A Very Bad Morning For Lance


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Brian » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:36 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Brian wrote:Since statute of limitations hasn't expired on his use of PEDS on his comeback tour attempts, no wonder he is still lying, to Oprah and whomever else. Personal freedom aside, lots of money to be lost.

I don't see where statute of limitations is an issue for the Feds since he hasn't testified under oath since 2005


I was making two different points in that paragraph and the preceding one about federal charges keeping Armstrong from profiting on any money made from a book and later movie and about other bad things coming his way from his comeback tour actions. [Should have maybe added another space between the paragraphs. Sorry.]

US statute 923 18 U.S.C. 371-Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (or Section 371, as it it is more widely known) contains parameters that include an illegal agreement, criminal intent, proof of an overt act. Admittedly, this is a very broadly defined statute. But what is important to Armstrong (and his cadre of attorneys) is that defrauding the government is not just limited to financial loss (in fact, financial loss doesn't even have to be proven). This statute is also concerned with the integrity of governmental institutions and agencies and any programs connected to these two entities.

Criminal intent can be as simple as knowingly making false statements in order to get what is wanted from the US government via said programs. In Armstrong's case, lying about doping to achieve/maintain sponsorship for the US Postal team. The big kick in the crotch for Armstrong is that, again, when dealing with an integrity issue concerning the US government, it is not necessary to prove any harm was done; the attempt itself is enough for criminal charges and possible conviction.

Swinging a fist at someone usually won't even result in assault charges, much less conviction, if no contact is made. But the backyard concept of "No harm, no foul" does not apply to attempts to defraud the US government.

[There is, however, the necessity of making the case that said attempt interfered with the ability of that involved government entity to proceed as usual in the future. But it can be done. At the very least, it would bankrupt Armstrong.]

There is the potential for a possible conviction re: the above because of Armstrong's alpha-male role role in creating/maintaining the use of systematic PED use among a team sponsored/funded by the United States of America (US Postal). The key word is conspiracy; breaking the law is bad enough, but encouraging/forcing others to also do so (or covering up a crime) makes it much worse. And a conviction for this would almost certainly invoke the Son of Sam law.

Anyone who thinks the US government doesn't take these things seriously has never known a person who has had a tax audit.
.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:09 pm

Brian wrote:
[There is, however, the necessity of making the case that said attempt interfered with the ability of that involved government entity to proceed as usual in the future. But it can be done. At the very least, it would bankrupt Armstrong.]
.


This task is probably hopeless. Someone I know might be involved if it does go to trial and testimony but I would guess that, from what I know, there is nothing to use to show such loss or interference. It is probable that LA et al could show that the sponsorship help slow the decline in Postal revenues. Other considerations would be based on the changes that were occurring and were anticipated to occur in the postal industry world wide as government monopolies were being loosened.

Note that there has been really no negative publicity for the US Postal Service in this process compared to what some might have anticipated. I do not think that there is any 'there' there.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:37 pm

Brian wrote:There is the potential for a possible conviction re: the above because of Armstrong's alpha-male role role in creating/maintaining the use of systematic PED use among a team sponsored/funded by the United States of America (US Postal). The key word is conspiracy; breaking the law is bad enough, but encouraging/forcing others to also do so (or covering up a crime) makes it much worse. And a conviction for this would almost certainly invoke the Son of Sam law.

Anyone who thinks the US government doesn't take these things seriously has never known a person who has had a tax audit.
.

It's debatable whether or not Armstrong was responsible for maintaining the use of systematic PED use at U.S. Postal but we already know for a fact that he didn't create it, since his former teammates have already testified that U.S. Postal already had a PED program up and running before Armstrong ever joined the team. Wouldn't the people who were already on board before he joined the team be at least as culpible as he is? Additionally, how could cyclists who doped before they joined U.S. Postal and/or who continued to dope after they left U.S. Postal credibly blame Armstrong for their PED use?

Also, U.S. Postal's sponsorship money didn't just go to pay Armstrong's salary, it paid the salaries of everyone on the team. Would the other cyclists, the team doctor and the team manager also be forced to return their salaries?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:02 pm

I am certainly no fan of Lance Armstrong but I find the idea of the federal government suing him for fraud a bit nauseating. What damages did they suffer? What was their purpose in sponsoring a cycling team and what did they fail to get out of the deal? What does any sponsor get out of such a deal? While the U.S. Postal Service was a sponsor Lance and his team were among the most famous and celebrated teams in the world. What could any sponsor ask for more than that? They got as good as their money could buy. After they drop their sponsorship, years later, they "discover" Lance was cheating :wink: . Any negative publicity garnered from that, well, how does it affect them financially? Probably nil. Prove any form of damage they incurred by having one of the most popular teams in cycling.

I also find it hard to believe the powers that be at U.S. Postal could honestly claim to be so naive as to not know what was going on in the sport. They got the best any sponsor could have hoped for in the position they were in. Would they have been happy with sponsoring a team with no GC contender and/or a team that struggled to even qualify to make the Tour lineup? Cry me a river!

The federal government should not pile on now hoping to get easy money they don't deserve. It appears to be an easy target now so why not take advantage of it? If they want to that would /should be more bad publicity than having sponsored a team that turned out to be doping along with all other teams. Lance's money should go to victims of his bullying. It should go to those who he hurt with his slandering. There are plenty of those that were financially hurt. It should not go to a government who has shown they take little responsibility for sensible spending.
Last edited by odelltrclan on Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Brian » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:12 pm

Good points, all.

And it will be interesting to see what line of thinking eventually prevails.
.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:31 am

Armstrong refuses to pay back $12 million of his earnings.
Lance Armstrong does not intend to repay a Texas company that insured and paid U.S Postal team bonuses for three of his Tour de France wins despite his admission he used an array of performance-enhancing drugs in winning the titles, his attorney has said.

