US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[Anonymous]

You're demonstrating your blind faith in "overwhelming evidence!" You don't know what the evidence is, but you have faith that it is out there somewhere.

Should be pretty easy to show the post where I made that declaration.

But since I never said that, I will go ahead and accept your apology.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Where did Glenn say "a case against people"?
He questioned your "case against Lance".

And the link you supplied from the DA did not even mention Lance did it?

Good point - Glenn introduced Lance in reply to a post of mine where I had not mentioned Lance.
Take it easy on them though - I got what their point was.

As to the DA, well that is why I mentioned people and not just Lance.
Keep up the good work.

 

[Anonymous]

This thing does have an odor about it, but I am curious as to why you believe (and others have posted this) that it was "One Guy"?

From the reported stories. Birotte's decision was 'final' and there would be no 'further discussion', or something to that effect.

 

[BotanyBay]

McIlvane: Probably took the 5th (despite what she said outside the courthouse). Nothing of use came out of her lips.

Landis: A disaster of a witness. Forget his possible motives to lie. All we need to do is think back to that interesting day at Pepperdine University when Greg Lemond got up on the stand. Also, the French convicted him of hacking. Not even a lawyer prosecuting a misdemeanor burglary case would use him as a witness, much less one prosecuting a far-reaching federal felony case.

Hamiltion: Reluctant witness that required GJ subpoena to talk. Goes on 60 Minutes afterwards. Bad move. Jeopardizes case by doing so.

Popovich: Doesn't want to get put over the railing on that windy road in Milan-San Remo. Either won't talk, or won't say much.

Betsy: Even though I love her to death, she's talked a LOT, and that eagerness to talk about these events can be perceived by impartial jurors as a vendetta.

Frankie: Joined at the hip to Betsy

 

[Anonymous]

There must be links. And endless haggling over minutæ.

And you are in the middle of most of it.

Irony much?

 

[BotanyBay]

From the reported stories. Birotte's decision was 'final' and there would be no 'further discussion', or something to that effect.

It is possible that he gave his underlings the latitude to nail it, and he didn't feel good about bringing this case "worldwide-supasonic"

I don't doubt that the Asst USatty's compiled the evidence that showed the crimes. But I do doubt that they did so without the case's "transmission line wires" being shoddy in certain spots.

This whole situation reminds me of the film "Adaptation". A screenwriter is hired to write the screen adaptation for the book "The Orchid Thief" (A very popular novel). So many people have their eyes focused on you for the final product. And it better be good, because you don't want to krap on the book, or be seen as "less than true" to the author's version. And if the screenplay sucks, you don't want it made into a film costing millions of dollars.

Sorta how we all waited for THIS:

Lucas shoulda stuck to further ruining his Star Wars franchise.

If the case aint "great", you don't bring Lance Armstrong into court.

Was this case "great" or just what the AUSATTYS thought was "winnable"?

 

[thehog]

McIlvane: Probably took the 5th (despite what she said outside the courthouse). Nothing of use came out of her lips.

Landis: A disaster of a witness. Forget his possible motives to lie. All we need to do is think back to that interesting day at Pepperdine University when Greg Lemond got up on the stand. Also, the French convicted him of hacking. Not even a lawyer prosecuting a misdemeanor burglary case would use him as a witness, much less one prosecuting a far-reaching federal felony case.

Hamiltion: Reluctant witness that required GJ subpoena to talk. Goes on 60 Minutes afterwards. Bad move. Jeopardizes case by doing so.

Popovich: Doesn't want to get put over the railing on that windy road in Milan-San Remo. Either won't talk, or won't say much.

Betsy: Even though I love her to death, she's talked a LOT, and that eagerness to talk about these events can be perceived by impartial jurors as a vendetta.

Frankie: Joined at the hip to Betsy

Ashley Olsen?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Good point - Glenn introduced Lance in reply to a post of mine where I had not mentioned Lance.
Take it easy on them though - I got what their point was.

As to the DA, well that is why I mentioned people and not just Lance.
Keep up the good work.

This thread IS already about LA. So me having mentioned him well? What else was I supposed to do?

WHO is Them and what is THEIR point?

Even after USADA gets their hands on the evidence / info from the Fed's ...that does not mean they WILL bring a case against LA. Everyone will just have to wait and see.

 

[Cal_Joe]

From the reported stories. Birotte's decision was 'final' and there would be no 'further discussion', or something to that effect.

