US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[Velodude]

Not surprisingly, I find myself to be nearly free of bias. In any event, words have meaning, especially in contracts. I haven't expressed an opinion excepting issues related to the term of the contract; rather I'm pointing out that the words of the contract mean what they say.

Regarding the bolded section, why do you say "sole genesis"? There are lots of things that either Rock, Tailwind or Armstrong could have done that were illegal and involved the USPS, but weren't directly related to doping, or even to the sponsorship contract. It is relatively common in criminal cases, especially ones with an international component, I believe.

There are many media reports on the justification of the Federal Government to commence an investigation into Armstrong & others based on the contract between USPS and Tailwind (in which, despite his claims, Armstrong was a director & shareholder).

One from Sports Illustrated

Through his attorney, Armstrong claims that he "started at USPS as a low paid, regular rider" and "was never the boss, director, the owner, or the doctor." But because government sponsorship is involved, if evidence suggests that Armstrong was directing illegal doping activity, the inquiry could result in charges against him of conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, racketeering, drug trafficking and defrauding the U.S. government.

 

[joe_papp]

Papp's favorite galpal

We're reconciled lol.

...So is that guy Joe Papp. Isn't he a convicted felon, and didn't he sell the dope to Kayle Leogrande and Rock Racing?" (Sorry Joe)...

No problem.

 

[BotanyBay]

http://www.justice.gov/usao/pae/Documents/fcaprocess2.pdf describes the process. It has been my (perhaps faulty) understanding that the case is sealed and target letters can't go out until the DOJ decides to join or not. If that is true, and if Bonnie Ford's assertion that those folks received Qui Tam target letters before Sept 2010 is also true, then the feds didn't join (yet).

Either way, if they haven't joined by now, and are declining the opportunity to prosecute the rest of the case, it seems unlikely that they will join. Interesting.

It's called the "Chuy's Lunch Combo". Two legal matters killed, fried and served on a platter with sour cream and refried beans.

 

[mewmewmew13]

It's called the "Chuy's Lunch Combo". Two legal matters killed, fried and served on a platter with sour cream and refried beans.

Hey now ,I've seen this in Krebs' Cuisine Corner...

 

[MacRoadie]

No problem.

Thanks. Was trying to make a point, not deliberately at your expense, but hopefully the idea was conveyed.

 

[Granville57]

An interesting op/ed piece in Cyclismas - http://cyclismas.com/2012/02/from-the-oped-department-armstrong-case-closed-the-right-decision/

Thanks for that link, Joe.
But Oh, dear. I have some questions for the author, Dan Kalbacher, and for the folks at Cyclismas who felt this was worth posting on their site.

Dan Kalbacher (@DanKalbacher) is a blogger, cycling fan, neo-racer, and law enforcement official with a degree in Criminology, Law and Society. He brings a unique understanding of the Armstrong case to us in this op/ed piece.

The federal investigation into the Lance Armstrong case lasted for nearly two years with numerous “reports” of eye witness testimony “proving” Lance Armstrong used prohibited substances during his career.

Um, much of what has been discussed in public has been based upon Tyler and Floyd's very public admission. There is no reason to put "reports" in quotes. They really did report those things, and if they falsely claimed something differently under oath they would be subject to perjury charges. Do their statements on TV present "proof" of doping? Well, it is eyewitness testimony. I'm no lawyer but I do believe eyewitness testimony has resulted in convictions in the past.

In addition, various other information unearthed by leaks, interviews and the press pushed the court of public opinion further against Lance for many people.

Link please, Dan? Is this the old 60 Minutes Hincapie reference? Yes, the information that George spoke with the investigators (not GJ testimony, btw) could be considered leaked information. Is there more than that? Please tell me there's more than that.

Nearly all the evidence gathered by Novitzky, along with testimony given by witnessed under subpoena, has yet to be disclosed as those records are still sealed from the public.

Good point! Let's come back to that.

Betsy Andreu, wife of former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu, was quoted as saying that “Our legal system has failed us” and further claimed that people with money can buy attorneys with “people in high places in the justice department.” Sadly, those comments come more out of outrage and frustration in a case they view as a slam dunk in the “court of public opinion.” While some may not agree with all the tactics employed by Novitzky, from my reading of him, he’s an investigator not afraid to get down in the weeds to gather evidence against a defendant. In fact, it was clear that he put forth a great deal of effort and time investigating every possible lead in this case and has shown no evidence that he or prosecutors were influence by people in “high places in the Justice Department.”

