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 Pego » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:54 am

indigo wrote:
Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"


There have been a lot of death's in various Cycling Events. Hamilton's book details blood kept poorly and folks having their blood boil while racing or having blood too thick to pump correctly.

I believe Hamilton indicated he was caught with someone else's blood as the "matching" was not done well.


What you are describing would represent medical malpractice, but that is not why they are being prosecuted.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:17 pm

Well, at least Armstrong is more truthful than Michele Ferrari, though I will give Ferrari credit for having a cool website address (www.53x12.com).

LANCE ARMSTRONG, during the recent interview, said that he didn't think he could have won all 7 Tour de France's without using testosterone, EPO and blood transfusions.

I think Lance is wrong.

[biochemistry jargon . . . . .]

Therefore Armstrong would have achieved the same level of performance without resorting to doping, also thanks to his talent which was far superior to the rivals of his era.


http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=126

If you're interested in his explanation and biomedical theories, which I ommitted since there's another thread for that discussion, check out the link above.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Blues » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:14 pm

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"


At this point it doesn't seem like they're going after the users, but rather the individuals involved in the planning and administration of the PEDs, based on the actions of those individuals that could "endanger the public health"...

Although it may have nothing to do with this case, and without considering the possibility of fraud related charges for PED use, I guess whether users of PEDs are prosecuted for criminal offenses could depend on the related laws in the jurisdiction where the PED usage occurred... In the USA, it's against the law to use a prescription-only medication without a valid prescription. (HGH,EPO, etc.) And it's often a more serious violation of the law to use a controlled substance prescription medication without a valid prescription. Anabolic steroids are DEA schedule 3 controlled substances. Other schedule 3 drugs include certain narcotic analgesics like hydrocodone (vicodin, lortabs, etc.)... Depending on the state, penalties for using these drugs without a valid prescription can range from misdemeanors to felonies.

And lastly, even if a prescription for the PED WAS issued by a licensed prescriber, the prescription is only valid by law if it was issued for a legitimate medical purpose. There's room for interpretation in that, but there are probably many who might feel that PED purposes aren't legitimate medical purposes, which could result in the prescription being deemed to be invalid.
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:15 pm

Blues wrote:
Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"


At this point it doesn't seem like they're going after the users, but rather the individuals involved in the planning and administration of the PEDs, based on the actions of those individuals that could "endanger the public health"...

Although it may have nothing to do with this case, and without considering the possibility of fraud related charges for PED use, I guess whether users of PEDs are prosecuted for criminal offenses could depend on the related laws in the jurisdiction where the PED usage occurred... In the USA, it's against the law to use a prescription-only medication without a valid prescription. (HGH,EPO, etc.) And it's often a more serious violation of the law to use a controlled substance prescription medication without a valid prescription. Anabolic steroids are DEA schedule 3 controlled substances. Other schedule 3 drugs include certain narcotic analgesics like hydrocodone (vicodin, lortabs, etc.)... Depending on the state, penalties for using these drugs without a valid prescription can range from misdemeanors to felonies.

And lastly, even if a prescription for the PED WAS issued by a licensed prescriber, the prescription is only valid by law if it was issued for a legitimate medical purpose. There's room for interpretation in that, but there are probably many who might feel that PED purposes aren't legitimate medical purposes, which could result in the prescription being deemed to be invalid.


I understand all these laws, having to work with them on both sides of the pond for many decades. I simply do not understand reasons for prosecution of PEDs per se. If they want to call PEDs users "thieves", fine, do so. That I would understand. Medical malpractice of those that administer it? Fine. Illegal transportation of drugs across countries? That's smuggling, fine. Marlow says "Has nothing to do with ethics or even logic". I prefer laws that are logical (hopefully ethical, too :wink: ).
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Blues » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:44 pm

Pego wrote:I understand all these laws, having to work with them on both sides of the pond for many decades. I simply do not understand reasons for prosecution of PEDs per se. If they want to call PEDs users "thieves", fine, do so. That I would understand. Medical malpractice of those that administer it? Fine. Illegal transportation of drugs across countries? That's smuggling, fine. Marlow says "Has nothing to do with ethics or even logic". I prefer laws that are logical (hopefully ethical, too :wink: ).


I know that you, bambam, and a handful of others are already aware of the things I wrote, and I should have made that clear at the beginning of the post. I wanted to point out for those who might not know however, why simply using the stuff yourself could possibly result in criminal charges. In Nevada for example, using a DEA Schedule 1, 2, 3 (which includes anabolic steroids), or 4 drug without a valid prescription is a class E felony, punishable by 1 to 4 years in prison, although often offenders end up with probation if they haven't had prior offenses...
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:15 pm

Bradley Wiggins says Armstrong is lying about 2009.

