US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[BotanyBay]

Which all circles back to an expedient decision based on political considerations.

Right. I doubt Birotte ever received a single phone call. But he is a smart guy who can play politics. And he did.

In other words, you can't simultaneously love Obama and curse this prosecutor. He has done as his master wishes.

 

[Polish]

Which all circles back to an expedient decision based on political considerations.

Wouldn't it have been MORE expedient to never start the investigation lol?

Why spend 2 years and millions of taxpayer dollars and then make an expedient decision?

2 Words: Insufficient Evidence.

And not only insufficient evidence of Federal Crimes by Lance, but insufficient evidence that the dropping of the case was incorrect.

 

[MarkvW]

A straight up falsehood.

There are a number of people who know the nature and quality of the evidence. Jeff Novitsky and Doug Miller to name just two, plus probably dozens of minions as well as numerous others from the FBI and IRS.

At least initially, some of them were willing to voice their displeasure with the dismissal..."Sources who know about the case say that within the agencies involved in the investigation, the FBI, the FDA, the US Postal Service, there is surprise, even shock and anger about the US Attorney’s decision,” he said on today’s NPR sports news.

Surprise, shock and anger at Birotte's decision by the investigators.

SSDD?

Keep digging!

 

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't it have been MORE expedient to never start the investigation lol?

Why spend 2 years and millions of taxpayer dollars and then make an expedient decision?

2 Words: Insufficient Evidence.

And not only insufficient evidence of Federal Crimes by Lance, but insufficient evidence that the dropping of the case was incorrect.

By all means. Do away with the DOJ. Just think of all the tax dollars saved lol.

But then you are a master of insufficiencies, so you'd know. Lol.

 

[Race Radio]

He said the Investigation was corrupt. BIG difference.

The FBI is corrupt! Wow, that is major news from your inside sources. You and Goober should take this to 60 Minutes, Lances says they pay big $$$ for stories like this.

This was all so much simpler when it was all the Frenchies fault. I hope the FBI does not spike his samples like the French did!

 

[Polish]

By all means. Do away with the DOJ. Just think of all the tax dollars saved lol.

But then you are a master of insufficiencies, so you'd know. Lol.

Who is suggesting doing away with the DOJ? Beside you I mean.

If the DOJ does an investigation and it is determined that there is insufficient evidence, that is ok. Make mistakes, thats how you learn.

But to whine and say "expedient decisions" waawaa is what I have a problem with. Accept the decision. The DOJ was right. Insufficient Evidence.
waaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[Anonymous]

Who is suggesting doing away with the DOJ? Beside you I mean.

If the DOJ does an investigation and it is determined that there is insufficient evidence, that is ok. Make mistakes, thats how you learn.

But to whine and say "expedient decisions" waawaa is what I have a problem with. Accept the decision. The DOJ was right. Insufficient Evidence.
waaaaaaaaaaaa

Wouldn't it have been MORE expedient to never start the investigation lol?

Your words lol.

 

[MarkvW]

Who is suggesting doing away with the DOJ? Beside you I mean.

If the DOJ does an investigation and it is determined that there is insufficient evidence, that is ok. Make mistakes, thats how you learn.

But to whine and say "expedient decisions" waawaa is what I have a problem with. Accept the decision. The DOJ was right. Insufficient Evidence.
waaaaaaaaaaaa

While the Investigation was ongoing the Borat Group blindly asserted that the feds had a strong case because the feds were investigating. Now that the investigation is over, they blindly assert that the feds had a strong case because an anonymous witness or witnesses says that some people associated with the case leaked information about the case.

The belief in the strength of a case against Lance Armstrong was once based on faith in the federal authorities conducting the Investigation. Now that faith in the federal authorities is gone.

Now, the belief in the strength of a case against Lance Armstrong is based on faith in anonymous sources that relate that anonymous investigators and prosecutors are disappointed by the termination of the investigation.

From the beginning, the belief in the criminal investigation was all based on faith. Nobody could rationally evaluate the strength of the evidence gathered (except the feds ) because nobody had access to the evidence.

The belief in the investigation has always been about faith. Trusting souls trusted that the investigators were going to get Lance Armstrong but they never had any facts on which to base that trust. They still don't. They invoke Silent Saint Novitsky, but he does not answer. They petition the President in Washington, D.C., and he does not answer. They cry "political expediency," and get no answer.

The faithful are ANGRY… But they have not given up faith that somewhere hidden in federal files (in Roswell, maybe), is the proof that would make Lance Armstrong a felon. They will never be convinced that is even possible that the feds made a reasonable decision. It's against their faith.

 

[Merckx index]

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....

I guess I missed the part where it was stated, “who assured him there was insufficient evidence”.