Dear Dan,

NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THAT NOVITSKY WAS THE ONE INFLUENCED BY PEOPLE IN HIGH PLACES!!!!

An investigator is not the final decision-maker in whether to charge a defendant – a prosecuting attorney is.

See above. Directly above. the one right up there. ^^^^^

Novitzky has a successful record in cases like these, and from his past experiences does not appear one to be influenced or intimidated by someone as massively popular as Lance Armstrong

Oh FFS! LOOK UP! ^^^^^

and if prosecutors felt that after two years of investigation their case could not obtain a conviction, then I am confident they did everything in their power to ensure no stone was left unturned.

Whosaywhaaaa?
Now he seems to be conveniently mixing and reversing the roles of "investigator" and "prosecutor." Is he implying that the actual investigators informed the prosecutors (ya' know, those decision-making guys) that substantial evidence could not be found? I would love to know how he arrived at that.

The very experienced and capable federal investigator Jeff Noviztky appears to have conducted the most thorough and full investigation possible. Based on his work in the BALCO case, his work ethic is exceptional and unmatched by anyone in his position. He also does not appear to be someone who would be intimidated by Lance Armstrong or his legal team in place.

Oh christ, and I thought I used too many words. Now he's just repeating himself in a way that makes no more sense than it did the first time around.

And people must remember, because it appears to have been missed – this case was not about whether Lance Armstrong doped but rather did he use federal funds to set up an illegal drug (doping) ring on U.S. Postal with the use of tax payer funds

Somebody buy this man a lifetime subscription to The Clinic. Please, no more news flashes, Dan. They're just too far reaching.

For people to question their ethics and integrity without any evidence provides little to any relevance to the overall discussion. However, both Novitzky and the U.S. Attorney’s Office will be subjected to a great deal of media and fan scrutiny about whether politics or other factors influenced their decision making...

Make it stop. My brain hurts.

NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THAT NOVITSKY DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS!!!

 

[Microchip]

I have a feeling that when someone gets a favor like the one that happened last Friday, they get an across-the-board favor. This part ain't going anywhere.

I hope that the other 2 assistant attorneys named in Cycling News' most recent article, were the ones who were in support of filing charges. And hopefully this board doesn't want any favours.

 

[Race Radio]

I don't think Betsy posts here any more...they can't get her away from the Golden Corral and her fingers are too covered in chicken grease to type

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.justice.gov/usao/pae/Documents/fcaprocess2.pdf describes the process. It has been my (perhaps faulty) understanding that the case is sealed and target letters can't go out until the DOJ decides to join or not. If that is true, and if Bonnie Ford's assertion that those folks received Qui Tam target letters before Sept 2010 is also true, then the feds didn't join (yet).

Either way, if they haven't joined by now, and are declining the opportunity to prosecute the rest of the case, it seems unlikely that they will join. Interesting.

Thanks. Interesting, and confusing.

As I understand it Bonnie's source was Lance and his buddies. They wanted Floyd to look bad so they let it out that he had filed.

 

[Velodude]

Yep, that's the 2001 contract. Note that it doesn't restrain the riders from doping; it only says that Tailwind had to have rider contracts that would allow (but not necessarily require) Tailwind to suspend or fire the rider if any of the various conditions occurred. Doping by itself, even if discovered, would not be sufficient. The act would have needed to be prejudicial to USPS or Tailwind.

In the part of the contract detailing the conditions for default, the team is required to take "appropriate action". The remedy if Tailwind did not take appropriate action would be for USPS to make a claim for damages. USPS did not make such a claim-understandably, because no doping came to light during the term of the contract.By definition, no default occurred.

"USPS did not make such a claim-understandably, because no doping came to light during the term of the contract."

If a breach of contract was only actionable by one of the parties if discovered during the precise term of the contract on the calendar then the court waiting lists would be significantly improved.

USPS redress in law is available for a period after performance of the contract only limited by the applicable statute of limitations.

 

[patricknd]

It's called the "Chuy's Lunch Combo". Two legal matters killed, fried and served on a platter with sour cream and refried beans.

those aren't refried

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What is obvious is that the investigation was slammed shut due to politics.

What I was hoping you might be able to comprehend is how the devolution of the dialog on this forum could potentially have a real impact on that.

Try this on for size:

The forum is often quoted either directly or indirectly in major publications, it is also generally believed that Lance, and or his minions, follow the forum on a regular basis.

