What's the Status on Armstrong vs. FDA?

[Cobblestoned]

I wonder about that too. Isn't the Feds brief to investigate whether federal money was used to buy PEDs?

In which case, busting individual PED users might be ranked well below team management with direct access to team funds. Scary for any doping riders to be caught up in but if they used their own money for instance, they're not really the big target, and some would escape the repercussions altogether.

Landis claims they sold bikes for PEDs.
Is TREK a federal company ?

 

[dolophonic]

His point is that just because somebody is being investigated does not mean he/she actually committed a crime or will be charged or will be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". You seem to have missed a few steps in how this all works.

You are right but there is a much greater liklihood of someone being charged and potentially found guilty if they are under investigation No? Its not like they have come out and said he's in the clear. Maybe i missed that press release ?

 

[ChrisE]

That logic doesn't fit his view of the world.

He has been asked repeatedly what the crimes are (since he knows all this stuff), and he has yet to answer what they are. I suppose he is banking on the Bondsian Perjury method.

But that is obvious, isn't it? It has to be fraud, ie taking govt. sponsorship $ and using it to commit fraudulus acts thus insuring further sponsorship. I'm not sure how these contracts are set up. Or, using that $ to buy PEDs, which I think would be much harder to prove.

Either way, unless it is proven LA was an owner (which is debatable at this point) that solicited this sponsorship while knowing PED use was occuring I'm not sure what he would be charged with. It can't be run of the mill illegal drug use IMO based upon what we know at this time.

Is being mean to AC and GL a chargable offense?

 

[ChrisE]

You are right but there is a much greater liklihood of someone being charged and potentially found guilty if they are under investigation No? Its not like they have come out and said he's in the clear. Maybe i missed that press release ?

I was just clarifying to RR what the point was in SR's post...not that he couldn't do that himself but there seems to be a communication problem between those two. Since RR and I go way back I thought he may listen to me.



I agree with your post, though I am not sure what your point is. RR talks in absolutes....that is the issue SR is pointing out.

 

[scribe]

But that is obvious, isn't it? It has to be fraud, ie taking govt. sponsorship $ and using it to commit fraudulus acts thus insuring further sponsorship. I'm not sure how these contracts are set up. Or, using that $ to buy PEDs, which I think would be much harder to prove.

Either way, unless it is proven LA was an owner (which is debatable at this point) that solicited this sponsorship while knowing PED use was occuring I'm not sure what he would be charged with. It can't be run of the mill illegal drug use IMO based upon what we know at this time.

Is being mean to AC and GL a chargable offense?

Contractual fraud is also a civil matter. Which has been tried once already. Otherwise, to my knowledge, there are several layers of interests/ownership/stakes involving the Postal outfit. I doubt Uncle Sam wrote the checks directly to lance.kicks.euro.*** incorporated.

I suppose all this will shake out sooner or later, or stay buried in the GJ room.

 

[Race Radio]

His point is that just because somebody is being investigated does not mean he/she actually committed a crime or will be charged or will be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". You seem to have missed a few steps in how this all works.

Duh

But that has nothing to do with my question that he is trying to avoid answering.

Since the investigation started the talking points from Armstrong's media machine is that this is a waste of the tax payer money. The question is how big does the crime have to be for the investigation to go forward? Pretty simple question that for some reason the fanboys never answer.

Would it be easier if I asked how big the "Possible" crime should be be before the groupies are OK with investigating the myth? Or maybe it should be how large a crime is Armstrong allowed to get a free pass on before the Groupies are OK with investigating it?

 

[ChrisE]

Contractual fraud is also a civil matter. Which has been tried once already. Otherwise, to my knowledge, there are several layers of interests/ownership/stakes involving the Postal outfit. I doubt Uncle Sam wrote the checks directly to lance.kicks.euro.*** incorporated.

I suppose all this will shake out sooner or later, or stay buried in the GJ room.

SCA lawyers didn't do the digging the Feds are so I wouldn't compare the two. That never went to trial as well.

Agreed LA's name wasn't on the USPS checks of course, but if he was "running" the show formally and was formally an owner within Tailwind then that is the gist IMO. His status within Tailwind seems to me the basis on whether or not he is in trouble. There seems to be some mealy-mouth words from LA and others in the past on this subject, ie "the paperwork wasn't complete for him to take ownership" or BS such as that.

 

[ChrisE]

Duh

But that has nothing to do with my question that he is trying to avoid answering.

Since the investigation started the talking points from Armstrong's media machine is that this is a waste of the tax payer money. The question is how big does the crime have to be for the investigation to go forward? Pretty simple question that for some reason the fanboys never answer.

Would it be easier if I asked how big the "Possible" crime should be be before the groupies are OK with investigating the myth? Or maybe it should be how large a crime is Armstrong allowed to get a free pass on before the Groupies are OK with investigating it?

I agree with you here. Something is a crime or is not a crime, period. The govt. should not have a speadsheet where they input the nature of the crime and then it calculates whether it should be pursued. LA should not get a free pass of course. By that logic petty crime would never be punished because it was "too expensive".