Of course he consulted with his top lieutenants. The one thing no politician does is make a decision without the façade of consultation. The question is, what did those lieutenants tell him? All we know for sure, assuming the sources were legitimate, is that some of the agents thought the evidence was very good. If you can point me to a story that asserts that Birotte made his decision based specifically on the recommendation of his lieutenants, or for that matter on the recommendation of anyone below him, as opposed to just following consultation with them, I would be very interested to see it. Seriously.

Richard Nixon resisted resigning for months after it was clear that he knew about Watergate. During this period he consulted regularly with his top lieutenants, some of whom we can be pretty sure counseled him to resign, and made his decision not to resign following these consultations. You can be very damn certain that even if every one of them had counseled him to resign during that period, he wouldn’t have.

But just to be clear, I myself have never been arguing that the evidence was good enough to convict. As I told Polish, I think it’s quite likely the evidence was not good enough to convict LA, just as it wasn’t good enough to convict OJ. Or as Scott noted, not good enough to convict anyone at Countrywide, or anyone at any number of other large financial institutions.

The standard for convicting someone, like the standard for a doping positive, is very high. If you are comfortable with concluding that a failure to obtain enough evidence to convict means not guilty was likely, you will be very comfortable with the notion that everyone in the peloton who hasn’t tested positive is clean. More reasonable, objective minds might conclude that just as being a pro rider puts you in a pool where the probability of doping is quite high, being the subject of a GJ investigation in the first place puts you in a pool where the probability of having done something illegal is high.

Now, the belief in the strength of a case against Lance Armstrong is based on faith in anonymous sources that relate that anonymous investigators and prosecutors are disappointed by the termination of the investigation.

Seems to work for a lot of people outside of the Clinic, judging from all the blogs, interviews, etc. Do the WSJ reporters have faith? Are they just stoking up one disgruntled agent’s claims to sell papers? Is that what you think? That even if there were overwhelming evidence of insufficient evidence, the media would seek out and exaggerate the one contrarian view?

But you’re right about one thing: faith is not rational. Wishing for something won’t make it come true. A lot of people might wish that Assad would be toppled, and have irrational faith that what they believe is right will come to pass. They should probably take your advice and learn to live with the world as it is, rather than wasting any time and energy on voicing opinions about his guilt.

 

[Anonymous]

While the Investigation was ongoing the Borat Group blindly asserted that the feds had a strong case because the feds were investigating. Now that the investigation is over, they blindly assert that the feds had a strong case because an anonymous witness or witnesses says that some people associated with the case leaked information about the case.

The belief in the strength of a case against Lance Armstrong was once based on faith in the federal authorities conducting the Investigation. Now that faith in the federal authorities is gone.

Now, the belief in the strength of a case against Lance Armstrong is based on faith in anonymous sources that relate that anonymous investigators and prosecutors are disappointed by the termination of the investigation.

From the beginning, the belief in the criminal investigation was all based on faith. Nobody could rationally evaluate the strength of the evidence gathered (except the feds ) because nobody had access to the evidence.

The belief in the investigation has always been about faith. Trusting souls trusted that the investigators were going to get Lance Armstrong but they never had any facts on which to base that trust. They still don't. They invoke Silent Saint Novitsky, but he does not answer. They petition the President in Washington, D.C., and he does not answer. They cry "political expediency," and get no answer.

The faithful are ANGRY… But they have not given up faith that somewhere hidden in federal files (in Roswell, maybe), is the proof that would make Lance Armstrong a felon. They will never be convinced that is even possible that the feds made a reasonable decision. It's against their faith.

The belief in the strength of a case against Lance Armstrong was once based on faith in the federal authorities conducting the Investigation. Now that faith in the federal authorities is gone.

Wrong. Again.

There is quite a bit of evidence already in the public domain.

It's your faith in a system of justice that can be influenced by money and political power that keeps you from putting two and two together.

Your comfort in the reasonableness of the decision leads me to believe you'll fit in the legal world nicely.

 

[MarkvW]

Wrong. Again.

There is quite a bit of evidence already in the public domain.

It's your faith in a system of justice that can be influenced by money and political power that keeps you from putting two and two together.

Your comfort in the reasonableness of the decision leads me to believe you'll fit in the legal world nicely.

Anonymous evidence!

 

[9000ft]

Boy that Lance is a regular Rockefeller with all his money and influence to buy off prosecutors, Senators, Congressman, and probably the President of the United States. Either a Rockefeller or something more sinister like Dr. no or Goldfinger.

 

[Velodude]

Anonymous evidence!

And how do you label your evidence used in previous rebuttals, counselor?

Your portrayals of being the forum doyen in expressing your speculations and opinions in support of the person who you had previously referred to as "lower than scum" is not evidence.

 

[Anonymous]

Anonymous evidence!

Not anonymous!

But you'd have to have followed the case.

Do you play a wannabe attorney anywhere else, or just here?

 

[goober]

The FBI is corrupt! Wow, that is major news from your inside sources. You and Goober should take this to 60 Minutes, Lances says they pay big $$$ for stories like this.