A casual visitor who finds his way to the forum via some other source, especially one who may not be as nuanced in professional cycling may look in the clinic. This person sees the posts from both sides, reads some of the far-fetched prognotications from both sides and comes to the conclusion that everyone here, hater and fanboy alike, is nuts. Why not? What barometer can he use to differentiate? The value of the good analysis is diluted by the pablum that accompanies it.

Take it a very small step further:

The senator from the great state of Blahblahblah gets a phone call from his old buddy Mark Fabriani. The senator is on an appropriations committe or an oversight committee or some other position to influence the DOJ. Good ol' Mark sends the senator a packet of information on this Lance Armstrong investigation, including some links to a few online news sources, including the Clinic, and asks the senator to take a peek at this witch hunt the Central District is on.

Senator So-and-so doesn't have time to surf the web, he's got some serious legislating to do, so he tells his 20 year old clerk to do what 20 year olds do and check these sources out.

Clerk takes a look at some of the ridiculous comments and comes back to his boss and says "Senator, those bike people are crazy, they are even comparing Lance Armstrong to the mafia and Columbian drug cartels. They say his foundation is all a sham and a tax shell and does absolutely zero good. They love cancer. And guess what, that lady Betsy Andreu that you told me to look in to? She's on there too! She's one of those tin foil hat wearing loonies. That Mike Anderson fellow, the former mechanic who sued Lance? Yep, he's on there. So is that guy Joe Papp. Isn't he a convicted felon, and didn't he sell the dope to Kayle Leogrande and Rock Racing?" (Sorry Joe).

Now all of a sudden the senator is thinking maybe this is how those other riders who (allegedly) testified think too. After all, the forum is quoted as a media source, and the posters hold themselves out to be "insiders" or at least "in the know". Plus, it sure has a lot of people who seem to have a vested interest in the outcome of the case.

Suddenly, it's not just a lying and cheating Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, and a bunch of disgruntled former riders and employees, it's also those Andreus that everyone swears have nothing to gain from sticking to their story. Never mind that all she ever did was stick by her decade-old story and only come on here to defend herself when spoken ill of or lied about. Hell, she never even said she hates lances, those were Lance's words. All Mike ever did was believe a promise, and open the wrong cabinet door one day in Girona. That doesn't matter though. Drowned out by all the hyperbole.

All speculation and fantasy? Maybe. Probably. But the shenanigans that go on here do reverberate outside the forum and the internet and don't think for one minute that Armstrong's cronies aren't aware of it and wouldn't spin what started out as genuine and measured anger towards Armstrong and an honest desire for the truth, but ended up an almost hysterical shouting match to their own benefit.

Is there still core value to the information, insight and analysis performed here? Absolutely. But at some point, when the dialog dissolves into a shouting match or a series of insults, or simply the desire to beat the other guy then some of that good stuff is drowned out by the white noise.

THAT is what gets to me.

It is an interesting theory and I see some well presented arguments - however none of the named people discussed any details of the investigation, a quick look at the posts of many who claimed insider info would show that they knew SFA.

More importantly - any senator would know exactly what it is like with the 'social media', lots of varying opinions and sometimes outrageous claims. This thread has more 'lawyers' in it than your average Courthouse on its busiest day.

The simplest scenario is that Armstrong's top lawyers and lobbyists worked the political people.

 

[Hmmmmm]

If you believe that, then ask for a full review of this travesty of justice. An innocent man has been wronged and he spent millions defending himself before even one charge was leveled.

This is a good point and one worth pondering.

 

[eleven]

Wrong, there is clear evidence USPS was defrauded

The agreement clearly spells out what team management is supposed to do if a rider is doping. Not only did they not do that team management actively promoted, financed, and enabled doping.

Wrong. A rider was never caught doping and there was no damages.

USPS is satisfied? really? For decades there will be media stories on organized doping and fraud on the USPS cycling team, how is this good for the USPS brand?

Yes, USPS is satisfied. They had years over the course of the agreement to voice their displeasure by canceling the agreement. They never did so. And there are no damages to recoup. In the minds of the people making the decisions, the invest paid off - evinced by the fact that they continued the agreement.

 

[eleven]

So pulling the team bus over so everyone can take a transfusion is not "inappropriate drug conduct prejudicial to the team"?

you assume that the bus story is true.

 

[MacRoadie]

It is an interesting theory and I see some well presented arguments - however none of the named people discussed any details of the investigation, a quick look at the posts of many who claimed insider info would show that they knew SFA.

