Why Lance will dodge this bullet.

[Publicus]

indeed, they gave evidence. Remind me which part of that "evidence" is admissable today?

If Hincapie choses to speak and supports the allegations that have been made, that will be he-said evidence. Kik can not be compelled to testify and most likely would not do so willingly, if indeed she had any negative information.


You sure bring a nice, civil and educated tone to the discussion, buckwheat. You must be a real charmer at office parties.

Short answer is it is very much admissible. I'm going to bore you with the details, but basically anyone who has made public statements can be questioned about them.

Rule 613. Prior Statements of Witnesses

(a) Examining witness concerning prior statement.

In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.

 

[flicker]

You can't blame the desire to destroy that which they do not trust. What gets rebuilt MIGHT just end up looking the same, though.

Yeah true. Reminds me of when a new leader comes up in Africa or Argentina or Phillipines.

 

[flicker]

He has GOT to be kicking himself for not spreading more of the largesse his way. I need my money to yield that kind of return!!

My 9 year old baseball all-star/baller/cyclist already knows that Lance=Lies Fraud and Deceit and that he needs to be careful of any of his other icons in sport. Once they get built up to that iconic status in a kid's eyes, they've nowhere to go but down.

Floyd lost his father-in-law, his wife, his daughter, his hip, his dignity, whatever wealth he had. And Lance was too in love with his own reflection in the mirror to see what risk he had left himself exposed to.

Why the hell did he try and come back again?

Like I have said in this forum time and time again Lance/Armstrong Psycopath/Sociopath. Forgive that boy he knows not what he has done. I am serious.

 

[VeloCity]

indeed, they gave evidence. Remind me which part of that "evidence" is admissable today?

If Hincapie choses to speak and supports the allegations that have been made, that will be he-said evidence. Kik can not be compelled to testify and most likely would not do so willingly, if indeed she had any negative information.


You sure bring a nice, civil and educated tone to the discussion, buckwheat. You must be a real charmer at office parties.

Get enough people telling the same story and it's no longer he-said/she-said.

 

[thehog]

Like I have said in this forum time and time again Lance/Armstrong Psycopath/Sociopath. Forgive that boy he knows not what he has done. I am serious.

I agree. Although today's tweet was a dig at Basso and blood doping. Climbing one minute faster than 2006. What was that all about?

 

[MarkGreen0]

I agree. Although today's tweet was a dig at Basso and blood doping. Climbing one minute faster than 2006. What was that all about?

Hypocrisy.

 

[goober]

I agree. Although today's tweet was a dig at Basso and blood doping. Climbing one minute faster than 2006. What was that all about?

Your opinion. Lance is good friends with Ivan...

 

[eleven]

Short answer is it is very much admissible. I'm going to bore you with the details, but basically anyone who has made public statements can be questioned about them.

That doesn't make their prior statements admissable, it makes future statements admissable.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Your opinion. Lance is good friends with Ivan...

I wouldn't say "friends". Lance doesn't really have any. Only people who want something from him, and people from whom he wants something. And there cannot be one without the other.

In the 2004 tour Ivan wanted a shoulder to cry on about his mum having cancer. Lance wanted CSC to work together with postal to stop Ullrich, in return from a Podium place for Basso. Lance then nailed Ivan's sister.

Lance then wanted Basso on the disco squad....either as his successor, or perhaps buying up the only guy who could beat him as a super domestique. Then the retirement / voluntary suspension.

 

[flicker]

I wouldn't say "friends". Lance doesn't really have any. Only people who want something from him, and people from whom he wants something. And there cannot be one without the other.

In the 2005 tour Ivan wanted a shoulder to cry on about his mum having cancer. Lance wanted CSC to work together with postal to stop Ullrich, in return from a Podium place for Basso. Lance then nailed Ivan's sister.

Lance then wanted Basso on the disco squad....either as his successor, or perhaps buying up the only guy who could beat him as a super domestique. Then the retirement / voluntary suspension.

Ivans' sister...hmm....nice!

 

[thehog]

Your opinion. Lance is good friends with Ivan...

You missed my point. Yes he's good friends but he's trying to send out a point that there's no difference in form from the doping days compared to now. Lance trying to justify what he did. Don't use Basso for that - they're meant to be friends.

He did the same with Aldi Sassi the other day. I mean come on. Armstrong works with Ferrari and starts tweeting that Basso's great ride on the Zonc was because of Sassi. Armstrong is trying to associate himself with the clean riders but it’s not working.