This was all so much simpler when it was all the Frenchies fault. I hope the FBI does not spike his samples like the French did!

Hey stop throwing my name in responses to Polish threads lol

 

[goober]

Where did Goober say Birotte was corrupt?
He said the Investigation was corrupt. BIG difference.

Birotte did everything by the book as far as Lance and insufficient evidence is concerned. Dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. He knew there would be a media meltdown. Munson/WSJ/Blogs/Toto. That is why he made the insufficient evidence dropped case public in the first place. Made sure to do everything by the book. True Pro.

But the question remains why there was such a media circus during most of the investigation? Up until the motion was filed. And then again 12 hours after the investigation was dropped for insufficient evidence. That points towards Goober's corruption insinuation. Follow the leaks.

I will go on the record that Birotte is not part of the equation (corruption).

 

[stephens]

Let us at least admit that "sufficient evidence" to convict the local pseudo-pro epo salesman is different than the "sufficient evidence" needed to convict someone who has the means to decently defend himself against the might of the U.S. judicial system. Of course no private defendant can match spending/resources with the government, but guys like Lance (and guys like OJ and Bonds before him) can at least give it a lot more of a shot than 99.99% of defendants.

 

[ChrisE]

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.

Are you on crack? Where have I ever argued "conspiracy"?

My position all along is he would not plea bargain, and he would not be found guilty by an American jury.

The feds probably concluded the same thing, so why go thru all of this to lose? Smart decision by the feds imo. No conspiracy.

 

[ChrisE]

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.

Listen to this guy. Thanks for the advice lol.

What am I trying to get people to do? I was just commenting to Mark that I don't really have as much energy as I did before to argue with the scorched earth crew. Yes, the obsession of some in here in seeing him fall leads me to believe they have mental issues. It is a cult. So what?

As for "reasoning with either side", my side is it was all dropped for good reasons, but since there is no absolute proof of that I guess that makes me a troll.

 

[Neworld]

... I was just commenting to Mark that I don't really have as much energy as I did before to argue with the scorched earth crew. Yes, the obsession of some in here in seeing him fall leads me to believe they have mental issues. It is a cult. So what?

So you're a psychiatrist now. Obsession of some? You mean like you given the continued multiplicity of your posts with the same mantra over and over...Chris we all heard you.

You know LA doped, is probably guilty...blah blah blah... but he'll never get any punishment. Ok, thank you. Now go and do something sane and non-obsessive. Lead by example for everyone to follow, you sound like a real leader. Maybe swing over to the Tri forums and spread your vast predictive capabilities to those obsessed souls.

Or maybe you have some new updates from the USADA that you could share?

 

[Race Radio]

Let us at least admit that "sufficient evidence" to convict the local pseudo-pro epo salesman is different than the "sufficient evidence" needed to convict someone who has the means to decently defend himself against the might of the U.S. judicial system. Of course no private defendant can match spending/resources with the government, but guys like Lance (and guys like OJ and Bonds before him) can at least give it a lot more of a shot than 99.99% of defendants.

Bingo.....and don't forget the millions of groupies polluting the jury pool

 

[ChrisE]

So you're a psychiatrist now?

Yes, though it does not take much training to see that some people need some hobbies other than stomping their feet up and down and whining about LA.

Obsession of some? You mean like you given the continued multiplicity of your posts with the same mantra over and over...Chris we all heard you.

Multiplicity? Such as yes I believe he doped and was probably involved in the things he is "anonymously" accused of, but no I don't think a jury would convict him? That is some really far out multiplicity, for sure.

Or maybe you have some new updates from the USADA that you could share

Of course not. There is enough conjecture and praying go on in here for that. Plus, I would imagine Betsy Andreu still has the email distribution pumping out slam dunk proof and sordid stories about LA on a daily basis.

 

[Race Radio]

Of course not. There is enough conjecture and praying go on in here for that. Plus, I would imagine Betsy Andreu still has the email distribution pumping out slam dunk proof and sordid stories about LA on a daily basis.

Betsy is far too busy trying to eat the Golden Corral out of business to use email......plus the chicken grease makes it hard to type.

 

[MarkvW]

And how do you label your evidence used in previous rebuttals, counselor?

Your portrayals of being the forum doyen in expressing your speculations and opinions in support of the person who you had previously referred to as "lower than scum" is not evidence.

Is English your first language?

 

[MarkvW]

The EHR has died.

The Extreme Hater Referendum has died. I don't think it ever got more than 139 signatures.

All that remains is the Borat Group's blind faith that the feds gathered overwhelming evidence sufficient to convict Lance Armstrong of a felony.

They can't tell you just what felony Lance committed.
They can't tell you just what evidence that the feds had.

All they can offer to justify their belief in overwhelming felony evidence is blind faith in anonymous sources.

How is blind faith that the feds had overwhelming felony evidence any different than blind faith that Lance raced clean?