More importantly - any senator would know exactly what it is like with the 'social media', lots of varying opinions and sometimes outrageous claims. This thread has more 'lawyers' in it than your average Courthouse on its busiest day.

The simplest scenario is that Armstrong's top lawyers and lobbyists worked the political people.

My point, probably more easily made without the extensive elaboration, is that people do read these threads, they do share what is written and (regardless of the substance. merit or factual basis of what is writtren) that perception can have unintended consequences.

Anyway, any senator doing a political favor for Fabriani likely isn't going to weigh the relative merits of soical media in the first place.

 

[Granville57]

you assume that the bus story is true.

However, the silence from the other implicated riders in that scenario has been deafening, no?

 

[KingsMountain]

"USPS did not make such a claim-understandably, because no doping came to light during the term of the contract."

If a breach of contract was only actionable by one of the parties if discovered during the precise term of the contract on the calendar then the court waiting lists would be significantly improved.

USPS redress in law is available for a period after performance of the contract only limited by the applicable statute of limitations.

Sure, beach of contract is actionable if discovered after the term of the contract. But the action or event that causes the breach has to occur during the term. Furthermore, if the action or event that causes the potential breach is obvious during the term of the contract, the offended party must claim during the term of the contract (or at least close to it).

An act of doping is not cause for breach of the Tailwind-USPS contract. Instead, an event or situation that is prejudicial or causes negative publicity would or could be. That's not an opinion--it's what the contract says. Nothing prejudicial nor negative publicity occurred during the term or close to the term of the contract. The event/situation (negative publicity) that could have caused a breach didn't occur until 5 years later. (Unless we consider the disgrace of former USPS rider Landis, and how that affects the public perception of the USPS....)

 

[Hmmmmm]

Wrong McCarthy.

Laughed my a$$ off. McCarthyism!

 

[Pazuzu]

Quote:
“Our sports are the fabric of our American way of life. They teach us all that dedication, character, hard work, playing fair can lead to fulfillment and accomplishment. … We do not tolerate this type of corruption and fraud in business, academia or other important institutions. Why should we accept it in sports?

“The answer is clear we should not,”

It's good to see that at least somebody in a position of authority gets it.

 

[Polish]

Wrong, there is clear evidence USPS was defrauded

No RR, there was Insufficient Evidence
Not clear evidence by any stretch.

Most rational people will realize that.
If they don't already.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

YO! Stop with the condescension!

I mean if you want. If you don't want to stop condescending, whatever. I'll just be more direct.

First of all, Politicians are some of the most cynical people in the world and they are very aware of the HL Mencken quote to the effect that no one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Politicians are exploiting bs they have not one iota of belief in. I agree with your first sentence completely. Seeing that that is the case, there is nothing anyone could have done to stop that bs.

What you're neglecting to realize is that most of the stuff Armstrong was accused of by the "haters" was true and then some. What kind of wild claims are you talking about that didn't turn out to be true? The speculation on something happening at a definite time was the only stuff that wasn't true.

What really could have been done is people like Vaughters, DZ, and others who were FL's "friends" could have spoken honestly about what they did and saw like Frankie did.

Really, I'm going to stop, if Politicians wanted to know exactly what was going on, they knew where they could definitively find that information.

I don't buy your theory at all and it was up to people like JV who were on here a while ago to clear up any confusion that existed by speaking plainly.

What is obvious is that the investigation was slammed shut due to politics.

What I was hoping you might be able to comprehend is how the devolution of the dialog on this forum could potentially have a real impact on that.


Try this on for size:

The forum is often quoted either directly or indirectly in major publications, it is also generally believed that Lance, and or his minions, follow the forum on a regular basis.

A casual visitor who finds his way to the forum via some other source, especially one who may not be as nuanced in professional cycling may look in the clinic. This person sees the posts from both sides, reads some of the far-fetched prognotications from both sides and comes to the conclusion that everyone here, hater and fanboy alike, is nuts. Why not? What barometer can he use to differentiate? The value of the good analysis is diluted by the pablum that accompanies it.

Take it a very small step further:

The senator from the great state of Blahblahblah gets a phone call from his old buddy Mark Fabriani. The senator is on an appropriations committe or an oversight committee or some other position to influence the DOJ. Good ol' Mark sends the senator a packet of information on this Lance Armstrong investigation, including some links to a few online news sources, including the Clinic, and asks the senator to take a peek at this witch hunt the Central District is on.

