US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[DirtyWorks]

I think this post speaks to two of the problems involving this investigation (or any, really) :

1) Just because some say a story of illegality is true doesn't mean it's true - especially if it's contradicted by others. Everything else being equal, those claiming illegal activity need to prove it, not vice-versa.

2) Seeing Lance or anyone else dope isn't illegal. Doping itself wasn't illegal. Saying you were "more or less forced" to join a program doesn't speak to illegal activity.

It was going to be a very difficult case to prove from the outset, and in my opinion the claims about a range of potential charges made it all the more difficult.

You and others are acting as if the PED's just appeared magically. Acquisition, possession and distribution of controlled substances is a big deal in the U.S. for a reason. And this happened over a period of years. What about the intent to profit from an array of drug-relate crimes? Maybe someone with more legal background can enlighten me?

What are the legal impacts of being required to break many laws as a term of a service contract? I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there's nothing to prosecute, but it seems to me The Law would have lots to say about an agreement whose actual purpose is to break laws.

 

[Race Radio]

Here in the Clinic, we don't know who made the statements that induced USPS to sign the contract. Those statements, and the knowledge that accompany them are vital to the proof of fraud. You say "clear evidence" of fraud on USPS exists, but you have always only spoken in vague generalities.

When pressed upon it earlier, the only fact you could cite in support of the fact that Lance would be charged was the existence of the GJ Investigation. Now that fact has evaporated. Support for your "clear evidence" statement has evaporated with it. You can't demonstrate "clear evidence" of fraud on USPS. Nobody can. If someone with your knowledge of the case had to draft a bill of indictment now, the end product would be laughable. So why keep on with the "clear evidence" arguments?

It is clear that USPS was concerned about doping. Despite assurances from team management that the team was clean USPS inserted into the 2000 agreement

The four-year renewal struck that year included a "morals turpitude and drug clause," specifically citing "failure to pass drug or medical tests" and "inappropriate drug conduct prejudicial to the team" as causes to suspend or fire riders.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=6019436

My incorrect confidence that the GJ investigation would result in charges had little to do with the GJ but with the statements of witness and the public harassment of those witnesses. It does appear that many within the investigation shared that opinion.

 

[DirtyWorks]

No rider can be "dismissed" because the team has long since been terminated. "Appropriate" is really vague. I know you feel strongly about it, but I view it as just another spots doping case in which there is still the possibility of the loss of titles and perhaps fines. I think the criminal charges will never again emerge.

More broad claims. What expertise do you have to make these claims?

Have you read the USPS contract? Have you ever heard of contract clauses that outlive the term of the contract? They exist and are enforceable.

Nearly all of us are working in the dark and yet we are to believe very specific information being posted as fact about why the case was closed?

I can see discussing factors as likelihoods, but this post and others like it come to conclusions very rapidly. That should be a clue that the information isn't reliable.

I don't think the recent donation has anything to do with the case. Tangentially like the wings of a butterfly affecting weather patterns, but that's about it.

 

[Race Radio]

Actually this is so far from the truth of what happened. This decision to close the investigation is almost 9 months old. Back then a few fought and actually got their way to continue. The media continues to skew the truth or at least timing...

You are clearly in the know. Good friends with George, discuss contracts with Lance. You have your finger on the pulse.

Could you tell us why if the investigation was dead 9 months ago why did Armstrong hop on his plane, fly to Aspen, to confront Tyler in a restaurant? Why did he claim

his legal team would "(expletive) destroy you," "tear you apart on the witness stand," and "make your life a living (expletive) hell."

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8...leged-Armstrong-aggression.aspx#ixzz1lo9jqX28

If this was never going to trial, always going to be dismissed, what witness stand is Armstrong refering to?

 

[BillytheKid]

More broad claims. What expertise do you have to make these claims?

Have you read the USPS contract? Have you ever heard of contract clauses that outlive the term of the contract? They exist and are enforceable.

Nearly all of us are working in the dark and yet we are to believe very specific information being posted as fact about why the case was closed?

I can see discussing factors as likelihoods, but this post and others like it come to conclusions very rapidly. That should be a clue that the information isn't reliable.

I don't think the recent donation has anything to do with the case. Tangentially like the wings of a butterfly affecting weather patterns, but that's about it.

That came from Larry's post. Ask him if it's not correct. You can march on, but I think the criminal case is done. Refer to The Hog's last post.

 

[KingsMountain]

It is clear that USPS was concerned about doping. Despite assurances from team management that the team was clean USPS inserted into the 2000 agreement:

The four-year renewal struck that year included a "morals turpitude and drug clause," specifically citing "failure to pass drug or medical tests" and "inappropriate drug conduct prejudicial to the team" as causes to suspend or fire riders.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=6019436
.....

That espn quote is accurate, but it is far better to read the contract itself. I can't figure out how to link it, but a Google search on "espn in_contract2001" returns the link.
Anyway there was no "failure to pass a drug or medical test", nor was there was any conduct "prejudicial to the team". The team carried a suberb reputation during the contract.
Please try read the contract to see what it says, rather than what we want it to say. You'll see that that there is no requirement to not dope. The "morals turpitude and drug clause" is a necessary feature of the contract with each rider, and it would allow but not require Tailwind to suspend or fire.

 

[MacRoadie]

...or put another way, the anti-Lance narrative has become so broad that the unsubstantiated parts of it are under-cutting the parts that are valid...leaving the casual observer with the very real option of dismissing it all...which would be a shame...

+1

This is how the rhetoric in the clinic reached the level that it did. The wild speculation and hyperbole drown out the salient points that, while less salacious or mysterious, are quite capable of standing on their own merit.

The guys who, given another 6 months of grand jury intrigue, would have devolved the claims to the point where Armstrong eats babies for breakfast, don't seem to appreciate that they actually become parodies (if not mirrors) of their counterparts in the "pro-Lance' camp.

 

[Race Radio]

That espn quote is accurate, but it is far better to read the contract itself. I can't figure out how to link it, but a Google search on "espn in_contract2001" returns the link.
Anyway there was no "failure to pass a drug or medical test", nor was there was any conduct "prejudicial to the team". The team carried a suberb reputation during the contract.
Please try read the contract to see what it says, rather than what we want it to say. You'll see that that there is no requirement to not dope. The "morals turpitude and drug clause" is a necessary feature of the contract with each rider, and it would allow but not require Tailwind to suspend or fire.

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

USPS put these clauses into the agreement to insure they are not damaged. It does not matter if that damage comes during the contract term or after

 

[Race Radio]

That came from Larry's post. Ask him if it's not correct. You can march on, but I think the criminal case is done. Refer to The Hog's last post.

I agree, the criminal case is done.

Have to wonder how this effect the other investigations (Ferrari, Transfusions, etc.)? By most accounts the Euros were waiting on the Feds before filing their charges. Would expect that the dismissal seriously damaged, or even killed, those cases.

 

[thehog]

That came from Larry's post. Ask him if it's not correct. You can march on, but I think the criminal case is done. Refer to The Hog's last post.

I think the brand rebuilding begins now.

From the Washington Post yesterday. There are already questions over the media reporting of the case:
-
The fact that journalists got it wrong was cold comfort to Armstrong’s camp, which complained for many months about what it saw as one-sided treatment by the news media.

“I think what one sees over and over again is the phenomenon of the story that is too good not to be true,” said Robert Luskin, one of Armstrong’s attorneys. “The [accusations] are so juicy that reporters become unwilling to exercise independent judgment. They become seduced by their sources and take too much at face value. No one stops and says, ‘That doesn’t sound right to me.’ ”

 

[DirtyWorks]

That came from Larry's post. Ask him if it's not correct. You can march on, but I think the criminal case is done. Refer to The Hog's last post.

Now I'm getting mad. "Marching on" is missing my point.

The reasons some have used (Goober) to explain the end of the case are specific and totally unverifiable.

All we know is, some guy used his privilege to shut down the investigation. We don't know the specifics with any confidence at all and yet some of these outrageous claims are being taken as fact.

 

[Cloxxki]

"The lies" only matter if they were made under oath in an issue material to the case. Otherwise, telling a lie is not illegal.

There are some people who testified under oeth earlier. Like the Oakley lady. Double or nothing, perjure yourself twice and do time, or get immunity and second time of asking, offer the absolute truth.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That espn quote is accurate, but it is far better to read the contract itself. I can't figure out how to link it, but a Google search on "espn in_contract2001" returns the link.
Anyway there was no "failure to pass a drug or medical test", nor was there was any conduct "prejudicial to the team". The team carried a suberb reputation during the contract.
Please try read the contract to see what it says, rather than what we want it to say. You'll see that that there is no requirement to not dope. The "morals turpitude and drug clause" is a necessary feature of the contract with each rider, and it would allow but not require Tailwind to suspend or fire.

Here you are - http://assets.espn.go.com/i/mag/blog/2011/thefile/armstrong/in_contract2001.pdf

Here is part of the contract:

8 Default; Remedies; Changed Circumstance.

(a) The following events shall constitute an event of default ("Event of Default") under this agreement regardless of whether any such event shall be voluntary or involuntary or shall result from the operation of applicable laws, rules or regulations or shall be pursuant to or in compliance with any judgement, decree or order of any court of competent jurisdiction:
............

(v) There is negative publicity associated with an individual rider or team support personnel, either permanent or temporary, due to misconduct such as but not limited to, failed drug or medical tests, alleged possession, use or sale of banned substances, or a conviction of a crime.

 

[BotanyBay]

Prediction:

Lance Armstrong: Future contestant on "Dancing With The Stars".

I'd bet money on it.

 

[BotanyBay]

...I guess I didn't have the whole story...as in the political affliations you mentioned...the name that had been brought up, along with Birotte. was Boxer who while a Dem in name has never struck me as a Dem in spirit

Correct. She's what the the movie "Slap Shot" would call "Old-school hockey, coach!"

 

[KingsMountain]

Dr. M,
Thanks for posting the link. You quoted part of the contract without comment, so I'm not sure what your point may have been, but in case you think that quoted clause implies a requirement to not dope, I'll point out that it actually requires no negative publicity.

RR,
Acts of doping (and other stuff) are only prejudicial to the team if negative publicity results. And negative publicity 5 years after expiration of the contract doesn't count.

We may not like it but the USPS contract was written to cover their reputation or investment if something untoward happened. They wanted Tailwind to be in a position to scapegoat riders, and they want to be able to recover damages if their reputation suffered. But nothing happened during or even near to the term of the contract.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I'm sorry you got tired or bored

+1

This is how the rhetoric in the clinic reached the level that it did. The wild speculation and hyperbole drown out the salient points that, while less salacious or mysterious, are quite capable of standing on their own merit.

The guys who, given another 6 months of grand jury intrigue, would have devolved the claims to the point where Armstrong eats babies for breakfast, don't seem to appreciate that they actually become parodies (if not mirrors) of their counterparts in the "pro-Lance' camp.

Actually the salacious parts were true and the least problematic for Armstrong legally, but had they been widely disseminated would have destroyed him. People (not me) care about hookers and blow and there would have been sanctimonious outrage about it. The legal dissection of the actual case on its merits is idiotic....

The hyperbole of falsely equating the fanboys and the haters is something the fanboys have made a virtue. I'm surprised you fell for it.

 

[Polish]

Have a couple of questions I would like to throw out there regarding the ongoing USADA Lance Investigation...

First, what kind of evidence/info does the USADA expect from the Feds that they do not know about already? I realize we have to guess. Unknown stuff.

Second, the USADA is a non-profit .org, but it recives the majority of its funding from Government grants or from agencies that recieve US Goverment funding. In essence, taxpayer money is funding the USADA.
So here is my question - if I feel the USADA is wasting Fed Funds investigating HWMNBN, could I launch a "Whistle-Blower" suit against the USADA? I would not want to profit personally - just have the USADA buy a few million Livestrong bracelets. Would I could I have a case?

 

[Velodude]

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.

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?

Have a big doping scandal and the sponsor's brand is damaged. Phonak and Festina left the sport tails between legs.

Having an odor of being highly suspected of team doping is just as injurious to a sponsor's brand.

Armstrong had such an unparalleled concentration of media attention as his miracle comeback performances were not plausible, through throwing out his arrogant challenges to provide proof, French investigation into USPS covert dumping of medical waste, exposure and attempted cover up of secret association with Ferrari, the assisted UCI cover up of the 1999 corticoid positive, etc.

All pre the new 2002-2004 contract with USPS. USPS inserted a new clause in that contract to restrain the team from entering into doping practices.

The catch-all condition was sub-clause 4:

(4) inappropriate drug conduct prejudicial to the Team, or the Postal Service, which is in violation of the Team rules or commonly accepted standards of morality;

It is worthy of note that the media reported that amongst all the identified investigators upset with the decision of the US Attorney was USPS investigators.

 

[Mambo95]

The US Postal Service is a company famous for having employees going on killing sprees with automatic weapons. I'm not sure doping is going hurt their brand much.

 

[MacRoadie]

Actually the salacious parts were true and the least problematic for Armstrong legally, but had they been widely disseminated would have destroyed him. People (not me) care about hookers and blow and there would have been sanctimonious outrage about it. The legal dissection of the actual case on its merits is idiotic....

