US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[patricknd]

No chance. Right now Fabani is writing thank-you letter to various "people" and making a submission to have ALL evidence sealed. The only intel USADA will get is from disgruntled ex-teammates.

Lance is being "nice" because it took a lot of pressure to shut this thing down. He dodged a bullet and he's not going to push his luck. He's obviously been instructed not to belittle the government. The cult can do that in the comments section of various news reports.

i think he'll definitely be on his best behaviour for a while. funny part is i think this is almost a hollow victory for him. don't you know that he would have loved to get the big dramatic not guilty moment in a big trial. another podium moment so to speak.

 

[The Plediadian]

The clinic still has the Lance witch hunt on, after 20 hours the hunters are back at it.
Deep breaths, scotch, a little bikram yoga and the Lance hate stamina, is back at feverish pace.
Thank goodness, y'all have a skinnny American bike racer to inflame upon.

 

[patricknd]

The clinic still has the Lance witch hunt on, after 20 hours the hunters are back at it.
Deep breaths, scotch, a little bikram yoga and the Lance hate stamina, is back at feverish pace.
Thank goodness, y'all have a skinnny American bike racer to inflame upon.

a skinny, 7 time tour winning American bike racer.

 

[HL2037]

Thank goodness, y'all have a skinnny American bike racer to inflame upon.

I curse the day americans began to interfere with cycling. They have perverted a beautiful thing.

 

[stephens]

a skinny, 7 time tour winning American bike racer.

a skinny, 7 time tour winning American bike racer, with good lawyers.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Such strong emotions about a skinny little bike racer. I am so sorry. Big Lance fan here, but when my football team, the niners lost two weeks ago, I said to myself , nice run, better luck next year. For me as a cycling fan, to see Lance burn, would have burned pro cycling, and made it look even more ludicrous.
A successful prosecution of Armstrong would have accomplished nada, nunca zip, except to rile up a bunch of folk to hate cycling.
Better to get out in the fresh air, and appreciate life. Hate, life is to short for.

Of course what you missed in Shawns post was that he was speaking as a fan of the sport - you are speaking as a fan of Armstrong.

Quite understandable that you have completely missed his point.

 

[patricknd]

a skinny, 7 time tour winning American bike racer, with good lawyers.

and that's the most important part

 

[Velodude]

The "recent USADA decision" is being broadly misinterpreted in my view. The AAA (American Arbitration Association) decision by a single arbitrator in the case of Eddy Hellebuyck, a marathoner who was first prosecuted by USADA in 2004 for violations occuring within 2 years of the date of the original prosecution, does not have any factual or legal applicability to anything that could apply to Armstrong as I see it. In Hellebuyck's case, he was formally sanctioned and given a 2 year ban on competition. After his case was pending and the sanction imposed, he gave an interview to a journalist in which he admitted to having used EPO more than two years before the time that he tested positive and for which he had been sanctioned. Based on his own admissions and confessions, USADA reopened his case and imposed additional sanctions and bans. Heelebuyck protested this additional penalty, and appealed. The AAA arbitrator sided with USADA and held that his original case, which had been timely prosecuted, could be amended to impose the additional penalty for the other violations that would also have been well-within the original statute of limitations in the original proceeding had they been known and discovered at that time. While the principal of delayed accrual for fraud is really what seems to have been applied in Hellebruyck's case, the actual basis for its applicaiton was that the original proceeding was timely commenced against him.

I have not listened to the Irish Radio interview, but I do not believe any formal "action" that has yet been "commenced" against Armstrong by USADA. And if that's so, we are now well more than 8 years out from the time when some have said Armstrong and USPS doped. If that's the case, then USADA can investigate all they want, but any prosecution or action against Armstrong, having not been commenced within 8 years from the time of the violations would be appear to be time-barred.

In other words, I disagree with the journalists who are attempting to put a spin on the legal interpretation of the applicable statute of limitations and the posssible exceptions to its appplication in this instance.

Now if what you're saying is that an "action" has already been commenced, and was considered "commenced" in 2010, such that it would be timely, i.e., going back to as far as 2002, then I would stand corrected. But I don't believe merely conducting a broad and unspecified investigation of doping in cycling, even if it happens to focus its attention on one cyclist in particular, actually constitutes the "commencement of an action" in the sense that is intended by the WADA Statute of Limitations language.

Suggest you read Article 368 of the UCI Anti Doping Rules - Statute of Limitations particularly the second paragraph which reads -

"Any request for investigation or for disciplinary action and any act of investigation [my emphasis] or disciplinary action in relation with the violation shall be considered as commencement of the action for the purpose of this article."

You would also have to ponder why USADA and WADA have within the last 24 hours issued media releases that in consequence of the Federal investigation being dropped they have determined to pursue Armstrong under Anti Doping Rules if they were limited to a commencement date in 2004 and not 2002.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Suggest you read Article 368 of the UCI Anti Doping Rules - Statute of Limitations particularly the second paragraph which reads -

"Any request for investigation or for disciplinary action and any act of investigation [my emphasis] or disciplinary action in relation with the violation shall be considered as commencement of the action for the purpose of this article."

