Zabriskie and Van de Velde already sang

[Ferminal]

LOL. Yes, I am sure Ullrich was as clean as a whistle until 2006, and he got hung up in that pesky little OP thing after LA retired.

Sounds like LA is the one that got cheated. JU, Basso, etc. didn't have any positives before 2005 either and they apparently didn't have to pay anything.

The UCI wouldn't even erase a positive for a recreational drug

 

[Cobblestones]

Lol great reply to a well made point

You guys are such dreamers if you think this is going to do anything except suck up a lot of taxpayer money for no outcome and to the general public make Armstrong look like the victim. It's going to be a fun filled few months or more coming up.

So the progression is:
1) No one will believe Floyd anyway (until virtually every news outlet on earth repeated the WSJ reporting)
2) There won't be any federal investigation (until a very high profile Novitzky is named investigator of the allegations)
3) They shouldn't waste tax money on it (until we learn a Grand Jury has been formed and subpoenas are sent out, so definitely money is spent on the case)
4) There won't be anything coming out of it (until ???)

Fanboys grasping at straws

 

[MacRoadie]

Lol great reply to a well made point

You guys are such dreamers if you think this is going to do anything except suck up a lot of taxpayer money for no outcome and to the general public make Armstrong look like the victim. It's going to be a fun filled few months or more coming up.

So, why don't you explain to all us ignorants, WHY experienced investigators and prosecutors in the FDA and the Justice Department are going to such lengths to "suck up a lot of taxpayer money" when there is no discernable outcome beyond failure and disgrace?

You choose to represent an anonymous internet poster's supposition as a "well made point" (with the requisite rolleyes emoticon for teenage myspace effect), while I choose to rely upon the collective experience and confidence of the group of professionals who collectively found enough merit in the evidence presented to investigate, assign a prosecutor, and seat a Federal Grand Jury.

It will be a fabulous few months. I go on with my life as if nothing happened, or I go on with my life with Armstrong proven to be the crook and fraud that he is. Either way, I'm good.

 

[Race Radio]

LOL. Yes, I am sure Ullrich was as clean as a whistle until 2006, and he got hung up in that pesky little OP thing after LA retired.

Sounds like LA is the one that got cheated. JU, Basso, etc. didn't have any positives before 2005 either and they apparently didn't have to pay anything.

Who is saying Ulrich was clean? I am saying he, and others, did not get the preferential treatment the UCI gave, and continues to give, Armstrong.

 

[Race Radio]

So, why don't you explain to all us ignorants, WHY experienced investigators and prosecutors in the FDA and the Justice Department are going to such lengths to "suck up a lot of taxpayer money" when there is no discernable outcome beyond failure and disgrace?

Because they hate success and love cancer?

 

[Realist]

secondly you automatically assume that because people are interviewed they will automatically corroborate the Landis version of the world. It would be quite easy for say DZ to say he was aware of doping practices going on but that he had never seen or been involved in them himself. at the end of the day a lot of this is going to be one persons word against anothers.

The only thing that is clear to me from your post is that you are twisting insubstantial comments in the press to say what you want.

The article is very clear that two sources people "corroborated some of Landis's sweeping claims regarding doping". I don't know if one of those guys was DZ, but significant parts of the "Landis version of the world" have already been corroborated. It is you who is making the misrepresentation here. If you read the article, the line of argument you make is refuted.

*cue silence*

*move on to next vacuous debating point*

 

[Beech Mtn]

I think you should pay more attention to Rock Racing.

Interesting point. I had been thinking LA investigation and overlooked that possibility.

 

[ThaiPanda]

Who is saying Ulrich was clean? I am saying he, and others, did not get the preferential treatment the UCI gave, and continues to give, Armstrong.

So what is your point when the rubber hits the road? Ullrich was dirty, Armstrong was dirty, Basso was dirty, and on and on. And, since they were all dirty why didn't anybody fail any tests during the tour, since Armstrong was the only one getting preferrential treatment? Seems like it would have been a good time for Armstrong to pull the UCI puppet strings and get JU busted when he gapped him in 2003. Why didn't he do that?

