US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[MarkvW]

Even you can understand the difference.

Multiple direct witnesses in one case......no supporting evidence in the other. Simple

You want Armstrong to honor the process, but you advocate abrogating the process to get Armstrong. All because you're "right" and he's "wrong."
Whatever.

 

[eleven]

I have seen no evidence of such, but Wonderboy has a long history of it

You have seen no evidence, but you'll spend post after post bowing to the claim.

 

[Race Radio]

You want Armstrong to honor the process, but you advocate abrogating the process to get Armstrong. All because you're "right" and he's "wrong."
Whatever.

If you have any evidence of an "advocate abrogating the process" please share. So far the only person claiming to have evidence Anthoney Tan, and he isn't sharing.

 

[Cal_Joe]

So you don't have any evidence of leaks?

Sounds like we agree!

Wakeup call.

Tan said he has GJ testimony from leaks.

You claim FBI said no leaks.

You claim Tan is wrong.

Any chance you want to address this?

Your several hundred posts in the old LA thread have turned out to be.... (I'm trying to be polite here)...turned out to be, um, a bit inaccurate. I hope this does not happen in this thread.

Can you give any of the Clinic faithful any hope that you have an answer to this discussion? Bob and weave and deflecting questions drive me into Polish mode:

SSIISSDD (Super Secret Insider Information Same Stuff Different Day)
Yikes! Bad question, answer not. Try or not try.
Waffles much better than RR.

 

[Race Radio]

Wakeup call.

Tan said he has GJ testimony from leaks.

You claim FBI said no leaks.

You claim Tan is wrong.

Any chance you want to address this?

Your several hundred posts in the old LA thread have turned out to be.... (I'm trying to be polite here)...turned out to be, um, a bit inaccurate. I hope this does not happen in this thread.

Can you give any of the Clinic faithful any hope that you have an answer to this discussion? Bob and weave and deflecting questions drive me into Polish mode:

SSIISSDD (Super Secret Insider Information Same Stuff Different Day)
Yikes! Bad question, answer not. Try or not try.
Waffles much better than RR.

The only thing I have been wrong about was that Lance was going to be charged in a criminal case, a belief apparently shared by many connected with the case.

So far we have seen zero evidence to support Tan's claim, if you have some please share.

 

[Spider1964]

To be fair...

Mark said -

You want Armstrong to honor the process, but you advocate abrogating the process to get Armstrong. All because you're "right" and he's "wrong."
Whatever.

You said -

If you have any evidence of an "advocate abrogating the process" please share. So far the only person claiming to have evidence Anthoney Tan, and he isn't sharing.

Slight, but important difference.

I have no links.

As you were boys and girls... but remember to play fair.

 

[Cal_Joe]

The only thing I have been wrong about was that Lance was going to be charged in a criminal case, a belief apparently shared by many connected with the case.

So far we have seen zero evidence to support Tan's claim, if you have some please share.

Re the bolded part - the only thing in the press (according to "unnamed sources") is that some, whose identities and position in the chain is unknown, thought that there would be indictments. If you can provide information (from a named source) that there were "many", please share with us.

Total BS on your call for me to provide evidence of Tan's claims. Ask him yourself. I am not his Mother. I merely linked to his article. You were the one who claimed he was wrong, yet you provide no evidence. Time to put up or shut up.

Refusing to answer questions on your claims still brings to mind the old LA thread.

 

[Race Radio]

To be fair...

Mark said -




You said -



Slight, but important difference.

I have no links.

As you were boys and girls... but remember to play fair.

Ahhh, thanks for that. my point stands. Nobody is trying to go around the process.....except for Armstrong. Using political connections only available to the elite

One thing Mark and I both agree on is how stupid the "leaks" complaint was. It appears most here never read it. I have. It was so full of misinformation it was almost comical.....I say almost as it was an attempt to ruin people's career, not much humor in that

It is certainly possible there were illegal leaks, but so far we have seen zero evidence of it.