SCA Promotions has said it is considering filing a lawsuit to recoup as much as $12 million from Armstrong, which it paid him for his fourth, fifth and sixth Tour victories.

But Armstrong's lawyer, Tim Herman, told USA Today Sports there was no precedent for such a payback.

"My only point is no athlete ever, to my understanding, has ever gone back and paid back his compensation," Herman told the newspaper.

"Not Sean Payton or anybody else," he said of the New Orleans Saints coach who was suspended last season for his role in a bounty program. "They were suspended, but nobody said you've got to give your paycheck back."

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/sto ... orney-says
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:46 am

Didn't the Brit have to make payments on his 'winnings' if he wanted to be eligible?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:02 pm

Despite Birotte's statement yesterday, Armstrong indeed under active Federal criminal investigation

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=18415386
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:23 pm

a cartoonist's take on the big picture

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2013/02/04
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:17 am

Story now linked in the headline section of the front page (scroll down) says Armstrong may now be willing to talk turkey with USADA. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:10 pm

Forbes: Armstrong most disliked US athlete

http://bicycling.com/blogs/thehub/2013/ ... s-athlete/
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:24 pm

Jonathan Vaughters has another, typically interesting and insightful piece on how bicycling can move forward, and it is not by having the MPCC sue Armstrong.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/opinion-its-not-all-about-lance-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:44 pm

USADA has asserted that Armstrong continued to use PEDs in his comeback, citing the biological passport. Apparently Dr Ashenden is one expert that they rely on (not certain). The other expert to weigh in on the topic, Ann Gripper who developed the whole mechanism for the UCI, has stated that she saw nothing in Armstrong's 2009 data indicating PEDs.

Now, the UCI is saying that Ashenden declared that Armstrong's sample, adjudged anonymously when it was randomly selected in 2009, to be 'normal' with no qualifications, see below.

The USADA repeatedly making the assertions that it has.
Blood is at the heart of the USADA's case against Lance Armstrong, specifically 38 blood samples taken from 2008 to 2012, in the custody of the USADA, and which are said to show suspicious fluctuations, an American newspaper reported. The American anti-doping agency hopes to use those tests along with witnesses to establish that Armstrong used banned drugs or methods.
Ashenden later said that the 2009 data indicated (likely) doping.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-usada-has-38-armstrong-blood-samples-from-2008-to-2012

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-releases-armstrong-data-in-attempt-to-refute-ashendens-doping-claims

The UCI has reacted by saying, “As everyone should know, the APMU (Athletes Passport Management Unit, which is an independent unit established in Lausanne) regularly submits profiles to the experts of the panel. This procedure is strictly anonymous, which means that neither Dr Ashenden nor any other expert would ever have known when or how many times the profile of one rider or another was submitted to him. Having said that, the UCI wishes to confirm that on May 4, 2009 Dr Ashenden and two other experts on the Biological Passport panel received the profiles of eight riders. These profiles were selected randomly and included that of Lance Armstrong.”

“This profile was based on 9 results of analyses carried out in 2008 (October 16, November 26, December 3, December 11 and December 18) and 2009 (January 16, February 4, February 13, March 11).”

“In their responses (in the case of Dr Ashenden, on May 5 2009), it is interesting to note that of the three experts, Dr Ashenden was the only one to have defined this profile as “normal” without making any other remarks, comments or reservations (of the eight profiles submitted, Dr Ashenden was the expert who most often used the definition “normal” with no further comment).”
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:12 pm

The piling-on has really gotten ridiculous. Per the article linked on the front page, now FINA has jumped in on the fun and they're banning Armstrong from competing in a masters swim meet in Texas.

Lausanne (SUI), April 4, 2013 – Following reports on the media referring the participation of Mr. Lance Armstrong in the Masters South Central Zone Swimming Championships in Texas (USA), FINA would like to clarify that:

    1. This national competition is under the jurisdiction of the US Masters Swimming;

    2. FINA Rule DC 15.1 states:
“Subject to the right to appeal provided in DC 13, the Testing, therapeutic use exemptions and hearing results or other final adjudications of any Signatory to the Code which are consistent with the Code and are within the Signatory’s authority, shall be recognised and respected by FINA and its Member Federations.(...)”

Therefore, FINA wrote a letter to the US Masters Swimming (with copy to US Aquatic Sports and USA Swimming) requesting not to accept the entry of Mr. Lance Armstrong in the above mentioned competition.

So now he's been banned from cycling, running, swimming and triathlons. What say you Conor Dary?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Daisy » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:27 pm

He could play football.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby batonless relay » Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:44 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:The piling-on has really gotten ridiculous. Per the article linked on the front page, now FINA has jumped in on the fun and they're banning Armstrong from competing in a masters swim meet in Texas.

So now he's been banned from cycling, running, swimming and triathlons. What say you Conor Dary?

Not exactly. Once someone has been banned by WADA then ALL WADA signatories, of which FINA is one, must recognize the ban. You can't just take up another sport. Unless it's NFL (they won't care).
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:34 pm

batonless relay wrote:Not exactly. Once someone has been banned by WADA then ALL WADA signatories, of which FINA is one, must recognize the ban. You can't just take up another sport. Unless it's NFL (they won't care).

I see where you're coming from, but there are two problems with this. Men's and women's basketball are Olympic sports but NBA players aren't subjected to random, out-of-competition testing as proscribed by WADA, and are still alowed to participate in the Olympics. I don't know about WNBA drug testing, but Marion Jones was allowed to play in the WNBA after she was banned from track.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 18.99s » Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:28 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:So now he's been banned from cycling, running, swimming and triathlons.


His next bans will be from poker, chess, and car racing.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests