US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[Von Mises]

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.

+1 Very good point.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

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....

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...fbi-sought-information-on-leak-complaint.html

 

[LarryBudMelman]

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

Selected excerpts from this comedy gold. Tragedy too...


Basically, I could write a lengthy blogpost on why I think Armstrong doped, but I’d like to assume that every reasonable person, unburdened by the trappings of fandom, can look at the facts dispassionately and come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to believe he did it clean, however good a story it would make.


Instead, we wanted the truth to come out. Cycling cannot progress if its future is built on fairytales.

 

[goober]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...fbi-sought-information-on-leak-complaint.html

I figured that was your source for "looked into". But this has no indication of whether they looked or are still looking. And this article you reference is based on something Armstrong's lawyer said.

 

[Race Radio]

I figured that was your source for "looked into". But this has no indication of whether they looked or are still looking. And this article you reference is based on something Armstrong's lawyer said.

What happen to telling us the "real" story? How the case was dropped because of leaks? Or is that just saved for the few friendly journalists wonderboy has left?

 

[MarkvW]

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.

He is either breathtakingly clueless (á la Mr. Magoo), a big fat liar, telling the truth, or reporting on statements that were derived by investigation (not the GJ). I can't see any other possibilities. Then he has to get the story past his editor. Who knows what VN's editorial standards are?

I'm not ready to dismiss his story yet, but I'm not ready to accept it as truth either.

 

[Cimacoppi48]

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"

BINGO! Now what's needed is a good investigative reporter with a flack jacket and body guard detail to get at the truth.

 

[goober]

What happen to telling us the "real" story? How the case was dropped because of leaks? Or is that just saved for the few friendly journalists wonderboy has left?

Give it time . We've been waiting years so what's another few months

 

[BotanyBay]

Give it time . We've been waiting years so what's another few months

Good point. besides, criminals almost never reform on their own. It usually requires their getting spanked. People can only dodge bullets so many times. And Lance has dodged oh-so-many.

The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and he has burned oh-so-brightly.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

You have vigorously asserted that the feds have amassed sufficient evidence of Lance Armstrong's criminal behavior. You have also vigorously asserted that the investigation is secret and that there have been no leaks.

There are only three possible ways that both of those statements can be true: (1) That you have no clue, but you have made an unverifiable correct guess; or (2) That there is sufficient evidence in the public domain to demonstrate a sufficient criminal case against Lance Armstrong; or (3) that you have heard the out-of-court statements of one or more GJ witnesses about their testimony and that those statements, coupled with public domain material, convince you that there really is overwhelming evidence of Armstrong's guilt.

The first option would make you a mere LarryBudMelman. I don't buy that.

The second option is ludicrous. Nobody credible is suggesting that there is sufficient evidence against Armstrong in the public domain. No lawyer has, or would, stake his or her reputation on such idiocy. I don't think even you have gone this far.

The only remaining option that doesn't leave you wallowing in unresolvable inconsistency is that you have heard the stories that a witness or witnesses have told about their GJ experience. You won't share who the witnesses are, or what they say they said, or the analysis that leads you to conclude that the evidence is overwhelming. You expect us to take you on faith--even though taking you on faith means concluding improper behavior by the Department of Justice. Only a fool would follow an anonymous Internet poster down that garden path. I'll take you on faith about the witnesses, but no way will I take you on faith about the analysis of the strength of the government's case. Any reasonable person would trust a United States Attorney before he'd trust an unsourced anonymous interner poster whose ONLY argument in support of the strength of the Government's case is the mere fact of a long investigation.

So either you have your own secret unshared knowledge that proves that the government's case was really overwhelming, or you're just blowing smoke big time. Either way, you're trying to create your own myth of "overwhelming evidence" without any factual support.

In the language of poker: Put up or shut up.

Extreme Hater Referendum: 129 Signatures. Up 3 from yesterday!

 

[Polish]

Give it time . We've been waiting years so what's another few months

The non-fanboys should enjoy the next month or so, because very soon the crap will not hit the fan and their BoyWonder will not be going to jail.

The best thing Lance could do right now is not settle/plea deal.

 

[Anonymous]

You have vigorously asserted that the feds have amassed sufficient evidence of Lance Armstrong's criminal behavior. You have also vigorously asserted that the investigation is secret and that there have been no leaks.

There are only three possible ways that both of those statements can be true: (1) That you have no clue, but you have made an unverifiable correct guess; or (2) That there is sufficient evidence in the public domain to demonstrate a sufficient criminal case against Lance Armstrong; or (3) that you have heard the out-of-court statements of one or more GJ witnesses about their testimony and that those statements, coupled with public domain material, convince you that there really is overwhelming evidence of Armstrong's guilt.

The first option would make you a mere LarryBudMelman. I don't buy that.

The second option is ludicrous. Nobody credible is suggesting that there is sufficient evidence against Armstrong in the public domain. No lawyer has, or would, stake his or her reputation on such idiocy. I don't think even you have gone this far.

The only remaining option that doesn't leave you wallowing in unresolvable inconsistency is that you have heard the stories that a witness or witnesses have told about their GJ experience. You won't share who the witnesses are, or what they say they said, or the analysis that leads you to conclude that the evidence is overwhelming. You expect us to take you on faith--even though taking you on faith means concluding improper behavior by the Department of Justice. Only a fool would follow an anonymous Internet poster down that garden path. I'll take you on faith about the witnesses, but no way will I take you on faith about the analysis of the strength of the government's case. Any reasonable person would trust a United States Attorney before he'd trust an unsourced anonymous interner poster whose ONLY argument in support of the strength of the Government's case is the mere fact of a long investigation.

So either you have your own secret unshared knowledge that proves that the government's case was really overwhelming, or you're just blowing smoke big time. Either way, you're trying to create your own myth of "overwhelming evidence" without any factual support.

In the language of poker: Put up or shut up.

This is funny to me.

You have stated over and over how you believe LA to be a doper extraordinaire and I'm left to wonder how you came to that conclusion?

It's likely not all that much different than how RR has arrived at his. It seems fairly obvious that he is connected in this area... likely knows some if not all of the relevant actors... and has some above average deductive reasoning skills and what seems to be a very good ability to connect the dots.

Now, do you think RR is the only person surprised at Birotte's decision? Are you really going to argue that those (at least some) at the very heart of the investigation were not shocked/surprised/angry at Birotte's decision?

RR got it wrong with respect to charges being dropped but likely for far different reasons than insufficient evidence.

No possible way to predict corruption... none.

 

[Anonymous]

Extreme Hater Referendum: 129 Signatures. Up 3 from yesterday!

I'm still waiting for LA to file counter suit for defamation.

When do you suppose LA will try and round up all those that have harmed him? He deserves his day in court, don't you think?

I know that if I'm innocent I will sue for damages and make those that have sullied my reputation pay handsomely.

But that's just me.

 

[Polish]

I'm still waiting for LA to file counter suit for defamation.

When do you suppose LA will try and round up all those that have harmed him? He deserves his day in court, don't you think?

I know that if I'm innocent I will sue for damages and make those that have sullied my reputation pay handsomely.

But that's just me.

Great advice SSC.
Lance should sue for defamation.

That is almost as great as RR advising Lance to settle/plea deal.

Why does Lance pay for advice when he has the Clinic working pro-bono?
Go figure

 

[Anonymous]

Great advice SSC.
Lance should sue for defamation.

I'm left in shocked disbelief that he doesn't. Stunned actually.

It's not how innocent people behave. But then you already knew that, dint ya?

 

[Adamastor]

Any chance we might see an investigation book on the FDA investigation and Armstrong story in the US?

I repeat "in the US". We all bloody know it will be easy for Walsh or Ressiot to release a French speaking version after LA Confidential and LA Official...

 

[Race Radio]

Give it time . We've been waiting years so what's another few months

Goober, I an rapidly loosing faith in your claimed insider status.

The next talking is the entire investigation was stopped because of leaks. There was no evidence and the bad guys (Feds) invented leaked a bunch of evidence to try to stir up support for their case

Fabiani needs to get the truth out there fast!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm still waiting for LA to file counter suit for defamation.
When do you suppose LA will try and round up all those that have harmed him? He deserves his day in court, don't you think?

I know that if I'm innocent I will sue for damages and make those that have sullied my reputation pay handsomely.
But that's just me.

That sounds good but considering all the people he would need to sue it would not be good for his bank balance.

You would really?

 

[Anonymous]

That sounds good but considering all the people he would need to sue it would not be good for his bank balance.

You would really?

Think of how he and his foundation have been harmed financially, not to mention pain and suffering.

He probably would waste his time and energy going after Floyd and Tyler... just go after the Feds... you know, deep pockets.

Lance, in case you are following along, you can probably start here;

http://www.justice.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline_plus.htm

 

[9000ft]

.

