What is Jeff Novitzky's Mandate?

[oldschoolnik]

To me, so much of the outcome of all this will depend on what is the impetus for Novitzky to make this another major case like Balco, Clemens, Bonds etc.? Is it based solely on volume or severity of crimes committed? Is is based on the size of the perceived fraud against sports fans everywhere, like with Bonds or Clemens in baseball - they broke laws but also made a mockery of hallowed sports records like Home run record, strikeouts etc... Or does just comes down to Jeff's boss walking into his office and saying "This is your next case".. [puts file on his desk]? I mean if the head of the USFDA is a LA fan couldn't he just say "Go after Agassi instead"

Edit: Here is info on Jeff's boss:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/changingthefaceofmedicine/physicians/biography_136.html


Here's a snip what Wiki says about FDA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration

USFDA:...responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), veterinary products, and cosmetics.
The FDA also enforces other laws, notably Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and associated regulations, many of which are not directly related to food or drugs. These include sanitation requirements on interstate travel and control of disease on products ranging from certain household pets to sperm donation for assisted reproduction.

 

[SpeedWay]

To write a best-seller book. Something he missed out on during the bay area LCO ordeal.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Excuse me if a link has been posted somewhere in the forums, but I cannot seem to find any official announcement or a confirmation by the FDA that Novitsky is indeed involved in an investigation regarding the Flandis comments.

Can someone post a link? There are a ton of online news sources that have the usual "according to sources", but no confirmation.

 

[Cerberus]

Excuse me if a link has been posted somewhere in the forums, but I cannot seem to find any official announcement or a confirmation by the FDA that Novitsky is indeed involved in an investigation regarding the Flandis comments.

Can someone post a link? There are a ton of online news sources that have the usual "according to sources", but no confirmation.

I don't think any real confirmation exists, though as you say several media has reported that through anonymous sources. I'm inclined to believe those reports because the way I read it several media has confirmed it rather than just reporting what other media report..

 

[oldschoolnik]

Excuse me if a link has been posted somewhere in the forums, but I cannot seem to find any official announcement or a confirmation by the FDA that Novitsky is indeed involved in an investigation regarding the Flandis comments.

Can someone post a link? There are a ton of online news sources that have the usual "according to sources", but no confirmation.

From the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html

 

[Cal_Joe]

From the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html

Thanks, I have seen that one but could not find official confirmation.

From the article - "...according to two people briefed on the investigation.... ...The two people briefed on the investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity....."

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Cal, what is it you are looking for? When confirmations come in to places like the NYT and WSJ, and their legal teams vett the info, and when it passes muster, the anonymity is in place to assure the flow of information keeps coming.

What this means is that those passing on the info are legit, and the info is legit.

It is happening. The Feds, and now I hear more than one agency, are involved. From all indications, there should be an official announcement coming this week.

The jig is up. Landis will be corroborated, and other more detailed info will assuredly be coming to Novistiky, and that will be all he needs to take to a Grand Jury.

Imagine if he had authorizations for wiretaps, SMS, email through the pre-confessions, during the opening of the scandal, and all through the aftermath.

The chatter going here and there would seem to be extremely valuable, and potentially further incriminating as to possible charges.

 

[oldschoolnik]

Colm,

You seem so sure this will take on a lifeof it's own and go further with the Feds leading the way.

What makes you think that? That was my initial question: After this initial investigation phase what will it take for the FDA to say "This will be one of our cases"?

As an analogy only a small percentage of fulll tax audits result in getting handed over to a DA for prosecution despite the fact that in many laws were broken.

Nik

 

[bobs nob]

Colm,

You seem so sure this will take on a lifeof it's own and go further with the Feds leading the way.

What makes you think that? That was my initial question: After this initial investigation phase what will it take for the FDA to say "This will be one of our cases"?

As an analogy only a small percentage of fulll tax audits result in getting handed over to a DA for prosecution despite the fact that in many laws were broken.

Nik

I think it's profile within the present culture is pretty important. It may not be the Bernie Madoff case in terms of money, but we take the legitimacy of our sports quite seriously. When someone says they are legit, then win 7 times, and it appears they led a conspiracy spanning several seasons, that really isn't a story that the general pubic has to commit each detail to memory to understand its importance. We get it on an intuitive level.