You would also have to ponder why USADA and WADA have within the last 24 hours issued media releases that in consequence of the Federal investigation being dropped they have determined to pursue Armstrong under Anti Doping Rules if they were limited to a commencement date in 2004 and not 2002.

From ESPN in May 2010:

The World Anti-Doping Agency said in a statement Thursday that it would open an investigation into Landis' allegations.

"WADA is aware of the serious allegations made by Mr Landis. We are very interested in learning more about this matter and we will liaise with the United States Anti-Doping Agency [USADA] and any other authorities with appropriate jurisdiction to get to the heart of the issues raised. WADA looks forward to these further investigations and enquiries by those responsible."

 

[stephens]

You would also have to ponder why USADA and WADA have within the last 24 hours issued media releases that in consequence of the Federal investigation being dropped they have determined to pursue Armstrong under Anti Doping Rules if they were limited to a commencement date in 2004 and not 2002.

Did they mention Armstrong? I just saw the releases that said they are looking forward to seeing the grand jury info from the feds (which will be illegal for them to receive but it makes a nice soundbite) but missed any reference to targeting Armstrong specifically..

 

[Velodude]

Did they mention Armstrong? I just saw the releases that said they are looking forward to seeing the grand jury info from the feds (which will be illegal for them to receive but it makes a nice soundbite) but missed any reference to targeting Armstrong specifically..

So you think that WADA/USADA have in their sights other alleged prospective co-defendants of Armstrong being any other director and shareholder of Tailwind that holds a UCI license?

 

[MarkvW]

Did they mention Armstrong? I just saw the releases that said they are looking forward to seeing the grand jury info from the feds (which will be illegal for them to receive but it makes a nice soundbite) but missed any reference to targeting Armstrong specifically..

Not so sure the sharing between the feds and USADA is illegal. You should review the pertinent treaties before making such a global statement. It will also spare you from the attacks of unthinking critics.

Look at the CN article. It talks about treaties. Treaties are a big deal because they have their own clause in the US Constitution. That puts them way up there with the grand jury rules and the due process clause. Such things don't get overriden by GJ secrecy, they get balanced. But I'm just speculating.

Have a look and review the treaties and cases.

But sharing between WADA and the Fed Investigators bears more thought--not just a summary dismissal.

 

[The Plediadian]

Of course what you missed in Shawns post was that he was speaking as a fan of the sport - you are speaking as a fan of Armstrong.

Quite understandable that you have completely missed his point.

Hey, everyone has a right to an opinion. I like cycling. Great sport, tough sport, with blemishes.
I am more of the mindset like David Zabriskie that the Lance investigation is simply a drug investigation.
From the posts here I learned a lot more.
In my opinion, everything I have heard is pretty minor.
That is compared to other sports, and cycling.
Everything I have heard from Tyler, Hamilton, Landis, Floyd is pretty bush league, compared to other sports. The lawsuits involving TREK, puny amounts of money. Floyd having his tour stripped was very unfir. Hamiltons doping schedules and his excuse of the Chimera were outlandish.
Selling equipment, see it on ebay 24/7. Before Lance, during Lance and after Lance.
I am going to repeat this one more time. LeMond and Armstrong have popularized cycling in the American culture.
Its a beautiful thing to see people riding their bikes in the USA.
So yeah, I love Lance and Greg for getting people on bikes. Great to see.
By the way it would be nice to see Tony Martin, or Cadel win the tour. Contador is banished Monday.

 

[thehog]

Not so sure the sharing between the feds and USADA is illegal. You should review the pertinent treaties before making such a global statement. It will also spare you from the attacks of unthinking critics.

Look at the CN article. It talks about treaties. Treaties are a big deal because they have their own clause in the US Constitution. That puts them way up there with the grand jury rules and the due process clause. Such things don't get overriden by GJ secrecy, they get balanced. But I'm just speculating.

Have a look and review the treaties and cases.

But sharing between WADA and the Fed Investigators bears more thought--not just a summary dismissal.

How do the treaties pertain to other entities? For example could SCA, Sunday Times or LeMond request the information?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Hey, everyone has a right to an opinion. I like cycling. Great sport, tough sport, with blemishes.
I am more of the mindset like David Zabriskie that the Lance investigation is simply a drug investigation.
From the posts here I learned a lot more.
In my opinion, everything I have heard is pretty minor.
That is compared to other sports, and cycling.
Everything I have heard from Tyler, Hamilton, Landis, Floyd is pretty bush league, compared to other sports. The lawsuits involving TREK, puny amounts of money. Floyd having his tour stripped was very unfir. Hamiltons doping schedules and his excuse of the Chimera were outlandish.
Selling equipment, see it on ebay 24/7. Before Lance, during Lance and after Lance.
I am going to repeat this one more time. LeMond and Armstrong have popularized cycling in the American culture.
Its a beautiful thing to see people riding their bikes in the USA.
So yeah, I love Lance and Greg for getting people on bikes. Great to see.
By the way it would be nice to see Tony Martin, or Cadel win the tour. Contador is banished Monday.

??

 

[MarkvW]

How do the treaties pertain to other entities? For example could SCA, Sunday Times or LeMond request the information?

