US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[Anonymous]

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.



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.



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.

For those unaware, this is called trolling.

No basis for the hit piece, just an attempt to divert the direction to bash Betsy a little.

Weak and pathetic but nothing new.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

It really is amazing isn't it?

 

[Velodude]

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?

Obviously you never did take 52 minutes out of your valuable professional billable time to listen to that competitor radio podcast of the interview with Mark Ziegler.

Being on the internet it is internationally broadcasted and I have just checked that it remains completely intact. No Nixon like gaps, no reduced running time.

One would have expected that if any content of that interview was provably untrue and defamatory against Armstrong then Competitor Radio would have heard from Armstrong's lawyers just like parties who use the word "strong" in any promotion hear from Livestrong's lawyers.

One of Ziegler's claims is that from his sources close to the investigation five riders had rolled over and provided corroboration about team doping practices. This corroborated information, according to Ziegler, identifies doping at "different times", "different events" and "different substances".

He does further indicate that many of those riders hold current international licenses which could be under threat in any doping investigation (tacitly by USADA).

I can recall Floyd Landis claiming that USADA would seek softer sanctions against him concerning his 2006 TdF AAF if he provided information on Armstrong. Floyd resisted as obviously the brutish ogre's shadow was larger and darker in 2006/2007.

 

[Neworld]

Quote:
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.

Right, that's what I just said in Bold. Multiplicity of the same commentary. So, since you've got nothing to add, and seem to have distaste for people like Betsy, and since you agree that you re-issue the same statements...maybe you can take your own heightened advise and stop, move on, and be more sane than 'those other' posters here. Using your stream of logic right?

Maybe Betsy is on to something, hopefully she will not quit.

 

[aphronesis]

Quote:
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.



Right, that's what I just said in Bold. Multiplicity of the same commentary. So, since you've got nothing to add, and seem to have distaste for people like Betsy, and now you since you agree that your reissue the same statements...maybe you can take your own heightened advise and stop, move on, and be more sane than 'those other' posters here. Using your stream of logic right?

Maybe Betsy is on to something, hopefully she will not quit.

I think repetition is the word you're looking for. Multiplicity means something different. Regardless of context or professional usage.

 

[Velodude]

I think repetition is the word you're looking for. Multiplicity means something different. Regardless of context or professional usage.

Still eating thesauri and dictionaries for breakfast?

 

[MarkvW]

Obviously you never did take 52 minutes out of your valuable professional billable time to listen to that competitor radio podcast of the interview with Mark Ziegler.

Being on the internet it is internationally broadcasted and I have just checked that it remains completely intact. No Nixon like gaps, no reduced running time.

One would have expected that if any content of that interview was provably untrue and defamatory against Armstrong then Competitor Radio would have heard from Armstrong's lawyers just like parties who use the word "strong" in any promotion hear from Livestrong's lawyers.

One of Ziegler's claims is that from his sources close to the investigation five riders had rolled over and provided corroboration about team doping practices. This corroborated information, according to Ziegler, identifies doping at "different times", "different events" and "different substances".

He does further indicate that many of those riders hold current international licenses which could be under threat in any doping investigation (tacitly by USADA).

I can recall Floyd Landis claiming that USADA would seek softer sanctions against him concerning his 2006 TdF AAF if he provided information on Armstrong. Floyd resisted as obviously the brutish ogre's shadow was larger and darker in 2006/2007.

I have no doubt that riders rolled over on Lance for doping. I just lack the blind faith in the overwhelming evidence of a felony myth. I also lack the blind faith that WADA/USADA is ever going to see any evidence that the feds gathered.

 

[Velodude]

I have no doubt that riders rolled over on Lance for doping. I just lack the blind faith in the overwhelming evidence of a felony myth. I also lack the blind faith that WADA/USADA is ever going to see any evidence that the feds gathered.

Counselor, your expected attributes for deep legal analysis appear to be wanting.

Do you overwhelmingly hold the view that US Postal team riders were doping but there was no commission of Federal felonies to fund, carry, distribute. communicate, obtain and administer those drugs?

That Tailwind did not breach its contract with USPS by allowing doping within the US Postal team?

If those felonies are mythical, as they did not occur, how do you consider those team riders explained to the investigators of the methods those drugs came into their possession and entered their systems without breaching Federal laws?

 

[aphronesis]

Counselor, your expected attributes for deep legal analysis appear to be wanting.

Do you overwhelmingly hold the view that US Postal team riders were doping but there was no commission of Federal felonies to fund, carry, distribute. communicate, obtain and administer those drugs?

That Tailwind did not breach its contract with USPS by allowing doping within the US Postal team?