 

[Race Radio]

Re the bolded part - the only thing in the press (according to "unnamed sources") is that some, whose identities and position in the chain is unknown, thought that there would be indictments. If you can provide information (from a named source) that there were "many", please share with us.

Total BS on your call for me to provide evidence of Tan's claims. Ask him yourself. I am not his Mother. I merely linked to his article. You were the one who claimed he was wrong, yet you provide no evidence. Time to put up or shut up.

Refusing to answer questions on your claims still brings to mind the old LA thread.

I agree, your refusal to answer the simple leak question is frustrating. I cannot prove a negative. There is zero evidence of leaks. Neither you, nor Lance, could provide any. It appears the only person who can crack the case is Tan

While you are at it please share with us how it is against the law for a prosecutor or investigator to have an opinion.

Thanks

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Re the bolded part - the only thing in the press (according to "unnamed sources") is that some, whose identities and position in the chain is unknown, thought that there would be indictments. If you can provide information (from a named source) that there were "many", please share with us.

Total BS on your call for me to provide evidence of Tan's claims. Ask him yourself. I am not his Mother. I merely linked to his article. You were the one who claimed he was wrong, yet you provide no evidence. Time to put up or shut up.

Refusing to answer questions on your claims still brings to mind the old LA thread.

You are ridiculous.

LA's attorney's claimed the prosecution was leaking stuff. The FBI looked into it. Tan claimed he saw leaked testimony. You are backing up Tan. The onus is on YOU to show what was leaked. Is it possible there were leaks? Yes. Is it possible there are flying saucers? Yes.

The point isn't to prove that it's possible. The point is to prove that it happened. Neither LA's attorneys, Tan, or you can do that...

Ned Braden by any chance?

 

[Spider1964]

You are ridiculous.

LA's attorney's claimed the prosecution was leaking stuff. The FBI looked into it. Tan claimed he saw leaked testimony. You are backing up Tan. The onus is on YOU to show what was leaked. Is it possible there were leaks? Yes. Is it possible there are flying saucers? Yes.

The point isn't to prove that it's possible. The point is to prove that it happened. Neither LA's attorneys, Tan, or you can do that...

Ned Braden by any chance?

And to be brutally honest, when people start using something that Anthony Tan says as gospel then they have no argument. Anthony Tan is clueless.

 

[Velodude]

You are ridiculous.

LA's attorney's claimed the prosecution was leaking stuff. The FBI looked into it. Tan claimed he saw leaked testimony. You are backing up Tan. The onus is on YOU to show what was leaked. Is it possible there were leaks? Yes. Is it possible there are flying saucers? Yes.

The point isn't to prove that it's possible. The point is to prove that it happened. Neither LA's attorneys, Tan, or you can do that...

Ned Braden by any chance?

Tan said he had "seen and read testimony". He also wrote that witnesses were "disposed".

I thinks he lacks the appreciation of legal terminology and its requirement for accuracy.

It is way out on a limb to then claim Tan has read leaked testimony because of his obvious deficiency in applying the correct descriptor.

 

[peterst6906]

The only thing I have been wrong about was that Lance was going to be charged in a criminal case...

Either because of your anonymity to protect your sources, or other reasons that create a perception of insider status, whether you like it or not, your posts have carried a lot of authority in this forum over the last couple of years.

Unfortunately though, the dropping of the investigation has shown quite a few statements to be wrong, not only that charges would be laid. That also draws into question, a lot of other statements as well.

I hope whatever the truth, it all eventually comes out and the fight against drugs in cycling gains a huge step forward. By then, the reputation of some will either be restored or shown to have been completely empty in the first place.

Only time will tell on this one.

 

[peterst6906]

Tan said he had "seen and read testimony".

I don't know whether he realised the implications of what he wrote when he typed that sentence.

Whether it's a personal bias because I find him excruciatingly difficult to watch on Cycling Central, but it's difficult to believe that's a factual statement. It seems more like editorial licence to put across his own view about Betsy without directly attacking her.

Just my take on it.

 

[goober]

You are ridiculous.

