# Contador only magnified Lance's problems!



## 95zpro (Mar 28, 2010)

WADA official: Cycling doping case may be as big as BALCO
Updated 8h 22m ago | Comments 2 | Recommend 4	E-mail | Save | Print | 
Share
Yahoo! Buzz

MONTREAL (AP) — The director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency says he wouldn't be surprised if some BALCO-like revelations come out of the ongoing investigation into cycling that has Lance Armstrong as its apparent focus.
David Howman said Wednesday that he suspects "some information will come out of the current inquiries that will be equally as significant as BALCO."
In addition to implicating athletes such as Barry Bonds and Marion Jones, BALCO opened a window into the methods that athletes used to dope.

Howman wouldn't get into specifics of what he thought might come out of the case being investigated by U.S. prosecutors in Los Angeles, but said WADA has agreed to cooperate in passing along any information it has.

People who used to work with Armstrong have been called in front of the grand jury meeting in Los Angeles.

Armstrong, who won the Tour de France a record seven times, has repeatedly denied allegations he took performance-enhancing drugs.

Federal prosecutors have been taking a look at cheating in cycling for months, aided by Food and Drug Administration Agent Jeff Novitzky, who played a key role in BALCO.

Speaking about the general health of the sport of cycling, which has been hammered by anti-doping cases over the past decade — including current allegations against three-time winner Alberto Contador— Howman said, "I think that's a matter for the sport to address."

"Our job is to make sure the anti-doping program is OK," he said. "If, after that, we still find people who are cheating, they've got to sit back and say, 'What do we do now?'"

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

BALCO had a needle with dope. Hard evidence. Don't think you're going to see that with the "Lance" case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> BALCO had a needle with dope. Hard evidence. Don't think you're going to see that with the "Lance" case.


Yes, there is

More to come in about 2 months


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, there is
> 
> More to come in about 2 months




2 months?


----------



## rendus (Jul 1, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, there is
> 
> More to come in about 2 months


cryptic!

Care to elaborate?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Subpoenas and search warrants can get you tangible evidence. If LA and others had access to different PEDs that were not detectable by the then existing testing (like BALCO), equipment to help with doping, and other paraphernalia used, I'm sure some people are still using the same type stuff and there is more still around. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar evidence that blows this thing wide open. 

I've said it before and will say it again: these guys would be better off admitting there was a culture of doping, they did it because they had to since everyone was doing it, and they want to come forward to help cycling become clean. 

Athletes know about the BALCO case and why people went to jail (and that was lying to investigators as opposed to using banned substances)--I'll bet they are signing when they get in front of the grand jury.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> Subpoenas and search warrants can get you tangible evidence. If LA and others had access to different PEDs that were not detectable by the then existing testing (like BALCO), equipment to help with doping, and other paraphernalia used, I'm sure some people are still using the same type stuff and there is more still around. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar evidence that blows this thing wide open.
> 
> I've said it before and will say it again: these guys would be better off admitting there was a culture of doping, they did it because they had to since everyone was doing it, and they want to come forward to help cycling become clean.
> 
> Athletes know about the BALCO case and why people went to jail (and that was lying to investigators as opposed to using banned substances)--I'll bet they are signing when they get in front of the grand jury.


I think it's one thing to be caught red-handed, with clear evidence of wrong-doing. It's another to have evidence like Betty Andreu's testimony about Armstrong admitting in 1996 or whatever to using EPO in 1990. Or Landis' testimony about supposed moto-fridge and mysterious bus stops. Without hard evidence it is too easy to discredit it on the stand. For example, BALCO scandal wouldn't go forward based purely on Conseco's book and testimony. You need more than circumstantial evidence.

I am not sure how Contador "magnifies" Lance's problems. Investigation into Lance is going ahead regardless, at the same slow pace. If anything, public perception may be slowly changing to "of course they are all doping, why waste taxpayer money on long investigation of one person who has since long retired?"

I do find it interesting though that in a few months of time we had Contador's test come positive for clenbuterol and plastizers, and now there are former teammates that will supposedly corroborate those findings. And a lot of information was leaked.

Meanwhile I can't point to a single "smoking gun" evidence against Armstrong, over longer period of time. If anything, Oakley lady re-canted her supposed admission to Lemond (not sure why this matters anyways), and a bunch of former Postal teammates say that they never saw Armstrong using. For the record, I don't doubt for a second that Armstrong was indeed getting "help", but they still need to prove it somehow.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

ti-triodes said:


> 2 months?


In two months time you will either forget about this "prediction", or if anything does come out, even a bit later, this allows for "told ya so!" moment. It's a win-win.


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

BALCO got those who perjured themselves. If Lance doesn't testify or takes the fifth due to his (minority stake) corporate ties they will need a bloody needle to get him.

I can see at the worst that they can prove doping happened at Postal while they were using government funds. I don't see how they can prove the government funds were specifically used to procure drugs unless they kept receipts. I don't see any way they can tie LA to doping, particularly because anyone testifying against him could be torn apart as a credible witness because of past associations.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

lance wont admit. he will take the 5th in any grand jury testimony. then, if it goes to trial, he will aggressively pursue reasonable doubt with an OJ-style dream team of attorneys. he will win his trial based on reasonable doubt and lose a few current fans. however, the trial will cement his legacy as a sports superstar and he will make more money than ever. he will play the victim to a tee and make millions.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

55x11 said:


> I think it's one thing to be caught red-handed, with clear evidence of wrong-doing. It's another to have evidence like Betty Andreu's testimony about Armstrong admitting in 1996 or whatever to using EPO in 1990. Or Landis' testimony about supposed moto-fridge and mysterious bus stops. Without hard evidence it is too easy to discredit it on the stand. For example, BALCO scandal wouldn't go forward based purely on Conseco's book and testimony. You need more than circumstantial evidence.
> 
> I am not sure how Contador "magnifies" Lance's problems. Investigation into Lance is going ahead regardless, at the same slow pace. If anything, public perception may be slowly changing to "of course they are all doping, why waste taxpayer money on long investigation of one person who has since long retired?"
> 
> ...


Two positive tests are a start.....


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

If he had two positive tests why wasn't he penalized?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

jorgy said:


> BALCO had a needle with dope. Hard evidence. Don't think you're going to see that with the "Lance" case.


I'm no genius, but how did the needle with dope send Marion Jones, Greg Anderson and others to prison?

None of them tested positive, none of them had so-called hard evidence against them (physical evidence, DNA, etc.) and yet they served time in prison.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

SilasCL said:


> I'm no genius, but how did the needle with dope send Marion Jones, Greg Anderson and others to prison?
> 
> None of them tested positive, none of them had so-called hard evidence against them (physical evidence, DNA, etc.) and yet they served time in prison.


Marion Jones was tested positive, and Greg Anderson spent time in jail for refusing to testify.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

what a soap opera!
________
The Cliff Condominium


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Marion Jones went to jail for lying to investigators, not for testing positive. You can look it up.

BALCO was broken wide open by a sample of the "undetectable" steroids given anonymously to doping authorities. Once they learned and were able to test for it, an investigation began and the whole thing eventually unraveled.

Don't underestimate the reach of criminal law. RICO violations, mail fraud, wire fraud, all kinds of charges are possible depending on the facts. I saw a college basketball coach who had won a National Championship and had over 600 career wins go down and resign because of mail fraud charges which were forthcoming that related to recruiting violations. 

I don't think you will ever see a trial. Armstrong would not let it happen. If they get the evidence he will enter a plea deal and do so in a way that let's him try to save face after the fact by saying he wasn't doping all those years and they got him on technical violations that were not his fault. The LAST thing he wants is a trial that lasts a couple of months and slowly details all the evidence of doping in cycling and against him. 

O.J. Simpson may have been acquitted by 6 jurors in his criminal trial, but what percentage of the public believes in the bottom of their heart that he is guilty as hell? I'll bet the number is in the 85% range. Armstrong can't afford a trial.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

frontierwolf said:


> If he had two positive tests why wasn't he penalized?


Exactly.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

frontierwolf said:


> If he had two positive tests why wasn't he penalized?


Same reason McQuaid tried to cover up Contador's positive, Verbruggen hid Brochards positive, and they have pretended there are no issues with the sport for decades. 

The UCI is corrupt and incompetent.


----------



## 95zpro (Mar 28, 2010)

Agreed, Contador's problems will not allow Lance's supposed trial to be swept under the rug, and furthermore Lance can't afford a trial especially in the court of public opinion because he would become worse than OJ. How do you think the public would feel about a person if not only they found out that someone had lied but perpetuated the fraud for all of these years?


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

A: No one not a cycling fanatic is really going to care much. Certainly nothing like the level of disgust over OJ, a double murderer, who beat the wrap for his gruesome slaughter of two innocents.

/voice of reason


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Mootsie said:


> Two positive tests are a start.....


by "two positive" you mean the corisone butt-cream and supposed EPO from 1999 tests? If that's all Novitsky has, then I have to disappoint you - nobody will go to jail over this. That's no smoking gun, it's more like a 10-year old rusty nail buried in the garbage.

What will sink Armstrong is paper trail - payments to Ferrari, purchases/shipment receipts, etc. Finding his supplier and getting them to talk would work too, BALCO-style.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

55x11 said:


> by "two positive" you mean the corisone butt-cream and supposed EPO from 1999 tests? If that's all Novitsky has, then I have to disappoint you - nobody will go to jail over this. That's no smoking gun, it's more like a 10-year old rusty nail buried in the garbage.
> 
> What will sink Armstrong is paper trail - payments to Ferrari, purchases/shipment receipts, etc. Finding his supplier and getting them to talk would work too, BALCO-style.


Would photos be good? How about testimony from multiple witnesses?


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Man, facts are in short supply

Marion and Martha - two big people just like Lance - one for doping and one for insider trading - those were the investigations, just like Lance - they went to Jail for lying to federal investigators - that's it. They DID NOT go to jail for insider trading or doping - most of you have this all wrong. This is a new law and those are the 2 biggest names to suffer. Now no matter how much power Lance has within cycling, do you think for a second that every lawyer for people like Dave Z, Hincapie, Hamilton, Christian, Livingston et al are going to tell them "yea, go lie, cause if you don't Lance will get you." No, the lawyer is going to say "it's better to have Lance kick you out of cycling than go to jail, you lie and you will go to jail." Maybe a few of them will do that, but not all.

