Livestrong Lobbying for Armstrong

[Onno]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/armstrong-doping-case-gets-political


Cancer support money at work.

This is pretty sick, imo.

[Rueda Tropical]

Your donations to raise "cancer awareness" at work:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303612804577531353567249064.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LANCE_ARMSTRONG?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[sfscott]

The world is full of two kinds of people: those that like Lance and those that hate Lance.

What's getting obscured here by the haters is the bigger picture.

First, USADA is acting as judge, jury and executioner. Anyone who crows about government encroaching on liberties and the importance of due process should be concerned.

Second, does it matter? This is in the past, and as everyone has noted, to single out one rider in one era and not everyone is selective prosecution. Again, not a good thing. If you believe that everyone doped, and that Lance did as well, he still beat everyone.

Third and most important. Whether you believe Lance or give credence to no failed drug tests, one thing is absolute. Lance's fundraising and inspiration to cancer victims, survivors and their families is probably one of the most successful not-for-profit endeavors. It would be impossible to underestimate the damage that would be done by stringing him up.

To me, the self-righteous USADA--going back to Dick Pound--are bureaucrats crusading for the irrelevant. Livestrong does actual good for the average Joe. USADA can take comfort in winning its crusade; I would rather cancer patients benefit from the financial and spiritual work of Livestrong and its activities.

Enough already. If USADA can act outside of due process and in secret, why wouldn't a target of their affection fight back with all available means. War is war.

[echelon_john]

I think most people, even if they despise Lance, still accept that LiveStrong (.org) does a lot of good for people fighting cancer.

This news diminishes that, though, when a non-profit is seen funding lobbying and seeking political favors that aren't anything to do with education or support for cancer patients, but rather seeking favor for its spokesperson and founder.

War may be war, but a bigger question is how LiveStrong might live on should Lance go down. It would be nice to think the organization is bigger than one person; this effort ties them closer to Lance's doping fight than they ever have been, and may ultimately be shooting themselves in the foot.

[PQJ]

echelon_john - I'd say it is nice to know there are plenty of organizations out there that have done more, for longer, with less of a financial interest in the marketing juggernaut that is Lance Inc. It'd be nice were LivestrongDOTORG to continue after Lance is held accountable for his actions, but the fact is that the various organizations that exist today to find a cure and assist those afflicted are many times bigger and more meaningfully involved than the yellow one.

Also, sfscott, there are lovers and haters, and then there are those of us who neither love nor hate.

[sfscott]

But the whole essence, appeal and relevance of livestrong to the non-cycling fan is Lance's story.

If he goes down, the organization essentially crumbles. He had star appeal that pulled in others and cash and awareness. For cancer patients, they find out there is no Santa Claus. For the organization, they have at best status as just another charity begging for cash for a good cause, and at worst, an air of illegitimacy.

if I were they, I would also view Lance as the key "intellectual property" asset and work hard to preserve it.

The only thing Americans like more than seeing someone rise up to a position of success from difficult circumstances is seeing that person knocked down.

[Mark McM]

The world is full of two kinds of people: those that like Lance and those that hate Lance.

What's getting obscured here by the haters is the bigger picture.

First, USADA is acting as judge, jury and executioner. Anyone who crows about government encroaching on liberties and the importance of due process should be concerned.

From this (incorrect) claim, we must assume that you must be in the 'like Lance' corner, as it appears that you have been drinking from Armstrong's Kool Aid. Although this claim is part of Armstrong's PR propaganda, it is not true. USADA is in the roll of monitoring and prosecuting doping offenses, but they are not the judge and jury. When Armstrong applied for a professional racing license, he agreed that any disputes between himself and USADA would be heard and decided by a panel of independent arbitrators. However, Armstrong is attempting to subvert the arbitration process (and therefore subvert the rules of professional bicycle racing), and get the case dismissed before it is even heard.

[echelon_john]

Agree--LiveStrong is one of many. Just making the point that it's probably not a good strategic decision, objectively speaking, to have paid lobbyists and the organization's Executive Director anywhere close to this mess. Because whether the pursuit of Lance is fair or not, the downside risk to LiveStrong.org of being associated with the defense from a financial/resource allocation perspective could make fundraising more challenging regardless of the outcome.

When things get nasty, nobody connected will come out looking good, whether they're in the right or not.

echelon_john - I'd say it is nice to know there are plenty of organizations out there that have done more, for longer, with less of a financial interest in the marketing juggernaut that is Lance Inc. It'd be nice were LivestrongDOTORG to continue after Lance is held accountable for his actions, but the fact is that the various organizations that exist today to find a cure and assist those afflicted are many times bigger and more meaningfully involved than the yellow one.

Also, sfscott, there are lovers and haters, and then there are those of us who neither love nor hate.

[echelon_john]

I think that's one area where the British might have us beat. That, and cask-conditioned ale.




The only thing Americans like more than seeing someone rise up to a position of success from difficult circumstances is seeing that person knocked down.

[TMB]

Livestrong foundation's job is to make Lance an icon.

Livestrong incorporated's job is to profit off Lance's icon status.

[Rueda Tropical]

First, USADA is acting as judge, jury and executioner. Anyone who crows about government encroaching on liberties and the importance of due process should be concerned.

Second, does it matter? This is in the past, and as everyone has noted, to single out one rider in one era and not everyone is selective prosecution.

This has nothing to do with the government. WADA and USADA are sports regulatory organizations. This is not a criminal prosecution. Everything is according to the rules Lance signed on to. He has only found fault with the system now that he is busted.

This is not the past. Everyone in the charging letter is still active at the elite levels of WADA supervised sports.

Lance has not been singled out. All the cyclists involved including Armstrong were given an offer to cooperate. Only he declined.

The only special treatment Armstrong received was being protected by the UCI while everyone else he raced against paid the price for doping. How is that "selective persecution" of just Armstrong? It's selective prosecution... of everyone except Armstrong.

[Rueda Tropical]

I think most people, even if they despise Lance, still accept that LiveStrong (.org) does a lot of good for people fighting cancer.

This news diminishes that, though, when a non-profit is seen funding lobbying and seeking political favors that aren't anything to do with education or support for cancer patients, but rather seeking favor for its spokesperson and founder.

War may be war, but a bigger question is how LiveStrong might live on should Lance go down. It would be nice to think the organization is bigger than one person; this effort ties them closer to Lance's doping fight than they ever have been, and may ultimately be shooting themselves in the foot.


If Lance gave a crap about Livestrong.org he would be making sure that they could live on after the myth is exposed instead of making sure they go down with him. But then if it's not all about Lance then Livestrong is not much use to him as a shield from consequences of his actions.

Still not to late for him to do the right thing.

[goonster]

If he goes down, the organization essentially crumbles. He had star appeal that pulled in others and cash and awareness. For cancer patients, they find out there is no Santa Claus.
Sooo . . . what you're saying is that Lance can't be held accountable to the rules of his sport because he is holding cancer patients hostage.