Read over the tweets now and his page looks weak. He's not sure what to say anymore.

Any more on those earth shattering emails that Radioshack released?

 

[Publicus]

That doesn't make their prior statements admissable, it makes future statements admissable.

Yes. It. Does.

Rule 613. Prior Statements of Witnesses

(a) Examining witness concerning prior statement.

In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.

 

[goober]

You missed my point. Yes he's good friends but he's trying to send out a point that there's no difference in form from the doping days compared to now. Lance trying to justify what he did. Don't use Basso for that - they're meant to be friends.

He did the same with Aldi Sassi the other day. I mean come on. Armstrong works with Ferrari and starts tweeting that Basso's great ride on the Zonc was because of Sassi. Armstrong is trying to associate himself with the clean riders but it’s not working.

Read over the tweets now and his page looks weak. He's not sure what to say anymore.

Any more on those earth shattering emails that Radioshack released?

No I got your point; but, it is still your opinion .

 

[thehog]

No I got your point; but, it is still your opinion .

I like my credibility. Its my word against yours. I like my word

 

[Tubeless]

Probably the most impressive thing that makes Lance 'bullet-proof' is the LAF. How much money has it raised to date? Something like 250mil for the purpose of charity.

You gotta think this will place a significant amount of pressure on this investigation. Nowitsky had better have a smoldering gun, a body, motive, and maybe a real witness to boot.

The charity gave Lance cover from rumors, but not from the law. I'd be surprised if anyone dares to bring this charity issue up publicly as a reason not to pursue the case. While politicians are sensitive to this sort of thing, the career federal employees don't care.

There are many fallen heros in the US who were big donors to charities or their own communities, or were even helping federal agencies to root out cheats while doing it themselves (Madoff & SEC). Others were active in religion, churches etc. This sort of activity tends to raise the bar for the initial suspicions, and makes authorities not to want to believe until solid evidence comes up. But once a formal investigation has been authorized, it does not matter no more.

LAF was a clever move by Lance to

(a) get his past and present indiscretions a cover of "doing good"
(b) keep up the perfect story of "from cancer survivor to bike champion"
(b) combine business and charity for the sake of...business

There was a lot of speculation a while ago that Lance was preparing a run for the US congress. He speaks and acts like a politician. Probably no more.

 

[MarkGreen0]

LAF was a clever move by Lance to

(a) get his past and present indiscretions a cover of "doing good"
(b) keep up the perfect story of "from cancer survivor to bike champion"
(b) combine business and charity for the sake of...business

How do you know that? It takes a lot of drive and energy to run an organisation like that, and Armstrong has done a lot of campaigning and lobbying for it. He has met thousands of cancer suvivors. I think he will be doing Livestrong long after he retires.

What's interesting is why people need to believe that it's all a con to distact from doping. What if it isn't? Would that make a difference to you?

 

[scribe]

Ivans' sister...hmm....nice!

I'm gonna need to see pictures!

 

[Boeing]

The problem with Lance is he swims with bigger fish. The press are now on to the scent and will have more motivation. See link:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/full

Courtesy RaceRadio, thanks again.

this sphere of influence runs deep and might just be an impenetrable network. How far down the bureaucratic ladder in this boys club will the new investigation get before it becomes insignificant again?

What a tremendous piece of reporting that is by Matt Smith. Wow I hope we dont find Matt in a hotel room. sorry I missed that till now
-----------------------------------------------------
"Given the financial and organizational links among Weisel-related entities, it seems reasonable to assume the financier might be irked if USA Cycling officials in his employ did anything to acknowledge drug allegations against Armstrong"

"Why would that be a conflict of interest? Explain it to me," Johnson said.

"Sure. The USA Cycling Development Foundation is a nonprofit entity set up by Weisel and dedicated to raising money for USA Cycling. The foundation provides around a quarter of USA Cycling's $4 million annual budget, according to the group's IRS filings from 2003, 2002, and 2001. The nonprofit employs Johnson as executive director, the filings say."
------------------------------------------------
Throw in the (big name bike company) and the pharmaceutical lobby supported by Live St....

I want to jump all over the Carmichael Training comments in this report but that is for another thread later I hope...

 

[MarkGreen0]

this sphere of influence runs deep and might just be an impenetrable network. How for down the bureaucratic ladder in this boys club will the new investigation get before it becomes insignificant again?