Bradley Wiggins is convinced Lance Armstrong doped when the American returned to cycling in 2009 and claims he was robbed of finishing on the podium in the Tour de France that year.

Armstrong has confessed to doping during all seven of his Tour wins from 1999-2005, but insisted he raced clean when he made his comeback in 2009.

Wiggins, the current Tour champion, finished fourth behind Armstrong in '09 and bases his suspicions on observations he made while racing alongside the American in key mountain stages.

"I can still remember going toe to toe with him, watching the man I saw on the top of Verbier in 2009 to the man I saw on the top of Ventoux a week later when we were in doping control together," said Wiggins, speaking at a Team Sky training camp in Mallorca.

"It wasn't the same bike rider. You only have to watch the videos of how the guy was riding. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth anymore."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... 9/1864331/

His rationale for his suspicion is rather vague but I wonder if he's basing it on the fact that he was doped in 2009 and therefore Amrstrong would have had to have been doped to have beaten him.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:17 am

jazzcyclist wrote:His rationale for his suspicion is rather vague but I wonder if he's basing it on the fact that he was doped in 2009 and therefore Amrstrong would have had to have been doped to have beaten him.

Are you saying that it is a fact that he was doped in 2009?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:34 am

tandfman wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:His rationale for his suspicion is rather vague but I wonder if he's basing it on the fact that he was doped in 2009 and therefore Amrstrong would have had to have been doped to have beaten him.

Are you saying that it is a fact that he was doped in 2009?


Its comments like these that I find irritating to no end. For years people defended Lance because he "never tested positive" (even though under suspicion). Yet someone else who has had little to no suspicion or failed tests is labeled a doper. Why is there a double standard. I know Jazz believed Lance was doped during those years, but there are many others who thought he was innocent yet have no problem blaming others as guilty. Wiggins does not deserve this.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:58 am

tandfman wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:His rationale for his suspicion is rather vague but I wonder if he's basing it on the fact that he was doped in 2009 and therefore Amrstrong would have had to have been doped to have beaten him.

Are you saying that it is a fact that he was doped in 2009?

No, no, no. I'm saying that if Wiggins was doped in 2009, he would be in a position to speak with certitude about Armstrong being doped, but obviously he would never admit to the reasoning behind his accusation. However, I have no reason to suspect that Wiggins was doped in 2009, since I believe that the peleton was a lot cleaner in 2009 than it was in the EPO era, before an EPO test had been developed. However, keep in mind that Wiggins did start ride professionally during the EPO era, so I wouldn't bet any money that he's never doped.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:42 am

Armstrong says that he won't confess anything to USADA, who he doesn't recognize, but he will spill the beans to the UCI which has proposed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Lance Armstrong's legal team has indicated that the disgraced former rider is ready to reveal more about the doping he did during his career but has made it clear he will not give detailed evidence to USADA – the United States Anti-Doping Agency - whose detailed investigation led to Armstrong's downfall.

USADA CEO Travis Tygart is due to appear on a special CBS 60 minutes programme on Sunday evening to respond to Armstrong's confession on Oprah Winfrey last week. USADA has confirmed to the media that Tygart met with Armstrong in December and talked about a detailed confession but has given Armstrong until February 6 to talk.

Herman wrote that Armstrong is more likely to cooperate with international sports authorities -- specifically the Union Cycliste Internationale, rather than USADA, claiming it does not have global jurisdiction over sport.

"USADA has no authority to investigate, prosecute or otherwise involve itself with the other 95% of cycling competitors," Herman claimed. "Thus, in order to achieve the goal of 'cleaning up cycling,' it must be WADA and the UCI who have overall authority to do so."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstro ... s-to-usada
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Tuariki » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:29 am

Compared to Armstrong, Marion Jones is a paragon of virtue. Hopefully the US Justice Department will ensure that Armstrong becomes a guest of the US government for a year or so and that the Courts will render him to his deserved level of wealth.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby kuha » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:40 am

Tuariki wrote:Compared to Armstrong, Marion Jones is a paragon of virtue.


Well....only if you interpret "paragon of virtue" to mean "a moderately lesser chronic and sustained liar."
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:45 pm

Tuariki wrote:Compared to Armstrong, Marion Jones is a paragon of virtue. Hopefully the US Justice Department will ensure that Armstrong becomes a guest of the US government for a year or so and that the Courts will render him to his deserved level of wealth.

