US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[Caruut]

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!!!"

Good one mate, if you don't believe in Lance, you have no life. How is coming on here to defend any different than doing so to attack?

 

[Merckx index]

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!

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

Having trouble distinguishing singulars from plurals, Mark? Birotte allegedly said there was insufficient evidence. That is a singular. Assistants recommended filing charges. That is a plural. Given that a large number of agents worked on this case, and a recommendation would require at least a majority (no, I didn't say in harmony; that is you, trying to read into my post what you want to criticize me for), I think a reasonable interpretation of such stories is “many”.

Note that by "appeared" I did not mean "emerged". I meant "seemed", as in, "it seems" that many anonymous sources have said there was sufficient evidence to file criminal charges. This is basically what the WSJ said. Ironic that you didn't understand this, given that in your quote above, you yourself use the word "appears" in the same sense.

Now maybe your point is that there is only one source claiming that these agents recommended filing charges. When I said many sources, I was treating the agents as sources. Maybe you have a problem with that. But that WSJ source is still claiming that several, many, however you want to describe it, agents felt there was enough evidence, vs. one Birotte. And as I noted in my other points, which you didn't address, there are several reasons for finding this information more credible than what Birotte allegedly said.

 

[Polish]

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

Having trouble distinguishing singulars from plurals, Mark? Birotte allegedly said there was insufficient evidence. That is a singular. Assistants recommended filing charges. That is a plural. Given that a large number of agents worked on this case, and a recommendation would require at least a majority (no, I didn't say in harmony; that is you, trying to read into my post what you want to criticize me for), I think a reasonable interpretation of such stories is “many”.

Note that by "appeared" I did not mean "emerged". I meant "seemed", as in, "it seems" that many anonymous sources have said there was sufficient evidence to file criminal charges. This is basically what the WSJ said. Ironic that you didn't understand this, given that in your quote above, you yourself use the word "appears" in the same sense.

Now maybe your point is that there is only one source claiming that these agents recommended filing charges. When I said many sources, I was treating the agents as sources. Maybe you have a problem with that. But that WSJ source is still claiming that several, many, however you want to describe it, agents felt there was enough evidence, vs. one Birotte. And as I noted in my other points, which you didn't address, there are several reasons for finding this information more credible than what Birotte allegedly said.

So who decides if there is sufficient or insufficient evidence?

Is it the assistants? Do they vote?
Does it have to be unanimous?

 

[MarkvW]

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

Having trouble distinguishing singulars from plurals, Mark? Birotte allegedly said there was insufficient evidence. That is a singular. Assistants recommended filing charges. That is a plural. Given that a large number of agents worked on this case, and a recommendation would require at least a majority (no, I didn't say in harmony; that is you, trying to read into my post what you want to criticize me for), I think a reasonable interpretation of such stories is “many”.

Note that by "appeared" I did not mean "emerged". I meant "seemed", as in, "it seems" that many anonymous sources have said there was sufficient evidence to file criminal charges. This is basically what the WSJ said. Ironic that you didn't understand this, given that in your quote above, you yourself use the word "appears" in the same sense.

Now maybe your point is that there is only one source claiming that these agents recommended filing charges. When I said many sources, I was treating the agents as sources. Maybe you have a problem with that. But that WSJ source is still claiming that several, many, however you want to describe it, agents felt there was enough evidence, vs. one Birotte. And as I noted in my other points, which you didn't address, there are several reasons for finding this information more credible than what Birotte allegedly said.

Thanks again for all the inside information!! You're providing information that's not available anywhere else.

 

[MarkvW]

So who decides if there is sufficient or insufficient evidence?

Is it the assistants? Do they vote?
Does it have to be unanimous?

In a conspiracy, nobody decides. . . .

 

[Polish]

In a conspiracy, nobody decides. . . .

Yes that is true

But do you know the procedure for shutting down a GJ Investigation when there is insufficient evidence?

Of course the prosecutors and assistants will say there is sufficient evidence. Of course they will say that. Duh.

But what if they are wrong and there is insufficient evidence.

Don't want to put the issue in front of the Grand Jury guys/gals.
What is the procedure for shutting it down?
That is the procedure that happened with the Lance Case.

The fact that the Feds even made public the fact that they carefully and fairly reviewed the evidence and dropped the case was out of the ordinary wasn't it? Still playing by the rules of course. But out of the ordinary.

 

[Velodude]

Yes that is true

But do you know the procedure for shutting down a GJ Investigation when there is insufficient evidence?

Of course the prosecutors and assistants will say there is sufficient evidence. Of course they will say that. Duh.

But what if they are wrong and there is insufficient evidence.

Don't want to put the issue in front of the Grand Jury guys/gals.
What is the procedure for shutting it down?
That is the procedure that happened with the Lance Case.

