It's getting warmer (for Lance) . . .

[djg21]

La Gazzetta’s Luca Gialanella reported that U.S. Food and Drug Administration criminal division investigator Jeff Novitzky has spent time working with prosecutors in Italy examining records of transactions, some of which date back to years when [physician Michele] Ferrari served as a consultant to the former U.S. Postal Service cycling team and its star rider Lance Armstrong.
. . . .
Sources close to the U.S. investigation recently told VeloNews that investigators have begun to focus on a years’ worth of secretive financial transactions involving “tens of millions and maybe more.”
Read more here: http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/04/news/u-s-and-italian-authorities-examine-armstrong-ferrari-ties_169668

[BumbleBeeDave]

This should be interesting. :rolleyes:

BBD

[bkboom123]

very ineresting....from a cycling stand point it would be big news, but as I have said many times in the past......I dont care what he has done in the past but he, of all famous people in this world, has done more with his fame then anyone I can think of....

Alberto sure isnt making the next livestrong.....

[ultraman6970]

Well the funny thing is that if all of this situation blows up, Jan Ullrich will be considered one of the guys who won the tour 4 times behind the great EM, then 3rd, and a second place.

Jacques Anquetil will continue as the guy who won the most TDF tittles. And LA could lose them all.

Dunno if you guys but it would be good to see Ullrich in the road again.

[oldguy00]

Even if they prove that LA gave the doc money, don't they somehow have to prove that he specifically used money from the US Postal Service, to nail him for anything.
Big waste of time and tax payers money...

[firerescuefin]

Sounds like Lance was living the "Ultra Life" long before selling product for Michelob. :beer:

[jghall]

I'm with you Oldguy, big waste of money. Got to imagine it is better spent on more important things. Hunger or disease just to name two.

[93legendti]

"...report suggests that the U.S. investigation has shifted its emphasis from one largely focused on doping allegations to a much broader case involving fraud, money laundering and tax evasion..."

What happened to investigating doping?

[Lifelover]

"...report suggests that the U.S. investigation has shifted its emphasis from one largely focused on doping allegations to a much broader case involving fraud, money laundering and tax evasion..."

What happened to investigating doping?


They learned with the Barry Bonds case that PEDs won't get them a conviction.

Lance will walk but some other big wig will fry. Jeff N can report that he won and we won't hear from him again until he writes a tell all book. In it he will reveal some confidential secret from his days as a Fed and the last we will hear of him is in front of a grad jury. By that time Lance will be a senator or governor and all the haters will say that he used his power to get back at Jeff.

Sounds like a great movie!

[wtex]

Hmm, if true, they should run LA to the ground. But, this sounds like a fishing expedition -- they can't prove the drugs, need to justify the money spent on the investigation, so expand it. If they bring someone like Pat Fitzgerald in, there might be something to this. But an FDA guy in charge of a laundering investigation? Sure . . .

[Charles M]

As this has been rolling for months and months and the re-re-re-re-re-re-re tread of past stories keep getting re printed, I've used the line 4 times now...

It's a lot like when Tax payers shelled out $30 million to prove Bill Clinton got a blow job...

Lance and Ferrari acknowledged their involvement already.


I know some folks dont care how much this costs and what it does to the sport as long as the perpetual muck dragging with Lance keeps going it will be of interest...

Guilty or not, I wish this were over.

[jghall]

Can get a lot of B/J's for $30M.

[saab2000]

This is a bit like the Barry Bonds thing, which ended in a mistrial on the big stuff they were hoping to nail him with.

They need to let this go, stop sponsoring athletes and worry about stuff the federal government should be worrying about, which is not sponsoring athletes.

Their role can be debated over and over, but the fact is that probably all can agree that sponsoring bike riders is not really the role of a federal government outside of the Soviet Union or East Germany or the DPRK or China. And then investigating them for what they did with that quasi-blank check is even more bizarre.

Let it go.

[FlashUNC]

They need to let this go, stop sponsoring athletes and worry about stuff the federal government should be worrying about, which is not sponsoring athletes.

Their role can be debated over and over, but the fact is that probably all can agree that sponsoring bike riders is not really the role of a federal government outside of the Soviet Union or East Germany or the DPRK or China. And then investigating them for what they did with that quasi-blank check is even more bizarre.