These are the facts - and I agree, the Conti thing is not helping Lance. It proves yet again that every major tour podium finisher was on dope, except Lance, and every time it's mentioned in the news Lance and the investigation get mentioned, too. Trust me, Lance is crashing cause he knows his world is crashing.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

55x11 said:


> by "two positive" you mean the corisone butt-cream and supposed EPO from 1999 tests? If that's all Novitsky has, then I have to disappoint you - nobody will go to jail over this. That's no smoking gun, it's more like a 10-year old rusty nail buried in the garbage.
> 
> What will sink Armstrong is paper trail - payments to Ferrari, purchases/shipment receipts, etc. Finding his supplier and getting them to talk would work too, BALCO-style.


The poster said there wasn't any "single" evidence. I just presented two potential pieces. You turned it around by saying "if that's all...". Which is your spin and takes nothing away from my original point.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Mootsie said:


> The poster said there wasn't any "single" evidence. I just presented two potential pieces. You turned it around by saying "if that's all...". Which is your spin and takes nothing away from my original point.



Not to be arguementative BUT........1, Lance got a TUE for the cream and 2 the 1999 "positive" cannot ever be used in court due to it being from testing the EPO test & there is no B sample to confirm the A sample. 

Why do haters grasp this as a smoking gun? What part of experimental test do they not get??

**And yeah, did Lance likely do the stuff that all these other guy's get popped for? I wouldn't bet my life against it......


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I don't think a lot of people get it. Read ronderman's post. People have learned from BALCO and Martha Stewart's situation. They are being subpoenaed to testify. They either have to (a) tell the truth; (b) lie and face potential jail time if they are caught; or (c) try to take the 5th--in which case the prosecutors grants them immunity and then they can't take the 5th anymore so they have to pick (a) or (b). 

One person's testimony? Not enough. Two? Not enough, but it will make you raise your eyebrows. Three or more? The evidence can start to get overwhelming when many people confirm what went on.


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

Gatorback said:


> or (c) try to take the 5th--in which case the prosecutors grants them immunity and then they can't take the 5th anymore so they have to pick (a) or (b).


They're looking for illicit use of funds spearheaded by Lance and JB correct?

Why in the world would they grant immunity to the "ringleader" of the group they're prosecuting? If he testifies that he doped but is immune to prosecution then it vindicates all the Lance-haters but it means that the prosecution will lose the case. That's like a plea deal where a murderer goes free if he agrees to testify that he did it.

I'm sure Lance has a legal team that'll be able to keep the focus on the Postal financing aspects of the case. It doesn't matter if Lance ever used PED's or not if they can't produce a paper trail tying those specific drugs to US Postal funding.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

DMFT said:


> Not to be arguementative BUT........1, Lance got a TUE for the cream and 2 the 1999 "positive" cannot ever be used in court due to it being from testing the EPO test & there is no B sample to confirm the A sample.
> 
> Why do haters grasp this as a smoking gun? What part of experimental test do they not get??
> 
> **And yeah, did Lance likely do the stuff that all these other guy's get popped for? I wouldn't bet my life against it......


Exactly. It may count as evidence for insider fans who spend too much time on these forums, but I don't think it is not evidence as far as the on-going investigation is concerned.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Would photos be good? How about testimony from multiple witnesses?


I think it depends. Photos of what?

Testimony from flip-flopping admitted liars like Landis and Hamilton will probably not do much damage - too easy to discredit on the stand. Remember that Marion Jones husband, CJ Hunter, who was also involved in BALCO scandal, revealed pretty much everything about her use back in 2004. But it wasn't until 2008 when feds finally got her - and check fraud case was crucial in her case.

I think realistically one would need very detailed multiple testimonies (with dates, names, numbers, transactions) from someone like Ferrari, Bruyneel, Carmichael, Hincapie, Ekimov, Zabriskie, Vande Velde, Leipheimer, etc.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Axe said:


> Marion Jones was tested positive, and Greg Anderson spent time in jail for refusing to testify.


Well, Marion Jones never tested positive. She failed an A sample, then was cleared by the B sample. That's not testing positive, IMO.

The whole point of my post was that the so called hard evidence wasn't what got those two. Paper trails, financial documents, and other testimony are what got them. I would imagine this case is likely to proceed on similar kinds of evidence. That being said, none of us really know at this point. Instead of assuming that Lance will get off unless x,y,z happens it's probably a safer bet to wait and see.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

55x11 said:


> I think it depends. Photos of what?
> 
> Testimony from flip-flopping admitted liars like Landis and Hamilton will probably not do much damage - too easy to discredit on the stand. Remember that Marion Jones husband, CJ Hunter, who was also involved in BALCO scandal, revealed pretty much everything about her use back in 2004. But it wasn't until 2008 when feds finally got her - and check fraud case was crucial in her case.
> 
> I think realistically one would need very detailed multiple testimonies (with dates, names, numbers, transactions) from someone like Ferrari, Bruyneel, Carmichael, Hincapie, Ekimov, Zabriskie, Vande Velde, Leipheimer, etc.


Expect some of those, and more. Novitzky has had no shortage of willing, and unwilling, participants. It would shock few who follow the sport that there was doping on USPS/Disco just as there was on Telekom, Kelme. Festina, Cofidis, etc. 

I actually do not think Armstrong is in that great of legal jeopardy unless he chooses to lie or witness tamper.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> Not to be arguementative BUT........1, Lance got a TUE for the cream and 2 the 1999 "positive" cannot ever be used in court due to it being from testing the EPO test & there is no B sample to confirm the A sample.
> 
> Why do haters grasp this as a smoking gun? What part of experimental test do they not get??
> 
> **And yeah, did Lance likely do the stuff that all these other guy's get popped for? I wouldn't bet my life against it......


Yes, the 99 samples can be used in court. This is a Federal court case, not WADA. No B sample is necessary. Coupled with expert testimony it would be very damning evidence.


----------



## zion rasta (Aug 15, 2004)

I am not sure what Lance would be testifying about. So Landis says that Lance doped and now Lance has to go to court to say he did not to then try to find him guilty of something to say he lied.

This is a waste of tax payer money. Contador got caught because some doctor's blood transfusion screw up.

Sorry, but Lance will forever be the American Hero.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

zion rasta said:


> I am not sure what Lance would be testifying about. So Landis says that Lance doped and now Lance has to go to court to say he did not to then try to find him guilty of something to say he lied.
> 
> This is a waste of tax payer money. Contador got caught because some doctor's blood transfusion screw up.
> 
> Sorry, but Lance will forever be the American Hero.


How big does the Fraud, Tax Evasion, Money laundering, etc have to be for it to be OK to question the American Hero? 

Landis is far from the only witness.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

man o man you must have eaten some sour grapes or somethin'!

you worry about little ole' cycling, and we have piles of Heroin, Coke and other crap flowing across our borders by the truckload, and yet we, as tax payers are wasting $$$ on prosectuing this stuff. hell, in the US of A , we allow coporations to sell violent video games, which are proven to be addicting to the hundred's of millions of kids. what a misdirection if i have ever seen one.

would be a lot more concerned as a parent about the latter than the former..


just sayin;....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

a_avery007 said:


> man o man you must have eaten some sour grapes or somethin'!
> 
> you worry about little ole' cycling, and we have piles of Heroin, Coke and other crap flowing across our borders by the truckload, and yet we, as tax payers are wasting $$$ on prosectuing this stuff. hell, in the US of A , we allow coporations to sell violent video games, which are proven to be addicting to the hundred's of millions of kids. what a misdirection if i have ever seen one.
> 
> ...


Certainly there are more important things they doping in cycling. The case against Armstrong et al is about much more then just doping. 

What size crime is Armstrong and his buddies allowed to get away with before you are OK with prosecution?


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

well, let me see??
since doping in sports goes back around 10,000 years....about zero concern....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

a_avery007 said:


> well, let me see??
> since doping in sports goes back around 10,000 years....about zero concern....


As I wrote, this is much more then just doping. 

So how big does the fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering have to be?


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Is Falsetti Blackjack?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> Is Falsetti Blackjack?


Nope.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

I'm not much of a fan of the argument, which you hear often in criminal investigations, that something is a waste of taxpayer dollars because we have other, arguably bigger problems. The point of enforcement of criminal law does not turn on that sort of calculus, unless we're talking truly de minimis conduct. As I have expressed here and elsewhere, I am skeptical that a case can be made at this remove, but who knows, maybe it will happen. That said, I disagree that it should not be investigated simply because the context in which the possible criminal violations arose was sport related.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

55x11 said:


> Exactly. *It may count as evidence for insider fans* who spend too much time on these forums, but I don't think it is not evidence as far as the on-going investigation is concerned.


Or a jury.

Let me clarify my position to all the fan boys. I like Lance, I have met Lance, he has given me many a cycling memory. The month of July from 1999 to 2005, was the best month of the year, but I would not try and defend him against doping charges. It's OK to hold two conflicting thoughts. Just try it, let yourself go. There, now doesn't that feel better?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

frontierwolf said:


> They're looking for illicit use of funds spearheaded by Lance and JB correct?
> 
> Why in the world would they grant immunity to the "ringleader" of the group they're prosecuting? If he testifies that he doped but is immune to prosecution then it vindicates all the Lance-haters but it means that the prosecution will lose the case. That's like a plea deal where a murderer goes free if he agrees to testify that he did it.
> 
> I'm sure Lance has a legal team that'll be able to keep the focus on the Postal financing aspects of the case. It doesn't matter if Lance ever used PED's or not if they can't produce a paper trail tying those specific drugs to US Postal funding.


They wouldn't grant immunity to the ringleaders--they would grant it to others they subpoenaed if they took the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when called before the grand jury to testify. Then they have to testify--either tell the truth or, if you lie, face potential prosecution for perjury if you are later caught. Given what occurred with BALCO and Martha Stewart, they are not likely to commit perjury.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

a_avery007 said:


> man o man you must have eaten some sour grapes or somethin'!
> 
> you worry about little ole' cycling, and we have piles of Heroin, Coke and other crap flowing across our borders by the truckload, and yet we, as tax payers are wasting $$$ on prosectuing this stuff. hell, in the US of A ,* we allow coporations to sell violent video games,* which are proven to be addicting to the hundred's of millions of kids. what a misdirection if i have ever seen one.
> 
> ...