LA's attorney's claimed the prosecution was leaking stuff. The FBI looked into it. Tan claimed he saw leaked testimony. You are backing up Tan. The onus is on YOU to show what was leaked. Is it possible there were leaks? Yes. Is it possible there are flying saucers? Yes.

The point isn't to prove that it's possible. The point is to prove that it happened. Neither LA's attorneys, Tan, or you can do that...

Ned Braden by any chance?

So the FBI "looked" into it? Or is the FBI still looking? Or did someone say "they think the FBI is investigating"? Onus on you to show they "looked into it". BTW - I know the answer....

 

[goober]

I agree, your refusal to answer the simple leak question is frustrating. I cannot prove a negative. There is zero evidence of leaks. Neither you, nor Lance, could provide any. It appears the only person who can crack the case is Tan

While you are at it please share with us how it is against the law for a prosecutor or investigator to have an opinion.

Thanks

I would rephrase the bold to "I have seen zero evidence of leaks". Might make you look smarter just in case, somehow, by chance, there is evidence that you do not know about - there are lots of things you do not know about - I know that...

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

Oh goober. When do you expect this to happen?

 

[patricknd]

Oh goober. When do you expect this to happen?

on tuesday, of course

 

[eleven]

Ahhh, thanks for that. my point stands. Nobody is trying to go around the process.....except for Armstrong. Using political connections only available to the elite

You keep repeating this. Do you have evidence to back this claim?

 

[Anonymous]

So the FBI "looked" into it? Or is the FBI still looking? Or did someone say "they think the FBI is investigating"? Onus on you to show they "looked into it". BTW - I know the answer....

How cryptic.

I can only speak for myself when I say I am on the edge of my seat just waiting with baited breath to find out what you 'know'.

 

[personal]

You keep repeating this. Do you have evidence to back this claim?

It is all over media:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/justice-servedon-platter

http://thelongballtactic.wordpress.com/

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/lance_armstrong_hires_clinton.php

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0511/Lance_Armstrong_hired_Karl_Roves_lawyer.html

 

[Race Radio]

I would rephrase the bold to "I have seen zero evidence of leaks". Might make you look smarter just in case, somehow, by chance, there is evidence that you do not know about - there are lots of things you do not know about - I know that...

Of course, Thanks for the correction.

We both know the next phase of the campaign is the "This was dropped because of leaks"

 

[Race Radio]

It is all over media:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/justice-servedon-platter

http://thelongballtactic.wordpress.com/

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/lance_armstrong_hires_clinton.php

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0511/Lance_Armstrong_hired_Karl_Roves_lawyer.html

Of course Armstrong hired Chris Lehuane for his skill, not because one of his best friends is Lanny Breuer, head of the Criminal Division of the justice department. Breuer's time as Roger Clemens defense attorney had no impact on the decision, all just a coincidence. I doubt Birotte ever received a phone call from any Senators, and if he did it was just a call from an old friend, not an attempt to lobby anybody.

Besides, this was all dropped because of leaks....at least that is the story being shopped around right now. With all that evidence being transfered to USADA and the Civil division it is important to "Poison the Well"

 

[Race Radio]

How cryptic.

I can only speak for myself when I say I am on the edge of my seat just waiting with baited breath to find out what you 'know'.

Thanksgiving, or was it Easter?

 

[frenchfry]

This might be a good time to take stock of the situation and look at the glass as half full and not half empty.

Who would have thought a few years ago that so many would actually talk about what happened back in the good old USPS days. Team organised doping, delivery of PEDs, UCI cover-ups, sales of team bikes to finance PED purchases, and on and on. Multiple direct witnesses on record. Remember back not that long ago when NO ONE dared speak up for fear of retaliation. Those days are over. Remember back to when Livestrong carried on unchallenged - financing "awareness" of Wonderboy and building the myth. Now there is enough scrutiny that they cannot continue on the same path.

OK, the criminal investigation has ended but the unfettered truth is out there for those who are interested. This is progress, though admittedly not satisfactory.