If those felonies are mythical, as they did not occur, how do you consider those team riders explained to the investigators of the methods those drugs came into their possession and entered their systems without breaching Federal laws?

I may not be up on all the procedures of a grand jury, but isn't there a substantial difference between believing something happened, even believing testimony from people who say it happened and believing that there is or was evidence sufficient to connect all the dots?

 

[MarkvW]

Counselor, your expected attributes for deep legal analysis appear to be wanting.

Do you overwhelmingly hold the view that US Postal team riders were doping but there was no commission of Federal felonies to fund, carry, distribute. communicate, obtain and administer those drugs?

That Tailwind did not breach its contract with USPS by allowing doping within the US Postal team?

If those felonies are mythical, as they did not occur, how do you consider those team riders explained to the investigators of the methods those drugs came into their possession and entered their systems without breaching Federal laws?

Outline a felony, provable in 2012, that is supported by overwhelming evidence held by the federal government.

Can't do it?

Thought so.

 

[stephens]

Exactly. There is a big gap between mythical and provable. And then another gap between provable at whatever cost and provable at the cost/effort the government feels like dedicating. There are plenty of easier fruit to pick than this case.

 

[Velodude]

I may not be up on all the procedures of a grand jury, but isn't there a substantial difference between believing something happened, even believing testimony from people who say it happened and believing that there is or was evidence sufficient to connect all the dots?

Best evidence is direct eye witness evidence, more so when it is corroborated.

Grand Jury is a myth - did not happen

All the known "sourced" indictments related to Federal crimes to enable a team doping program by Tailwind (excluding Armstrong who was only just a mere employed rider)

 

[Velodude]

Outline a felony, provable in 2012, that is supported by overwhelming evidence held by the federal government.

Can't do it?

Thought so.

Can you prove the Federal Government do not hold that evidence?

 

[aphronesis]

Best evidence is direct eye witness evidence, more so when it is corroborated.

Grand Jury is a myth - did not happen

All the known "sourced" indictments related to Federal crimes to enable a team doping program by Tailwind (excluding Armstrong who was only just a mere employed rider)

corroborated eye witness evidence that an employed rider doped? i thought there was an international distribution ring. with reams of documents?

 

[Neworld]

I think repetition is the word you're looking for. Multiplicity means something different. Regardless of context or professional usage.

Multiplicity: like the number of posts

Repetition: like the same adversarial, silly, sideways support of a liar

Afro, do you really have enough time to check Websters ? Wow, scraping the barrel for reasons to post. Very telling tho.

 

[MarkvW]

Can you prove the Federal Government do not hold that evidence?

Childish argument.

 

[aphronesis]

Multiplicity: like the number of posts

Repetition: like the same adversarial, silly, sideways support of a liar

Afro, do you really have enough time to check Websters ? Wow, scraping the barrel for reasons to post. Very telling tho.

nouveau, i don't need to check websters for that. chris' use was right. yours not. only takes a second really.

multiple would work, even multitude--although a stretch.

multiplicity implies qualitative variation among disparate factors.

as to the barrel. i was just passing by. don't want to compete with you for scraps. i don't see anything to discuss here at this point, but since trolling is a rampant thematic over the past few weeks, and this is the default thread for that, it would be nice to see someone get it right if they're going to use a fairly technical word to accuse another of monotonous redundancy.

otherwise it moots the exercise in the larger scheme of things. you with me?

 

[Velodude]

Childish argument.

Not childish, Counselor.

There are many media reports of indications that the Feds had sufficient evidence to indict the decision makers of Tailwind Sports and the investigation was ongoing.

Those media reports have been variously linked and discussed in this forum.

On the side of the debate you have jumped back to after Borat's "no discussion" decision there are no media reports that the Feds were light on evidence to prosecute a case against the Tailwind gang.

To prove my comment is childish who don't you provide links that there existed indications the government had no evidence to successfully prosecute Armstrong et al?

 

[Velodude]

corroborated eye witness evidence that an employed rider doped? i thought there was an international distribution ring. with reams of documents?

Armstrong was (solely) an employed rider and his lawyer made that claim on his behalf to attempt to shield him (for PR value only) from the sins of his employer.

But control freak Armstrong was provably a director, shareholder and an obsessed and despotic controller and commander of the operations of Tailwind Sports.

Yes, there allegedly existed corroborated evidence that Armstrong both as an employee and corporate decision maker doped. And the sources of that corroborated evidence would have explained and provided leads as to how the doping was enabled.

Enabling was the Feds case. USADA/WADA's case will be solely about the doping continuum.