That's the point where the "parent" in you steps in, if it's important. You can do something about "video games", but how can you as an individual do something about sporting fraud?


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

and i will state again, i don't want my tax money to go to this waste of time. this should not even be on anyone's radar- period. tax evation, money laundering-such small time $ involved in this situation, if you can't see out of your fishbowll than mate you need to get some perspective..


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

a_avery007 said:


> and* i will state again*, i don't want my tax money to go to this waste of time. this should not even be on anyone's radar- period. tax evation, money laundering-such small time $ involved in this situation, if you can't see out of your fishbowll than mate you need to get some perspective..


I will ask again. How big does the crime have to be for it to be OK for you? 

Och introduced Floyd to a Swiss banker who would help him hide his income from taxes. Och is the godfather to Lance's first kid and has been his personal money manger for over a decade. Do you think that Floyd was the first guy that he has helped evade taxes? 

You ever wonder why Lance used to race small time races like Circuit de la Sarthe or Post Tour Crits in his early days? Most Post Tour Crits pay the Yellow Jersey $50,000....cash.....in a bag. 

Do you really think that when they sold bikes to fund the doping program they paid taxes on their proceeds? $300,000 tax free. 

So, let us know how much criminal activity Armstrong gets a free pass on.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

wow bro! you really just dont get it!!!

selling trashed bikes for nickels....$2000 for stage win...wooohooo....


it is a matter of priorities- the US just does not have the resources to waste "our" time and money...Sh*te bro, the FDA can't even keep your food safe nevertheless fund side projects for T.v dumb time....


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I will ask again. How big does the crime have to be for it to be OK for you?



This case if unique. The prosecutor is also the benefactor of the defendant. There is enormous conflict of interest when the Postal service benefited from the advertising with the cycling team and now a separate branch of the same overall organization (US Gov) is trying to prosecute them. 

Since this is a political issue/vendetta more than anything I guess if comes down to pure dollars and cents. Probably the cost of the prosecution, which I figure will approach 8 figures, plus the estimated benefit in advertising value of Postal Service team during the years in question, would be a good number to start from. 

I'm thinking that the total is somewhere in the $20-30 million dollar range. So if the ownership of the Postal Service Cycling team somehow evaded taxes in excess of $20 million over that 6 year period and can be forced to pay it back then it's probably a good use of the tax payers money. 

Anything less than that and the only value of this case is that it satisfies LeMond fans and adds another notch to Jeff Novitzky's bedpost.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Discouraging and punishing cheaters in our society is a worthy and important goal, whether it is an individual lying on their tax return, a mortgage broker knowingly submitting false mortgage applications to a make the sale, a used care salesman lying to an unwitting customer about their interest rate, Goldman Sachs knowingly dumping toxic mortgage backed securities on the market and at the same time recommending them so people will buy them, making a bunch of money on insider trading information, and on and on. 

We put people in jail with mandatory sentences of 10+ years when they have a drug addiction and are no serious danger, but white collar criminals literally get away with murder. Prosecuting a cheater is a very worthwhile objective in my assessment. Even if it is an American hero.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope.


Indeed.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

frontierwolf said:


> This case if unique. The prosecutor is also the benefactor of the defendant. There is enormous conflict of interest when the Postal service benefited from the advertising with the cycling team and now a separate branch of the same overall organization (US Gov) is trying to prosecute them.
> 
> Since this is a political issue/vendetta more than anything I guess if comes down to pure dollars and cents. Probably the cost of the prosecution, which I figure will approach 8 figures, plus the estimated benefit in advertising value of Postal Service team during the years in question, would be a good number to start from.
> 
> ...


Actually that is a different case. 

There are multiple investigations open right now. 

The FDA/IRS case Jeff Novitzy is pursuing
The USDA case
The Federal Wistleblower case
The French OCLAESP case, which may be expanded depending on what information is provided by the Federal case. 
The Belgium Federal case. 

Some would prefer to give Armstrong a pass. Ignore any criminal activity. I don't see that happening.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

a_avery007 said:


> wow bro! you really just dont get it!!!
> 
> selling trashed bikes for nickels....$2000 for stage win...wooohooo....
> 
> ...


You really don't get it. The bikes were new, not trashed. Armstrong appearance fees are legendary. He was paid $1,000,000 for the TdU the past two years. 

You want to give him a pass for his criminal activity. Luckily the feds do not feel the same way.


----------



## jmad604 (Dec 27, 2008)

What a waste of more american tax dollars! Federal prosecutors and the FDA are investigating for alleged crimes in a sport that's largely european. How many americans actually care! We cant throw them in prison for drug use, but we can throw them in prison for lying to a grand jury about drug use. this is a joke!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jmad604 said:


> What a waste of more american tax dollars! Federal prosecutors and the FDA are investigating for alleged crimes in a sport that's largely european. How many americans actually care! We cant throw them in prison for drug use, but we can throw them in prison for lying to a grand jury about drug use. this is a joke!


really? Tax evasion and wirefraud are European things so we should ignore them? 

How big does Armstrong's crime need to be before you are OK with pursuing it?


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

In my opinion people should be prosecuted for breaking the law. Cheating should be handled by a given sport's governing body. If taking a blood transfusion while in France or Spain is against federal law, by all means have at it. If spending US sponsorship dollars on EPO is illegal go after them and show that the team had a doping program. 

But going after one man to show that he was cheating isn't the purpose of the government. This has to be bigger than that or it's just a witch hunt brought on by the accusation of another doping athlete who's already proven to be a liar. Really, if it's just about one man doping then why aren't Hamilton, Floyd and Andreau in jail? Or anyone else who's been caught? Why wasn't Floyd put away for doping or mail fraud? Did he get a plea deal to implicate LA? Is the US government the enforcement arm of the UCI?

I think Floyd was clear because one man cheating in sports is below the radar of the US gov. Unless there is a political agenda that is.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

frontierwolf said:


> If he had two positive tests why wasn't he penalized?


The standards of evidence in cycling governing bodies such as USAC and UCI, and the standards used in judicial persecutions, are different.

In the former case, both the A and B samples must show positives, and in those positives only the B samples were available. The A samples were already used up back in 1999. So the governing body (UCI) cannot use these as evidence. 

I think some posters of this thread are confusing the standards of evidence of the different governing bodies and national governments.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

frontierwolf said:


> In my opinion people should be prosecuted for breaking the law. Cheating should be handled by a given sport's governing body. If taking a blood transfusion while in France or Spain is against federal law, by all means have at it. If spending US sponsorship dollars on EPO is illegal go after them and show that the team had a doping program.
> 
> But going after one man to show that he was cheating isn't the purpose of the government. This has to be bigger than that or it's just a witch hunt brought on by the accusation of another doping athlete who's already proven to be a liar. Really, if it's just about one man doping then why aren't Hamilton, Floyd and Andreau in jail? Or anyone else who's been caught? Why wasn't Floyd put away for doping or mail fraud? Did he get a plea deal to implicate LA? Is the US government the enforcement arm of the UCI?
> 
> I think Floyd was clear because one man cheating in sports is below the radar of the US gov. Unless there is a political agenda that is.



Armstrong is not the only target, Landis is not the only witness, doping is not the only focus.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

orange_julius said:


> ... judicial persecutions ...


"I'm prosecuting him, not persecuting him."
 -- Manhattan Assistant District Attorney, Miracle on 34th Street

Freudian slip, I'm sure. 

The Rhode Island US Attorneys Office a few years ago indicted a bunch of people who were part of a huge HgH smuggling ring, related mostly to amatuer body builders and such. There's no question there are drug law violations related to PEDs, not to mention potential money laundering and tax violations, and even allegations of bribery. If federal funds obtained from the US Postal Service's marketing division were used as part of that, I can see the basis for federal investigation (admittedly, with all the many caveats about how difficult it will be to prove any of this, statute of limitations problems, etc.).

I tend to share the concern about Novitsky's motivations, however. Agents should not be known by name. He enjoyed way too much personal attention and fame as a result of the BALCO prosecutions for my taste, and it makes me somewhat nervous that he's the one working this case and has his name in the headlines. That does not usually occur, and I wonder if he hasn't put his name in the ear of the press. Especially as the FDA criminal investigation gig is among the more backwater of backwaters for a federal investigator to end up in as a career matter, and the apparent lack of involvement of the FBI in the case is somewhat surprising if it is a real case. But this is all conspiracy theory and speculation, I admit; I just don't like to see criminal investigators too much in the limelight for policy reasons.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

orange_julius said:


> The standards of evidence in cycling governing bodies such as USAC and UCI, and the standards used in judicial persecutions, are different.
> 
> In the former case, both the A and B samples must show positives, and in those positives only the B samples were available. The A samples were already used up back in 1999. So the governing body (UCI) cannot use these as evidence.
> 
> I think some posters of this thread are confusing the standards of evidence of the different governing bodies and national governments.


There are provisions for a sanction without an A/B positive. WADA has been successful lately with non analytical positives for Basso, Scarponi, Jones, Leogrande, Chodroff etc. 

Unfortunately WADA does not have jurisdiction over cycling prior to August 2004 and the UCI has shown more willingness to cover up doping then to address it.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

If Doctor Falsetti is not Blackjack, they're identical twins. Both conflate fact and opinion in the same way.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> If Doctor Falsetti is not Blackjack, they're identical twins. Both conflate fact and opinion in the same way.


Instead of attacking me personally you may want to address the topics being discussed. If you disagree with me then please tell me what I have written that is incorrect. Perhaps I have heard or read something wrong so if you have a different opinion then please share it with us.....but simply attacking me personally without addressing any of the topics I have written about adds little to the conversation.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong is not the only target, Landis is not the only witness, doping is not the only focus.