Senator So-and-so doesn't have time to surf the web, he's got some serious legislating to do, so he tells his 20 year old clerk to do what 20 year olds do and check these sources out.

Clerk takes a look at some of the ridiculous comments and comes back to his boss and says "Senator, those bike people are crazy, they are even comparing Lance Armstrong to the mafia and Columbian drug cartels. They say his foundation is all a sham and a tax shell and does absolutely zero good. They love cancer. And guess what, that lady Betsy Andreu that you told me to look in to? She's on there too! She's one of those tin foil hat wearing loonies. That Mike Anderson fellow, the former mechanic who sued Lance? Yep, he's on there. So is that guy Joe Papp. Isn't he a convicted felon, and didn't he sell the dope to Kayle Leogrande and Rock Racing?" (Sorry Joe).

Now all of a sudden the senator is thinking maybe this is how those other riders who (allegedly) testified think too. After all, the forum is quoted as a media source, and the posters hold themselves out to be "insiders" or at least "in the know". Plus, it sure has a lot of people who seem to have a vested interest in the outcome of the case.

Suddenly, it's not just a lying and cheating Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, and a bunch of disgruntled former riders and employees, it's also those Andreus that everyone swears have nothing to gain from sticking to their story. Never mind that all she ever did was stick by her decade-old story and only come on here to defend herself when spoken ill of or lied about. Hell, she never even said she hates lances, those were Lance's words. All Mike ever did was believe a promise, and open the wrong cabinet door one day in Girona. That doesn't matter though. Drowned out by all the hyperbole.

All speculation and fantasy? Maybe. Probably. But the shenanigans that go on here do reverberate outside the forum and the internet and don't think for one minute that Armstrong's cronies aren't aware of it and wouldn't spin what started out as genuine and measured anger towards Armstrong and an honest desire for the truth, but ended up an almost hysterical shouting match to their own benefit.

Is there still core value to the information, insight and analysis performed here? Absolutely. But at some point, when the dialog dissolves into a shouting match or a series of insults, or simply the desire to beat the other guy then some of that good stuff is drowned out by the white noise.

THAT is what gets to me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wrong. A rider was never caught doping and there was no damages.

Yes, USPS is satisfied. They had years over the course of the agreement to voice their displeasure by canceling the agreement. They never did so. And there are no damages to recoup. In the minds of the people making the decisions, the invest paid off - evinced by the fact that they continued the agreement.

They voiced their concerns - they were lied to.

The doping controversies didn't go unnoticed by the team's lead sponsor, the U.S. Postal Service. Gail Sonnenberg, senior vice president of sales for the Postal Service at the time, says some members of its board wanted to end the sponsorship after doping stories hit the press.

Ms. Sonnenberg says the consensus among the investors was that the French were out to get Mr. Armstrong because he was an American dominating their national race. Ms. Sonnenberg says she was assured several times by Mr. Weisel and by two part-owners who were team managers, Mark Gorski and Dan Osipow, that the team was not doping.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011490820993006.html

 

[Pazuzu]

Let me quote Travis Tygart of USADA:

Quote:
“Our sports are the fabric of our American way of life. They teach us all that dedication, character, hard work, playing fair can lead to fulfillment and accomplishment. … We do not tolerate this type of corruption and fraud in business, academia or other important institutions. Why should we accept it in sports?

“The answer is clear we should not,”

It's good to see that at least somebody in a position of authority (however limited) gets it. Just a damn shame the powers that be at the US Justice Dept. fail to share Tygart's sentiment.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Sure, beach of contract is actionable if discovered after the term of the contract. But the action or event that causes the breach has to occur during the term. Furthermore, if the action or event that causes the potential breach is obvious during the term of the contract, the offended party must claim during the term of the contract (or at least close to it).

An act of doping is not cause for breach of the Tailwind-USPS contract. Instead, an event or situation that is prejudicial or causes negative publicity would or could be. That's not an opinion--it's what the contract says. Nothing prejudicial nor negative publicity occurred during the term or close to the term of the contract. The event/situation (negative publicity) that could have caused a breach didn't occur until 5 years later. (Unless we consider the disgrace of former USPS rider Landis, and how that affects the public perception of the USPS....)

Complete load of nonsense. Most people who engage in racketeering don't make a breach of contract obvious. As a matter of fact it's their behavior that conceals the breach. In your world maybe it's ok for criminal conspiracies to use fraud to accrue to their benefit.

As to the second paragraph, Velodude sunk that silliness a few pages back.