So then the government should stop sponsoring and funding programs through the USOC to enable veterans to compete in the Paralympics?

Let's face it, US Postal Service got into something that it didn't fully appreciate, and is now engaged in a bit of CYA. But if the investigation has turned up a deeper relationship with Ferrari, and some kind of tax evasion, I think that's all a fair question.

[srice]

Well the funny thing is that if all of this situation blows up, Jan Ullrich will be considered one of the guys who won the tour 4 times behind the great EM, then 3rd, and a second place.

Jacques Anquetil will continue as the guy who won the most TDF tittles. And LA could lose them all.

Dunno if you guys but it would be good to see Ullrich in the road again.

Jan's has his own little problem with Operacion Puerto

[avalonracing]

If Lance was ever found guilty of anything all he needs to do is say cry in an interview, say that he was under the influence and that he has now found God. Doing that and being from Texas he could get straight into The White House.

[saab2000]

So then the government should stop sponsoring and funding programs through the USOC to enable veterans to compete in the Paralympics?

Let's face it, US Postal Service got into something that it didn't fully appreciate, and is now engaged in a bit of CYA. But if the investigation has turned up a deeper relationship with Ferrari, and some kind of tax evasion, I think that's all a fair question.

How veterans are treated is not really the same as running a team paid for by US taxpayers and which employed relatively few Americans and which was thought to have run a sophisticated and systematic cheating operation.

Maybe I should rephrase my post and say that the federal gov't should not be in the business of sponsoring professional athletes.

[93legendti]

Has anyone read the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970?

[avalonracing]

Has anyone read the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970?

Yeah we had to read that in 9th grade English class. I loved it! Oh, wait, that was The Great Gatsby. Nevermind.

[RPS]

It's a lot like when Tax payers shelled out $30 million to prove Bill Clinton got a blow job...
Excellent similarity and therefore basis for comparison.

That Clinton got a blow job was a given from the onset – and nobody in their right mind had to spend a nickel for that information.

Wasn’t the money you refer to related to proving he lied under oath – a completely different issue because our entire justice system is based on it? The same goes for all these athletes that have taken drugs. It’s not whether they have taken then or not that’s important in a criminal sense, the real “crime” as such is lying under oath to investigators, judges, congress, etc….

If we are not going to enforce laws, particular those that try to ensure equal justice for all individuals including sports competitors, then why have them at all?

Famous people who lie under oath should be prosecuted just like everyone else. I don’t see why they should receive special treatment.



P.S. – And for what it’s worth, I’m not suggesting in any way that LA is guilty.

[93legendti]

Yeah we had to read that in 9th grade English class. I loved it! Oh, wait, that was The Great Gatsby. Nevermind.

If you had read it, you might agree that the characterizations that:

a) the USPS team was paid for "by US Taxpayers",

or

b) the "Federal Gov't sponsored" the USPS


were inaccurate.

[Fixed]

there are bigger fish to fry in the world than lance .
a waste of time and money imho
cheers

[oldpotatoe]

Well the funny thing is that if all of this situation blows up, Jan Ullrich will be considered one of the guys who won the tour 4 times behind the great EM, then 3rd, and a second place.

Jacques Anquetil will continue as the guy who won the most TDF tittles. And LA could lose them all.

Dunno if you guys but it would be good to see Ullrich in the road again.

Anquetil, Hinault, Indurain and Merckx all won 5 TdF titles.

[Fixed]

Anquetil, Hinault, Indurain and Merckx all won 5 TdF titles.
and they all used something other than water to win imho
cheers

[Elefantino]

If Lance goes down, so to speak, it will involve baby bottles and his kids.

Yep.

[Joachim]

Ullrich a TDF winner? While we at it we can reinstate Michel Pollentier's Alpe d'Huez 1978 stage win. At least he got caught (pear) red-handed.....