I find it ironic that Armstrong may go down Al Capone-like, because of tax evasion. A lot easier to prove than doping, due to clear paperwork trail. Then leveraged against doping evidence to get admission of guilt. I suspect the check-fraud case and fear of longer prison term was used as a similar leverage to get Marion Jones to give away the Sydney 2000 Olympic medals and admit doping guilt.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead of attacking me personally you may want to address the topics being discussed. If you disagree with me then please tell me what I have written that is incorrect. Perhaps I have heard or read something wrong so if you have a different opinion then please share it with us.....but simply attacking me personally without addressing any of the topics I have written about adds little to the conversation.


I don't consider my response an "attack." It's just an observation. I addressed this entire thread rather than 'none of the topics' as you suggest. Regardless, let's look at one example. Beforehand, I'll fully claim that I simply don't know whether LA committed fraud, tax evasion, or money laundering. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. You, on the other hand, write like you know that he's guilty, without a doubt. How do you know? And please don't cite any source that you read. That is not proof. Or, are you willing to admit that it's just your opinion?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> I don't consider my response an "attack." It's just an observation. I addressed this entire thread rather than 'none of the topics' as you suggest. Regardless, let's look at one example. Beforehand, I'll fully claim that I simply don't know whether LA committed fraud, tax evasion, or money laundering. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. You, on the other hand, write like you know that he's guilty, without a doubt. How do you know? And please don't cite any source that you read. That is not proof. Or, are you willing to admit that it's just your opinion?


No, it is more then my opinion. I know many of his former teammates and support staff from that time. I heard the stories of the doping and the pressure to dope years ago. The fact that bikes and other equipment was being sold out the back of the service course was a well know issue for years. Little of what is now public is a surprise to many. 

The part that is my opinion is the question if Landis was the only rider Och gave guidance on how to hide income from taxes. It would make sense that he would have also given this recommendation to his largest customer. It would make sense for there to be some kind of financial transactions in Switzerland as Dr. Ferrari's main base is in St Moritz. His, and Fuente's, past customers have given descriptions of using Swiss bank accounts to hide their financial transactions. 

As I have written before. I do not think Armstrong is in that much legal jeopardy, as long as he tells the truth. The far greater risk is to Weisel, Stapleton, Brunyeel, etc.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, it is more then my opinion. I know many of his former teammates and support staff from that time. I heard the stories of the doping and the pressure to dope years ago. The fact that bikes and other equipment was being sold out the back of the service course was a well know issue for years. Little of what is now public is a surprise to many.
> 
> The part that is my opinion is the question if Landis was the only rider Och gave guidance on how to hide income from taxes. It would make sense that he would have also given this recommendation to his largest customer. It would make sense for there to be some kind of financial transactions in Switzerland as Dr. Ferrari's main base is in St Moritz. His, and Fuente's, past customers have given descriptions of using Swiss bank accounts to hide their financial transactions.
> 
> As I have written before. I do not think Armstrong is in that much legal jeopardy, as long as he tells the truth. The far greater risk is to Weisel, Stapleton, Brunyeel, etc.


Ok, so it's your opinion plus the opinion of others. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> Ok, so it's your opinion plus the opinion of others. Makes sense to me.


It is the direct witness testimony of others.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is the direct witness testimony of others.


Direct witness testimony of others still doesn't change it from an opinion unless LA or anyone else you've named has been declared guilty as charged in an official court room. (This forum is not an official court room.) Until a legal ruling is made, your declarations about so-in-so being guilty of this and that amounts to nothing more than, well, your opinion. Even if LA himself admitted to every charge to which you've accused him, his admission would remain in the "opinion" category until a judge ruled it otherwise. You may be factually correct, but you have no leg to stand on until the legal system officially says you do.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> Direct witness testimony of others still doesn't change it from an opinion unless LA or anyone else you've named has been declared guilty as charged in an official court room. (This forum is not an official court room.) Until a legal ruling is made, your declarations about so-in-so being guilty of this and that amounts to nothing more than, well, your opinion. Even if LA himself admitted to every charge to which you've accused him, his admission would remain in the "opinion" category until a judge ruled it otherwise. You may be factually correct, but you have no leg to stand on until the legal system officially says you do.


Until a court rules it never happened. 

Got it. :thumbsup:


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You really don't get it. The bikes were new, not trashed. Armstrong appearance fees are legendary. He was paid $1,000,000 for the TdU the past two years.
> 
> You want to give him a pass for his criminal activity. Luckily the feds do not feel the same way.



- You are absolutely obsessed and remind me of another person that posted here......

People, Sports Celebs included are paid $$$$$ for making appearance's all the time.
It's "how" they report the $$$$$ that set's them apart.

You are "assuming" L.A. has evaded taxes on these fee's and winnings..... 
We'll just have to wait and see I guess. "Speculate" on if that's what floats yer boat there "D.F"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> - *You are absolutely obsessed and remind me of another person that posted here*......
> 
> People, Sports Celebs included are paid $$$$$ for making appearance's all the time.
> It's "how" they report the $$$$$ that set's them apart.
> ...



Please, keep the personal attacks to a minimum. They add no value to the discussion on only bring down the overall discourse of the forum.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Please, keep the personal attacks to a minimum. They add no value to the discussion on only bring down the overall discourse of the forum.


If you want a "personal attack" I could deliver one.

That's NEVER happened. Why don't you try to have a little "Thicker Skin" when someone calls B.S. on YOU in a nice way???

Cheers "D.F." :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> *If you want a "personal attack" I could deliver one.*
> 
> That's NEVER happened. Why don't you try to have a little "Thicker Skin" when someone calls B.S. on YOU in a nice way???
> 
> Cheers "D.F." :thumbsup:


I have no desire for personal attacks. I prefer a civil discussion. Just because you disagree with what I write does not mean I am obsessed or have anything in common with banned poster you obviously dislike. 
:thumbsup:


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Where I have some skepticism is in the proposition that LA would very publicly obtain a large payment in a bike race, and then not pay taxes on it and expect not to be noticed. It doesn't compute. Conspiracies have to be more clever or at least more circumspect than that if you are a celebrity cyclist. Maybe I don't understand the allegation, but if part of it is as simple as $50,000 cash payments for public post-tour race appearances that went unreported on the relevant 1040 schedule or whatever, I have a hard time believing that would have happened.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

worst_shot_ever said:


> Where I have some skepticism is in the proposition that LA would very publicly obtain a large payment in a bike race, and then not pay taxes on it and expect not to be noticed. It doesn't compute. Conspiracies have to be more clever or at least more circumspect than that if you are a celebrity cyclist. Maybe I don't understand the allegation, but if part of it is as simple as $50,000 cash payments for public post-tour race appearances that went unreported on the relevant 1040 schedule or whatever, I have a hard time believing that would have happened.


Cash payments for Post Tour crits have been around for decades. Some riders receive a couple hundred euros, others much more. Robbie McEwen made 250,000 euros one year racing 18 post Tour crits. 

I think it will be a challenge to prove. Armstrong has been the target of tax investigations in the past so he has likely tighten up his methods. Novitzky's background is as an IRS investigator so he would be a good person to be looking into it.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, it is more then my opinion. I know many of his former teammates and support staff from that time.


sure you do


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

covenant said:


> sure you do


I wouldn't expect you to believe me. 

Here is story you will hear in a few months. At least 4 riders who were on the team in the late 90's, early 2000's, were given a choice by team doctors and management...either take a shot or do not start tomorrow. They were not told what was in the shot, just that they had to take it. Some questioned it, some didn't. They all took the shot.


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

I don't quite buy everything DF is selling. He makes it seem like the end of the Hangover and somebody out there found a camera with pics of JB, fists full of cash smiling for a picture with the whole USPS team laying on cots getting transfusions in the background. Photos? What photos? What's in the pics?

Are they going after Levi, Hincapie, Vaughters, Vandevelde, Zabriskie, and Ventura as accessories? Who is more than just Lance and JB? Are they trying to stigmatize American cycling so that VS won't waste so much valuable bull riding time by broadcasting the TdF?

I don't even really know what they're trying to indict tailwind for really. I think they're just trying to find out if there's any evidence out there that they can prosecute for. I just don't understand what they can prove that will mean anything.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

*Doc, your posts read as if you...................*

have an inside track with many of the cast involved as well as first hand knowledge of specific instances of LA doping/tax fraud/money laundering, et al. And to answer your questions to others in a quantifiable amount/figure, any intentional doping, intentional tax fraud, intentional money laundering by LA is too much. 

So do me a favor and lay out your case against Mr. Armstrong. Not via innuendo, coulda's or mighta's (more than enough of that already available). Again, your posts read as if you have first hand knowledge. I'm interested in reading a first hand account from someone who was there, who knows. I'd honestly like to know.

I'd like to know as a cyclist. I'd like to know as a cancer survivor, a testicular cancer survivor. You see, Doc, I'm vested. 

So once and for all, lay everything out in the sunlight for us ignorant folks to see. Name names, dates, times. Withhold nothing. 

Make your case. 

Thank you, Doc.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

billium said:


> have an inside track with many of the cast involved as well as first hand knowledge of specific instances of LA doping/tax fraud/money laundering, et al. And to answer your questions to others in a quantifiable amount/figure, any intentional doping, intentional tax fraud, intentional money laundering by LA is too much.
> 
> So do me a favor and lay out your case against Mr. Armstrong. Not via innuendo, coulda's or mighta's (more than enough of that already available). Again, your posts read as if you have first hand knowledge. I'm interested in reading a first hand account from someone who was there, who knows. I'd honestly like to know.
> 
> ...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

billium said:


> have an inside track with many of the cast involved as well as first hand knowledge of specific instances of LA doping/tax fraud/money laundering, et al. And to answer your questions to others in a quantifiable amount/figure, any intentional doping, intentional tax fraud, intentional money laundering by LA is too much.
> 
> So do me a favor and lay out your case against Mr. Armstrong. Not via innuendo, coulda's or mighta's (more than enough of that already available). Again, your posts read as if you have first hand knowledge. I'm interested in reading a first hand account from someone who was there, who knows. I'd honestly like to know.
> 
> ...


I would separate this discussion from the Federal case.

As I have said I think that Armstrong only has to tell the truth and he will not face many issues. The actual organization of doping, transfer of funds, etc is done by others. This is were the large scale legal issues would lie. While Armstrong was certainly aware of the events I would not think that he was more a participant then a ring leader. 