But, as I say you talk in absolutes about how guilty so and so is, how so and so lied, what is gonna happen, etc. when in reality we don't know anything except how things are "supposed to work" and how the accused (our opinion of who the "accused is) is supposed to be treated in the process.

 

[Race Radio]

I agree with you here. Something is a crime or is not a crime, period. The govt. should not have a speadsheet where they input the nature of the crime and then it calculates whether it should be pursued. LA should not get a free pass of course. By that logic petty crime would never be punished because it was "too expensive".

But, as I say you talk in absolutes about how guilty so and so is, how so and so lied, what is gonna happen, etc. when in reality we don't know anything except how things are "supposed to work" and how the accused (our opinion of who the "accused is) is supposed to be treated in the process.

I would expect that we would agree.

My personal view has nothing to do with the question. It is a simple one that you were easily able to understand and answer.....wonder why others can't, or wish not to?

 

[Race Radio]

That logic doesn't fit his view of the world.

He has been asked repeatedly what the crimes are (since he knows all this stuff), and he has yet to answer what they are. I suppose he is banking on the Bondsian Perjury method.

? I, and others, have written many times what the possible charges could be. multiple articles have been written.

money laundering
tax evasion
wire fraud
transportation of control substances
trafficking of controlled substances
Racketeering
foreign corrupt practices act

And many more. So how about you Scribe. How large would Armstrong's crime have to be for you to be OK with investigating it?

It is a simple and valid question that has nothing to do with my "View of the world" but is a product of Armstrong's own media machine.

 

[ChrisE]

? I, and others, have written many times what the possible charges could be. multiple articles have been written.

money laundering
tax evasion
wire fraud
transportation of control substances
trafficking of controlled substances
Racketeering
foreign corrupt practices act

And many more. So how about you Scribe. How large would Armstrong's crime have to be for you to be OK with investigating it?

It is a simple and valid question that has nothing to do with my "View of the world" but is a product of Armstrong's own media machine.

Wow, that certainly expands on my definition of "fraud".

I would expect that we would agree

Alert your buddies.

My personal view has nothing to do with the question. It is a simple one that you were easily able to understand and answer.....wonder why others can't, or wish not to?

I'm not sure they choose not to understand this simple concept. In reality, I'm sure it is correct that decisions are made on whether to pursue a certain crime or not, depending on its severity or who it is, for a variety of reasons. Where that line in the sand is drawn for certain people varies though I tend to see things more black and white, and apparently you do as well.

 

[scribe]

? I, and others, have written many times what the possible charges could be. multiple articles have been written.

money laundering
tax evasion
wire fraud
transportation of control substances
trafficking of controlled substances
Racketeering
foreign corrupt practices act

And many more. So how about you Scribe. How large would Armstrong's crime have to be for you to be OK with investigating it?

It is a simple and valid question that has nothing to do with my "View of the world" but is a product of Armstrong's own media machine.

money laundering (is he connecting to the Corleones?)
tax evasion (this is common when the IRS gets to digging. It's usually minor and involves a settlement, unless the investigator has a hard on)
wire fraud (could be interesting with some evidence. But I think this just sounds good to say here)
transportation of control substances (within the US? Better have some evidence. Floyd seen'd it won't cut it)
trafficking of controlled substances
Racketeering (see wire fraud)
foreign corrupt practices act (see racketeering)

Maybe someone should sell this probable fiction to the producers of CSI?

 

[Race Radio]

money laundering (is he connecting to the Corleones?)
tax evasion (this is common when the IRS gets to digging. It's usually minor and involves a settlement, unless the investigator has a hard on)
wire fraud (could be interesting with some evidence. But I think this just sounds good to say here)
transportation of control substances (within the US? Better have some evidence. Floyd seen'd it won't cut it)
trafficking of controlled substances
Racketeering (see wire fraud)
foreign corrupt practices act (see racketeering)

Maybe someone should sell this probable fiction to the producers of CSI?

So again, how big would his crime have to be for the investigation to be OK?

If they avoided taxes and hid the source of $500,000 in income should they go forward? How about $1,000,000?
If Armstrong possessed, stored, and used controlled substances in the US should they ignore it?
etc, etc,

 

[scribe]

SCA lawyers didn't do the digging the Feds are so I wouldn't compare the two. That never went to trial as well.

Agreed LA's name wasn't on the USPS checks of course, but if he was "running" the show formally and was formally an owner within Tailwind then that is the gist IMO. His status within Tailwind seems to me the basis on whether or not he is in trouble. There seems to be some mealy-mouth words from LA and others in the past on this subject, ie "the paperwork wasn't complete for him to take ownership" or BS such as that.

USPS paid to have a moving billboard in the European market, which the got in spades. In spite of lots and lots of calls of dope in the press at the time, they continued this relationship. Lay down with ****, wake up with stink is the old saying. Unfortunately for Nowinsky, cycling controls never returned a doping positive during the US Postal days, and the relationship of the sponsor with the public was never endangered.

 

[scribe]

So again, how big would his crime have to be for the investigation to be OK?