You may be disappointed to find out that the Feds have already thrown in the towel on its criminal investigation of Lance, so he won't be going to prison, but bankruptcy is not out of the question. However, I disagree with about Lance being worse than Marion. Marion is worse IMO for two reasons:

    1) Once he was caught, Lance didn't pretend that he never knowingly doped like Marion did.

    2) We know for a fact that all of Lance's competitors during his Tour wins were taking the same drugs he was taking, but I'm pretty confident that quite a few of Marion's competitors (eg. Pauline Davis) were clean in her global championship races.
Also, Lance is being punished worse than Marion since Marion got to keep her 1997 and 1999 world championship titles, she was only sanctioned by the governing body of her primary sport (IAAF/USATF) and she only recieved a two-year ban as opposed to a lifetime ban.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:37 pm

I agree with jazzcyclist.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:11 pm

I don't think the Feds are done with him yet. They are considering joining the federal whistleblower lawsuit that Floyd Landis brought.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:04 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: However, I disagree with about Lance being worse than Marion. Marion is worse IMO for two reasons:

    1) Once he was caught, Lance didn't pretend that he never knowingly doped like Marion did.

    2) We know for a fact that all of Lance's competitors during his Tour wins were taking the same drugs he was taking, but I'm pretty confident that quite a few of Marion's competitors (eg. Pauline Davis) were clean in her global championship races.
Also, Lance is being punished worse than Marion since Marion got to keep her 1997 and 1999 world championship titles, she was only sanctioned by the governing body of her primary sport (IAAF/USATF) and she only recieved a two-year ban as opposed to a lifetime ban.


There is no possible way you can say that you know for a fact that every single person in the Tour was doping. And, if there were clean people in the peleton, which I believe there were, even if they did finish 150th. For someone to even be able to not be dropped against the rest to me would indicate they could contend if they were on a "level playing field".

Secondly, how in the world can you say that Marion was "worse" than Lance. Did she publicly denounce person after person, ruining their careers, reputations and livelihoods? Did she sue people who were telling the truth about her? Lance was a first class bully and went far beyond anything Marion Jones did and to claim her being worse than him is just crazy!
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:17 pm

Just watched the 60 Minutes piece on USADA. Good for Tygart!!!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:53 pm

odelltrclan wrote:There is no possible way you can say that you know for a fact that every single person in the Tour was doping. And, if there were clean people in the peleton, which I believe there were, even if they did finish 150th. For someone to even be able to not be dropped against the rest to me would indicate they could contend if they were on a "level playing field".

I agree with all of this, but by "competitors", I meant team leaders and GC contenders, not everybody in the peleton, because I don't think domestiques would have had a chance to win the Tour even if the peleton had been clean in the Armstrong era. If you look at the times in recent history that teams have put two people on the podium (eg. Riis & Ullrich in 1996, Contador & Armstrong in 2009, Schleck & Schleck in 2011, Wiggins & Froome in 2012), in every instance, the team made the decision to protect two riders instead of just one. The bottom line is that if a rider's team doesn't make the decison early on in grand tours to keep him out of the wind and out of trouble, that rider has no realistic chance of winning.
odelltrclan wrote:Secondly, how in the world can you say that Marion was "worse" than Lance. Did she publicly denounce person after person, ruining their careers, reputations and livelihoods? Did she sue people who were telling the truth about her? Lance was a first class bully and went far beyond anything Marion Jones did and to claim her being worse than him is just crazy!

I guess since Tuariki used the word "virtue" and not "honesty", you might have a point. Lance is no doubt a bigger asshole than Marion, but Marion is a bigger liar than Lance. However, I must correct you on one thing - like Lance, Marion did sue people who were telling the truth about her, namely Victor Conte. Yes, Lance sued more people than Marion, but he was also accused by more people than Marion.

Also, let's look at the different cultures of these two sports. Track & field is mostly an individual sport, without the traditions and unwritten rules of team sports like baseball, hockey and cycling. One of cycling's traditions was omerta (code of silence), which based on my impression was as ingrained in the peleton as it is with cops and the mafia. We both remember what Lance did to Filipo Simeoni on stage 18 of the 2004 Tour, but do you remember how all the major GC contenders in the peleton were backslapping and congratulating Lance after he dropped back to the peleton with Simeoni?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Brian » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:04 am

bambam wrote:I don't think the Feds are done with him yet. They are considering joining the federal whistleblower lawsuit that Floyd Landis brought.