That's what this boils down to, and it is insane.

http://davemark.com/images/lampoon.jpg

[67-59]

Tax-exempt organizations take political positions and try to exert influence on issues relevant to their causes all the time. Do you people think health care organizations didn't try to influence the administration's development of Obamacare?

They do it because they believe their position is the best way to support and continue the tax-exempt mission of the organization. In the Obamacare example, many health care organizations were pushing for higher payments and/or payments based on outcomes as opposed to volumes of services provided -- something that you may view as bad for the public, but which might really be good if it keeps hospitals in business. And clearly, the continued viability of Lance as a fundraiser is in the best interest of Livestrong continuing its mission of generating revenue for cancer research...which I hope everybody here agrees is a good cause.

Nothing new or unique here, folks. Some of you here think so because it involves a sport we love, but the reality is this happens every day in the tax-exempt world....

[goonster]

This is in the past, and as everyone has noted, to single out one rider in one era and not everyone is selective prosecution.
Riders are sanctioned after retirement all the time. See "Ullrich, Jan".

[TMB]

But the whole essence, appeal and relevance of livestrong to the non-cycling fan is Lance's story.

If he goes down, the organization essentially crumbles. He had star appeal that pulled in others and cash and awareness. For cancer patients, they find out there is no Santa Claus. For the organization, they have at best status as just another charity begging for cash for a good cause, and at worst, an air of illegitimacy.



Too damn bad. If he, and they, cared not enough to ensure that a questionable organization continued on if he got hit by a bus, then that is their problem.

It does not buy organizational, or personal, immunity.

[Jaq]

The only thing Americans like more than seeing someone rise up to a position of success from difficult circumstances is seeing that person knocked down.

Only for the right reasons. No one wants or enjoys seeing the truly innocent be knocked down. But everyone loves seeing someone get their just rewards or a good comeuppance.

I think LA doped, I don't like him for it, but the USADA is operating outside the pale of their jurisdiction. It's a good reason why Rep. Sensenbrenner's investigating the organization, not that much is likely to come of it.

[PQJ]

Only for the right reasons. No one wants or enjoys seeing the truly innocent be knocked down. But everyone loves seeing someone get their just rewards or a good comeuppance.

I think LA doped, I don't like him for it, but the USADA is operating outside the pale of their jurisdiction. It's a good reason why Rep. Sensenbrenner's investigating the organization, not that much is likely to come of it.

From USADA's website (on the "About" page):
"The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is the national anti-doping organization for the Olympic movement in the United States. The U.S. Congress recognized USADA as "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States."

Since its inception in 2000, USADA has worked to preserve the integrity of competition, inspire true sport and protect the rights of athletes in the Olympic & Paralympic movement in the United States. With the vision to be the guardian of the values and life lessons learned through true sport, our organization's anti-doping programs are comprehensive, including in-competition and out-of-competition testing, results management and adjudication processes, drug reference resources and therapeutic use exemption process, scientific research initiatives, and athlete and outreach education. We continue to work to improve our system and anti-doping endeavors to further protect clean athletes and the health of future athletes.

As a non-profit, non-governmental agency, our programs:

•Provide deterrence and preservation of sport for athletes, coaches, students, teachers, parents, scientists and more through education and resources;
•Include numerous protections for athletes to ensure that only athletes who are guilty of a doping violation are sanctioned;
•Strive to systematically identify and sanction those individuals who are engaged in the effort to gain an advantage over athletes who are competing clean; and
•Fund pioneering research for the detection of doping substances and techniques, and the pursuit of scientific excellence in doping control."

Please explain to me how the pursuit of Armstrong for doping-related offenses falls outside USADA's jurisdiction?????

Also, I KNOW he doped (but as I said before, I'm neither a lover nor a hater.)

[djg21]

Need we really rehash all this same stuff over and over and over again?

What's getting obscured here by the haters is the bigger picture.

First, USADA is acting as judge, jury and executioner. Anyone who crows about government encroaching on liberties and the importance of due process should be concerned.



Sorry USADA is not the government. It is a private entity that receives some funding from the government. Moreover, it is not acting as a judge, jury or executioner. It is requiring Mr. Armstrong to honor contractual obligations he accepted when he elected to race bicycles under the the auspices of UCI, IOC, etc.(e.g., to arbitrate disputes in the first instance)

Second, does it matter? This is in the past, and as everyone has noted, to single out one rider in one era and not everyone is selective prosecution. Again, not a good thing. If you believe that everyone doped, and that Lance did as well, he still beat everyone.


It doesn't matter to you. It matters to others. Mr. Armstrong is being singled out because he won the Tour 7 times. Would it make sense to test the journeyman pro domestique who never won a race? If Lance is proven to have won by cheating, he should be stripped of his victories. Anything that can be done to deter the use of PEDs by young competitive cyclists today is more than justified.

Selective prosecution arguments are nonsense. If you are a public figure who is successful and even somewhat disliked, you are a target, and you should exercise good judgment and not engage in conduct that is illicit or illegal or could subject you to selective prosecution. Ask Eliot Spitzer. Prosecutors always exercise discretion in determining whether to prosecute, and one thing that is considered is whether the prosecution will obtain a return justifying the expenditure of very limited resources.

Here, USADA undoubtedly engaged in this analysis. Assuming it has a good faith basis to believe that Lance doped, as well as solid evidence, it would have considered the deterent value and publicity to be achieved by charging him. Weighed against this would be the embarrassment and institutional damage USADA undoubtedly will suffer should its charges be proven to be without foundation. We'll have to see how the evidence is developed.

Third and most important. Whether you believe Lance or give credence to no failed drug tests, one thing is absolute. Lance's fundraising and inspiration to cancer victims, survivors and their families is probably one of the most successful not-for-profit endeavors. It would be impossible to underestimate the damage that would be done by stringing him up.


Reasonable minds may disagree. I tend to be more cynical than you and believe that LiveStrong was nothing more than a public-relations vehicle created by Lance as a means to self-promote and advance his own personal agenda. Undoubtedly LiveStrong did some good. But we'll have to wait and see what Lance does with LiveStrong if USADA substantiates its doping charges. We'll then get to see how altruistic Lance actually is.

If USADA can act outside of due process and in secret, why wouldn't a target of their affection fight back with all available means.

USADA is following an established process --arbitration -- which has been accepted and acknowledged by the Courts and Congress to be fair. Take a look at the Federal Arbitration Act.

As to due process, the United State Constitution and the Fifth Amendment (which contains the due process clause) only restrict GOVERNMENTAL ACTION. Lance is arguing that by virtue of federal funding and the fact that WADA in essence has been endorsed in an international treaty ratified by Senate as required by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution ("[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"). We'll have to see what the Court does with this, but it seems a stretch.