Separate from the federal case, did he dope? Yes, of course he did. He was a willing participant from a very young age. His earliest coach as a teenager was later accused of supplying EPO and blood spinners to riders. 

When he moved to the national team he was under the guidance of Chris Carmichel who along with Rene Wezel was not just coaching but doping the riders. They were both later sued and paid large settlements for doping riders as young as 18. It should be no surprise that 5 of the riders on that Junior team, Lance included, became ill with complications that are closely linked with Cortisone abuse. Ernie Lachuga even came down with the same testicular cancer as Lance. You can read more here
http://velonews.competitor.com/2000/12/news/strock-speaks_79

He moved on to the bigger stuff when he turned Pro. In 1994 he made it clear to his roommate and teammates that he was going to start using EPO. There was no way to compete without it.....he was right, there wasn't. Multiple teammates saw him inject. If there is a trial they will be there. He saw an immediate jump in form and had his best season ever in 1995. 

He started working with Ferrari prior to the 1996 season. . There is no doubt that Ferrari is a doping doctor. I could write a separate book on him. As Richard Virenque said



> “teaming up with Ferrari was like putting a saucepan up your backside: it was immediately obvious what you were doing.”


Ferrari worked wonders for Lance. Armstrong knew this when his teammates would not subscribe to his methods he would belittle them for not being professional enough. He would not tell everyone though as he knew what Ferrari was about. I know guys that were teammates with during this period who had no idea he was using Ferrari until David Walsh exposed it in 2000. 

I have heard lots of stories of him bragging about doping. That he said he had found, without Ferrari's help, some new product that was not approved yet. He said he had bought up the entire supply. To be fair I do not believe this. The real Lance is a very insecure guy who has a tendency to brag. 

You know the story of Floyd and the fridge. I heard that about 5 years ago and did not believe it.....then find out it is true. It seems so amateur but at the same time keeping the circle as closed as possible made sense. Speaking of fridges when he ended his marriage with Kristen he called John Korioth immediately after to tell him to get the EPO out of the small fridge at his ranch house as Kristen was super angry and he did not want her to do something punitive. Kristen has told other teammates wifes that EPO is a "Necessary evil" of the sport. 

It really should be know surprise that Postal had an organized doping program. They employed Dr. Ferrari and Pepe Marti. There is only one thing those guys are good at....and it is not interval training. We know that Telekom, Kelme, Fasso Bortolo, ONCE, LS, QS, all had organized doping programs that included transfusions....why would Postal be any different? Where is Pepe Marti today? The Doctor that Landis said gave him multiple transfusions is now "Coaching" Contador. 

While Armstrong claimed to be the "Worlds Most Tested Athlete" the fact is he is nowhere close. Mike Anderson, Armstrong's personal mechanic and assistant spent almost every day with him for 2 years. He said he never was tested out of competition in Europe and only 1-2 times a year in the US. You can go to USADA's website and find that this is the case. 

Jesus Manzano and Floyd Landis have said that Armstrong and USPS would get advanced notice of "surprise" out of competition testing from Walter Viru who ran the UCI lab in Valencia. Walter was arrested earlier this year for running a doping program for athletes. 

I first heard of the "Donation" of $500,000 to the UCI in 2003. Syliva Schenk, UCI board Member and heard of it's ethics committee said this. 


> “Since 1998 the UCI has done a lot to combat doping but everything is different where Armstrong is concerned,”
> “There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong,” Schenk added. “The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong – to my knowledge 500,000 dollars – and now there is speculation that there are financial connections to Armstrong, as well as the American market. I do not know what sort of connections Verbruggen has.”


Jeff Spencer is one of the rumored witnesses that has testified to the Grand Jury. Jeff was on the medical staff of USPS and in 2000 was caught dumping PED's and 160 syringes during the Tour. 

You likely know about his 1999 samples testing positive for EPO. I am sure it has been endlessly discussed but if you would like to read an experts take here is an very good interview with Micheal Ashenden, Head of the UCI Biopassport committee and one of the inventors of the EPO test. 
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

I am not naming names but I have heard that some key teammates and support staff have testified truthfully to the grand jury and have backed up Landis' accusations. 

I could go on but I am tired and I need to ride tomorrow. I can add more if you like but most likely this will just be met with a series of personal attacks from posters who prefer that nobody addresses the obvious.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

On the financial side. Unless they can prove the tax issues I think the money issues largely focus on other people. Supposedly in Armstrong's divorce he claimed as an expense of $800,000 per year to employ Ferrari. Perhaps he was trying to get the settlement down but regardless it would he hard to hide that much cash flowing to an Italian doping doctor.

While some would like to pretend that the selling of bikes to fund the doping program is just the dumping of old bikes it is anything but. This was a major issue. Every rider on the team knew there was an inventory issue and complained about it. Trek was so concerned that they put a full time employee, Scott Daubert, on the job. For his first year Julian would not even let him in the service course. it was not only bikes but wheels, tires. etc. Over 6 years it would be easy for this to reach $400,000. 

the federal whistle blower case could be interesting. The way to know if it has legs is if the Fed's decide to take part and assist in the case. If they do then expect all the Tailwind guys to settle quickly.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I would separate this discussion from the Federal case.....................................................................................................I could go on but I am tired and I need to ride tomorrow. I can add more if you like but most likely this will just be met with a series of personal attacks from posters who prefer that nobody addresses the obvious.



Doc;

You're right, it's late. That's probably why I'm a bit confused.

Did you witness Mr. Armstrong dope? Dispose of his vials? Read wire transfer receipts? See him stuff large amounts of Francs/Euros in his matress? Have copies of Swiss Bank records? Many of your statements are written in the first person as if you were present while these events unfolded before you. If you were and they did, simply say so. My experience with these sorts of stories is that lots of people know people who were there, saw this, heard that. Pickins get slim when you actually talk to the people who were supposedly there. Turns out that often, the folks who were suppose to have been there just heard it from someone else who was suppose to have been there. So clarify my cloudiness, were you present?

I'll concede the volumes of circumstantial evidence surrounding Mr. Armstrong and doping are significant, much of which you've layed out. Some appears so damning that you'd have to consciously not want to beleive it to not beleive it. Doping was so prevalent during that time, so many of the elite have either come forward and confessed or been found out. Not sure how many of the KOM jersey winners in the past 15 years reputation's are still untarnished, but I'd guesstimate very few. Seems now like everyone did it then. 

But I have a slightly different perspective. It's one of rounds of chemo and the associated discomfort. Meeting with the attorneys to get your will in order. Teaching your spouse the ins and outs of those things that had up to that point been your responsibilities in the marriage - just in case. Trying to look your daughters in the eye while telling them you have cancer two and a half months after they had to bury their grandfather who died from cancer. Catscans to make sure the cancer hasn't spread (Mr. Armstrong's spread to his lungs and brain - I was luckier).It's burdening those folks you work with with more work - your work - because you can't hold up your end of the deal. And it's the nights when you are more alone than you ever thought possible. And you know what - I'm one lucky bastard. Most folks getting chemo endure/endured much more than I ever did or probably ever could. 

You think I'd take a chance with my health after all that for fame? Glory? Money? 

It's possible Mr. Armstrong was willing to risk everything for those things. His cycling persona is one of the brash, cocky, self-confident to the point of narcissism, so that adds fuel to the fire. Go in person some time to hear him address cancer survivors. You'll not recognize the speaker.

So tell me what you know that hasn't already been written, or confirm that you witnessed first hand those things that have been written, Doc. I really do want to know and your posts allude to a knowledge that I personally couldn't possess without seeing with my own eyes or hearing with my own ears.

Thanks doc.


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

The Ernie Lachuga interview really makes it seem like doping was a normal part of the sport for all riders with potential from an early age. I wonder if this is what Lance was talking about when he implied that Lemond had skeletons in his closet as well?


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am not naming names but I have heard that some key teammates and support staff have testified truthfully to the grand jury and have backed up Landis' accusations.


Why not name names? Nobody knows you here. And all that other stuff you wrote anyone can find on the net or in L.A. Confidentiel. Try harder. :thumbsup:


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

DF is awesome... Lots of that stuff I'd heard before but not to that extent. Armstrong is such a fraud. I don't see how anyone but the nut-huggers (pun intended  ) could think differently.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

worst_shot_ever said:


> "I'm prosecuting him, not persecuting him."
> -- Manhattan Assistant District Attorney, Miracle on 34th Street
> 
> Freudian slip, I'm sure.
> ...


Nice catch on the slip, thanks .

You make a good point about the identifying of Novitsky by name, but to his credit, I can't find many sound-bites attributed to him in the media. The naming may have been driven by the amount of press that some of his investigations have earned, whether desired or otherwise.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

billium said:


> Doc;
> 
> You're right, it's late. That's probably why I'm a bit confused.
> 
> ...


Lance's cancer, or however unfortunate, anyone else's is independent of whether or not he subsequently doped to maximize his probability of success in his livelihood.

Put another way, Lance's cancer was irrelevent to whether he subsequently doped as a professional cyclist. As a cycling fan, I don't have any facts to share beyond what's already been written here. Nevertheless, an objective assessment whether he doped should be stripped of the emotional red herring of his cancer.

Cheers!


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2010)

rubbersoul said:


> Lance's cancer, or however unfortunate, anyone else's is independent of whether or not he subsequently doped to maximize his probability of success in his livelihood.
> 
> Put another way, Lance's cancer was irrelevent to whether he subsequently doped as a professional cyclist. As a cycling fan, I don't have any facts to share beyond what's already been written here. Nevertheless, an objective assessment whether he doped should be stripped of the emotional red herring of his cancer.
> 
> Cheers!


Rubbersoul:

I couldn't disagree more with your conclusion. 

The total sum of my resistance to simply accepting the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against Mr. Armstrong is what he endured to survive. Your point that "an objective assessment whether he doped should be stripped of the emotional red herring of his cancer", turned 180 degrees, is the source of my reluctance.