You only know what Armstrong did. You have no clue any arrangement that any other cyclist at that time had with the UCI or anybody else in authority in their respective federations. You have no clue whether the powers that be in the sport wanted to avoid positives anyway because it is bad for business. You have no clue whether money was "donated" to the UCI by anybody else, because the only reason you know that is because Armstrong publicized it and because of SCA. You're not omniscient, but you think you are.

 

[red_flanders]

Lol great reply to a well made point

You guys are such dreamers if you think this is going to do anything except suck up a lot of taxpayer money for no outcome and to the general public make Armstrong look like the victim. It's going to be a fun filled few months or more coming up.

Ah, talking point number 2 of the week, #537 of the progression from "dropped 20 pounds" to "everyone did it".

Sad thing is that you actually seem to believe what you post.

 

[Ferminal]

So what is your point when the rubber hits the road? Ullrich was dirty, Armstrong was dirty, Basso was dirty, and on and on. And, since they were all dirty why didn't anybody fail any tests during the tour, since Armstrong was the only one getting preferrential treatment? Seems like it would have been a good time for Armstrong to pull the UCI puppet strings and get JU busted when he gapped him in 2003. Why didn't he do that?

You only know what Armstrong did. You have no clue any arrangement that any other cyclist at that time had with the UCI or anybody else in authority in their respective federations. You have no clue whether the powers that be in the sport wanted to avoid positives anyway because it is bad for business. You have no clue whether money was "donated" to the UCI by anybody else, because the only reason you know that is because Armstrong publicized it and because of SCA. You're not omniscient, but you think you are.

We all only know about what is available to us.

We know that Jan Ullrich was given a six month ban for a positive to Ecstasy in 2002. We know that Ullrich was blocked from participating in the 2006 Tour due to his involvement with Fuentes.

So both "known" occasions where Ullrich crossed the line, he was punished.

On the other hand, we know that Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroid in the 1999 Tour. We know that it was later revealed that six of Armstrong's 1999 samples contained enough EPO to render a positive test. From Landis, we are told that Lance tested positive to EPO sometime in 2001. Armstrong has yet to receive any official punishment for his indiscretions.

You don't even know that Ullrich or Armstrong were using EPO in 2003. As Landis has indicated, the use of EPO may have dropped off as a result of the test being introduced.

 

[sartain]

...and there it is.

Does anyone really think that the govt is happy about being fleeced out of tens of millions of dollars?

Does anyone want to venture a guess as to how hard and how far the US Govt will pursue a defendant when they've made off with tens of millions of govt money?

I think they will go very, very far to uncover what is turning out to be a massive fraud foisted by the Armstrong/Weisel/Ochowicz/Stapleton/Knaggs group.

Next, we'll hear Bruyneel stating he, also, "just worked there"...

I suspect that TW has more than enough money/resources to do whatever it takes to come out unscathed — hope not, but I suspect this is the case. A some point BM must have thought the same thing, but I think TW is a lot smarter than BM.

What will be real fun to watch, however, is how Stapleton, and especially Knaggs, hold up to the proctological exam, under a SEM, that Feds are going to perform on them?

One thing is for sure, there is some much stink coming of this smoldering, worm infested decade long epic fraud, that if the smell got much worse, the EPA will have to declare this entire event a superfund site.

 

[Race Radio]

So what is your point when the rubber hits the road? Ullrich was dirty, Armstrong was dirty, Basso was dirty, and on and on. And, since they were all dirty why didn't anybody fail any tests during the tour, since Armstrong was the only one getting preferrential treatment? Seems like it would have been a good time for Armstrong to pull the UCI puppet strings and get JU busted when he gapped him in 2003. Why didn't he do that?

You only know what Armstrong did. You have no clue any arrangement that any other cyclist at that time had with the UCI or anybody else in authority in their respective federations. You have no clue whether the powers that be in the sport wanted to avoid positives anyway because it is bad for business. You have no clue whether money was "donated" to the UCI by anybody else, because the only reason you know that is because Armstrong publicized it and because of SCA. You're not omniscient, but you think you are.

You appear to be confused.

Basso was suspended for 2 years on less evidence then there is on Armstrong. Ulrich was forced into retirement and the UCI is forcing the Swiss Fed to continue their pursuit of his suspension, even though there is less evidence then there is against Armstrong.