Lance has every right to "fight back," and he has a First Amendment right to petition the courts for relief. This doesn't mean its necessarly in his best interest to do so. He is going to have an opportunity to refute the allegations against him at the arbitration (which in essence is a trial!). The fact that he is being so resistant to arbitration only makes many ask why.

[CNY rider]

echelon_john - I'd say it is nice to know there are plenty of organizations out there that have done more, for longer, with less of a financial interest in the marketing juggernaut that is Lance Inc. It'd be nice were LivestrongDOTORG to continue after Lance is held accountable for his actions, but the fact is that the various organizations that exist today to find a cure and assist those afflicted are many times bigger and more meaningfully involved than the yellow one.

.

I'll respectfully disagree with this.
I care for cancer patients on a daily basis.
Livestrong is doing good work.
Some of the greatest help for our patients comes from the smallest organizations. I don't think the size of the organization has anything to do with how effective it is in helping patients.
For reference I would say that the American Cancer Society does a disproportionately small amount given their enormous bloated organization and the resources they have to work with.

[Jaq]

From USADA's website (on the "About" page):
"The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is the national anti-doping organization for the Olympic movement in the United States. The U.S. Congress recognized USADA as "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States."

Since its inception in 2000, USADA has worked to preserve the integrity of competition, inspire true sport and protect the rights of athletes in the Olympic & Paralympic movement in the United States. With the vision to be the guardian of the values and life lessons learned through true sport, our organization's anti-doping programs are comprehensive, including in-competition and out-of-competition testing, results management and adjudication processes, drug reference resources and therapeutic use exemption process, scientific research initiatives, and athlete and outreach education. We continue to work to improve our system and anti-doping endeavors to further protect clean athletes and the health of future athletes.

As a non-profit, non-governmental agency, our programs:

•Provide deterrence and preservation of sport for athletes, coaches, students, teachers, parents, scientists and more through education and resources;
•Include numerous protections for athletes to ensure that only athletes who are guilty of a doping violation are sanctioned;
•Strive to systematically identify and sanction those individuals who are engaged in the effort to gain an advantage over athletes who are competing clean; and
•Fund pioneering research for the detection of doping substances and techniques, and the pursuit of scientific excellence in doping control."

Please explain to me how the pursuit of Armstrong for doping-related offenses falls outside USADA's jurisdiction?????

Also, I KNOW he doped (but as I said before, I'm neither a lover nor a hater.)

Because they're going after him for alleged offenses for which, except for his 2004/2005 victories, the 8-year statute of limitations has passed. Their reasoning is that, in committing his offenses, he took part in, and gave rise to, a larger conspiracy that is on-going. Thus they're going after him for everything.

I'm not saying that policing doping isn't within their jurisdiction, but that their authority over this particular case is now non-existent. They're closing the barn door after the horse got out.

I'd also argue that since they receive about 80% of their operating budget directly from the Federal Government, they are a de facto Gov't organization that is conducting a second investigation. Since the original criminal case was dropped by the Federal Gov't, the USADA, should do the same.

[Rada]

The only special treatment Armstrong received was being protected by the UCI while everyone else he raced against paid the price for doping. How is that "selective persecution" of just Armstrong? It's selective prosecution... of everyone except Armstrong.

I assume you have some special proof of this statement that no one else has.

[Rada]

Also, I KNOW he doped (but as I said before, I'm neither a lover nor a hater.)

Please explain how YOU KNOW he doped.

[Mark McM]

Because they're going after him for alleged offenses for which, except for his 2004/2005 victories, the 8-year statute of limitations has passed.

More misinformation. In USADA's letter to Armstrong, included in the case was Armstrong's blood passport from 2009 - 2010, which they say show evidence of banned methods - this is includes the period in which Armstrong finished 3rd in the Tour de France (2009). He is also charged with conspiracy for an organized doping program up through 2010. Have you read the USADA letter, or are you just repeating Armstrong's PR?

[slidey]

All these headlines can make the promo for the upcoming movie: "Despicable Me 2"

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/armstrong-doping-case-gets-political


Cancer support money at work.

This is pretty sick, imo.

[PQJ]

Please explain how YOU KNOW he doped.

Really? Explain to me how he didn't!

[Rueda Tropical]

I assume you have some special proof of this statement that no one else has.

Most of it is in the public domain and in the letter the USADA filed. It's been covered ad naseum in other threads. I expect we will hear all about it in the arbitration. Including what happened to his Tour of Switzerland positive. Why was he given a meeting with the Swiss lab to get briefed on how the Swiss lab nailed him and why his bio-passport numbers where ignored despite warranting further action.

If you think the payment from Armstrong to the UCI was for altruistic reasons and the $1/2 Million to Dr. Ferrari (after Ferrari was banned) was for legit training advice I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

[whforrest]

Really? Explain to me how he didn't!

If Lance is still your modern day santa claus than so be it. Stop puking all over the forum. It is funny to me that people really think Armstrong is an innocent victim. USADA is not over reaching their jursiprudence as Lance still competes in Ironman events. This is not a constitutional issue as some may believe.........nor is it a personal vendetta. I am for the interest of protecting the clean riders. (perhaps the minority) I'm 50/50 on this entire issue. I love the guy and hate him simultaneously. But I am sick of him bullsh%$* the American public. It's getting old and he has ran his course. USADA is acting on evidence grounded in reality. All you have to do is read the media and participate in blogs over the last 15 years and it doesn't take long to connect the dots. As for Livestrong..............this organization has perhaps shifted some of it's core values.........they've become too political for my taste............I don't want to earn a dime for them. There are many other organizations that do not back a fraud.

[harryblack]

67-59 with the public service announcement. The frothing Lance voodoo doll set isn't noted for moderation or ethical consistency but nobody can say you didn't try.

American Cancer Society lobbying--

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000031468&year=2011

Livestong lobbying--

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000064871&year=2011

We can, if inclined, look up organizations lobbying for things we have a lot less empathy for; when I lived in Austin, I actually met a dude who was lobbyist for Texas automotive dealers!!

Tax-exempt organizations take political positions and try to exert influence on issues relevant to their causes all the time. Do you people think health care organizations didn't try to influence the administration's development of Obamacare?

They do it because they believe their position is the best way to support and continue the tax-exempt mission of the organization. In the Obamacare example, many health care organizations were pushing for higher payments and/or payments based on outcomes as opposed to volumes of services provided -- something that you may view as bad for the public, but which might really be good if it keeps hospitals in business. And clearly, the continued viability of Lance as a fundraiser is in the best interest of Livestrong continuing its mission of generating revenue for cancer research...which I hope everybody here agrees is a good cause.

Nothing new or unique here, folks. Some of you here think so because it involves a sport we love, but the reality is this happens every day in the tax-exempt world....

[whforrest]

If Lance is still your modern day santa claus than so be it. Stop puking all over the forum. It is funny to me that people really think Armstrong is an innocent victim.

Perhaps this is a little too strong. I enjoy and respect hearing from our fellow forum members. I'm passionate about this because up until 2004 I was such a die hard Lance fan. I've watched this guy since the late 80's. We were born on the same day and year. I used to raise money for his charity while my Mom was battling breast cancer. He's a liar. It all changed when I spoke to several people from here in the US and Europe. I believe Armstrong's doping started before his Motorola days. I'm still passionate about this topice but I'll retire future comments for now.

[PQJ]

...

[whforrest]

PQJ-sorry for the confusion..................I quoted your statement with the title: Exactly!

It comes across as if I was attacking you. sorry about that.............my passion and animosity against Lance is rooted in the fact that I was one of his biggest fans of all time like many of us were.

all th best, bill

[Waldo]

The world is full of two kinds of people: those that like Lance and those that hate Lance.

What's getting obscured here by the haters is the bigger picture.

First, USADA is acting as judge, jury and executioner. Anyone who crows about government encroaching on liberties and the importance of due process should be concerned.

Second, does it matter? This is in the past, and as everyone has noted, to single out one rider in one era and not everyone is selective prosecution. Again, not a good thing. If you believe that everyone doped, and that Lance did as well, he still beat everyone.

Third and most important. Whether you believe Lance or give credence to no failed drug tests, one thing is absolute. Lance's fundraising and inspiration to cancer victims, survivors and their families is probably one of the most successful not-for-profit endeavors. It would be impossible to underestimate the damage that would be done by stringing him up.

To me, the self-righteous USADA--going back to Dick Pound--are bureaucrats crusading for the irrelevant. Livestrong does actual good for the average Joe. USADA can take comfort in winning its crusade; I would rather cancer patients benefit from the financial and spiritual work of Livestrong and its activities.

Enough already. If USADA can act outside of due process and in secret, why wouldn't a target of their affection fight back with all available means. War is war.

Dick Pound is Canadian and has nothing to do with USADA.

[PQJ]

PQJ-sorry for the confusion..................I quoted your statement with the title: Exactly!

It comes across as if I was attacking you. sorry about that.............my passion and animosity against Lance is rooted in the fact that I was one of his biggest fans of all time like many of us were.

all th best, bill

It's all good and I figured as much, hence the "..." 'Twas a time I was a Lance fan, too!

(Word of caution: steer clear of words like "animosity" lest you be branded a "hater").

[67-59]

67-59 with the public service announcement. The frothing Lance voodoo doll set isn't noted for moderation or ethical consistency but nobody can say you didn't try.

American Cancer Society lobbying--

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000031468&year=2011

Livestong lobbying--

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000064871&year=2011

We can, if inclined, look up organizations lobbying for things we have a lot less empathy for; when I lived in Austin, I actually met a dude who was lobbyist for Texas automotive dealers!!

Thanks for the links to the numbers. Like you said, the folks with the Lance voodoo dolls will still try to portray Livestrong as a lobbying juggernaut that's simply Lance's alter-ego, but the reality you portrayed shows that its lobbying budget wouldn't even hit the radar screen of other exempt organizations.

[TMB]

Dick Pound is Canadian and has nothing to do with USADA.

And he was with WADA, but why should the previous poster let actual facts get in the way?

[Rueda Tropical]

67-59 with the public service announcement. The frothing Lance voodoo doll set isn't noted for moderation or ethical consistency but nobody can say you didn't try.



Lobbying for increased government cancer funding, or better health education in schools would be in line with the kind of political lobbying cancer organizations might be expected to engage in.

Trying to cover up a doping scandal of the charities founder? That might not really be in the charities long term interests, that is assuming it's chief mission is cancer awareness and not protecting Armstrong. The Wall Street Journal titled their article: "Livestrong Lobbyist's Agenda Is Questioned". If that's the way it's looked at now if Armstrong is sanctioned it's going to look a lot worse for Livestrong.

Now that reasoning might appear to be "frothing at the mouth" insane to Harry (is it really necessary to engage in ridiculous over the top name calling Harry? -trying to get the thread closed quicker?) ...but really it's just common sense.

[pmac]

67-59 with the public service announcement. The frothing Lance voodoo doll set isn't noted for moderation or ethical consistency but nobody can say you didn't try.

American Cancer Society lobbying--

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000031468&year=2011

Livestong lobbying--

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000064871&year=2011

We can, if inclined, look up organizations lobbying for things we have a lot less empathy for; when I lived in Austin, I actually met a dude who was lobbyist for Texas automotive dealers!!

Definitely a big difference. Any idea what the numbers are in terms of fraction of income spent on lobbying? I suspect that it's going to look a lot more similar then.

[TMB]

Clearly there is one person on this forum who does not like my opinions given the PM I just received!

[Rada]

Really? Explain to me how he didn't!

You accuse someone of dopping and that's the best you've got? Nice try. Next.

[Rada]

Most of it is in the public domain and in the letter the USADA filed. It's been covered ad naseum in other threads. I expect we will hear all about it in the arbitration. Including what happened to his Tour of Switzerland positive. Why was he given a meeting with the Swiss lab to get briefed on how the Swiss lab nailed him and why his bio-passport numbers where ignored despite warranting further action.

If you think the payment from Armstrong to the UCI was for altruistic reasons and the $1/2 Million to Dr. Ferrari (after Ferrari was banned) was for legit training advice I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

All you keep repeating is hear say and innuendo. Do you actually know any of this to be proven fact.

[Jaq]

More misinformation. In USADA's letter to Armstrong, included in the case was Armstrong's blood passport from 2009 - 2010, which they say show evidence of banned methods - this is includes the period in which Armstrong finished 3rd in the Tour de France (2009). He is also charged with conspiracy for an organized doping program up through 2010. Have you read the USADA letter, or are you just repeating Armstrong's PR?

Sorry. My understanding is that they're seeking to strip him of all of his jerseys/wins from 1999 onwards. Those that came before 2004 should be past the statue of limitations, but the USADA is suggesting that he participated in an on-going - and currently active- conspiracy from 1998 to 2010, thus making any notion of a Statue of Limitations moot. In effect, he hasn't committed a series of infractions/violations, but a single violation spanning 14 years, and one, therefore, that falls within the statue of limitations.

In other words, according to the USADA, he hasn't killed 14 people; he's been stabbing the same corpse for 14 years.

That, to me, is their argument - but I'm open to the notion of being wrong and I'll reread what I can. But I disagree with their interpretation because he's changed teams, left the sport, returned to the sport, etc. Each alleged violation is a separate violation, and not a continuation of the previous violation, even if the exact same people & methods & infrastructure were involved.

If he's guilty of violations falling within the 8-year statue of limitations, nail him to the wall for 'em. But I don't care to see the USADA be over-zealous, vindictive, and punitive, particularly by virtue of an imaginatively-interpreted definition of the violation.

[Rueda Tropical]

All you keep repeating is hear say and innuendo. Do you actually know any of this to be proven fact.