In his case, based on the accounts I've read of how invasive the cancer had become at the time of diagnosis, he should have died. I assume we all have theories on how we'd face our mortality if it came up. It doesn't work that way. Regardless of the depth of your empathy, it's impossible to understand the physical/emotional/psychological side of the equation without actually experiencing it. Mr. Armstrong's cancer was more invasive, treatment was much, much more severe and debilitating and his survival was in question much longer than mine. But from the little sliver that I experienced and conversations with other cancer survivors, it's for the exact reason you dismiss that I can't imagine anyone willing to stake their health/life for a bit of glory/fame/fortune. 

That's not to say someone wouldn't. So I'd like to know.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

billium said:


> Rubbersoul:
> 
> I couldn't disagree more with your conclusion.
> 
> ...


Cool, so you fit into he survived cancer so how could he possibly have doped camp. Not sure I understand your logic but hey. By researching more deeply into the science of exogenous performance enhancement, you'll learn that neither EPO or autologous blood doping are carcinogenic nor life threatening, especially if conducted in a systematic way by medical experts in the field. That said, doesn't make the practise morally acceptable or legal within cycling regulations. You could take your logic of saying, wow I survived cancer and now I want to reach the top of my profession. That coupled with his domination in an era of cycling rampant with PEDs is a cogent argument in and of itself. Superimpose the alleged evidence mounting and you really have to wonder.

Cancer sucks I agree, and yes my family has been impacted, so I know about that oo. Nevertheless, the argument that somehow because he survived cancer he wouldn't take the chance to find fame and wealth at the top of his sport is not cogent.
________
condos Pattaya


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2010)

rubbersoul said:


> Cool, so you fit into he survived cancer so how could he possibly have doped camp. Not sure I understand your logic but hey. By researching more deeply into the science of exogenous performance enhancement, you'll learn that neither EPO or autologous blood doping are carcinogenic nor life threatening, especially if conducted in a systematic way by medical experts in the field. That said, doesn't make the practise morally acceptable or legal within cycling regulations. You could take your logic of saying, wow I survived cancer and now I want to reach the top of my profession. That coupled with his domination in an era of cycling rampant with PEDs is a cogent argument in and of itself. Superimpose the alleged evidence mounting and you really have to wonder.
> 
> Cancer sucks I agree, and yes my family has been impacted, so I know about that oo. Nevertheless, the argument that somehow because he survived cancer he wouldn't take the chance to find fame and wealth at the top of his sport is not cogent.


Read my last sentence in the previous post.

Cancer is no pass for anything, not doping, not money laundering, not tax evasion or any of the behaviour attributed to Mr. Armstrong in this thread and other threads.

Wagering something you take for granted is one thing.

I don't know him, never met him. But I know how a serious illness will focus your attention to what's important and what's not. If Mr. Armstrong's definition of important is some yellow material, some temporary fame and money, I'd like to know that.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

55x11 said:


> by "two positive" you mean the corisone butt-cream and supposed EPO from 1999 tests?


"...supposed EPO" - While it's theoretically possible entropy could be reversed and a sample of random protein and other molecules spontaneously assemble themselves into EPO the odds are in human terms zero (unless you are near a spaceship using an infinite improbability drive of course).

Of course it's a waste of money. Everything the government does is a waste of money - and many of them involve killing innocent people around the world no less. But compared to a monument to the King of Pork Robert Byrd or paying medical schools to both train and not train doctors at least the LA legal battle is likely to be extremely entertaining - with the per capita cost far less than going to a movie.

....Has Craig Nichols MD been subpoenaed yet?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I think Armstrong has an opportunity to come clean, fess up to the culture of doping in cycling and his participation in it, and help clean it up for the future. Because of his fame and stardom (and infamy too) he could make a real difference that other riders have not been able to make. His good works in cancer, no matter how significant or insignificant--and the significance can be debated--do not right a continuing wrong. Armstrong continues to deny what I believe is the obvious. In the end, I believe fans and history would view him more favorably than if the evidence slowly builds and he never admits it like Landis has done.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

terzo rene said:


> "...supposed EPO" - While it's theoretically possible entropy could be reversed and a sample of random protein and other molecules spontaneously assemble themselves into EPO the odds are in human terms zero (unless you are near a spaceship using an infinite improbability drive of course).


Come on, get real.
It is a rather weak evidence on its own merits, unless used in combination with other corroborating evidence. Even if it was allowable in a courtroom, the defense would have a field day with it. Chain of evidence, how it was obtained (illegally?), age of the sample, the way it was obtained, how it was matched to Armstrong, need for sample B, lack of un-biased, independent analysis, etc. So many rules broken, and possibly rights of athletes violated, it is enough to drive a bus through it. The defense can just read straight from Vrijman report and dismiss the whole affair as a witch-hunt by French press, and grand jury (US-based) would easily buy it.

Do I think Armstrong use EPO in at least early Tours, before 2001?
Almost certainly. 
Will the butt-cream-gate and LeMond-pee-gate be enough to send Armstrong to prison? 
No chance in hell.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

55x11 said:


> Come on, get real.
> It is a rather weak evidence on its own merits, unless used in combination with other corroborating evidence. Even if it was allowable in a courtroom, the defense would have a field day with it. Chain of evidence, how it was obtained (illegally?), age of the sample, the way it was obtained, how it was matched to Armstrong, need for sample B, lack of un-biased, independent analysis, etc. So many rules broken, and possibly rights of athletes violated, it is enough to drive a bus through it. The defense can just read straight from Vrijman report and dismiss the whole affair as a witch-hunt by French press, and grand jury (US-based) would easily buy it.
> 
> Do I think Armstrong use EPO in at least early Tours, before 2001?
> ...


There would be little issues in a courtroom. This is Federal court, not WADA so no B sample is needed. There are no chain of custody issues, this was stored in a WADA lab. A simple DNA test would prove it is Armstrong's sample. It was not obtained illegally as there is a box on the form that asks if it can be used for research. Armstrong himself has claimed he always checks this box.

The jury would laugh at the Vrijiman report as it makes no attempt to address how EPO got in the samples. An expert witness would destroy it, as Ashenden has done here. 
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Basso, Scarponi, and others were sanctioned on much less.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There would be little issues in a courtroom. This is Federal court, not WADA so no B sample is needed. There are no chain of custody issues, this was stored in a WADA lab. A simple DNA test would prove it is Armstrong's sample. It was not obtained illegally as there is a box on the form that asks if it can be used for research. Armstrong himself has claimed he always checks this box.
> 
> The jury would laugh at the Vrijiman report as it makes no attempt to address how EPO got in the samples. An expert witness would destroy it, as Ashenden has done here.
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
> ...


I think a lot of is "inside baseball" so to speak which will be difficult to decipher for regular person and relatively easy to raise doubts about due process etc.

In case of Basso, it is much more difficult for him to explain away a bag of blood with your nickname (Brillo) on it, phone records, visits to Fuentes and other paper trail they found in his office. And even then then he tried to deny it, never fully admitting - he was just "intending" to dope. 

From the prosecution case point of view this evidence would be far stronger, IMPO, than arguing about false positives, complicated chemistry, who ran what gels, need for B-sample, sample deterioration due to long-term storage, etc. You don't have to convince me, all I am arguing is that it is far easier to raise doubt with so many strange, complex, technical issues, lack of proper due process and plenty of contradicting reports. They would need something more concrete and fresh than that old story.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

55x11 said:


> I think a lot of is "inside baseball" so to speak which will be difficult to decipher for regular person and relatively easy to raise doubts about due process etc.
> 
> In case of Basso, it is much more difficult for him to explain away a bag of blood with your nickname (Brillo) on it, phone records, visits to Fuentes and other paper trail they found in his office. And even then then he tried to deny it, never fully admitting - he was just "intending" to dope.
> 
> From the prosecution case point of view this evidence would be far stronger, IMPO, than arguing about false positives, complicated chemistry, who ran what gels, need for B-sample, sample deterioration due to long-term storage, etc. You don't have to convince me, all I am arguing is that it is far easier to raise doubt with so many strange, complex, technical issues, lack of proper due process and plenty of contradicting reports. They would need something more concrete and fresh than that old story.


Not exactly. There is no evidence of conspiracy and the scientific facts easily support that he took EPO, that is why Vrijiman did not even attempt to address them and instead focused on settling political scores. 

Contrast Basso's chain of evidence to the 99 samples and it is obvious which one is better. Fridge in Madrid-GC-Spanish judiciary-CONI-Barcelona lab. Armstrong's samples were stored in WADA lab with correct paperwork. Huge difference. 

In the end the 99 samples would be only one more topic that adds to the overall narrative.


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

Chain of custody is not an issue to the Federal government? 12 year old urine samples from another country and no issues? Really? 

I really think they're going to have to do better than anything WADA has ever found to connect Armstrong to any wrongdoing. It's ridiculous to think that the Fed has a lesser standard of proof required than WADA. WADA can destroy your livelihood with little to no proof at all. They make their own rules. The Fed has to deal within the laws of the US where every citizen has rights and they have other judges to review their decisions.

I think the strength of the Fed is to obtain evidence that hasn't been used before. They aren't doing this to enforce cheating rules on the European pro circuit.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

frontierwolf said:


> Chain of custody is not an issue to the Federal government? 12 year old urine samples from another country and no issues? Really?
> 
> I really think they're going to have to do better than anything WADA has ever found to connect Armstrong to any wrongdoing. It's ridiculous to think that the Fed has a lesser standard of proof required than WADA. WADA can destroy your livelihood with little to no proof at all. They make their own rules. The Fed has to deal within the laws of the US where every citizen has rights and they have other judges to review their decisions.
> 
> I think the strength of the Fed is to obtain evidence that hasn't been used before. They aren't doing this to enforce cheating rules on the European pro circuit.


The samples were stored by a French Federal government agency to WADA standards. The chain of custody issues do not exist outside wild conspiracy theories. 

The Fed's do not need a B sample, this is only a WADA rule. Can you name a rider who has had their life destroyed by WADA? 

I agree that there will be additional evidence however positive tests for EPO, Spikes in HCT, Platiczers, transfusion kits, all add to the overall narrative of a long term doping program.


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

I didn't say a life, I said a livelihood. Pellizotti today comes to mind as someone who had to sit out for a year and was then exonerated. I assume he wasn't getting paid while he wasn't racing. Maybe he can sue and get part of that back, who knows. Rasmussen didn't test positive and he was kicked to the curb. In the US you're presumed innocent until proven guilty, with the UCI and WADA you're presumed guilty unless proven innocent. There is a major difference in burden of proof.