Yes, I have read those stories too. One thing we must not discount is that the decision may not have been his, or may have been a joint decision involving people higher up the chain. I find it hard to put a lot of faith in the "one guy" scenario.

 

[BotanyBay]

I think it is important to mention that we have a lot of people here who wholeheartedly think that Lance is to "guilty" as Kim K is to a "dirty little ****", but can still see that Birotte might have been able to kill this case without requiring any political pressure whatsoever.

I will admit, 2 weeks ago I was gosh-dang-peossed. But now I have thought about who the potential players are in this trial, and the more I think about it, the eaiser it is for me to believe that it might not have taken much for Birotte to come to the conclusions that he did.

All of this points to the gigantic mess that leading a double-life can lead to. The fact that your lies become so large that you forever lose your credibility. Even when you're on the right side of the fence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This thread IS already about LA. So me having mentioned him well? What else was I supposed to do?

Polish is the one with the problem, I got your point - you can take up the other arguement with them.

WHO is Them and what is THEIR point?

their :
(used after an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine form his or the definite feminine form her ): Someone left their book on the table. Did everyone bring their lunch?

Even after USADA gets their hands on the evidence / info from the Fed's ...that does not mean they WILL bring a case against LA. Everyone will just have to wait and see.

Where did I ever say they would?

 

[Race Radio]

It is also possible the case was dismissed because the Fed thought it deserved to be tried as a civil fraud case vs a criminal one.

If the Feds have joined the Qui Tam case then it will be prosecuted by the civil division of the justice department. All evidence, outside of the Grand Jury, will be shared. The burden of proof in a civil case is also much lower.

If they have join the case Armstrong is far from the only target. In fact his exposure may be only 10% of the total.

 

[BotanyBay]

It is also possible the case was dismissed because the Fed thought it deserved to be tried as a civil fraud case vs a criminal one.

If the Feds have joined the Qui Tam case then it will be prosecuted by the civil division of the justice department. All evidence, outside of the Grand Jury, will be shared. The burden of proof in a civil case is also much lower.

If they have join the case Armstrong is far from the only target. In fact his exposure may be only 10% of the total.

Example: Everyone hates Barry Bonds. Not everyone hates Lance Armstrong. It's easier for a jury to take an A-hole's money than it is to send an A-hole to jail.

Heck, even I don't need to see Armstrong in jail. I just want his "Reality Distortion Field" to be exposed.

 

[ChrisE]

I think it is important to mention that we have a lot of people here who wholeheartedly think that Lance is to "guilty" as Kim K is to a "dirty little ****", but can still see that Birotte might have been able to kill this case without requiring any political pressure whatsoever.

I will admit, 2 weeks ago I was gosh-dang-peossed. But now I have thought about who the potential players are in this trial, and the more I think about it, the eaiser it is for me to believe that it might not have taken much for Birotte to come to the conclusions that he did.

All of this points to the gigantic mess that leading a double-life can lead to. The fact that your lies become so large that you forever lose your credibility. Even when you're on the right side of the fence.

I read your post upthread disecting the heroes in here and I wondered WTF was wrong with you.

Welcome to the reality based community BB. Don't worry, we've had our shots.

 

[BotanyBay]

I read your post upthread disecting the heroes in here and I wondered WTF was wrong with you.

Welcome to the reality based community BB. Don't worry, we've had our shots.

I like to be reality-based, but don't think for one second that I think Lance was railroaded or "witch-hunted". He brought all of this upon himself. And it is not over yet. He has gotten himself into quite a pickle.

 

[MarkvW]

Should be pretty easy to show the post where I made that declaration.

But since I never said that, I will go ahead and accept your apology.

I do apologize. But if the evidence wasn't overwhelming, then how can you criticize Birotte's decision not to seek an indictment? You didn't just criticize it. You called Birotte's decision an "injustice." You are still taking it on "blind faith" that he didn't have a good, honest reason for his decision.

 

[ChrisE]

I like to be reality-based, but don't think for one second that I think Lance was railroaded or "witch-hunted". He brought all of this upon himself. And it is not over yet. He has gotten himself into quite a pickle.

I never said it was a witch hunt. After a couple of years of work it was decided a conviction would be very difficult. C'est la vie.

It will be over. That is unfortunate....I was looking forward to FL using his qui tam winnings to pay back all those poor soles that contributed to FFF.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I do apologize. But if the evidence wasn't overwhelming, then how can you criticize Birotte's decision not to seek an indictment? You didn't just criticize it. You called Birotte's decision an "injustice." You are still taking it on "blind faith" that he didn't have a good, honest reason for his decision.