The hyperbole of falsely equating the fanboys and the haters is something the fanboys have made a virtue. I'm surprised you fell for it.

I've been here a long time, and actually have a personal interest in the outcome as I have friends directly affected by the whole sordid mess. I had an interest in the outcome (and a desire to see justice served where proven) even before this forum was created.

I haven't "fallen" for anything, but thanks for wandering in at the eleventh hour to set us all straight.

My post is directed at all the idiotic prognostication, "guarantees", deadlines, "insider scoops", and so-called personal knowledge that a select few individuals have polluted the forum with as this matter has progressed over the last two years. Rabid speculation rather than patience in a vacuum of concrete data flows from both sides.

The one-upmanship and desire to prove the "fanboys' wrong at all costs has allowed what started as a measured analysis of what COULD happen to Armstrong under various intelligent scenarios, to devolve into utter buffoonery and wild speculation passed off as fact. That served no purpose other than to undermine any rationality and credibility of more measured and conservative opinions on the possible (rather than likely) outcome.

Hell, you can't even mention the word "Tuesday" without eliciting a round of guffaws (that is if you can even use it with a straight face).

Yes, the "haters" and "fanboys", especially those on the fanatic extremes, have become barely distinguishable. That's not my fault, both sides can blame themselves. I see equally stupid comments, insults, and reliance on absolutes fabricated from whole cloth emanating from both sides.

To suggest that the rational and intellectual high ground (setting aside right and wrong, correct or incorrect) is the providence of one side or the other, especially at this point in time, is utterly ignorant.

 

[Velodude]

Have a couple of questions I would like to throw out there regarding the ongoing USADA Lance Investigation...

First, what kind of evidence/info does the USADA expect from the Feds that they do not know about already? I realize we have to guess. Unknown stuff.

Second, the USADA is a non-profit .org, but it recives the majority of its funding from Government grants or from agencies that recieve US Goverment funding. In essence, taxpayer money is funding the USADA.
So here is my question - if I feel the USADA is wasting Fed Funds investigating HWMNBN, could I launch a "Whistle-Blower" suit against the USADA? I would not want to profit personally - just have the USADA buy a few million Livestrong bracelets. Would I could I have a case?

Polish:

You have to trawl through all the US obligations it agreed to:

UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport

Being a signatory to the Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport

The International Intergovernmental Consultative Group on Anti-Doping in Sport

If USADA's funding was cut by Congress the USA would not be able to comply with the mandatory WADA code, to which it is a signatory, as the identified National Anti Doping Organization (NADO).

Would the protection of Lance Armstrong be worth the international stigma of being seen to support dopers with the risk of US athletes being marginalized?

 

[Polish]

Have a big doping scandal and the sponsor's brand is damaged. Phonak and Festina left the sport tails between legs.

Having an odor of being highly suspected of team doping is just as injurious to a sponsor's brand.

Armstrong had such an unparalleled concentration of media attention as his miracle comeback performances were not plausible, through throwing out his arrogant challenges to provide proof, French investigation into USPS covert dumping of medical waste, exposure and attempted cover up of secret association with Ferrari, the assisted UCI cover up of the 1999 corticoid positive, etc.

All pre the new 2002-2004 contract with USPS. USPS inserted a new clause in that contract to restrain the team from entering into doping practices.

The catch-all condition was sub-clause 4:
.

You have made these points time and time again. But I am going to go out on a limb and predict that charges will not materialize due to lack of evidence.
You can quote me on that. Hold me to it.

I will even go as far as predicting the day of the week.
Drumroll.
Last Friday.

 

[KingsMountain]

All pre the new 2002-2004 contract with USPS. USPS inserted a new clause in that contract to restrain the team from entering into doping practices.

That would seem to imply thatthis contract of Jan 1 , 2001 was superseded. Do you have a link to the newer contact? Or if not, can you quote the full sentence that says what (4) is referring to?

 

[MarkvW]

You have made these points time and time again. But I am going to go out on a limb and predict that charges will not materialize due to lack of evidence.
You can quote me on that. Hold me to it.

I will even go as far as predicting the day of the week.
Drumroll.
Last Friday.

The "final" drumroll, per the Attorney General of the United States, by and through his deputy. That's a bigger drumroll. Resounding and deafening. The song is over . . . the song is over . . . There once was a note, pure and easy, playing so free like a breath rippling by . . . .