The fact that the Feds even made public the fact that they carefully and fairly reviewed the evidence and dropped the case was out of the ordinary wasn't it? Still playing by the rules of course. But out of the ordinary.

An abundance of "no bills" by the grand jury to the individual indictments that the prosecutors form the view that the case could not be prosecuted.

NO BILL

A term that the foreman of the Grand Jury writes across the face of a bill of indictment (a document drawn up by a prosecutor that states formal criminal charges against a designated individual) to indicate that the criminal charges alleged therein against a suspect have not been sufficiently supported by the evidence presented before it to warrant his or her criminal prosecution.

When the grand jury agrees that the evidence is sufficient to establish the commission of a crime, it returns an indictment endorsed by the grand jury foreman with the phrase true bill to indicate that the information presented before it is sufficient to justify the trial of the suspect.

So you have inside information that Borat had a premonition of too many "no bills" and not ham sandwiches?

 

[goober]

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

Having trouble distinguishing singulars from plurals, Mark? Birotte allegedly said there was insufficient evidence. That is a singular. Assistants recommended filing charges. That is a plural. Given that a large number of agents worked on this case, and a recommendation would require at least a majority (no, I didn't say in harmony; that is you, trying to read into my post what you want to criticize me for), I think a reasonable interpretation of such stories is “many”.

Note that by "appeared" I did not mean "emerged". I meant "seemed", as in, "it seems" that many anonymous sources have said there was sufficient evidence to file criminal charges. This is basically what the WSJ said. Ironic that you didn't understand this, given that in your quote above, you yourself use the word "appears" in the same sense.

Now maybe your point is that there is only one source claiming that these agents recommended filing charges. When I said many sources, I was treating the agents as sources. Maybe you have a problem with that. But that WSJ source is still claiming that several, many, however you want to describe it, agents felt there was enough evidence, vs. one Birotte. And as I noted in my other points, which you didn't address, there are several reasons for finding this information more credible than what Birotte allegedly said.

You have it totally wrong but understood based on lots of media spin. Anyway, I read the article and it says "after reviewing the evidence and consulting with his top lieutenants" - plural to me. As in most jobs top lieutenants have much more experience than assistants. Oh well....

 

[ChrisE]

Good one mate, if you don't believe in Lance, you have no life. How is coming on here to defend any different than doing so to attack?

I don't live in the binary world, so your if/then statement does not apply to me.

The obsession with seeing him fall, clinging to "hope" lol, is much more indicative of some type of emotional issue than just letting go. I have found new respect for posters like Berzin and the hog the last month, while the respect for others takes further hits daily.

I haven't posted much lately because it is like trying to talk reason with a cult. It doesn't work.

 

[Spider1964]

I don't live in the binary world, so your if/then statement does not apply to me.

The obsession with seeing him fall, clinging to "hope" lol, is much more indicative of some type of emotional issue than just letting go. I have found new respect for posters like Berzin and the hog the last month, while the respect for others takes further hits daily.

I haven't posted much lately because it is like trying to talk reason with a cult. It doesn't work.

LOL... +1

Christopher, at risk of incurring the spurious wrath from one of the handbag ladies... Or snarkiness from the inside knowledge crew... your good self and Polish have provided opinions of late that seem as reasoned as some of our more esteemed clinicians... I'm not sure if that's a back-handed compliment? Or reflective of the current position of this thread... sort of like Brett Favre going into retirement... Just when you think it's gunna hit page 2.... Someone will come on here and quote Jules Winnfield sparking another empassioned and meaningless debate.

SSDD.

So.. How's that USADA thing coming along? Qui Tam?? WaaDa? Anyone out there with insider knowledge? Did Borat get put away for pulling the GJ investigation without the Clinics prior approval??

 

[palmerq]

who is borat... not the guy from the film.

 

[Spider1964]

who is borat... not the guy from the film.

Well... I've never seen Borat and United States Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. In the same room?? So they could be the same person?

 

[Caruut]

I don't live in the binary world, so your if/then statement does not apply to me.

The obsession with seeing him fall, clinging to "hope" lol, is much more indicative of some type of emotional issue than just letting go. I have found new respect for posters like Berzin and the hog the last month, while the respect for others takes further hits daily.

I haven't posted much lately because it is like trying to talk reason with a cult. It doesn't work.

I have a real issue with posters who just try and troll, and call others "pathetic". It doesn't add anything, you're just trying to get people to bite so you can get what you like out of it - and to think you tried to imply that people who want Lance to see justice are mentally ill.

Again, it's not as though there can be much reasoning with either side, is it? Both sides are deeply entrenched - portraying one as a cult and, by implication, the other as the voice of reason is just petty. If you aren't prepared to argue with people you're never going to convince, the internet is a bad place to be.