[JMerring]

If you had read it, you might agree that the characterizations that:

a) the USPS team was paid for "by US Taxpayers",

or

b) the "Federal Gov't sponsored" the USPS


were inaccurate.

i just took a quick gander at it and i can't say that those characterizations are entirely inaccurate, either. usps is "an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States." looking at the funding provisions in sections 2001 et seq, usps clearly isn't an autonomous, indpendent, private, for-profit institution either. what usps very clearly is (based on the 1970 act alone; i haven't looked into any amendments) is an instrumentality of the us government and i think you're mistaken if you think taxpayer dollars aren't used for its benefit. just sayin'.

[saab2000]

If you had read it, you might agree that the characterizations that:

a) the USPS team was paid for "by US Taxpayers",

or

b) the "Federal Gov't sponsored" the USPS


were inaccurate.

I have not read it. Probably should, but in the absence of that, can you give an abbreviated version?

I have also heard that the US Postal Service, which is not really self-sustaining and needs frequent infusions of taxpayer dollars, did not really sponsor the USPS team.

In the end their involvement was probably 'only' in the millions, not in the billions and trillions that make a difference. Trek and the other smaller sponsors undoubtedly paid a lot too.

It sounds cynical, but it's not, but fill us in on the details of how this is not what it appears to be.

[veloduffer]

If Lance loses his titles, shouldn't previous TdF winners lose theirs for using *mineral* water (re: stimulants)? Wouldn't they have to test the default winner's old blood samples too, to ensure a *clean* win?

It's a ridiculous witch hunt and waste of money. No good comes out of it - the sport's reputation is further soiled and Lance's good deeds (off the bike) are constrained/damaged. A classic example of losing sight of the forest for the trees.

The sport and drug agencies should be forward looking - prevention, better testing, stiffer penalties.

[oldpotatoe]

and they all used something other than water to win imho
cheers

I guess....all have/had personal MDs on staff. All know the rules inside and out, what's legal, what isn't, what levels, what is forbidden at any level, how to mask it......

'All' meaning any professional athlete. Ya think that guy that just ran a world's best at Boston is clean? What testing do they do? It certainly isn't the level of cycling. How about soccer, cross country ski racing?

I don't get sweated up about drugs in sports..it's entertainment afterall, not how clean the heart quack might be when he cracks your chest or how straight the guy is that designs the jet engine blades...guys racing toys...

[AngryScientist]

The sport and drug agencies should be forward looking - prevention, better testing, stiffer penalties.

i agree with that, dredging all this up again and again aren't good for the sport at all IMO

[Joachim]

I don't get sweated up about drugs in sports..it's entertainment afterall, not how clean the heart quack might be when he cracks your chest or how straight the guy is that designs the jet engine blades...guys racing toys...

As a related side note, it's alarming the percentage of anesthesiologists that have a serious drug problem (while working) compared to other medical specialities. Now, about putting you asleep and cracking open your chest...

[oldpotatoe]

As a related side note, it's alarming the percentage of anesthesiologists that have a serious drug problem (while working). Now, about putting you asleep and cracking open your chest...

That's just great......

This thread is creeping but yesterday was 4/20...bunch of stoners get into the CU quad and get more stoned. A 22 yr old kid was proud of his medical marijuana card for 'lower back pain'..what a farce. A legal way to get stoned, dude...all this talk about 'caregivers', 'patients', what a croc...

Just make it legal, sell it in liquor stores...I'll bet RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris already have it growing, package designed, just waiting till it's legal.

But 'medical'?...my aunt matilda's mustache.

[Charles M]

Excellent similarity and therefore basis for comparison.

That Clinton got a blow job was a given from the onset – and nobody in their right mind had to spend a nickel for that information.

Wasn’t the money you refer to related to proving he lied under oath – a completely different issue because our entire justice system is based on it? The same goes for all these athletes that have taken drugs. It’s not whether they have taken then or not that’s important in a criminal sense, the real “crime” as such is lying under oath to investigators, judges, congress, etc….

If we are not going to enforce laws, particular those that try to ensure equal justice for all individuals including sports competitors, then why have them at all?

Famous people who lie under oath should be prosecuted just like everyone else. I don’t see why they should receive special treatment.



P.S. – And for what it’s worth, I’m not suggesting in any way that LA is guilty.

My point is that the investigation was never about either lying or the blow job to start with... They went round and round and round.... And finally found the blow job... The rest came later.

These things just run on endlessly until they find some sort of dirt.