Samples stored by a French Federal Government Agency is a chain of custody issue in itself. For one it's evidence that wasn't obtained by the US officials. Two it's overseas and I'm sure the lawyers will bring up the possibility of tampering. Twelve years outside custody of the legal authorities (that matter)? It's not a smoking gun and I don't even know if it will be used in this case because there is no way to tie a specific instance of drug use to specific money provided by US Postal. 

I know you're really convinced it's an open and shut case but none of this is going to be easy to prove. 

I don't know of an athlete who's been proven guilty of anything in Federal court other than perjury. Clemens may get it because you have needles with DNA but even that evidence is questionable. You pretty much need video of somebody sticking a needle in his butt and even that is suspect due to today's video manipulation tech.

There's just as may wild conspiracies about LA's guilt as there are about his innocence. I just prefer to keep an open mind and not believe it's an open/shut case before seeing some sort of real world verifiable evidence of guilt.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

frontierwolf said:


> I didn't say a life, I said a livelihood. Pellizotti today comes to mind as someone who had to sit out for a year and was then exonerated. I assume he wasn't getting paid while he wasn't racing. Maybe he can sue and get part of that back, who knows. Rasmussen didn't test positive and he was kicked to the curb. In the US you're presumed innocent until proven guilty, with the UCI and WADA you're presumed guilty unless proven innocent. There is a major difference in burden of proof.
> 
> Samples stored by a French Federal Government Agency is a chain of custody issue in itself. For one it's evidence that wasn't obtained by the US officials. Two it's overseas and I'm sure the lawyers will bring up the possibility of tampering. Twelve years outside custody of the legal authorities (that matter)? It's not a smoking gun and I don't even know if it will be used in this case because there is no way to tie a specific instance of drug use to specific money provided by US Postal.
> 
> ...


You are confused about WADA.

Pellizotti's case had nothing to do with WADA. The Biopassport is the UCI, they do not even share their testing results with WADA. Rassmussen missed 6 OOC tests and tested positive for DYNA EPO. both are clear 2 year sanctions and he was banned by the Monaco Fed, not WADA. 

You are also confused about evidence. Cross boarder sharing of evidence is common. It is used to convict people every day. Of course lawyers can bring up strawmen, French conspiracies and space aliens but the positives will still contribute to an overall narrative that will be hard to ignore. 

I am convinced there is an open and shut case that Armstrong doped but you are correct that an individual athlete using drugs on his own is not a common case. Organized distribution and wide spread use of drugs is far more common. Where Armstrong fits in a case like that is far more difficult to prove......something Armstrong is well aware of.


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

I realize that Pellizotti wasn't WADA, that's why I said "UCI and WADA". I understand that Rassmussen was banned because he wasn't available. WADA came up with the rule that you have to be available. The point was that with PED's you're guilty unless proven innocent unless you're in the third world.

Cross border sharing is common. So is contesting that evidence or even having it allowed in court. I think when you say WADA's rules are irrelevant to this case in one sentence and in the next state the evidence is beyond reproach because it was stored to WADA standards you're contradicting yourself. 

The evidence has to be relevant to the case and I believe LA's lawyers will be able to quash that sample easily enough. One controversial sample doesn't prove a culture of misuse. I think it will come down to personal testimony and if they can get Armstrong on the stand or not. If they have enough people who testify that they witnessed him using PED's and he testifies that he didn't then they might go after him for perjury if they have admissible evidence to the contrary. Of course there will also be those who testify that they never saw evidence of LA's usage and there will be some tearing apart of any witness that testifies that he saw LA using.

I don't think they'll be able to get him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

frontierwolf said:


> I realize that Pellizotti wasn't WADA, that's why I said "UCI and WADA". I understand that Rassmussen was banned because he wasn't available. WADA came up with the rule that you have to be available. The point was that with PED's you're guilty unless proven innocent unless you're in the third world.
> 
> Cross border sharing is common. So is contesting that evidence or even having it allowed in court. I think when you say WADA's rules are irrelevant to this case in one sentence and in the next state the evidence is beyond reproach because it was stored to WADA standards you're contradicting yourself.
> 
> ...


Your exact quote was "WADA can destroy your livelihood with little to no proof". I have yet to see a case of this. The Pellizotti case is 100% UCI. The OOC testing has been done by the UCI since 1997, 7 years prior to signing the WADA code. Until recently they had stricter rules then WADA. 

If you want to know a good example of how the UCI, and Johann, can ruin a riders life read this
http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2010/dirty-deal

The rule that had him tossed from the Tour was also a UCI rule. At the time a rider was not allowed to miss an OCC in the 6 weeks prior to a GT. If they did miss one they would be excluded from starting. Rass missed 6 OOC (technically 3) in the 6 weeks prior. The UCI knew this but waited until the Tour started to announce it in order to cause maximum embarrassment to the Tour. Earlier in the year a consortium that included Armstrong and Verbruggen attempted to buy the Tour but they could not agree on price and had trouble getting funds. Patrice Clerc said at the time "They tried to buy the Tour but it was too expensive, now they are trying to devalue the asset so they can get it for cheaper" 

The fact that the Feds do not require a B sample has no baring on how a WADA lab stores samples. None

One positive does not prove a pattern. But if you have

The admission in the Hospital room
6 EPO positives
rapidly fluctuation blood values
testimony from multiple teammates who witnessed injections and transfusions
testimony of multiple support staff who transported drugs and witnessed doping
Multiple instances of dumping of doping products 
pictures 
etc, etc, etc

.....it all builds up. Armstrong is a smart guy. He will tell the truth, admit to doping, and walk. At least we agree on the walk part.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Just an observation:

You certainly take NYvelocity to be the gospel. I'm guessing you believe everything Walsh and Kimmage write as well?

Any good attorney will tell you, there is NO such thing as an open/shut or guaranteed case. EVER. Stop pretending this is such.

Lance will walk. Not that he's not guilty of PED use and lying, but he will go free on reasonable doubt.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I don't know Falsetti, but I'm an attorney and it is apparent to me through what he writes that he is knowledgeable. He isn't just blowing smoke here. I give some real credence to what he is saying.

Riders are not guilty until proven innocent. You have to break this stuff down into 2 categories--criminal cases in the U.S. and the "doping authority" cases all over the world. In the doping authority cases, riders are not guilty until proven innocent. Riders are all innocent unless they turn a positive test. IF they have a positive test, the rider is then busted so to speak and the burden is on them to prove it is wrong (that they are not guilty). That is a very fair burden shifting in my assessment. There are burden shifting provisions throughout U.S. law and they work well. It is a great legal/judicial tool.

Keep in mind the same rules apply in the U.S. with our testing of athletes. You turn a positive, your guilty unless you prove otherwise. 

Criminal cases are different. You are trying to put someone in jail. It is a totally different animal. I can't comment on the legal systems of other countries, but here we obviously have the right to trial by jury, the right against self-incrimination, and a high burden of proof. The latter two of those still don't apply in the U.S. in civil cases.

I don't think many people understand the full reach of our criminal law. They are not likely to try to convict Armstrong on a drug usage charge. There is probably a long, long list of possible charges. And understand that in reality Armstrong loses if he is indicted. A criminal trial would be a disaster for him. 

P.S. Please Lance, come clean and make some good of this situation. Americans will forgive you quickly and remember you for your good works. You did not kill anybody, you just did what all the other elite riders were doing. The real problem at this point is continuing to deny it.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Gatorback said:


> I don't know Falsetti, but I'm an attorney and it is apparent to me through what he writes that he is knowledgeable. He isn't just blowing smoke here. I give some real credence to what he is saying.
> 
> Riders are not guilty until proven innocent. You have to break this stuff down into 2 categories--criminal cases in the U.S. and the "doping authority" cases all over the world. In the doping authority cases, riders are not guilty until proven innocent. Riders are all innocent unless they turn a positive test. IF they have a positive test, the rider is then busted so to speak and the burden is on them to prove it is wrong (that they are not guilty). That is a very fair burden shifting in my assessment. There are burden shifting provisions throughout U.S. law and they work well. It is a great legal/judicial tool.
> 
> SNIP


Excellent summary, Gatorback, thanks for writing that.

And to further complicate things, one of the UCI's "innovations" in their supposed fight against doping was shown to have no teeth:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-finds-that-ucis-vinokourov-fine-is-not-valid

The CAS ruled that the UCI's anti-doping fine is not valid. I wonder what will happen to Christian Moreni, the ex-Cofidis who was caught doping, admitted it, and supposedly has started paying his fine? Is he going to get a refund from the UCI?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Just an observation:
> 
> You certainly take NYvelocity to be the gospel. I'm guessing you believe everything Walsh and Kimmage write as well?
> 
> ...


The NYVelocity article is a translation of a German one. Walsh and Kimmage are very well respected journalists who over time have consistently been proven to be correct. 

I am not saying it is open and shut but it is overwhelming. The only thing Armstrong will do by lying is dig the hole deeper.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Doc's in da house!
________
Vaporizer Tv


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Gatorback said:


> I don't know Falsetti, but I'm an attorney and it is apparent to me through what he writes that he is knowledgeable. He isn't just blowing smoke here. I give some real credence to what he is saying.
> 
> Riders are not guilty until proven innocent. You have to break this stuff down into 2 categories--criminal cases in the U.S. and the "doping authority" cases all over the world. In the doping authority cases, riders are not guilty until proven innocent. Riders are all innocent unless they turn a positive test. IF they have a positive test, the rider is then busted so to speak and the burden is on them to prove it is wrong (that they are not guilty). That is a very fair burden shifting in my assessment. There are burden shifting provisions throughout U.S. law and they work well. It is a great legal/judicial tool.
> 
> ...


Very well said.


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

I understand that they're not technically guilty until proven innocent. What I was alluding to was the different burden of proof that they're under.