If they avoided taxes and hid the source of $500,000 in income should they go forward? How about $1,000,000?
If Armstrong possessed, stored, and used controlled substances in the US should they ignore it?
etc, etc,

They have to prove it, which they are TRYING to do. If they can't, they always have perjury. Which of course, is curiously hidden from your list.

 

[Race Radio]

Where that line in the sand is drawn for certain people varies though I tend to see things more black and white, and apparently you do as well.

Great minds think alike.

As much as Sparty tried to spin it my question is not black and white. Note I asked "would his crime have to be". The word Would is not definitive, not a declaration of guilt, it is a question. In order to avoid answering Sparty pretends like I have already convicted Wonderboy. Of course with your superior intelligence you were easily able to give an reasoned and well thought out answer.

 

[Race Radio]

They have to prove it, which they are TRYING to do. If they can't, they always have perjury. Which of course, is curiously hidden from your list.

Notice, I do not claim that they have already proven it I am asking how large would the crime have to be?

Perjury is a good one.....as is witness tampering.

the list continues to grow.....but of course it is just a witch hunt, waste of taxpayers money, blah blah. Nothing to see here, move along folks

 

[Race Radio]

USPS paid to have a moving billboard in the European market, which the got in spades. In spite of lots and lots of calls of dope in the press at the time, they continued this relationship. Lay down with ****, wake up with stink is the old saying. Unfortunately for Nowinsky, cycling controls never returned a doping positive during the US Postal days, and the relationship of the sponsor with the public was never endangered.

The USPS whistle blower stuff is a different case.

 

[Oldman]

Notice, I do not claim that they have already proven it I am asking how large would the crime have to be?

Perjury is a good one.....as is witness tampering.

the list continues to grow.....but of course it is just a witch hunt, waste of taxpayers money, blah blah. Nothing to see here, move along folks

Perjury and witness tampering would be a latent result of this investigation and only relevant if Novitsky discovered it in a prior, related case. Unless he found that those issues in a prior Federal case he couldn't use it as a proscecutable excuse to pursue this case. Having said that his office surely is after much more.
Someone with GJ expertise could elaborate and correct if these assumptions are wrong.

 

[ChrisE]

Great minds think alike.

As much as Sparty tried to spin it my question is not black and white. Note I asked "would his crime have to be". The word Would is not definitive, not a declaration of guilt, it is a question. In order to avoid answering Sparty pretends like I have already convicted Wonderboy. Of course with your superior intelligence you were easily able to give an reasoned and well thought out answer.

Yes, but that doesn't explain why you and I don't agree all the time

 

[buckwheat]

money laundering (is he connecting to the Corleones?)
tax evasion (this is common when the IRS gets to digging. It's usually minor and involves a settlement, unless the investigator has a hard on)
wire fraud (could be interesting with some evidence. But I think this just sounds good to say here)
transportation of control substances (within the US? Better have some evidence. Floyd seen'd it won't cut it)
trafficking of controlled substances
Racketeering (see wire fraud)
foreign corrupt practices act (see racketeering)

Maybe someone should sell this probable fiction to the producers of CSI?

Hopefully you're not in any crime detection professions.

'He don't look like no murderer/rapist/swindler/bank robber/fraud/arsonist....'

In the face of Himalaya's of evidence, where do you come by your strong devotion?

 

[scribe]

Notice, I do not claim that they have already proven it I am asking how large would the crime have to be?

Perjury is a good one.....as is witness tampering.

the list continues to grow.....but of course it is just a witch hunt, waste of taxpayers money, blah blah. Nothing to see here, move along folks

If it pans out that they can't come up with anything substantial, then it was an obvious waste of tax payer dollars. If they try slinging **** against the wall and it doesn't stick in a the form of a conviction, that is an obvious waste of tax payer dollars.

If nothing sticks in the form of a crime, and it is anecdotally exposed, in the form of floydian admission, that the blue train doped, it is a waste of tax payer dollars. Much in the way that we don't need a prosecutor digging around in a GJ room to prove that Liberace was gay.

 

[scribe]

Hopefully you're not in any crime detection professions.

'He don't look like no murderer/rapist/swindler/bank robber/fraud/arsonist....'

In the face of Himalaya's of evidence, where do you come by your strong devotion?

Where do you see that I am claiming the blue train was clean? I know it is a terrible habit of the worst cynics to ascribe their fantasy to everything they read. But lets try to be a little fair here.

 

[scribe]

The USPS whistle blower stuff is a different case.

You aint gonna get one without the other.

 

[Race Radio]

If it pans out that they can't come up with anything substantial, then it was an obvious waste of tax payer dollars. If they try slinging **** against the wall and it doesn't stick in a the form of a conviction, that is an obvious waste of tax payer dollars.

If nothing sticks in the form of a crime, and it is anecdotally exposed, in the form of floydian admission, that the blue train doped, it is a waste of tax payer dollars. Much in the way that we don't need a prosecutor digging around in a GJ room to prove that Liberace was gay.

We are all aware of the talking points as to why it should be ignored, I am asking how big would it have to be for it not to be ignored? We understand that you think Armstrong et al should give a free pass......the question is how large a free pass? Where is the line?