We'll find out soon enough.

[cfox]

All you keep repeating is hear say and innuendo. Do you actually know any of this to be proven fact.
come on bro...at this point thinking Lance raced clean = thinking OJ was innocent. whether or not you have a problem with that is up to you, but at this point, thinking he was clean is beyond absurd.

[djg21]

Maybe everyone should take a step back and acknowledge some simple truths:

No one who has posted on this thread has any idea what evidence is had by USADA, or will know what evidence exists until it is produced by USADA either at Arbitration or in some other context. We can agree to disagree as to whether the USADA procedure available to Mr. Armstrong is fair, or whether it is an effective use of USADA resources to investigate and charge Mr. Armstrong now that he is retired.

Tnere are a number of folks on the forum who are either unable to acknowledge that people are entitled to their own opinions, or have a need to bolster their opinions by belittling those with whom they disagree. To these persons, who know who they are: GROW UP!

I'm not sure if there is something unrelated to the forum that is resulting in some of the animosity and acrimony on display here, but the snide comments and personal attacks are uneccessary, obnoxious, and juvenile.

Everyone should look at the forum rules, and specifically, the so-called "Golden Rule": "Don't be a jerk."

If you can't agree to remain civil and respectful when disagreeing, or in other words, you cannot agree to not act like a jerk, maybe you should go away.

[PQJ]

come on bro...at this point thinking Lance raced clean = thinking OJ was innocent. whether or not you have a problem with that is up to you, but at this point, thinking he was clean is beyond absurd.

Indeed.

I'm curious, Rada - setting aside the hearsay and innuendo (to say nothing of 2 failed tests, popped teammates, popped competitors, 'rat' teammates, shady associations, shady practices, etc.), do you really believe that Lance won an unprecedented seven consecutive Tours, competing against the most scientifically/chemically enhanced peloton ever, all the while being the only clean rider?

[FlashUNC]

First, USADA is acting as judge, jury and executioner. Anyone who crows about government encroaching on liberties and the importance of due process should be concerned.



We should all be so luck as to get the right to pick an arbitrator on a three-person arbitration panel that will hear my case.

The arbitration process is far from "USADA as judge, jury and executioner." A three-person panel -- one picked by the USADA, one picked by the defendants team, and one selected by the Arbitration group -- reviews the case, and Lance has the option to either have that as a closed or public hearing.

[Tony T]

"This year’s Tour de France was marred by further controversy on Tuesday when the star rider on the cycling team managed by Mr. Armstrong’s former manager was ejected from the race after failing a drug test."

Well, looks like Frank isn't even worth a mention by name in the NYTimes and even Bruyneel isn't "named", only Armstrong, so I guess one could make the assumption that Armstrong made him do it ;)

[merlincustom1]

You accuse someone of dopping and that's the best you've got? Nice try. Next.

I'll take a stab:

1. The positive cortisone after the 99 prologue, for which a prescription was miraculously produced for a cream for "saddle sores" that I guess LA simply "forgot" to disclose as a therapuetic use exemption. How does one "forget" that he was taking a steroid cream for a saddle sore the week before the Tour?

2. The multiple positives for EPO during the 99 Tour that were retested when the technology was available. There's a lengthy piece by Ashenden on the science behind this on the nyvelo website.

3. Armstrong's statement to Emma O'Reilly, recounted in the Walsh book, about what he needed to do in light of his hematocrit being somewhere around 39 I believe it was.

4. His hospital room admissions, as recounted by Betsy and Frankie, who had no axe to grind, and testified only in response to a subpoena, corroborated by Stephanie McIlvaine in the phone call recorded by LeMond.

5. The former personal assistant who said he found a steroid bottle in LA's medicine cabinet, since labeled by Armstrong as just one of many former associates who speak out against him only because they are "disgruntled."

6. What Floyd said.

7. What Tyler said.

8. What George was said to have said. This one is interesting. George issued the classic non-denial denial about this leak. If the statement attributed to him was not true, he could have simply said that. However, because it was leaked before the feds dropped the investigation, and George couldn't know that his statement was not going to be used, he couldn't risk it.

9. Coyle's non-science science explaining how LA could have done it all clean, thoroughly debunked by Ashenden et. al. in the same piece above.

10. It is physically impossible to ride at 6.7 watts/kg with a VO2 max of 82 ml/kg/min.

11. I don't think a clean athlete with the above VO2 could ride away from every other elite rider whom we now know was doped at the time.

12. I find it most curious that LA, competing cleanly throughout his career, and as the patron of the peloton for a large part of it, wouldn't come out publically to complain about how all the rampant doping around him was making it much harder for him to do his job, and was unfair to all of the other clean riders. Instead, the Quintessential Alpha Dog Prick of Misery drives Bassons from the sport, and chases down Simeoni for having the termerity to speak out against Ferrari (who was paid $465K by Armstrong in one year for having, I guess, provided him with a good training plan).

What are your reasons for thinking Lance was clean?

[djg21]

"This year’s Tour de France was marred by further controversy on Tuesday when the star rider on the cycling team managed by Mr. Armstrong’s former manager was ejected from the race after failing a drug test."

Well, looks like Frank isn't even worth a mention by name in the NYTimes and even Bruyneel isn't "named", only Armstrong, so I guess one could make the assumption that Armstrong made him do it ;)
The NY Times knows it's audience. Aside from cycling fans, who would know the name Frank Schleck? If Frank were an American, or was higher profile, his name might rank a mention.

[Rueda Tropical]

I'll take a stab:

1. The positive cortisone after the 99 prologue, for which a prescription was miraculously produced for a cream for "saddle sores" that I guess LA simply "forgot" to disclose as a therapuetic use exemption. How does one "forget" that he was taking a steroid cream for a saddle sore the week before the Tour?

2. The multiple positives for EPO during the 99 Tour that were retested when the technology was available. There's a lengthy piece by Ashenden on the science behind this on the nyvelo website.

3. Armstrong's statement to Emma O'Reilly, recounted in the Walsh book, about what he needed to do in light of his hematocrit being somewhere around 39 I believe it was.

4. His hospital room admissions, as recounted by Betsy and Frankie, who had no axe to grind, and testified only in response to a subpoena, corroborated by Stephanie McIlvaine in the phone call recorded by LeMond.

5. The former personal assistant who said he found a steroid bottle in LA's medicine cabinet, since labeled by Armstrong as just one of many former associates who speak out against him only because they are "disgruntled."

6. What Floyd said.

7. What Tyler said.

8. What George was said to have said. This one is interesting. George issued the classic non-denial denial about this leak. If the statement attributed to him was not true, he could have simply said that. However, because it was leaked before the feds dropped the investigation, and George couldn't know that his statement was not going to be used, he couldn't risk it.

9. Coyle's non-science science explaining how LA could have done it all clean, thoroughly debunked by Ashenden et. al. in the same piece above.