My guess could be way off. Whatever. But a case like this will certainly elevate its prosecutor and their department.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Cal, what is it you are looking for? When confirmations come in to places like the NYT and WSJ, and their legal teams vett the info, and when it passes muster, the anonymity is in place to assure the flow of information keeps coming.

What this means is that those passing on the info are legit, and the info is legit.

It is happening. The Feds, and now I hear more than one agency, are involved. From all indications, there should be an official announcement coming this week.

The jig is up. Landis will be corroborated, and other more detailed info will assuredly be coming to Novistiky, and that will be all he needs to take to a Grand Jury.

Imagine if he had authorizations for wiretaps, SMS, email through the pre-confessions, during the opening of the scandal, and all through the aftermath.

The chatter going here and there would seem to be extremely valuable, and potentially further incriminating as to possible charges.

Colm.Murphy - thanks for your input. As far as what I was looking for, I was chatting with an acquaintance involved in swimming circles who said she was under the impression that Novitsky has a full plate with other issues (yes, another unconfirmed piece of data).

Regarding your comment "What this means is that those passing on the info are legit", I am (from a previous life) quite familiar with legal and vetting re major reputable news organizations, and standard practice is to verify that the off the record "source" is most likely in a position to know.

Regarding the second portion of your comment "and the info is legit" (concerning Novitsky's involvement), well, without confirmation from multiple reputable (and not protected anonymous) sources, and a confirmation from any agencies supposedly involved, I do not share your viewpoint at this time.

Regarding your other comments starting with "It is happening...", I certainly hope that some type of cleansing will happen, but my major interest at this time is distilling the thousands of news items re Flandis 2.0 and chronicling the news coverage between the time it started and the time there is some type of "official" word on the part of the FDA or other US Federal agencies that may be involved.

As an aside, noticed your location - I live primarily in California and, work load permitting, like to spend summers in Wicklow. Always love the weather forecast - "clouds with showers and occasional sunny spots."

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Colm.Murphy - thanks for your input. As far as what I was looking for, I was chatting with an acquaintance involved in swimming circles who said she was under the impression that Novitsky has a full plate with other issues (yes, another unconfirmed piece of data).

Regarding your comment "What this means is that those passing on the info are legit", I am (from a previous life) quite familiar with legal and vetting re major reputable news organizations, and standard practice is to verify that the off the record "source" is most likely in a position to know.

Regarding the second portion of your comment "and the info is legit" (concerning Novitsky's involvement), well, without confirmation from multiple reputable (and not protected anonymous) sources, and a confirmation from any agencies supposedly involved, I do not share your viewpoint at this time.

Regarding your other comments starting with "It is happening...", I certainly hope that some type of cleansing will happen, but my major interest at this time is distilling the thousands of news items re Flandis 2.0 and chronicling the news coverage between the time it started and the time there is some type of "official" word on the part of the FDA or other US Federal agencies that may be involved.

As an aside, noticed your location - I live primarily in California and, work load permitting, like to spend summers in Wicklow. Always love the weather forecast - "clouds with showers and occasional sunny spots."

With also some time dealing with PR and the press in my paying line of work (GIS) for several activist groups, the off record corroboration of the so called facts do sometimes surprise. Often in what is being held back, sometimes by the media but also sometimes by the relevant parties.

As for the weather, yes, the color of a primer coated car has been the backdrop for the largest part of my life. So much rain, as if I'd been raised by a family of otters.

I am in California lately and, as per usual, the weather is splendid. Hard to pass up my chances to have an extended visit in the land of the beautiful people. Can even take out my bike, a sort of jalopy, with semi-slick mtb ties and drop bars, with gears suitable for nearly any terrain.

 

[BroDeal]

So here is a question.

Most of the crimes that happened during the Postal/Disco years have a five year statute of limitations. In a couple of months it will be five years since Armstrong's first retirement. After, and maybe a little before, Flandisgate broke, Armstrong was probably talking to people to make sure they would keep quiet. Would that attempt to keep people quiet be a continuation of the conspiracy?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

So here is a question.