And I'm not saying lance is innocent...

[jr59]

Can get a lot of B/J's for $30M.

Not in the white house you can't. :p

[JMerring]

But 'medical'?...my aunt matilda's mustache.

hey now - it helped with my neck pain last night. ;) better for me than nsaids, i reckon.

re: your point about the new marathon record - i've always wondered why marathon runners, for whom something like epo would appear to be a natural fit, aren't often (ever?) involved in drug related controversies. anyone have any insight to offer?

[djg21]

Can get a lot of B/J's for $30M.

Unless you're Eliot Spitzer, in which case get only a few that are very expensive.

[oldpotatoe]

hey now - it helped with my neck pain last night. ;) better for me than nsaids, i reckon.

re: your point about the new marathon record - i've always wondered why marathon runners, for whom something like epo would appear to be a natural fit, aren't often (ever?) involved in drug related controversies. anyone have any insight to offer?

They aren't tested for it..

Getting stoned 'may' help with lots of things...so does a couple of fingers of a good whiskey...the scam of 'medical marijuana' is the joke....trying to be a legit medical treatment when it's just a way to legally get stoned for the majority. BUT inhaling smoke from a dried, burning weed isn't going to help your lungs any, riding wise.

[93legendti]

I have not read it. Probably should, but in the absence of that, can you give an abbreviated version?

I have also heard that the US Postal Service, which is not really self-sustaining and needs frequent infusions of taxpayer dollars, did not really sponsor the USPS team.

In the end their involvement was probably 'only' in the millions, not in the billions and trillions that make a difference. Trek and the other smaller sponsors undoubtedly paid a lot too.

It sounds cynical, but it's not, but fill us in on the details of how this is not what it appears to be.
It's an independent agency of the United States government, established in 1971 as an "independent establishment of the executive branch", responsible for providing postal service in the United States...

The USPS is often mistaken for a government-owned corporation (e.g., Amtrak) because it operates much like a business, but as noted above, it is legally defined as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States", (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is controlled by Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General. As a quasi-governmental agency, it has many special privileges, including sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail. Indeed, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the USPS was not a government-owned corporation, and therefore could not be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.[23]...

the Postal Service takes on some several very non-governmental attributes via the powers granted to it under Title 39, Section 401, which include:

•power to sue (and be sued) under its own name;

•power to adopt, amend and repeal its own regulations;

•power to "enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expenditures";

•power to buy, sell and lease private property; and,

•power to build, operate, lease and maintain buildings and facilities.

All of which are typical functions and powers of a private business. However, unlike other private businesses, the Postal Service is exempt from paying federal taxes. USPS can borrow money at discounted rates, and can condemn and acquire private property under governmental rights of eminent domain.

The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies.
Under federal law, only the Postal Service can handle or charge postage for handling letters. Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year, the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit -- only break even. Still, the US Postal Service has averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the last five years...

[JMerring]

It's an independent agency of the United States government, established in 1971 as an "independent establishment of the executive branch", responsible for providing postal service in the United States...

The USPS is often mistaken for a government-owned corporation (e.g., Amtrak) because it operates much like a business, but as noted above, it is legally defined as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States", (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is controlled by Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General. As a quasi-governmental agency, it has many special privileges, including sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail. Indeed, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the USPS was not a government-owned corporation, and therefore could not be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.[23]...

the Postal Service takes on some several very non-governmental attributes via the powers granted to it under Title 39, Section 401, which include:

•power to sue (and be sued) under its own name;

•power to adopt, amend and repeal its own regulations;

•power to "enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expenditures";

•power to buy, sell and lease private property; and,

•power to build, operate, lease and maintain buildings and facilities.

All of which are typical functions and powers of a private business. However, unlike other private businesses, the Postal Service is exempt from paying federal taxes. USPS can borrow money at discounted rates, and can condemn and acquire private property under governmental rights of eminent domain.

The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies.
Under federal law, only the Postal Service can handle or charge postage for handling letters. Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year, the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit -- only break even. Still, the US Postal Service has averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the last five years...

adam - it's funny how you have previously used usps as an example of governmental inefficiency.

[93legendti]

adam - it's funny how you have previously used usps as an example of governmental inefficiency.
It's funny how you changed the topic.

In case you missed it:

It's an independent agency of the United States government,[/B] established in 1971 as an "independent establishment of the executive branch", responsible for providing postal service in the United States... but as noted above, it is legally defined as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States", (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is controlled by Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General. As a quasi-governmental agency...

So yes, while not a corp. owned by the federal gov't, it is an inefficient quasi gov't agency.

And it only uses taxpayer funds for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies.

So back to my point, if I may, the USPS team was NOT paid for "by US Taxpayers" and the Federal Gov't did not "sponsor" the USPS

Sorry if I was unclear.

[avalonracing]

Originally Posted by jghall
Can get a lot of B/J's for $30M.
Not in the white house you can't. :p

Note to self: Paint house red.

[saab2000]

It's an independent agency of the United States government, established in 1971 as an "independent establishment of the executive branch", responsible for providing postal service in the United States...

The USPS is often mistaken for a government-owned corporation (e.g., Amtrak) because it operates much like a business, but as noted above, it is legally defined as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States", (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is controlled by Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General. As a quasi-governmental agency, it has many special privileges, including sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail. Indeed, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the USPS was not a government-owned corporation, and therefore could not be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.[23]...

the Postal Service takes on some several very non-governmental attributes via the powers granted to it under Title 39, Section 401, which include:

•power to sue (and be sued) under its own name;

•power to adopt, amend and repeal its own regulations;

•power to "enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expenditures";

•power to buy, sell and lease private property; and,

•power to build, operate, lease and maintain buildings and facilities.

All of which are typical functions and powers of a private business. However, unlike other private businesses, the Postal Service is exempt from paying federal taxes. USPS can borrow money at discounted rates, and can condemn and acquire private property under governmental rights of eminent domain.

The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies.
Under federal law, only the Postal Service can handle or charge postage for handling letters. Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year, the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit -- only break even. Still, the US Postal Service has averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the last five years...

Thanks for posting that. It is instructive. It still doesn't change my belief that they probably shouldn't be sponsoring a group of professional athletes, most of whom are not US citizens or residents. Be that as it may, to me it's water under the bridge as far as any alleged doping is concerned. If the investigators can find evidence of a real crime having been committed then they should prosecute. But if it's just an anti-Lance witch hunt I'm not in favor of it.

Just my $.02.

[veloduffer]

My point is that the investigation was never about either lying or the blow job to start with... They went round and round and round.... And finally found the blow job... The rest came later.

These things just run on endlessly until they find some sort of dirt.

And I'm not saying lance is innocent...

It started with a corruption probe (Whitewater) and ended on a blue Gap dress. The special prosecutor should have been brought up on fraud charges for perpetrating the investigation.

And the uproar about Clinton lying. C'mon...he's a politician! To quote from the movie "The Hunt for the Red October":

Jeffrey Pelt: Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.

The real damage was to The Gap. Their stock price fell after that and has never recovered. :p

[Ahneida Ride]

It's a lot like when Tax payers shelled out $30 million to prove Bill Clinton got a blow job...




and at an official 14 Trillion frn debt
and
un-official 115 Trillion frn debt ..

I'd say the taxpayer is getting f***** :D

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . transferring millions-perhaps tens of millions--through Ferrari?

Where would Lance get that much? Is he that rich personally? Maybe so--make that probably so. From defrauding the USPS?

I can think of at least one other place he could have gotten it that would also be a crime . . .

Problem with all of this is that by this time, given the problems in pro cycling, just about ANY of it is possible and believable. There are very few particular things about Lance or pro cycling in general that would surprise me any more if they turned out to be true.

BBD

[JMerring]

They aren't tested for it..


really? not even during the olympics? not saying i don't believe you but i find it hard to believe elite level marathoners aren't tested for drugs in international competitions. if true, that's very surprising and, more importantly, why is it that most every other professional sport has some sort of testing (even if a total sham - baseball and football anyone?) but running doesnt?

[54ny77]

I'll have to check that out, right after I finish reading the House Subcommittee report on unauthorized dumping of irregular manufactured socks in the nation's landfills. It's a real barn burner. :p

Has anyone read the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970?