10. It is physically impossible to ride at 6.7 watts/kg with a VO2 max of 82 ml/kg/min.

11. I don't think a clean athlete with the above VO2 could ride away from every other elite rider whom we now know was doped at the time.

12. I find it most curious that LA, competing cleanly throughout his career, and as the patron of the peloton for a large part of it, wouldn't come out publically to complain about how all the rampant doping around him was making it much harder for him to do his job, and was unfair to all of the other clean riders. Instead, the Quintessential Alpha Dog Prick of Misery drives Bassons from the sport, and chases down Simeoni for having the termerity to speak out against Ferrari (who was paid $465K by Armstrong in one year for having, I guess, provided him with a good training plan).

What are your reasons for thinking Lance was clean?

And we are likely to find out not just Hincapie, but Leipheimer, Zbriskie and everyone else he rode with testified he doped.

Add to that the bio-passport data from his comeback brought up by the USADA and the questions raised about a possible positive in the Tour of Switzerland. The meeting with the Swiss lab and the payoff to the UCI.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it's likely a duck.

[Tony T]

I'll take a stab:

1. The positive cortisone after the 99 prologue, for which a prescription was miraculously produced for a cream for "saddle sores" that I guess LA simply "forgot" to disclose as a therapuetic use exemption. How does one "forget" that he was taking a steroid cream for a saddle sore the week before the Tour?


I just love it when this is pulled out as evidence.
Make me think that maybe Lance didn't dope.

[Tony T]

I'll take a stab:


6. What Floyd said.

7. What Tyler said.



"One's a born liar the other's convicted"

[Tony T]

The NY Times knows it's audience. Aside from cycling fans, who would know the name Frank Schleck? If Frank were an American, or was higher profile, his name might rank a mention.

Both Bruyneel and Schleck are high profile, especially Bruyneel. It's just the NYTimes slant on the story, trying to connect Armstrong to Schleck's doping

[merlincustom1]

I just love it when this is pulled out as evidence.
Make me think that maybe Lance didn't dope.

Why, exactly?

[russ46]

Inquiring Minds Want To Know?

If LA's Tour finishes are taken away, how long will we have to wait and how deep into the finishing field will they have to go before finding a "clean" winner?

I'm guessing a minimum of 10 years before all the retests & court battles are finished and I'm thinking we'll be in the middle of the fields before "clean" winners are found.

[merlincustom1]

"One's a born liar the other's convicted"

Did you think Floyd and Tyler were lying when they initially denied doping?

Choir boys aren't usually witnesses to nefarious activities. Liars run together. That's why omerta works. Every day criminals are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt on the word of other criminals testifying as to what the bigger fish did.

[Tony T]

Why, exactly?

Because, except for coerced testimony, there doesn't seem to be much evidence.

[Tony T]

Did you think Floyd and Tyler were lying when they initially denied doping?


Floyd took over $1,000,000 in 'donations' from his fans to defend his yellow jersey. Did he give it back when he admitted to doping???

[Rueda Tropical]

Because, except for coerced testimony, there doesn't seem to be much evidence.
What exactly would Hincapie, Zabriskie, Levi and the rest have to gain by having to admit they doped -destroying their own reputations and record in the process -to also implicate Armstrong? Are they also bitter liars? Ready to wreck their own careers and reps just to take down Lance?

Both Bruyneel and Schleck are high profile, especially Bruyneel. It's just the NYTimes slant on the story, trying to connect Armstrong to Schleck's doping

High profile in the US? I bet 99% of Americans could not name anyone other then Armstrong in pro cycling. Armstrong may be one of the most known athletes in the USA but cycling isn't even a blip on the US sports fan radar.

[67-59]

Inquiring Minds Want To Know?

If LA's Tour finishes are taken away, how long will we have to wait and how deep into the finishing field will they have to go before finding a "clean" winner?

I'm guessing a minimum of 10 years before all the retests & court battles are finished and I'm thinking we'll be in the middle of the fields before "clean" winners are found.

If the allegation is that Lance doped but was able to cover it up (hence all the negative tests)...I think you'd have to declare that there were no winners or clean participants. After all, how could we ignore all of Lance's negative tests, but then assume some other guy who tested negative was clean?

[Germany_chris]

If the allegation is that Lance doped but was able to cover it up (hence all the negative tests)...I think you'd have to declare that there were no winners or clean participants. After all, how could we ignore all of Lance's negative tests, but then assume some other guy who tested negative was clean?

They'll just keep testing them with newer testing technologies. After all busting dopers is defiantly a deterrent. Right Fränk:rolleyes:

[merlincustom1]

Because, except for coerced testimony, there doesn't seem to be much evidence.

What coerced testimony was involved in the !999 cortisone issue?

[merlincustom1]

Floyd took over $1,000,000 in 'donations' from his fans to defend his yellow jersey. Did he give it back when he admitted to doping???

I realize Floyd is a liar. But my question to you was whether you believed him to be a liar when he was first implicated? I did. And you likely did, too, but maybe I shouldn't assume that. In any event, my point, if you did believe him to be lying initially, is why you wouldn't believe him when he says Lance was doing it with him?

I'll also assume that you wouldn't be shocked to learn that Lance was a doper if he ever actually admitted to it, right?

If your point is that you can't believe Floyd or Tyler because they're admitted liars, that argument proves too much. You've told lies, I've told lies, we've all told lies. Does that mean that nothing else we've ever said after we've lied is worthy of belief? Because that's where your logic takes you.

[Tony T]

What exactly would Hincapie, Zabriskie, Levi and the rest have to gain by having to admit they doped -destroying their own reputations and record in the process -to also implicate Armstrong? Are they also bitter liars? Ready to wreck their own careers and reps just to take down Lance?

Immunity from the (recently dropped) Federal Criminal Investigation, in exchange for their cooperation.

.

[Tony T]

High profile in the US? I bet 99% of Americans could not name anyone other then Armstrong in pro cycling. Armstrong may be one of the most known athletes in the USA but cycling isn't even a blip on the US sports fan radar.

Then why did the NYTimes even mention this in the article? (if not to somehow allude that Armstrong had some connection to Schleck doping)

.

[Tony T]

What coerced testimony was involved in the !999 cortisone issue?

Didn't say that there was. The cortisone issue is the only non disputable hard evidence, and even then he had a valid excuse. As the cortisone is continually brought up as proof shows that the evidence against LA is thin, and that the Fed had to resort to coerced testimony to try to build a case. And the Fed failed, as the case was dropped.

[Tony T]

In any event, my point, if you did believe him (Floyd) to be lying initially, is why you wouldn't believe him when he says Lance was doing it with him?.

Initially, I believed Landis, but as the case evolved, it was clear to me that he doped (same with Contador), yet he fought it, wrote a book and stole money from fans to pay his lawyers. Then he admits to doping (and kept the money raised for his defense)

How could anyone believe anything Landis says after that?