Hi Mark - just catching up, can you post a link to the evidence that you have about Birottes decision?
I am sure you did not just blindly come to that conclusion that Birotte did not have a "good honest reason". Thanks.

 

[Polish]

I do apologize. But if the evidence wasn't overwhelming, then how can you criticize Birotte's decision not to seek an indictment? You didn't just criticize it. You called Birotte's decision an "injustice." You are still taking it on "blind faith" that he didn't have a good, honest reason for his decision.

I guess that explains why ScottSoCal did not sign the "overwhelming evidence" petition.

Shame really. Might have been the vote to put them over the top.

 

[patricknd]

Birotte is a cheese-eating surrender monkey.

damn right!! and now armstrong and his groupies are eating freedom fries and gloating.

 

[patricknd]

I am not sure what is happening with either my browser or this site but I am unable to quote Dr. M's post and reply. Anyhow.......

Yes Dr. I understand that USADA has requested the evidence etc. also I understand from that SI article that there is a "PROBE" into LA and his doping.

My point being that .........just because we know these facts which have been reported through the "fish hacks" might not come to anything....?????

We all have been witness to what happened a few Friday's ago.

we'll know more on tuesday i bet

 

[patricknd]

This thread IS already about LA. So me having mentioned him well? What else was I supposed to do?

WHO is Them and what is THEIR point?

Even after USADA gets their hands on the evidence / info from the Fed's ...that does not mean they WILL bring a case against LA. Everyone will just have to wait and see.

the answers are coming on tuesday. lbm told me so

glad you're back glenn, how's things going?

 

[patricknd]

I think it is important to mention that we have a lot of people here who wholeheartedly think that Lance is to "guilty" as Kim K is to a "dirty little ****", but can still see that Birotte might have been able to kill this case without requiring any political pressure whatsoever.

I will admit, 2 weeks ago I was gosh-dang-peossed. But now I have thought about who the potential players are in this trial, and the more I think about it, the eaiser it is for me to believe that it might not have taken much for Birotte to come to the conclusions that he did.

All of this points to the gigantic mess that leading a double-life can lead to. The fact that your lies become so large that you forever lose your credibility. Even when you're on the right side of the fence.

boom, post of the day

 

[MarkvW]

I guess that explains why ScottSoCal did not sign the "overwhelming evidence" petition.

Shame really. Might have been the vote to put them over the top.

He's trapped in a logically untenable position. While the investigation was ongoing, the haters steadfastly (except for Velodude (who didn't make sense)) refused to address the legal sufficiency of the known evidence against Lance. They just relied on the fact of investigation that there must be viable evidence of a viable crime out there somewhere. Now, the investigation has blown up and they still want to make the same argument--without any factual support. Not only that, their argument can only be sustained if Mr. Birotte made a dishonest decision to drop the investigation. There isn't the slightest hint of that.

Two Options:

(1) Forget facts! Have FAITH that there is a strong case against Lance out there somewhere! BELIEVE in the eternal corruption of the Department of Justice. And TRUST that Lance shall be punished!

Or, (2) just realize that the feds took a good hard look at Armstrong/USPS and made an honest decision that the game wasn't worth the candle.

Honestly, which option is more likely?

 

[Polish]

He's trapped in a logically untenable position. While the investigation was ongoing, the haters steadfastly (except for Velodude (who didn't make sense)) refused to address the legal sufficiency of the known evidence against Lance. They just relied on the fact of investigation that there must be viable evidence of a viable crime out there somewhere. Now, the investigation has blown up and they still want to make the same argument--without any factual support. Not only that, their argument can only be sustained if Mr. Birotte made a dishonest decision to drop the investigation. There isn't the slightest hint of that.

Two Options:

(1) Forget facts! Have FAITH that there is a strong case against Lance out there somewhere! BELIEVE in the eternal corruption of the Department of Justice. And TRUST that Lance shall be punished!

Or, (2) just realize that the feds took a good hard look at Armstrong/USPS and made an honest decision that the game wasn't worth the candle.

Honestly, which option is more likely?

Good points, a question though...
What part did the "jury" play in the Grand Jury?
Just curious of your thoughts.

Maybe the jury was "hung"?
Maybe the jury decided not to indict?
Could the Feds go against the jury's decision?