 

[Anonymous]

I have a real issue with posters who just try and troll, and call others "pathetic". It doesn't add anything, you're just trying to get people to bite so you can get what you like out of it - and to think you tried to imply that people who want Lance to see justice are mentally ill.

Again, it's not as though there can be much reasoning with either side, is it? Both sides are deeply entrenched - portraying one as a cult and, by implication, the other as the voice of reason is just petty. If you aren't prepared to argue with people you're never going to convince, the internet is a bad place to be.

Boom, there it is.

Careful though, calling the troll a troll will get your post reported by the troll.

 

[MarkvW]

who is borat... not the guy from the film.

Borat is Race Radio's pejorative pet name for the US Attorney who announced the decision that the USPS investigation was over.

 

[BotanyBay]

But that WSJ source is still claiming that several, many, however you want to describe it, agents felt there was enough evidence, vs. one Birotte. And as I noted in my other points, which you didn't address, there are several reasons for finding this information more credible than what Birotte allegedly said.

My only problem with a single source being repeated in a copy/paste manner by many different media outlets in a short span of time is this:

 

[MarkvW]

I have a real issue with posters who just try and troll, and call others "pathetic". It doesn't add anything, you're just trying to get people to bite so you can get what you like out of it - and to think you tried to imply that people who want Lance to see justice are mentally ill.

Again, it's not as though there can be much reasoning with either side, is it? Both sides are deeply entrenched - portraying one as a cult and, by implication, the other as the voice of reason is just petty. If you aren't prepared to argue with people you're never going to convince, the internet is a bad place to be.

"Both" sides? Are there only two?

 

[Race Radio]

You have it totally wrong but understood based on lots of media spin. Anyway, I read the article and it says "after reviewing the evidence and consulting with his top lieutenants" - plural to me. As in most jobs top lieutenants have much more experience than assistants. Oh well....

Yes, all wrong.

What is up with the corruption charges you referred to earlier? Is Borat in trouble?

What ever happened with the leak investigation? Will the results be announce Thanksgiving weekend?

 

[Caruut]

"Both" sides? Are there only two?

Of course no two points of view are exactly the same, but to divide people into "pro-" and "anti-" Lance camps is not exactly a ridiculous generalisation on a Lance thread. Most people not all that bothered either way by the man tend to have given up by post 1000, and even if they're still around, you get none of the snide underhanded personal jibes, really. At the more extreme side of either of these groups you can find people hypocritically laying into others for a lack of flexibility, and generally implying that to either love or hate Lance is a sign of an idiot.

 

[Caruut]

Yes, all wrong.

What is up with the corruption charges you referred to earlier? Is Borat in trouble?

What ever happened with the leak investigation? Will the results be announce Thanksgiving weekend?

Investigate and release the findings on the day of the next big drugs bust.

 

[MarkvW]

Of course no two points of view are exactly the same, but to divide people into "pro-" and "anti-" Lance camps is not exactly a ridiculous generalisation on a Lance thread. Most people not all that bothered either way by the man tend to have given up by post 1000, and even if they're still around, you get none of the snide underhanded personal jibes, really. At the more extreme side of either of these groups you can find people hypocritically laying into others for a lack of flexibility, and generally implying that to either love or hate Lance is a sign of an idiot.

What about people who are revolted by Lance Armstong, yet find the Borat Conspiracy talk hilariously stupid?

 

[Race Radio]

What about people who are revolted by Lance Armstong, yet find the Borat Conspiracy talk hilariously stupid?

The only people writing about corruption/conspiracy are you, Chris, and Goober.

I don't see a conspiracy. I see a wealthy, famous, person who made full use of the resources at his disposal.

 

[Anonymous]

The only people writing about corruption/conspiracy are you, Chris, and Goober.

I don't see a conspiracy. I see a wealthy, famous, person who made full use of the resources at his disposal.

Yep. Give credit where credit is due. It cost Lance a chunk of his wealth but he hired the right people and greased the right skids.

It's not what you know, but who you know and how much money they cost.

 

[BotanyBay]

The only people writing about corruption/conspiracy are you, Chris, and Goober.

I don't see a conspiracy. I see a wealthy, famous, person who made full use of the resources at his disposal.

Bingo. Everyone: Watch this video on how influence is REALLY bought in Washington. It's far more subtle than a suitcase full of Benjamins.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n

 

[Caruut]

What about people who are revolted by Lance Armstong, yet find the Borat Conspiracy talk hilariously stupid?

Well, I would broadly put them as anti-Lance. I really don't see why you're trying to read so much into such a small part of what I said. I said "both" to mean "this group and that group". Not to say that everyone calls each other pathetic all the time. I just had a go at a poster who has a history of making destructive posts like that, that's all.