Answering that requires looking at the conventions mentioned in the article. I expect Mr. Pelkey will comment on that in the near future.

From what I've read in the CN article, though, I think we're only talking about anti-doping authorities.

 

[thehog]

Answering that requires looking at the conventions mentioned in the article. I expect Mr. Pelkey will comment on that in the near future.

From what I've read in the CN article, though, I think we're only talking about anti-doping authorities.

Thanks. Thought as much. Wouldn't think evidence collected could be used in civil action.

Interesting dynamics in this case.

My own thoughts is its done. But we shall see. It could be just beginning.

 

[Velodude]

How do the treaties pertain to other entities? For example could SCA, Sunday Times or LeMond request the information?

If the outcome of a USADA investigation and arbitration hearing was a non analytical positive against Armstrong that would be sufficient, at least for The Sunday Times, to litigate Armstrong for the recovery of the 2006 settlement and their all up costs for obtaining that judgment (settlement) by fraud.

 

[scribe]

How do the treaties pertain to other entities? For example could SCA, Sunday Times or LeMond request the information?

This is exactly why there are exclusions regarding the GJ discovery that doesn't result in an indictment.

Endless nonsense.

 

[Ferminal]

??

Surely the Tony Martin bit is more outrageous!

 

[doolols]

What is also interesting is that the investigation was halted without coming to its conclusion - i.e. there was other business still in hand. United States Attorney Andre Birotte Jr called a stop before Novitsky had finished.

Isn't this a bit strange? And the rumours that Novitsky et al only heard shortly before the announcement? That there wasn't a long, difficult meeting between all investigating parties, before they came to this conclusion?

Look a bit deeper. See who put forward Birotte's name to become attorney. See what she's interested in. Here's a clue: >> A. Clue <<

Oh, and did you happen to see the PR stuff just a couple of days ago?

>> Philanthropic LA <<

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is exactly why there are exclusions regarding the GJ discovery that doesn't result in an indictment.

Endless nonsense.

Some people expect access.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-head-expects-sharing-of-armstrong-evidence

 

[JRTinMA]

For those of you hoping this investigation at least exposed LA for the cheat he was you check out the comments sections of the major US papers. Its interesting to note that his raving fans and yellow bracelet crew are more resolute than ever that yesterdays finding proves he raced clean. The haters are still going on with the same confusing talking points that were used here in the clinic, while the majority of the comments think it was all a waste of time and money to pursue a bike racer for doping. That says loud and clear to me that the LA haters were never able to establish that this was not about doping and all about fraud and abuse. I seriously doubt the people who closed it down knew it was anything more than a guy who doped to win the tour.

 

[aphronesis]

For those of you hoping this investigation at least exposed LA for the cheat he was you check out the comments sections of the major US papers. Its interesting to note that his raving fans and yellow bracelet crew are more resolute than ever that yesterdays finding proves he raced clean. The haters are still going on with the same confusing talking points that were used here in the clinic, while the majority of the comments think it was all a waste of time and money to pursue a bike racer for doping. That says loud and clear to me that the LA haters were never able to establish that this was not about doping and all about fraud and abuse. I seriously doubt the people who closed it down knew it was anything more than a guy who doped to win the tour.

I recall asking all the stalwarts to define fraud in their own terms.

Anyway, it's Saturday night in the provinces.

 

[Merckx index]

Bonnie Ford discusses some issues (apologies if this has been posted before, don't have time to wade through the 20-30 pages that have been appeared since I last saw this thread):

Edit: Sorry, see that it has been posted. Oh, well, some people will jump in in the middle of this thread, it may be new to them. So I'll leave it here).

Sources, legal and otherwise, who were not directly connected to the investigation, said prosecutors were still actively producing new leads, and these sources had expected indictments this spring. Several witnesses who testified before the federal grand jury in Los Angeles or spoke to investigators said they were stunned by the news. Other sources close to the case said investigators had described their evidence against Armstrong as being the strongest of any of the government's doping-related cases. And another person who has not testified, and who spoke only on condition of anonymity, had scheduled a meeting with lead investigator Jeff Novitzky next week.

Ford seems to believe very strongly that this investigation was not terminated because of lack of evidence. It might have been because no matter how strong the evidence, Birotte thought the gov. couldn't win the case:

There is little doubt that if Armstrong had been indicted and gone to trial, federal authorities would have faced a years-long, extremely costly battle against a stacked legal team and a defendant who retains a devoted constituency despite years of persistent questions about his character.

But everyone would have known that even before the investigation began. Why begin it if you think no matter how strong the evidence is, you can't get convictions?

Also open is the question of whether a civil whistleblower case brought under the False Claims Act, also known as a qui tam suit, will go forward…Qui tam suits are brought by whistleblowers who allege that government funds have been misused, fraudulently obtained or stolen, but very few are won without the intervention and support of the U.S. Department of Justice.

I think Floyd better keep looking for a job.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...strong-federal-investigation-raises-questions

A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. A prosecutor can't convict a ham sandwich, though.

But the point is, the prosecutors couldn't indict a ham sandwich. Dog couldn't bite man. That's news.