? Suddenly everything appears possible! Spring must be approaching!

 

[Race Radio]

I just couldn't stay away. Guess I'm a little obsessed!!

Just in time for USADA. What are the USADA talking points? Yeah, we know. Bitter haters.

SSDD

 

[MarkvW]

Just in time for USADA. What are the USADA talking points? Yeah, we know. Bitter haters.

SSDD

Who needs talking points, USADA, and bitter haters when "IT'S . . .NOT. . . OVER?"

 

[Velodude]

After 29 days the Race-Radio advertised "overwhelming credible evidence" "appearance . . . of collusion" petition to the President of the United States to address the decision that "undermines a foundation of our legal system" has reached the grand total of one hundred and thirty nine signatures. That's right: 139! Only 24,861 more signatures to go before all its outraged sponsors will get their explanation!

But you only have one more day, because tomorrow the petition expires! Pick up the pace! Venga! Venga! More than a thousand signatures per hour are needed!

I just couldn't stay away. Guess I'm a little obsessed!!

Thanks to the great research of the Merckx index, we now know that "many" anonymous sources "have appeared to support the view that there was plenty of evidence." Without Merckx, I don't know what we'd do. I think we'd be stuck thinking that the same old anonymous cooperating witness's statement is just being recycled over and over in other forums! Or perhaps that people are just making stuff up!

I don't know how anonymous sources "appear," but that would be something very interesting to know. I'd love to know how they keep appearing while retaining their anonymity! I had been worried that a lone recycled source was Betsy Andreu! We know that Betsy can put words into other people's mouths, but we always have to worry that she might later change her mind and take them back!

It also appears that Merckx has come up with another great breakthrough in the case! He has heard the "word of numerous agents who were actually working on that case!" That's amazing work, Merckx! Not just that many agents are leaking information, but that they are speaking in harmony. Way to go!

I know that Race Radio told us "It's . . . Not . . . Over," but this is ridiculous! We must be on the verge of something really big. A new paragraph on somebody's weblog? Reconsideration? The empanelling of a new grand jury? The repeal of the statutes of limitation? Indictment? Trial? Conviction? Prison? Tearful appearance on Oprah? Suddenly everything appears possible! Spring must be approaching!

I know that Race Radio told us "It's . . . Not . . . Over," but this is ridiculous!

In your Comeback 2.0 I would suggest you listen to the radio broadcast podcast that RR linked in making that statement. It may be effective in you using some future self discipline to reduce your mea culpas.

They were not RR's words but the sole contents of an email in response on the subject from someone, allegedly Counselor, who has "sources".

The podcast is recommended listening if you can stand squirming for 52 minutes!

 

[BotanyBay]

Snip...I'm going to try to put Lance Armstrong way in the back of some mental closet, forever I hope. Any publicity is good for him, and I don't think I want to contribute any more.

For those of you that remain, I sincerely hope that something useful comes out of your time spent participating here.

Goodbye!
Mark

Goodbye.

[ There was once an image of the Stray Cats "Farewell Tour" here]

Mods, please don't be shy about shutting-off my images. At least leave a note on my pillow before the walk-of-shame

 

[Race Radio]

It is obvious to most that it is not over. Even if they choose to ignore the multiple reports that the case was dropped over the objections of multiple agencies, prosecutors, and investigators it is hard to ignore that WADA/USADA are pushing forward. The Federal civil fraud case is still active. Despite the talking points nothing came of the leak investigation, that was all smoke and mirrors...... It is hardly over

 

[MarkvW]

I know that Race Radio told us "It's . . . Not . . . Over," but this is ridiculous!

In your Comeback 2.0 I would suggest you listen to the radio broadcast podcast that RR linked in making that statement. It may be effective in you using some future self discipline to reduce your mea culpas.

They were not RR's words but the sole contents of an email in response on the subject from someone, allegedly Counselor, who has "sources".

The podcast is recommended listening if you can stand squirming for 52 minutes!

No doubt! The linked podcast is one more link in the chain that will eventually pull this tawdry federal conspiracy out of the shadows. That, and blogs!

 

[MarkvW]

Goodbye.

Far out! I like it.

 

[MarkvW]

It is obvious to most that it is not over. Even if they choose to ignore the multiple reports that the case was dropped over the objections of multiple agencies, prosecutors, and investigators it is hard to ignore that WADA/USADA are pushing forward. The Federal civil fraud case is still active. Despite the talking points nothing came of the leak investigation, that was all smoke and mirrors...... It is hardly over

Absolutely! Lance is surely doomed. Those leaks you cite are great evidence! I'm sure somebody, somewhere, somehow will be able to use them to bring Lance to justice!

And the WADA/USADA forces must be building momentum by now! I'm sure they must have found some imperative treaty language somewhere (and they're just keeping it secret).

And thanks for the news that the federal civil fraud case is "still active!" I'll take your word on that one. I'm impressed that you have learned of the "activity" in a sealed case. Your sources of knowledge are so impressive!

 

[Velodude]

No doubt! The linked podcast is one more link in the chain that will eventually pull this tawdry federal conspiracy out of the shadows. That, and blogs!

Counselor, you are shooting from the hip again.

The podcast runs for approx. 52 minutes. The juicy bits on LA are about midway to the end.

But you responded within 23 minutes after reading my post and compiling your post.

You will only ever be a fantasy counselor. A counselor in the real world is self obligated to acquaint him/herself with the facts before commenting/providing advice.

 

[MarkvW]

Counselor, you are shooting from the hip again.

The podcast runs for approx. 52 minutes. The juicy bits on LA are about midway to the end.

But you responded within 23 minutes after reading my post and compiling your post.

You will only ever be a fantasy counselor. A counselor in the real world is self obligated to acquaint him/herself with the facts before commenting/providing advice.

You are so right! Lance is doomed by the "juicy bits!"

 

[ChrisE]

This is funny. Welcome back Mark.

We must be two ships passing in the night in terms of interest in these obsessed pathetic LA haters with no life. Gotta have something to believe in or hate, I guess. It has turned into a clown act in here since "the conspiracy" happened.

"You, you, you!!! Just you wait you!!!"