Falsetti does appear to be knowledgeable. He just implies that it's an open and shut case when this might be the most complex sports related legal case in history. Everything is questionable. Even on the 1999 sample alone he mentions that the Fed doesn't need a 'B' sample. They're going to have to prove the validity of the 'A' sample. LA's lawyers aren't going to let that go easily if it comes up and it's almost a trial of it's own. I think the credibility of witnesses is going to be huge and I don't think there's anyone in cycling that I personally would believe on either side because everyone has a stake in it and something to lose/gain by their testimony. 

Some things I wonder about is since USPS doesn't exist anymore who could they penalize? Track down the stakeholders? Prove they individually had direct knowledge of doping? 

Did USPS allow itself to go bankrupt in it's final year to avoid tax liability? If they are bankrupt does that protection extend to financial penalties from civil cases?

Does it matter if any crimes were committed outside the US? Can they force Johann Bruyneel to testify if he isn't a citizen of the US? Can they penalize him or ban him from entering the US again? Does he have civil liability in US courts?

Is everyone who was on those teams an accomplice and subject to prosecution? Will they have to pay back wages?

I don't think an indictment is the disaster when the majority of American's aren't happy with the government as it is. A conviction would be a disaster for LA. A mistrial or dropping the case would probably clear LA for posterity and make the haters start jumping off cliffs.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

frontierwolf said:


> I understand that they're not technically guilty until proven innocent. What I was alluding to was the different burden of proof that they're under.
> 
> Falsetti does appear to be knowledgeable. He just implies that it's an open and shut case when this might be the most complex sports related legal case in history. Everything is questionable. Even on the 1999 sample alone he mentions that the Fed doesn't need a 'B' sample. They're going to have to prove the validity of the 'A' sample. LA's lawyers aren't going to let that go easily if it comes up and it's almost a trial of it's own. I think the credibility of witnesses is going to be huge and I don't think there's anyone in cycling that I personally would believe on either side because everyone has a stake in it and something to lose/gain by their testimony.
> 
> ...


Good post. The situation is more complex (to non-cyclists) that some of us make it out to be, and all defense has to do is confuse it a bit more and raise doubts. 
Why does every testing agency requires B-samples? What is the rate of false positive for "fresh" samples? What is the rate of false positives for samples that have been frozen for 10 years? How many 10-year old samples are tested every year?
Defense can put up all kinds of smoke and mirrors and open the can of worms to make the issue so convoluted that the real truth becomes buried underneath all these questions.

Let's not forget that Marion Jones had tested positive for EPO (later *not* confirmed by B sample) back in 2004, and had grand jury testimony about her doping by CJ Hunter and others since 2002 or 2003, and yet what she eventually got caught for in 2008 or so (and subsequently went to prison for) had to do with fraudulent checks more than BALCO scandal or her EPO tests. If it was that easy for feds to prove doping armed with a single positive A sample, why did it take so long and why did they need all this other evidence not related to in-competition doping results? 

Her case makes me think that the whole Armstrong investigation will drag on for years, and if he does get caught, it will have nothing to do with old 1999 samples, but something routine like tax evasion Dr. Falsetti mentioned or money laundering through bike sales, or some other easy-to-follow paper trail. It's also quite likely he will appear unscathed entirely.

I am not sure Armstrong's admission would do much good for me personally, it will not change my opinion of what goes on in pro peloton. So many cycling fans have negative view of Armstrong, they may be cheering his downfall, but what about more likeable riders - such as Hincapie, Zabriskie, Vande Velde, Leipheimer, Horner, Farrar? Would anyone be cheering on when these guys admit to using, and have to relinquish their medals, wins etc.? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Pro cycists ARE dopes
________
Vaporizer Volcano


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

frontier and 55x11, y'all raise legit questions. I could answer some of them, and most all of them if I had the time to do a little legal research. The prosecutors deal with this stuff all the time, so they often know the answers without having to go look them up.

The way I see this playing out is actually quite simple. The prosecutors are not going to jump through a bunch of difficult legal hurdles if they don't have to do so. And they aren't going to go on a wild goose chase to try to get a blood or urine sample from overseas which is more than a decade old if that is the crux of a case they would bring. What they will do is bring people before a grand jury, have them sworn in, and have them testify. Those witnesses can tell the truth, or risk going to jail someday if they don't. If they take the 5th, they can grant them immunity. 

What happens is you get a key piece of evidence and information, such as a witness like Landis, and you learn his story and what info he has to back it up. You then go track that info down and see if it is legit. If it is, you've gained more info and witnesses. You issue more subpoenas and get more info. The dam breaks so to speak. 

I don't have any inside info, but I suspect the damn has broken and now they are just collecting more and more info that is available. A and B samples from years ago will be virtually meaningless if you've got a paper trail, half a dozen key witnesses, a supplier who has come clean, etc.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, there is
> 
> More to come in about 2 months



Well here we are, two months later. Wanna revise your prediction? :thumbsup:


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Gatorback said:


> frontier and 55x11, y'all raise legit questions. I could answer some of them, and most all of them if I had the time to do a little legal research. The prosecutors deal with this stuff all the time, so they often know the answers without having to go look them up.
> 
> The way I see this playing out is actually quite simple. The prosecutors are not going to jump through a bunch of difficult legal hurdles if they don't have to do so. And they aren't going to go on a wild goose chase to try to get a blood or urine sample from overseas which is more than a decade old if that is the crux of a case they would bring. What they will do is bring people before a grand jury, have them sworn in, and have them testify. Those witnesses can tell the truth, or risk going to jail someday if they don't. If they take the 5th, they can grant them immunity.
> 
> ...


This might be out of place inasmuch as I haven't gone through all of the old posts, but a related reason why prosecutors may want old samples is not so much for primary evidence, but rather to verify or add credibility to other evidence.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

rubbersoul said:


> Pro cycists ARE dopes


So what?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

covenant said:


> Well here we are, two months later. Wanna revise your prediction? :thumbsup:


Nope, No revision. I still expect some charges soon, and Lance is far from the only target. You are also going to see some new info in the mainstream media shortly. Cash payments to a certain Italian doctor, questionable exploitation of the charity, Experimental drugs, "Friends" talking to the Feds


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope, No revision. I still expect some charges soon, and Lance is far from the only target. You are also going to see some new info in the mainstream media shortly. Cash payments to a certain Italian doctor, questionable exploitation of the charity, Experimental drugs, "Friends" talking to the Feds


Define "soon". We've already established "in about 2 months" doesn't equal two months or less.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

covenant said:


> Define "soon". We've already established "in about 2 months" doesn't equal two months or less.


The Feds will move on their own timetable, not mine, yours, or Armstrong's. I would expect something this month or next but in the end the time frame of any charges has little baring on the content of the charges.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Feds will move on their own timetable, not mine, yours, or Armstrong's. I would expect something this month or next but in the end the time frame of any charges has little baring on the content of the charges.


Hey, your the one spelling out the timetable. I'm just trying to hold you to it. You predicted "in about 2 months" like you knew what you were talking about. 
Obviously, that's not the case. But if the dam breaks between now and January, all is forgiven! :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

covenant said:


> Hey, your the one spelling out the timetable. I'm just trying to hold you to it. You predicted "in about 2 months" like you knew what you were talking about.
> Obviously, that's not the case. But if the dam breaks between now and January, all is forgiven! :thumbsup:


I understand, you are correct. 

The far more interesting development of this case will be the ancillary coverage by the American media. For years teammates, friends, support staff etc were scared to talk. The media was uninformed and simply repeated press releases. This is no longer the case. People are coming forward in droves. Experienced investigative journalist have already written some very in depth stories and there are several more coming in the next couple of weeks.

I still think Armstrong will escape relatively unscathed legally on the doping issues. The financial charges could be more significant, but are much harder to prove. Regardless the court of public opinion could be where he loses big.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Regardless the court of public opinion could be where he loses big.


Do you get an erection when you think about that?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Axe said:


> Do you get an erection when you think about that?


While it appears that some here get that reaction when Lance's name is mentioned I am not one of them. 

In some cases greater transparency is a good thing. If it leads to an overhaul of the UCI, the dismantling of Ferrari and his enablers, and change of the questionable uses of the assets of a non profit I would be all for it.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Axe said:


> So what?



Can't you smell the irony?


----------



## ragweed (Jan 2, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Experienced investigative journalist have already written some very in depth stories and there are several more coming in the next couple of weeks.


So is this the first of stories -- http://tinyurl.com/28swvu4 --? It's an article from today's WSJ titled, "For Cycling's Big Backers, Joy Ride Ends in Grief." Nothing really new but I found it an interesting read on the founders of Tailwinds Sports.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ragweed said:


> So is this the first of stories -- http://tinyurl.com/28swvu4 --? It's an article from today's WSJ titled, "For Cycling's Big Backers, Joy Ride Ends in Grief." Nothing really new but I found it an interesting read on the founders of Tailwinds Sports.


That is one, Also Sports Illustrated next week.


----------



## Just James (Oct 24, 2008)

Me thinks the good doctor might have an inside track:

(from cycling news.com)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-postal-backers-could-be-under-investigation


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Looks like SI might be delayed a bit, maybe 10 days

The number of good writers doing stories on the myth is impressive. Could be a busy holiday season for Fabiani


----------



## ragweed (Jan 2, 2009)

This As the Toto Turns cartoon is making me look forward to reading that SI article.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Paul Kimmage also will have a new story out next month and there could be some interesting developments on the Legal side shortly.


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, there is
> 
> More to come in about 2 months



negative ghost rider!!!


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*M.o.*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, it is more then my opinion. I know many of his former teammates and support staff from that time. I heard the stories of the doping and the pressure to dope years ago. The fact that bikes and other equipment was being sold out the back of the service course was a well know issue for years. Little of what is now public is a surprise to many.
> 
> The part that is my opinion is the question if Landis was the only rider Och gave guidance on how to hide income from taxes. It would make sense that he would have also given this recommendation to his largest customer. It would make sense for there to be some kind of financial transactions in Switzerland as Dr. Ferrari's main base is in St Moritz. His, and Fuente's, past customers have given descriptions of using Swiss bank accounts to hide their financial transactions.
> 
> As I have written before. I do not think Armstrong is in that much legal jeopardy, as long as he tells the truth. The far greater risk is to Weisel, Stapleton, Brunyeel, etc.





covenant said:


> sure you do


is still the same.....


----------