I agree. This is a prime chance for them to show that 'crime doesn't pay" and they're not going to give up that opportunity.

Another thing: If criminal charges are brought and proved, he won't be able to profit from any book about his crime. Not sure if any money from a movie made from any book on the subject would also pertain to this Son of Sam law.

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.


Never thought too much about the drug use, especially since the rest of sport was always so dirty. But the more I read, the less I feel for him at all. Especially the intimidating of witnesses and potential witnesses.

I don't like bullies. And this stuff isn't just unethical...in the case of tampering with a federal witness, it's criminal.

I wouldn't have said this even two weeks ago, but I hope he gets hung out to dry.
.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:44 am

Brian wrote:
Another thing: If criminal charges are brought and proved, he won't be able to profit from any book about his crime. Not sure if any money from a movie made from any book on the subject would also pertain to this Son of Sam law.

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.


Of course, Armstrong has stronger reason to hide the recent stuff. First, it can run afoul of some charges that older stuff might not be used for. Also, the evidence is not nearly so ironclad. There is not the kind of hard evidence on his drug use post 2005. None of the rider testimony is focused on the comeback years; the main evidence is the biological passport and that probably would not suffice for criminal charges. Also, if indeed Anne Gripper (who brought the bio-passport into existence) is of the opinion (has been quoted to say) that nothing in his bio-passport up through 2010 indicates doping, then that will be a hurdle that USADA will have to get over to make the accusation stick.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:56 am

Two (stupid) questions for Lance.

If you were able to win clean (sic) in the comeback, why did you dope in the first place?
Since you did dope for so long, does that not also carry over (strength-wise) into the comeback years?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:14 am

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, and I don't see where it's an issue for the UCI since they've already stripped of him of his thrid place finish in 2009 and wiped his name from all of cycling's record books as though he never existed.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:46 am

Marlow wrote:Since you did dope for so long, does that not also carry over (strength-wise) into the comeback years?


Do you have support for this? I have never heard it before.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:53 am

Marlow wrote:Two (stupid) questions for Lance.

If you were able to win clean (sic) in the comeback, why did you dope in the first place?
Since you did dope for so long, does that not also carry over (strength-wise) into the comeback years?

He said that he started his comeback under the impression that the peleton was clean in 2009 because of improved testing. You have to remember that there was a 12-year period in which there was no test for EPO, but by the time he came out of retirement, cyclists could no longer take EPO with impunity.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:03 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:Two (stupid) questions for Lance.

If you were able to win clean (sic) in the comeback, why did you dope in the first place?
Since you did dope for so long, does that not also carry over (strength-wise) into the comeback years?

He said that he started his comeback under the impression that the peleton was clean in 2009 because of improved testing. You have to remember that there was a 12-year period in which there was no test for EPO, but by the time he came out of retirement, cyclists could no longer take EPO with impunity.


But there was the 50 hematocrit rule, even while he was winning Tours. There is an EPO test now but from what I've heard, it has major problems as it is difficult to differentiate endogenous EPO from artificial EPO. They tend to use a thing called reticulocyte counts, which are open to interpretation. The 50 Hct rule is still valid and still used.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:06 pm

By the way, there are variants of normal in all this. About 2 months ago I donated some blood as part of a blood drive, and my Hct was 50.3, which would DQ me from professional cycling (not the only thing working against that). I assure you I was taking no drugs at the time and was not overly dehydrated, which also raises your Hct (its a relative measure). One other thing known to raise Hct levels is smoking, but since I've never smoked a cigarette (or anything else) in my life, that won't work for an explanation either.

Last time I had that checked was about 10 years ago when I was fairly sick, and my Hct was over 50 then, too. That time I thought I was dehydrated and had just finished a vacation where I road 30-50 miles every day, and thought that was the reason. Must be my normal Hct.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:11 pm

As I recall, Pantani had a very bad crash about 1995; they went and measured the hemotocrit level and it was something 58 or so. I do not know how they did it or if it was a valid measure; maybe Jazz knows more.

There is wiggle room on HCT for riders that can show that their normal level is high like Bambam's. Not sure how they do that, though.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:10 pm

Travis Tygart on 60 Minutes last night.

Well worth 17:34 of your time.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50139841n
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby rsb2 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:28 pm

I missed the original showing, so thanks for posting that - very powerful!
rsb2
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:21 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:33 pm

26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

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: 16323
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: 16323
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: 46327
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: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wineturtle and 5 guests