Remember you wrote

Yes, Jan Ullrich, Basso, Vino, Pantani, Beloki, Verenque, etc. they all got cheated by Armstrong.

Stupid fans deserve to be screwed.

Most can see that Basso and Ulrich would have a reason to feel cheated as they did not receive the same treatment as Armstrong.

 

[Dunedain]

...and there it is.

Does anyone really think that the govt is happy about being fleeced out of tens of millions of dollars?

Does anyone want to venture a guess as to how hard and how far the US Govt will pursue a defendant when they've made off with tens of millions of govt money?

I think they will go very, very far to uncover what is turning out to be a massive fraud foisted by the Armstrong/Weisel/Ochowicz/Stapleton/Knaggs group.

Next, we'll hear Bruyneel stating he, also, "just worked there"...

Sure, I'll venture a guess. Not very far - being that Uncle Sam throws money around with little or no oversight. Plus, they weren't fleeced - USPS got great exposure and press. This case isn't about money, it's about doping and busting those who encourage it - if that means going after the money movers - then they'll do it - but money itself is not the motive. That said, I agree with Lance in that the USA has much better things to do with it's cash. With over 30,000 homicides a year (That's 210,000 for the seven years lance won the tour), you would think ridding us of the scourge of murder would take a higher priority than blood transfusions and EPO.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Sure, I'll venture a guess. Not very far - being that Uncle Sam throws money around with little or no oversight. Plus, they weren't fleeced - USPS got great exposure and press. This case isn't about money, it's about doping and busting those who encourage it - if that means going after the money movers - then they'll do it - but money itself is not the motive. That said, I agree with Lance in that the USA has much better things to do with it's cash. With over 30,000 homicides a year (That's 210,000 for the seven years lance won the tour), you would think ridding us of the scourge of murder would take a higher priority than blood transfusions and EPO.

Nice straw man. Pass a match and I'll light it for you.

No, it is ALWAYS about the money. Always.

 

[Race Radio]

Sure, I'll venture a guess. Not very far - being that Uncle Sam throws money around with little or no oversight. Plus, they weren't fleeced - USPS got great exposure and press. This case isn't about money, it's about doping and busting those who encourage it - if that means going after the money movers - then they'll do it - but money itself is not the motive. That said, I agree with Lance in that the USA has much better things to do with it's cash. With over 30,000 homicides a year (That's 210,000 for the seven years lance won the tour), you would think ridding us of the scourge of murder would take a higher priority than blood transfusions and EPO.

It appears that some here do not understand what happens when there is a guilty verdict in a case like this.

As the defendant is heading to jail he informed of that big check he needs to write for the penalties. This is a money making opportunity for the US tax payer. If you truly concerned about the cost you should be cheering for Novitzky.

 

[SpartacusRox]

The article is very clear that two sources people "corroborated some of Landis's sweeping claims regarding doping". I don't know if one of those guys was DZ, but significant parts of the "Landis version of the world" have already been corroborated. It is you who is making the misrepresentation here. If you read the article, the line of argument you make is refuted.

*cue silence*

*move on to next vacuous debating point*

Mate I wasn't the one who made the direct inference that the two people who 'corroborated' parts of Landis's evidence must have been DZ and VdV from a position of silence on the issue in the report. You jumped to that conclusion.

'Significant parts', meaning what? His allegations about widespread doping, UCI corruption, LA coaching them in doping practices? You have no idea what they said or didn't say. You are just taking a sensationalist report and inserting you wishful thinking into it.

You got the vacuous bit right but not in the way you meant.

 

[SpartacusRox]

So Bagster, do you still think Armstrong has never taken PEDs?

Bagster? Now there was a guy who knew what he was on about, even if he did get a bit overzealous! Since he is sadly no longer around, I assume that you want me to answer your question.

What I think or don't think on the matter has little relevance to the topic. The issue is not about whether he has or hasn't taken PED's, it is about allegations of fraud.

I just get sick of people making unjustified and meaningless inferences.

I will say this though. Armstrong is not the be all and end all of cycling to me. I have been involved in the sport for years and admire many different riders. I just happen to think that Armstrong is not the demon that many on here live to make him out to be.