Most of the crimes that happened during the Postal/Disco years have a five year statute of limitations. In a couple of months it will be five years since Armstrong's first retirement. After, and maybe a little before, Flandisgate broke, Armstrong was probably talking to people to make sure they would keep quiet. Would that attempt to keep people quiet be a continuation of the conspiracy?

Well, there is this pesky little thing called Equitable Tolling. Basis is that a statute of limitation can be lifted in the event several factors but as it relates to the Feds being upset that Fed funds bought a doping program, and 7(*) TdF victories, something tells me the SoL won't be an issue. If it rises to the level of RICO, even less so.

Interference with a witness before an indictment can be seen as obstruction. After an indictment it can be anything from witness tampering to intimidation.

 

[Cal_Joe]

So here is a question.

Most of the crimes that happened during the Postal/Disco years have a five year statute of limitations. In a couple of months it will be five years since Armstrong's first retirement. After, and maybe a little before, Flandisgate broke, Armstrong was probably talking to people to make sure they would keep quiet. Would that attempt to keep people quiet be a continuation of the conspiracy?

Well, keeping with the title of this thread (not sure if you posted in the right thread) which concerns "what is the impetus for Novitzky to make this another major case like Balco" I'll take a stab at answering your question via rephrasing the question -

Most of the (alleged) crimes that (may have) happened during the Postal/Disco years (may) have a five year statute of limitations. In a couple of months it will be five years since Armstrong's first retirement. After, and maybe a little before, Flandisgate broke, (if) Armstrong was ...talking to people to make sure they would keep quiet. Would that attempt to keep people quiet be a continuation of the conspiracy?

And my answer is... jeeze, I am not a lawyer, but your question seems to riddled with so many hypotheticals (stated or unstated) or assumptions that I am not sure anyone could answer your question at this point, unless the answer is "yes, Lance leaned on me to lie", which could be commonly construed as obstruction of justice/witness tampering in the US.

I'd like to revisit oldschoolnik's original post, which is concerned with direction from Novitsky's superiors. Who knows? As with your post BroDeal, there are pitiful few verifiable facts concerning investigations in the US (outside of cycling agencies) to even speculate.

Do not mistake this for a LA fanboy post. As I have stated, one of my interests in this is determining what was reported when, and if that reporting stands the test of time.

 

[MacRoadie]

Well, there is this pesky little thing called Equitable Tolling. Basis is that a statute of limitation can be lifted in the event several factors but as it relates to the Feds being upset that Fed funds bought a doping program, and 7(*) TdF victories, something tells me the SoL won't be an issue. If it rises to the level of RICO, even less so.

Interference with a witness before an indictment can be seen as obstruction. After an indictment it can be anything from witness tampering to intimidation.

I was just thinking along those lines myself.

If, subsequent to the original crime, attempts are made by the alleged tortfeasor to conceal evidence of responsibility, then there can be a very strong case for tolling the statute. It's actually a common equitable factor.

YMMV

 

[Oldman]

I was just thinking along those lines myself.

If, subsequent to the original crime, attempts are made by the alleged tortfeasor to conceal evidence of responsibility, then there can be a very strong case for tolling the statute. It's actually a common equitable factor.

YMMV

And the gateway to civil fraud suits. Armstrong's reputation and money will be spent fending off the pesky claims for endorsement income that had moral (clean livin') clauses and the like. If Novitsky has political currency in pursuing Armstrong he'll have more expenses but will probably endure a milder version of Clemens' embarrasment. After all; cycling isn't a real sport like baseball.

 

[python]

could a great educational thread if legal eagles continue contributing to this topic.

i for one never heard of the 5 year sol for armstrong.

 

[70kmph]

Regarding the Tour

"It's the largest annual sporting event in the world, it's just huge," said Rushton of the Tour de France.

"The race has a global TV audience of 950 million people and there are more than 1,000 journalists and media accredited people who follow it every day."

 

[Green Tea]

He also needs to question all the nutritional supplement companies to the effects these products have on cyclists & performance.