.

[merlincustom1]

Didn't say that there was. The cortisone issue is the only non disputable hard evidence, and even then he had a valid excuse. As the cortisone is continually brought up as proof shows that the evidence against LA is thin, and that the Fed had to resort to coerced testimony to try to build a case. And the Fed failed, as the case was dropped.

Sorry, I read your posts 52 and 58 as referring to coercion re: the cortisone example. Do you really think his excuse was valid, that he simply forgot about the saddle sores from just a week before? And what do you make of the six positive re-tested samples showing EPO from the '99 Tour? I've never read a valid rebuke of Ashenden's analysis of that issue.

As for the Feds, I think coercion is too strong a word. Coercion implies no choice. I'd say those who testified made an informed choice. But semantics aside, when you say their testimony was coerced are you also saying that they are lying about Armstrong's involvement? Simply to save their own skin? If they're just lying about Armstrong, why wouldn't they lie and say that they themselves did not dope but they saw Armstrong do so? Why admit to doping themselves if they know the Feds just want to "get" Armstrong? Also, they couldn't know for sure at the time that Armstrong himself wouldn't later cooperate and come clean. If they lied for him and Armstrong confesses, they're perjurers right there.

As for the Fed's decision not to prosecute, it was released by the US attorney on a Friday night after 5 pm on Superbowl weekend to the shock of the investigators who had more testimony lined up for the following Monday and liked the strength of their case. One of the Armstrong lawyers was a friend of an attorney at the Justice department; they had just suffered a mistrial in the Clemens case (and presumed that maybe the public doesn't really give a ****); and politically didn't want to prosecute a cancer hero in an election year when we all know it's the economy, stupid. Plus, the Fed case wasn't even about whether LA used PEDs.

For me, it's just a mosaic of many, many things that point inescapably to the conclusion that Armstrong was dirty.

[Rueda Tropical]

Immunity from the (recently dropped) Federal Criminal Investigation, in exchange for their cooperation.

.
Immunity was granted to compel testimony, not to determine the content of what they would say. The only criminal risk was if they lied. That's perjury. Doping is not a criminal offense and in any case you say they had immunity.

So according to you they all committed perjury in front of the Grand Jury and risked the jail time that crime would mean just to get Lance. Who coordinated their stories? as they all had to testify separately and there could not be any conflict in the multiple "lies"? Is it a big government conspiracy? The Feds forced them to lie and told them what they had to say?

Give me a break. There is no credible scenario that would have all Armstrong's team mates and closest associates for years lying about Armstrong's doping.

[merlincustom1]

Initially, I believed Landis, but as the case evolved, it was clear to me that he doped (same with Contador), yet he fought it, wrote a book and stole money from fans to pay his lawyers. Then he admits to doping (and kept the money raised for his defense)

How could anyone believe anything Landis says after that?

.

Fair enough. It is a hard sell, I admit. But remember the beginning. Postal was sick of getting their asses kicked in 1998 by European domestiques climbing big hills in the big ring in March. It's come to pass that many of LA's teammates at the time were subsequently found to be doping. Betsy wondered out loud what Frankie was doing pulling the Postal train up mountains, cuz she knew Frankie wasn't no mountain climber. So if all the domestiques for Lance were juiced up to give their all for their leader, do you think they had a right to expect that he would juice up too? Wouldn't he juice up too? I mean c'mon, he wants to win the friggin' Tour de France! Do you really think a clean guy with an 82 VO2 max for 7 straight years beat the elite who were all hopped up? I used to believe that he did, but not any more.

[Rueda Tropical]

Didn't say that there was. The cortisone issue is the only non disputable hard evidence, and even then he had a valid excuse. As the cortisone is continually brought up as proof shows that the evidence against LA is thin, and that the Fed had to resort to coerced testimony to try to build a case. And the Fed failed, as the case was dropped.

To my knowledge this will be the first time Armstrong is being pursued in a WADA violation (since the positive where he was allowed a TUE). So this is the first time we will hear what evidence there is and how credible it is.

The Federal investigation was about criminal fraud, money laundering and criminal activities -Not about doping. He was not exonerated. There was no trial. All Grand Jury testimony when witnesses would rather not testify is "coerced". However if you don't tell the truth you go to jail for perjury. But criminal matters are totally separate from sports cheating and the WADA code.

Lance will get to defend himself in arbitration and we will see what evidence there is and how credible it is.

[djg21]

Immunity was granted to compel testimony, not to determine the content of what they would say. The only criminal risk was if they lied. That's perjury. Doping is not a criminal offense and in any case you say they had immunity.

So according to you they all committed perjury in front of the Grand Jury and risked the jail time that crime would mean just to get Lance. Who coordinated their stories? as they all had to testify separately and there could not be any conflict in the multiple "lies"? Is it a big government conspiracy? The Feds forced them to lie and told them what they had to say?

Give me a break. There is no credible scenario that would have all Armstrong's team mates and closest associates for years lying about Armstrong's doping.

As RT alluded, the way it typically works is that the witness is subpoenaed to testify at the grand jury. The witness takes the stand, and when the first material question is asked, pleads the 5th Amendment and refuses to testify on the grounds that his/her testimony may be self-incriminating. At that point, the prosecutor immunizes the witness so the testimony can no longer be self-incriminating. The witness then must testify, or can be held in contempt for refusing.

Immunity is from criminal prosecution, and that is all the prosecutor may offer. The USADA does not have any criminal jurisdiction.

Moreover, the US Attorney would have nothing to gain by offering immunity in exchange for cooperation with the USADA investigation.

With respect to the speculation regarding a conspiracy of Lance's former teammates, there would be too much of an incentive (book deals, interviews for $$$, etc.) for one of those teammates to blow the whistle. I don't buy it.

All we can do is wait to see what develops. In the end, either Lance will go down or WADA and the USADA will cease to exist, at least in their current forms. This is a proverbial "death match," and only time will tell despite all the histrionics on this forum.

[Rueda Tropical]

USADA's motion to dismiss. Appendix answers unsupported statements in Armstrong's amended complaint.

http://nyvelocity.com/files/u18/Exhibit1%28Chart%29.pdf

[djg21]

Memo of Law is here:http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=112998

[Tony T]

Sorry, I read your posts 52 and 58 as referring to coercion re: the cortisone example. Do you really think his excuse was valid, that he simply forgot about the saddle sores from just a week before? And what do you make of the six positive re-tested samples showing EPO from the '99 Tour? I've never read a valid rebuke of Ashenden's analysis of that issue.

My initial point regarding the cortisone issue was that for all of the testing done, this is their only positive test? 1 out of how many tests?. And regarding the re-tested samples, there is real doubt about the lab that did the testing. And again, this was 1999, what about 2000-2005?

As for the Feds, I think coercion is too strong a word. Coercion implies no choice. I'd say those who testified made an informed choice.