If I ridicule some of the more ridiculous assertions made on here it is because I know the standard of proof required for criminal cases is extremely high and sticking people up before a Grand Jury in a game of he said she said will go nowhere. I would be happier if just a tiny fraction of the taxpayer money that will go into this meaningless exercise could be given to me so that I could buy a new Basso road bike.

 

[FactChecker]

I think that makes it clear that the "at least two people who have corroborated [what Landis claims]" referred to above must be these DZ and CVDV.

Why not Stephen Swart and Frankie Andreu?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html?pagewanted=print

It astounds me that people can believe Lance has always been clean when Swart and Andreu have stated clearly that he took EPO.

(Armstrong sued in Britain, where is it extremely easy to win libel, even when guilty. He dropped the suits in France though.)

 

[Ferminal]

Bagster? Now there was a guy who knew what he was on about, even if he did get a bit overzealous! Since he is sadly no longer around, I assume that you want me to answer your question.

What I think or don't think on the matter has little relevance to the topic. The issue is not about whether he has or hasn't taken PED's, it is about allegations of fraud.

I just get sick of people making unjustified and meaningless inferences.

I will say this though. Armstrong is not the be all and end all of cycling to me. I have been involved in the sport for years and admire many different riders. I just happen to think that Armstrong is not the demon that many on here live to make him out to be.

If I ridicule some of the more ridiculous assertions made on here it is because I know the standard of proof required for criminal cases is extremely high and sticking people up before a Grand Jury in a game of he said she said will go nowhere. I would be happier if just a tiny fraction of the taxpayer money that will go into this meaningless exercise could be given to me so that I could buy a new Basso road bike.

It's just that you have a go at people for trying to twist things to suit an anti-Lance agenda, which I can agree with.

However, we know you've previously believed that Lance Armstrong is a clean cyclist, if you still believe in that it's safe to say you also have an "agenda".

 

[Realist]

Mate I wasn't the one who made the direct inference that the two people who 'corroborated' parts of Landis's evidence must have been DZ and VdV from a position of silence on the issue in the report. You jumped to that conclusion.

'Significant parts', meaning what? His allegations about widespread doping, UCI corruption, LA coaching them in doping practices? You have no idea what they said or didn't say. You are just taking a sensationalist report and inserting you wishful thinking into it.

You got the vacuous bit right but not in the way you meant.

Your reply is great. You actually quote me saying that I don't know whether one of the guys was DZ, then say I 'jump to the conclusion' that it must have been DZ and VdV. Let me add, I don't know if one of the guys was VdV.

I don't know exactly what significant parts means, precisely, but it is a paraphrase of: "at least two people have corroborated some of Landis's sweeping claims". Now, if the claims that were corroborated were sweeping, I would suggest they might also be considered significant, whatever they are precisely. Apologies if this is inappropriate wording in your view. I wouldn't want any confusion from my choice of words. I haven't made any specific claims about what was or wasn't corroborated, who did or did not say things, etc.

As to sensationalist reporting, there are two options here. One is, the report is factual. There are two corroborators, who corroborate some of Landis's sweeping claims. Alternatively, the journalist is risking their entire career (as a journalist at a metro newspaper, you definitely get fired for making sources up) and the newspaper's reputation for a tiny bit of background in a story that only a fraction of the population care about. I think the second alternative is unlikely.

So how about an apology - or an acknowledgment at least: you can just write "I admit that you did not leap to the conclusion that the two guys must have been DZ and VdV and I will read your posts more carefully before going off half-cocked at you".

Have a nice day.

 

[Realist]

(as a journalist at a metro newspaper, you definitely get fired for making sources up)

Nb: this statement is a little naive for a realist

I would say you risk getting fired... not you definitely get fired. Sometimes it would be buried, if you were onside with management. But if it became public they would let you go.

 

[Anonymous]

Bagster? Now there was a guy who knew what he was on about, even if he did get a bit overzealous! Since he is sadly no longer around, I assume that you want me to answer your question.

What I think or don't think on the matter has little relevance to the topic. The issue is not about whether he has or hasn't taken PED's, it is about allegations of fraud.

I just get sick of people making unjustified and meaningless inferences.

I will say this though. Armstrong is not the be all and end all of cycling to me. I have been involved in the sport for years and admire many different riders. I just happen to think that Armstrong is not the demon that many on here live to make him out to be.

If I ridicule some of the more ridiculous assertions made on here it is because I know the standard of proof required for criminal cases is extremely high and sticking people up before a Grand Jury in a game of he said she said will go nowhere. I would be happier if just a tiny fraction of the taxpayer money that will go into this meaningless exercise could be given to me so that I could buy a new Basso road bike.

So if a crime has been committed, what makes the pursuit of this any less worthy of completion than any other criminal case? I keep hearing this "why spend our tax money on this" mantra being batted about here recently. I think Mr Armstrong himself has suggested as much. Why is it that the millions of other crimes that are being investigated as we speak are worthy, but this one isn't? Should the government stop investigation of crime, or cease pursuing crimes that some people feel are not worth looking into?

This whole "it is a stupid expense to go after a sports figure" is nonsensical. If he or anyone associated with this committed a crime, investigating, convening a grand jury and presenting evidence, getting and indictment (or not-though as we both know, this part of the process is anything but balanced. He will get an indictment if he wants one.), and going to trial to have a jury or judge hear the case is how our system of justice works. The argument that it shouldn't be done because pursuing a sports figure is pointless because it was about sport and not anything real (or whatever justification you use to suggest that the investigation should be stopped) runs counter to the idea of justice. If Mr Armstrong didn't commit a crime, he will have the opportunity to present his evidence in court. If he did commit a crime, it will be up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he and/or anyone else involved in the crime are guilty. I don't have any idea right now if he will ever be convicted of anything. You have suggested that he will not. I am not sure what legal crystal ball you have, but I would suggest that assertion runs counter to your line of reasoning here. You should be well aware that the legal process is anything but predictable.

I do believe what Floyd is saying. I would like to see Mr Armstrong suffer for actions I believe he has committed. I also know that what I want is not part of the legal equation here. However, this is a forum on cycling. Mr Armstrong is, by your own admission, the largest figure in the history of the sport. I am pretty sure few could raise an logical argument to counter that. It doesn't mean he is the greatest cyclist, but the subjectivity of that assessment is based on the individual anyway, so its debate is an endless one. But it is clear that he has generated more profit than any other cyclist to have ever lived. It is clear that he has presented himself to the public as no cyclist ever has. It should not be strange that people discuss him and anything that involves him, or that there would be varying degrees of opinion that are discussed.

If you ridicule anyone, it is based on a subjective opinion you hold that you feel is more valid than those who oppose your opinion. It has nothing to do with your knowledge of the burden of proof. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. You spend entirely too much time here defending one person to suggest that it is only about your ideological stance on the burden of proof in a criminal trial. I would suggest a more honest assessment of your motives is in order here.

 

[python]

spartacusrox, i am going to make it brief and impersonal (unlike the majority of your posts) - watch the trend of the investigation and nothing else if you (or anyone else) assume 'we don't know the true details or the extent of the collaboration' (which of course is true).

plain fact - an increasing number of reputable papers and sources report that the investigation is widening, and progressing through necessary legal phases.

this is exactly the opposite of what an apologist/fan/legaladviser for armsrong side would wish.

check this sequence please:

FDA investigation (novizky) --> added a prosecutor muscle(miller) --> Interpol getting involved --> first grand jury subpoenas issued ...........(indictment next ?)

and for your information, as i posted earlier, if you get indicted in central california federal district, your chance of being found guilty is about 90%.

 

[ThaiPanda]

You appear to be confused.

Basso was suspended for 2 years on less evidence then there is on Armstrong. Ulrich was forced into retirement and the UCI is forcing the Swiss Fed to continue their pursuit of his suspension, even though there is less evidence then there is against Armstrong.

Remember you wrote...
Most can see that Basso and Ulrich would have a reason to feel cheated as they did not receive the same treatment as Armstrong.

Let me clarify. I was talking about during 99-05 TdF's where none of those guys got busted. Ullrich got busted OOC. So I think it is reasonable to assume that they did get the same treatment as Armstrong did when he was riding in TdF since we know they were also doping at the time, in that race. I do not think it is a coincidence that all this hit the fan after Armstrong retired. Pantani is the only one that got busted on the bike and that was not at the tour.