[Len J]

How much of the cost of this investigation is costs that wouldn't go away if we didn't have the investigation? I'd bet most of it.

How many other government investigations don't result in an indictment? should we not do these also? How do you know in advance?

I have no problem with an investigation of potential law-breaking.

Len

[93legendti]

Thanks for posting that. It is instructive. It still doesn't change my belief that they probably shouldn't be sponsoring a group of professional athletes, most of whom are not US citizens or residents. Be that as it may, to me it's water under the bridge as far as any alleged doping is concerned. If the investigators can find evidence of a real crime having been committed then they should prosecute. But if it's just an anti-Lance witch hunt I'm not in favor of it.

Just my $.02.
You're welcome.

[1centaur]

How much of the cost of this investigation is costs that wouldn't go away if we didn't have the investigation? I'd bet most of it.

How many other government investigations don't result in an indictment? should we not do these also? How do you know in advance?

I have no problem with an investigation of potential law-breaking.Len

If investigators were sitting around with nothing to do and they were alerted to transfers of large sums of money 8 years ago that might not have been reported, and they can nail down that conviction while sending a message that will stop that sort of action in the future at a modest cost to our deficit, I might agree that there's no problem.

If an investigator trying to earn his career bones on the taxpayer dime so he can move to private practice and make more is on a fishing expedition using a strained fraud theory to chase a famous person, then starts to run dry on the first theory but in the process of talking comes up with another theory and pulls in some other investigators and they fly to other countries, stay in decent hotels, eat nice meals and chat with local authorities about a potential crime that cost the government less than the cost of the investigation and prosecution to our deficit ever could and probably was a specific circumstance that is unlikely to repeat, and this process took said investigators away from more current and bigger crimes because it was more ego-gratifying to chase someone famous, then I would say there is a problem.

Just because there was a crime does not mean that the process necessary to investigate and prosecute it is not a waste of time and money. If I'm running the justice department my goals are to stop current and future crime and punish historic crime in order to stop current and future crime, all at the smallest possible cost to taxpayers. I would want my investigators to cooly discriminate among their targets to achieve the most possible for the people, not chase every target regardless of cost or likely outcome.

I can't tell from what I've read which way this investigation is leaning, though the dollars involved sound small compared to the effort being put into it. If we're talking suitcases of cash to pay for doping programs years ago, I don't think that investigation is worth our money unless there are prospects of a big no admission settlement that more than pays for the whole thing and the time could not have been better spent on more important issues (which in turn would imply we have too many investigators on the payroll).

[MattTuck]

really? not even during the olympics? not saying i don't believe you but i find it hard to believe elite level marathoners aren't tested for drugs in international competitions. if true, that's very surprising and, more importantly, why is it that most every other professional sport has some sort of testing (even if a total sham - baseball and football anyone?) but running doesnt?


The winner of the Boston Marathon gets about $150,000. And there are maybe, 10 "big" marathons a year? There's not the same level of sponsorship or cash on the line.

[JohnHemlock]

Yeah we had to read that in 9th grade English class. I loved it! Oh, wait, that was The Great Gatsby. Nevermind.

I laughed.

[ultraman6970]

What Trump would do? Yu! Fi'yed!

[djg21]

Better coverage at http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8204/ArmstrongUS-Postal-Service-investigation-continuing-onwards.aspx

Sounds like some mud is beginning to stick:

According to La Gazzetta, investigators are now looking at his financial dealings, providing a clear paper trail to those who may have been involved in illegal activities. They are said to have detected evidence of cash transfers from the US, and have reportedly frozen some bank accounts.

European investigation aside, VeloNation understands that activity on the other side of the Atlantic continues to progress. Contrary to suggestions made in an AP article released in February, there are little clear indications of ‘serious hurdles,’ as was stated then.
. . . .

VeloNation has spoken to sources with knowledge of the matter and understands that investigators are continuing to build what they feel is a solid case. This website understands that Floyd Landis’ claims have been bolstered over time by the testimony of multiple witnesses, with these corroborating suggestions that systemic doping took place on the team.
. . . .

The case has since moved on from that point, with more agencies becoming involved. These include the Federal Bureau of Investigation , the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General, plus both the civil and criminal divisions of the Department of Justice.
. . . .