The best thing Lance could do right now is not settle/plea deal.

Well, it's the best thing for the CN clinic forum LA thread. If the whole thing where laid to rest what would all these guys do with themselves?

 

[Polish]

I'm left in shocked disbelief that he doesn't. Stunned actually.

It's not how innocent people behave. But then you already knew that, dint ya?

C'mon, SSC, Lance has benefitted from being cleared by the Feds.
No defamation from being cleared.

Now if the Feds launched a bunch of indictments and took it to trial, that would be a very different story. Especially after all the leaks were brought to light. Defamation City.

 

[Velodude]

I'm still waiting for LA to file counter suit for defamation.

When do you suppose LA will try and round up all those that have harmed him? He deserves his day in court, don't you think?

I know that if I'm innocent I will sue for damages and make those that have sullied my reputation pay handsomely.

But that's just me.

Armstrong was not acquitted of any prospective crimes as the basis to mount defamation action.

To mount a defamation action as the plaintiff he can't avoid filing an affidavit which opens him up to cross-examination.

There are too many real and prospective actions in the pipeline (USADA, IRS/Livestrong) plus at the present moment there are two quantitative analyzes (1999 & 2001) by reputed anti doping laboratories that he had partaken in PEDs.

He can't continue the chant that he had never doped to claim his reputation has been injured in a civil claim that has a lower standard of proof to prove a defense.

OJ Simpson won his defense against criminal action for prosecution that required proof beyond all reasonable doubt for conviction but lost the lower standard of proof civil monetary claim by the victims' families.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Think of how he and his foundation have been harmed financially, not to mention pain and suffering.

He probably would waste his time and energy going after Floyd and Tyler... just go after the Feds... you know, deep pockets.

Lance, in case you are following along, you can probably start here;

http://www.justice.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline_plus.htm

Well there would be a very long list of people he would have to sue including Floyd and Tyler. He would have trouble tracking them all down.

Of course he can take your advice and just sue the Justice department.

Think of the amount of fun which could be had here at the clinic. The LA sue's ???? thread would BLOW UP!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Armstrong was not acquitted of any prospective crimes as the basis to mount defamation action.

To mount a defamation action as the plaintiff he can't avoid filing an affidavit which opens him up to cross-examination.

There are too many real and prospective actions in the pipeline (USADA, IRS/Livestrong) plus at the present moment there are two quantitative analyzes (1999 & 2001) by reputed anti doping laboratories that he had partaken in PEDs.

He can't continue the chant that he had never doped to claim his reputation has been injured in a civil claim that has a lower standard of proof to prove a defense.

OJ Simpson won his defense against criminal action for prosecution that required proof beyond all reasonable doubt for conviction but lost the lower standard of proof civil monetary claim by the victims' families.

Velodude can you please let SOCALL Scott and I have some room to post whatIF's?


Are you saying that Novitz will sue LA for monetary reasons?

Do you think Tyler and Tugboat will sue LA for monetary reasons?

Well I can not wait for those lawsuits. This is going to get very interesting.

 

[MarkvW]

This is funny to me.

You have stated over and over how you believe LA to be a doper extraordinaire and I'm left to wonder how you came to that conclusion?

It's likely not all that much different than how RR has arrived at his. It seems fairly obvious that he is connected in this area... likely knows some if not all of the relevant actors... and has some above average deductive reasoning skills and what seems to be a very good ability to connect the dots.

Now, do you think RR is the only person surprised at Birotte's decision? Are you really going to argue that those (at least some) at the very heart of the investigation were not shocked/surprised/angry at Birotte's decision?

RR got it wrong with respect to charges being dropped but likely for far different reasons than insufficient evidence.

No possible way to predict corruption... none.

My personal opinion is founded on a much lower burden of proof than a federal criminal case. It is also devoid of any of the careful evidentiary analysis that goes into the evaluation of a crimnal prosecution. My opinion turned rock solid with Simeoni after seeing the way that Armstrong absolutely crushed his highly-doped contenders (and even more evidence afterward). None of that is "overwhelming evidence" of a crime, but it's overwhelming enough evidence for me, a fan. I can boo the SOB, and still accept the possibility that the feds couldn't make a good enough case (and root for a good WADA/USADA hearing).

This was a two year investigation. It kept on because (obviously) the feds kept needing to investigate and get more evidence.

No way am I drinking the corruption Kool-Aid. The Sour Grape flavor isn't to my taste.