In your eyes Armstrong got away with doping because of the UCI relationship, along with poor testing. But the others just because of poor testing? Then why does Armstrong have to pay the extra cash to do the same thing? You haven't answered that question. Seems like he got ripped off LOL.

I have been reading this place for awhile and of all the posters you seem to be the most aggressive towards Armstrong on a personal level. It seems like you are emotionally vested in all of this for some reason. Has Armstrong done something to you personally and that is the reason for your high level of shrillness? If so that is understandable. Just curious.

 

[SpartacusRox]

So if a crime has been committed, what makes the pursuit of this any less worthy of completion than any other criminal case? I keep hearing this "why spend our tax money on this" mantra being batted about here recently. I think Mr Armstrong himself has suggested as much. Why is it that the millions of other crimes that are being investigated as we speak are worthy, but this one isn't? Should the government stop investigation of crime, or cease pursuing crimes that some people feel are not worth looking into?

This whole "it is a stupid expense to go after a sports figure" is nonsensical. If he or anyone associated with this committed a crime, investigating, convening a grand jury and presenting evidence, getting and indictment (or not-though as we both know, this part of the process is anything but balanced. He will get an indictment if he wants one.), and going to trial to have a jury or judge hear the case is how our system of justice works. The argument that it shouldn't be done because pursuing a sports figure is pointless because it was about sport and not anything real (or whatever justification you use to suggest that the investigation should be stopped) runs counter to the idea of justice. If Mr Armstrong didn't commit a crime, he will have the opportunity to present his evidence in court. If he did commit a crime, it will be up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he and/or anyone else involved in the crime are guilty. I don't have any idea right now if he will ever be convicted of anything. You have suggested that he will not. I am not sure what legal crystal ball you have, but I would suggest that assertion runs counter to your line of reasoning here. You should be well aware that the legal process is anything but predictable.

I do believe what Floyd is saying. I would like to see Mr Armstrong suffer for actions I believe he has committed. I also know that what I want is not part of the legal equation here. However, this is a forum on cycling. Mr Armstrong is, by your own admission, the largest figure in the history of the sport. I am pretty sure few could raise an logical argument to counter that. It doesn't mean he is the greatest cyclist, but the subjectivity of that assessment is based on the individual anyway, so its debate is an endless one. But it is clear that he has generated more profit than any other cyclist to have ever lived. It is clear that he has presented himself to the public as no cyclist ever has. It should not be strange that people discuss him and anything that involves him, or that there would be varying degrees of opinion that are discussed.

If you ridicule anyone, it is based on a subjective opinion you hold that you feel is more valid than those who oppose your opinion. It has nothing to do with your knowledge of the burden of proof. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. You spend entirely too much time here defending one person to suggest that it is only about your ideological stance on the burden of proof in a criminal trial. I would suggest a more honest assessment of your motives is in order here.

This is a very good reply and you make some very good arguments.

I would agree with you that not pursuing a sporting figure just because the accusations are only about "sport and nothing real" runs counter to the idea of justice in the general sense. Having said that, enforcement agencies make calls every day regarding what they will or will no investigate and resources and cost benefits play a big part in this, particularly in the area of white collar crime. This particular case is being investigated with the rigor it is because of the publicity it generates as much as anything. The question of whether spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a case which, in it's level of alleged criminality falls at the lower end of the spectrum, is a debatable point. I agree that my thinking that it is a waste of taxpayer money is purely a subjective opinion on my part as of course it would be for anyone else, whatever their view.

I agree, the justice system, and particularly the US justice system is anything but predictable and guilt is never a reliable yardstick for conviction otherwise OJ would never have walked. My thoughts on whether Armstrong himself will be convicted regarding any criminal offence are purely based on the allegations that have surfaced so far. As I have said on many occasions, just because it is reported in the popular press that person X is co-operating with the investigation does not mean that they corroborating the Landis allegations. They may well be of course, in whole or in part but posters on here generally get more than a little overexcited, in their speculation.

I agree with you that a Grand Jury process is a bit of a joke and is really only a vehicle for the prosecution to show that it has a prima facie case so that court time is not wasted.

You are right, I do have a motive. A motive to bring a little balance to the forum. That does not mean my opinions are right, only time will tell that.