 

[aphronesis]

Yes, there allegedly existed corroborated evidence that Armstrong both as an employee and corporate decision maker doped. And the sources of that corroborated evidence would have explained and provided leads as to how the doping was enabled.

Enabling was the Feds case. USADA/WADA's case will be solely about the doping continuum.

Leads. Not conclusive or demonstrable evidence for a trial. And that's not even to say that such evidence didn't possibly exist. But based on the timing--the full arc of the plausible case--and number of players alone, it's fair to say that things may never have appeared as conclusive as they were made to be on this board.

This point has been raised before: many of those posting here have expressed real (as opposed to embittered, say) disappointment that the case was not followed through--and justice established. Especially with sources verifying that the evidence was there. But we should be clear: just because many of those working at the lower pay grades felt they had some red-hot evidence--and said so--doesn't mean a lot in the scheme of things. They're gophers whose job is to investigate and find things. So what are they reasonably going to say?

Also, I'm aware of the Tailwind/SCA documents and deposition, etc. but aren't you engaging in a bit of hyperbole? He was most probably not those last few things with regard to the bigger financial players in Tailwind. It's around this link that much of the argument seems to break down--not what he was on paper, but what the actual operations were.

 

[Neworld]

i don't see anything to discuss here at this point, but since trolling is a rampant thematic over the past few weeks, and this is the default thread for that...

Yet you continue to post...thank you for the schooling and the senseless autoreacharound.

 

[aphronesis]

Yet you continue to post...thank you for the schooling and the senseless autoreacharound.

someone else responded to a question (or questions) that i posed them.

schoolings take many forms. far be it from me to suggest that many on here haven't long purported to do something similar. or your remarks back at chris for example.

so as to the autoreachround, maybe you should take your own advice and get over to the tri thread where you can still kick the embers a bit and keep the moral indignation and senseless animosity alight.

talk about scraping....

i made it clear from the outset that my interest in this topic was a juridical one (and that of politics): nothing i've said today-other than responding to you-contradicts that.

 

[Velodude]

Leads. Not conclusive or demonstrable evidence for a trial. And that's not even to say that such evidence didn't possibly exist. But based on the timing--the full arc of the plausible case--and number of players alone, it's fair to say that things may never have appeared as conclusive as they were made to be on this board.

This point has been raised before: many of those posting here have expressed real (as opposed to embittered, say) disappointment that the case was not followed through--and justice established. Especially with sources verifying that the evidence was there. But we should be clear: just because many of those working at the lower pay grades felt they had some red-hot evidence--and said so--doesn't mean a lot in the scheme of things. They're gophers whose job is to investigate and find things. So what are they reasonably going to say?

Also, I'm aware of the Tailwind/SCA documents and deposition, etc. but aren't you engaging in a bit of hyperbole? He was most probably not those last few things with regard to the bigger financial players in Tailwind. It's around this link that much of the argument seems to break down--not what he was on paper, but what the actual operations were.

You have not got a clue about the subject.

I do not want to engage in a 60 post marathon tennis match responding to your quibbles .

Suggest you take it up with the omniscient resident legal expert.

 

[aphronesis]

You have not got a clue about the subject.

I do not want to engage in a 60 post marathon tennis match responding to your quibbles .

Suggest you take it up with the omniscient resident legal expert.

Then why don't you clarify the subject for me. The case? The legal proceedings? The investigation? Which of those are you talking about?

Because while you don't want to get into a 60 post marathon, I'd say it's no exaggeration that you've logged a good couple of posts per day during the past month saying effectively the same thing over and over with slight nuances and variations.

So are you also going to tell me that the witness tampering with Tyler was also already connected to the indictment of the Tailwind board of directors?

And are you telling me that leads are the same as evidence? Or are you telling me that fed, state, whatever employees all across the US of A do their work with integrity and discrimination towards some higher goal, rather than viewing it (in some cases at least) as a job that they need to get done?

Or are you just telling me that because newspapers said it it must be so?

I was pretty sure you were the resident legal expert: that's been the tenor of your posts since the judge retired.

 

[MarkvW]

Not childish, Counselor.

There are many media reports of indications that the Feds had sufficient evidence to indict the decision makers of Tailwind Sports and the investigation was ongoing.

Those media reports have been variously linked and discussed in this forum.

On the side of the debate you have jumped back to after Borat's "no discussion" decision there are no media reports that the Feds were light on evidence to prosecute a case against the Tailwind gang.

To prove my comment is childish who don't you provide links that there existed indications the government had no evidence to successfully prosecute Armstrong et al?

Velodude, you've set an impossible task for yourself: You're trying to make a legal argument without addressing the law.