I think it's the other way around. In America investigators have to validate their existence by going on long witch hunts against rich and famous people. This means they end up getting into areas they really have no business getting into, and they always have to indite someone to prove it was money well spent. It's a terrible system.

 

[scribe]

I'm gonna need to see pictures!

found one! Did LA bag her??? She sort of resembles LA's women/mom...lol what a yummy top on her!

 

[Tubeless]

How do you know that? It takes a lot of drive and energy to run an organisation like that, and Armstrong has done a lot of campaigning and lobbying for it. He has met thousands of cancer suvivors. I think he will be doing Livestrong long after he retires.

What's interesting is why people need to believe that it's all a con to distact from doping. What if it isn't? Would that make a difference to you?

Look at the context of the point. No one is questioning that it's good to do good. It's just that sometimes people who've done something bad do good things to distract attention from their indiscretions. His cancer charity work is not on trial, and just about everyone would hope it continues.

If Lance was not personally making any money from appearance fees, sponsorships, racing his bike, and was in fact donating his time and substantial percentage of his own fortune to charity - he would be in a much more defensible position from such criticism. But, alas, it's a combination and the very reason why many doubt he made his comeback solely to focus on his fight on cancer.

 

[MarkGreen0]

Look at the context of the point. No one is questioning that it's good to do good..

I did not suggest that you should recognise that it's good to do good. I asked you if it would make a difference if your assertions about it being done to cover up bad stuff were actually false. What if this was actually something Armstrong is sincere about? A lot of people seem to need to think the Livestrong thing is a fraud so they can put the whole Armstrong issue into one neat box - bad guy. Maybe you are one of those. I find it interesting that people need to do that. They can't seem to handle it.

 

[MarkGreen0]

found one! Did LA bag her??? She sort of resembles LA's women/mom...lol what a yummy top on her!

Sigmund Freud said we all try to find a partner like our mother.

 

[Tubeless]

I did not suggest that you should recognise that it's good to do good. I asked you if it would make a difference if your assertions about it being done to cover up bad stuff were actually false. What if this was actually something Armstrong is sincere about? A lot of people seem to need to think the Livestrong thing is a fraud so they can put the whole Armstrong issue into one neat box - bad guy. Maybe you are one of those. I find it interesting that people need to do that. They can't seem to handle it.

Look it's no secret that Lance has been a posterboy for advertisers and has amassed a $250 million personal fortune because

(a) he's a cancer survivor, and
(b) he's a champion bike rider

Average Americans just love the story.

The charirty keeps up the first point in the public's mind (advertising for this fact is paid for by the foundation) and doping will take care of the 2nd. But if that is indeed the case, his entire story has been built on a lie (or let's call it half a lie).

Many people who donate to charity naively believe the vast majority of their money goes to the advertised cause. In fact only 25 cents of each $1 Livestrong armband goes to grants and awards for research to cure cancer (see LAF's audited results from 2008 below, page 26).

http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/LAF_CONSOLIDATEDFINANCIALSTMTS2008AND2007

LAF is not unlike many other such foundations. But the fact that the principal of the charity organization is doing his own business "on the side", is disturbing to some. Especially is he's got something to hide about his past how he got there.

 

[MarkGreen0]

Look it's no secret that Lance has been a posterboy for advertisers and has amassed a $250 million personal fortune because

(a) he's a cancer survivor, and
(b) he's a champion bike rider

Average Americans just love the story.

The charirty keeps up the first point in the public's mind (advertising for this fact is paid for by the foundation) and doping will take care of the 2nd. But if that is indeed the case, his entire story has been built on a lie (of let's call it half a lie).

Many people who donate to charity naively believe the vast majority of their money goes to the adertised cause. In fact only 25 cents of each $1 Livestrong armband goes to grants and awards for research to cure cancer (see LAF's audited results from 2008 below, page 26).

http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/LAF_CONSOLIDATEDFINANCIALSTMTS2008AND2007

LAF is not unlike many other such foundations. But the fact that the principal of the charity organization is doing his own business "on the side", is disturbing to some. Especially is he's got something to hide about his past how he got there.

Yep, I thought you needed to believe the charity was all a front and con. It's easier for your mind to believe that - your head would explode otherwise. You are not alone. For the record, Armstrong does not take a dim of donations to livestrong.

Needless to say, doping did not "take care" of winning 7 TdF's in a row - all of his main rivals were doped as well. It was part of the sport.