The Michele Ferrari investigation has the potential to boost the speed at which things are moving. If a financial trail can be established, this could have big implications for the case and for the chances of a successful prosecution

[fkelly]

What crap.

"may have been involved" , "said to have detected" , "reportedly frozen",
"VeloNation understands", "little clear indications" , "spoken to sources with knowledge" {anonymous of course} "corroborating suggestions", "If a financial trail ... " , "big implications"

All that in a couple of paragraphs. How about "unsubstantiated innuendo" or "yellow journalism"? (On the other hand, I suppose innuendo is always unsubstantiated or it wouldn't be innuendo?)

HE may have doped and conspired to do so -- it would be naive to think otherwise -- but this is still a giant waste of taxpayers dollars. PEZ had it exactly right in his quote about Lewinsky-gate.

[cnighbor1]

why all the effort to prove some past rider quity of doping. Will current young crop of racers care. really care. Best to spend court cases funds on improving eductaton on negitive side to use. and get better detection tests

Charles

[jpw]

Lewinsky, Bonds, et al, they were exclusively US jurisdiction. The allegations against Armstrong cross international borders. Jeff N may uncover evidence of criminal behavior that would stand up in a French or Italian court. Perhaps Lance would be best advised to remain within the borders of Texas for the next few months/ years.

[572cv]

[QUOTE=fkelly]What crap.

"corroborating suggestions"



...that's a great one, and completely subjective in the ear of the beholder, as it were. Well, hats off to the creativity of the yellow journalists, at least.

[Rueda Tropical]

It's all speculation now. The investigators will release nothing until they are ready to prosecute, so commenting on what sort of case they have or don't have with zero real information is pointless.

If they wind up annulling the palmares of all the dopers at the Tour during Armstrong's heyday we may find that some French riders few have heard of have been dominating the Tour all along :)

[Tony Edwards]

My problem with consuming public funds (American and/or Italian) on this investigation is that I fail to see how it's all about something that happened years ago, and a topic that's relatively unimportant in terms of its impact on the public. I've always felt it was likely Lance (like nearly every other rider of his era) doped, but he was also the most naturally talented, hardworking man in the peloton. I don't really see how the public is served by burning all these calories in an effort to discredit him and his palmares, whether he cheated or not.

[rustychain]

Contador has been busted showing he had doping agents in his blood. Astana, his team is an joke concerning doping. Yet he will ride again. Lance is done. He will not loose any titles regardless. You want justice you need to go after the whole system. Contadors case proves that its not happening anytime soon. If anything enforcement will only get worse at least for those favored few.

[oldpotatoe]

really? not even during the olympics? not saying i don't believe you but i find it hard to believe elite level marathoners aren't tested for drugs in international competitions. if true, that's very surprising and, more importantly, why is it that most every other professional sport has some sort of testing (even if a total sham - baseball and football anyone?) but running doesnt?

You didn't mention the Olympics, Boston was mentioned. They have 'testing' but very minimalist when compared to other sports. Soccer, cross country skiing, also do very little testing..outside of the Olympics.

[RPS]

My problem with consuming public funds (American and/or Italian) on this investigation is that I fail to see how it's all about something that happened years ago, and a topic that's relatively unimportant in terms of its impact on the public. I've always felt it was likely Lance (like nearly every other rider of his era) doped, but he was also the most naturally talented, hardworking man in the peloton. I don't really see how the public is served by burning all these calories in an effort to discredit him and his palmares, whether he cheated or not.
If he and many others cheated, then how do we get justice for the few that didn’t, being that they are the real victims? Without a solid effort to prosecute we are sending “all” competitors the message to go ahead and cheat otherwise they are chumps. In my opinion, essentially having an excessively short statute of limitations period on drug use would promote more cheating. Hounding any suspect forever is not the answer either, but a reasonable effort should be made.

As to the cost, I agree that the disinterested public shouldn’t be burdened -- the sport itself should subsidize it in some way. If they feel the need to have rules they should have a means to enforce them. Passing the buck to the general public that may have little interest in cycling is not a good approach IMO. Same applies for other sports. Most sports are run like a monopoly anyway so they should clean up their own mess.