Feds: "You have a choice, no one is coercing you. You can testify against Lance and we'll give you immunity from criminal prosecution, or you can remain silent and we'll charge you as an accomplice" (I really don't know what the Feds said, but I'll bet I'm close.)

This is coercion (def: "Coercion the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats")

when you say their testimony was coerced are you also saying that they are lying about Armstrong's involvement? Simply to save their own skin?

Landis lied under oath to try to save a yellow jersey, so yes, I believe that they would lie about LA to avoid jail.

As for the Fed's decision not to prosecute... One of the Armstrong lawyers was a friend of an attorney at the Justice department; they had just suffered a mistrial in the Clemens case (and presumed that maybe the public doesn't really give a ****); and politically didn't want to prosecute a cancer hero in an election year when we all know it's the economy, stupid. Plus, the Fed case wasn't even about whether LA used PEDs.

Are you saying that a Federal Agency will not prosecute someone that they believe to be guilty of a crime because a friend of the accused ask them to drop the case? Really??? And regarding losing the Clemens case, if anything, if they really had the evidence, they would have used LA to regain their credibility.

Fact remains the Feds dropped the case. Why? Well we'll never really know since they are not even obliged to say that the case is ended, but IMO, they dropped the case for last of evidence.

.

[Tony T]

Immunity was granted to compel testimony, not to determine the content of what they would say. The only criminal risk was if they lied. That's perjury. .

Under oath Landis said that he never used PED's. He later admitted that he did. That's perjury. So tell me, what was the result of Landis committing perjury?

And this is not the only criminal risk. The Feds could have charged them along with Armstrong in the criminal case if they did not agree to testify (and they would not have agreed if not given immunity).

[merlincustom1]

My initial point regarding the cortisone issue was that for all of the testing done, this is their only positive test? 1 out of how many tests?. And regarding the re-tested samples, there is real doubt about the lab that did the testing. And again, this was 1999, what about 2000-2005?



Feds: "You have a choice, no one is coercing you. You can testify against Lance and we'll give you immunity from criminal prosecution, or you can remain silent and we'll charge you as an accomplice" (I really don't know what the Feds said, but I'll bet I'm close.)

This is coercion (def: "Coercion the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats")



Landis lied under oath to try to save a yellow jersey, so yes, I believe that they would lie about LA to avoid jail.



Are you saying that a Federal Agency will not prosecute someone that they believe to be guilty of a crime because a friend of the accused ask them to drop the case? Really??? And regarding losing the Clemens case, if anything, if they really had the evidence, they would have used LA to regain their credibility.

Fact remains the Feds dropped the case. Why? Well we'll never really know since they are not even obliged to say that the case is ended, but IMO, they dropped the case for last of evidence.

.

The lab being dodgy is Armstrong PR. Who else "faulted" their work, other than the criticism that there was no B sample to retest? As for the later years, maybe someone here knows if those samples were even saved. Everything took awhile until the EPO blood test was perfected. But have you read the Ashenden piece? It's all science. He argues, and I've read no refutation, that it would have been impossible for the French to have spiked those samples.

As for the Feds, I'm not saying it's just the friendly attorney, but the other political factors I mentioned as well.

[Rueda Tropical]

Under oath Landis said that he never used PED's. He later admitted that he did. That's perjury. So tell me, what was the result of Landis committing perjury?

And this is not the only criminal risk. The Feds could have charged them along with Armstrong in the criminal case if they did not agree to testify (and they would not have agreed if not given immunity).


When was Landis charged with a criminal offense and when did he perjure himself under oath in a criminal case? Dopers lie to the USADA all the time. The USADA has no criminal prosecution powers. Someone could probably sue Landis for taking their money fraudulently if they wanted to spend the money on lawyers to go after him.

You are stating that all Lance's team mates who likely include Hincapie, Leipheimer, Zabriskie, etc, etc, perjured themselves? Why? Immmunity meant they were required to testify truthfully. period. There was zero incentive to lie. They all got together with the Feds and cooked up a false story about Armstrong's doping? That's supposed to be a believable theory?

[Tony T]

The lab being dodgy is Armstrong PR.

If that were true, then why is LA the 1999 TDF winner?

As for the Feds, I'm not saying it's just the friendly attorney, but the other political factors I mentioned as well.

If the Presidential Election were a factor, then the Feds would have just waited until January. If they were worried about public opinion, then they would never have opened the case.

The most reasonable reason for dropping the case against Armstrong was lack of physical evidence. I see no other possible reason.

[echelon_john]

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We get that you believe he's innocent. We get that you don't understand how anyone with half a brain could think he's guilty. But let's all try to remember, as with most issues in life that are complex (see Politics, Religion), there are people just as smart as you--or me--on the other side of the argument who think your views defy logic and common sense.



If that were true, then why is LA the 1999 TDF winner?



If the Presidential Election were a factor, then the Feds would have just waited until January. If they were worried about public opinion, then they would never have opened the case.

The most reasonable reason for dropping the case against Armstrong was lack of physical evidence. I see no other possible reason.

[Tony T]

When was Landis charged with a criminal offense and when did he perjure himself under oath in a criminal case?

I didn't say Landis was charged, I said that he lied under oath (purjury does not only occur in a criminal case).
For more Landis fun, see: Floyd Fairness Fund (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRIbmhqSiME) ("The Floyd Fairness Fund was established to support Floyd Landis in his efforts to clear his name of unsubstantiated doping allegations by providing him with the means to attain a fair and just hearing.")

I still cannot understand how Landis got away with obtaining funds from his fans under false pretenses.

[Rueda Tropical]

I didn't say Landis was charged, I said that he lied under oath

There are more witnesses then Landis and Tyler. You still have not stated how you expect anyone to believe all Lances teammates who likely include Hincapie, Leipheimer, Zabriskie, etc, etc, perjured themselves? Why? Immmunity meant they were required to testify truthfully. period. There was zero incentive to lie -only to testify and if they lied there could be criminal consequences.

[Tony T]

Immmunity meant they were required to testify truthfully. period. There was zero incentive to lie -only to testify and if they lied there could be criminal consequences.

Why do you insist that they had no incentive to lie? The incentive was not being charged in a criminal case. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?

We're going in circles, if you want the last word, have it......

[merlincustom1]

If that were true, then why is LA the 1999 TDF winner? .

Simply because he didn't fail a drug test during that Tour. The testing of the six samples for EPO happened years later.

[Rueda Tropical]

Why do you insist that they had no incentive to lie? The incentive was not being charged in a criminal case. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?

We're going in circles, if you want the last word, have it......

You are wrong. There is a difference between an incentive to testify and an incentive to lie. You only get protected from criminal prosecution IF you tell the truth.

Testifying protected them from being charged. Lying while testifying would open them up to criminal prosecution again.

There is an incentive to testify (immunity)
...and an incentive to testify truthfully (perjury and loss of immunity).
There is absolutely no incentive to lie.