# Novitzky investigation seemingly not gaining much traction....



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

http://www.standard.net/topics/cycling/2011/02/15/no-decision-soon-armstrong-probe

Im starting to get the feeling this may go the same way as the French investigation into Armstrong.... Drag on for ages then go away quietly......


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

omerta


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

slegros said:


> http://www.standard.net/topics/cycling/2011/02/15/no-decision-soon-armstrong-probe
> 
> Im starting to get the feeling this may go the same way as the French investigation into Armstrong.... Drag on for ages then go away quietly......


So this is yet another article ghost-written by Armstrong's lawyers, right? How convenient of them to drop helpful hints to the press. 

_Investigators have many more witnesses to interview, and the assistant U.S. attorney supervising the investigation, Doug Miller, is set to handle an unrelated criminal case, *according to lawyers familiar with the investigation.*

The reports of an impending indictment led Armstrong's lawyers to reach out to the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles. Over the past month and a half, that office has assured Armstrong's legal team that no decision on whether to indict is imminent, *according to the lawyers*. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal probe is continuing._

Omerta applies to people who livelihoods depend on the cycling, not necessarily to fed investigators.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The article is just a puff piece. An AP political writer wrote it in exchange for getting the exclusive on Armstrong announcing his 2nd retirement.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

orange_julius said:


> So this is yet another article ghost-written by Armstrong's lawyers, right? How convenient of them to drop helpful hints to the press.
> 
> _Investigators have many more witnesses to interview, and the assistant U.S. attorney supervising the investigation, Doug Miller, is set to handle an unrelated criminal case, *according to lawyers familiar with the investigation.*
> 
> ...


Interesting though that the supervising US attorney is temporarily dropping this to handle a criminal case.... That wouldn't be happening if an indictment were imminent....


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

slegros said:


> Interesting though that the supervising US attorney is temporarily dropping this to handle a criminal case.... That wouldn't be happening if an indictment were imminent....


That is just not true. 

While some criminal investigators may be assigned primarily to one case at a time, lawyers handle many cases at a time and when you get called to trial on a case you get called to trial. I'm a civil trial lawyer and maintain a case load in the 60-75 range at most times, which is actually relatively small. Each day I probably work on at least a dozen different cases, if not more. Many are active at the same time. 

Prosecutors typically handle hundreds of cases at a time if not more. Low level misdemeanor prosecutors will often have dozens of trials set for the same week and don't even have time to pick up the file to see what it is about until hours before they start the case. When it is time for trial, they drop everything else and focus on that case and trial. When they are done, they go back to the rest of the cases. 

I read that article and it says virtually nothing of substance. I've got not clue whether it was ghost written by Armstrong's lawyers, but suspect Falsetti is correct. 

Could Armstrong, his lawyers, and his PR folks be setting up a situation where they try to win the court of public opinion by saying he's retired, there is no reason to be investigating him, etc.? I would not be surprised if their focused has shifted from "Armstrong didn't dope" to "leave me alone now I'm retired and doing good work." The latter has always been there focus to some extent the last few years, but they may really be going full throttle in that direction now with his "official" retirement.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

slegros said:


> Interesting though that the supervising US attorney is temporarily dropping this to handle a criminal case.... That wouldn't be happening if an indictment were imminent....


Once again, all "facts" in that article came from Armstrong's helpful lawyers. If you think that lawyers and prosecutors only handle one case at a time, I think you are very wrong.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

slegros said:


> http://www.standard.net/topics/cycling/2011/02/15/no-decision-soon-armstrong-probe
> 
> Im starting to get the feeling this may go the same way as the French investigation into Armstrong.... Drag on for ages then go away quietly......


Nowhere is exactly where I figured this thing would end up. It's a complete waste of time and money. And except for the Lance-haters, nobody really cares anyway.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Nowhere is exactly where I figured this thing would end up. It's a complete waste of time and money. And except for the Lance-haters, nobody really cares anyway.


How large would Armstrong's crime have to be for it not to be a waste of money?.....or does he get a pass on all crime because he sold lots of wrist bands?


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Nowhere is exactly where I figured this thing would end up. It's a complete waste of time and money. And except for the Lance-haters, nobody really cares anyway.


I disagree. I'm not a Lance fanboi. But, I also am not a Lance hater. Winning the Tour seven times, even if he were doped to the gills, had a positive effect on the popularity of cycling (and cycling race coverage) in the US and his Livestrong/cancer advocacy, even if it largely is a vehicle for self-promotion, has given solace to many cancer patients and their families. 

Notwithstanding above, I hate doping in sports and the impact that PEDs have had and are having at all levels. When coaches have to warn parents about the hazards of their obtaining PEDS for their high school kids something is wrong. A few years ago, my sister, who lives in an upscale part of Connecticut where uber-competitive Wall Street types live, was in the audience for such a lecture. She was shocked when parents were arguing with the coach's warnings. The only way to put a stake in the heart of the doping culture is to bring down high profile abusers. If you look at it just from the perspective of the individual case, the cost may be higher than any benefit that the doper derived from doping. (Although in the case of Lance Armstrong, he clearly has derived a substantial amount of money from his athletic success.) But, if you look at the potential positive impact that a high level prosecution may have on others, the cost is well worth it.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I don't disagree with you, but the fact is, nobody really cares about cycling in this country. And plenty of high profile abusers have been taken down in recent years. Look at what happened to baseball a few years ago. Lots of doping from most of the biggest names in a far more popular sport. If that had no effect, why would you think bringing down Lance would? Walk into any sports bar and ask around, and I think most people already believe he is a doper, so it won't come as a surprise if the investigation comes to that conclusion. Net effect, zero.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

mohair_chair said:


> Nowhere is exactly where I figured this thing would end up. It's a complete waste of time and money. And except for the Lance-haters, nobody really cares anyway.


The prime basis for the current investigation is the alleged fraud that Lance committed in getting US Post Office to sponsor. They got what they wanted, years of magnificent publicity with the worlds most famous cyclist. Hard to find the fraud. But for the sake of argument, lets say he induced them using fake results due to driugs. Wouldn't they have to prove damages? What did they fail to get for their money?

Plus, how many federal dollars have the FDA and their Pit bull stuffed down a rabbit hole on this mess?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Lots of people care about use of performance enhancing drugs in sports in the U.S. Look at all the publicity given to the BALCO thing and those that were busted. That wasn't just sports news, it was covered significantly in the regular news. That doesn't happen unless people really care. Baseball has a slight mess on its hands with all the records being broken and some writers who won't vote for certain busted players for the Hall of Fame because of their steroid use. Lots of people care about this stuff. And even more care about defrauding the government.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Gatorback said:


> That doesn't happen unless people really care..


Oh, they cared alright- but only for the short time it was on tv.
I agree w/ Mohair; net effect= zero.
This is a boondoggle and a waste of money.


----------



## izzyfly (Jul 10, 2009)

Speaking of 'who cares', I think a man by the name of Novitzky might care a tad bit - it would be big/huge feather in his hat, if he gets this case nailed. It's now a power play among these two power brokers, and yes, there's that saying, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

MarkS said:


> I disagree. I'm not a Lance fanboi. But, I also am not a Lance hater. Winning the Tour seven times, even if he were doped to the gills, had a positive effect on the popularity of cycling (and cycling race coverage) in the US and his Livestrong/cancer advocacy, even if it largely is a vehicle for self-promotion, has given solace to many cancer patients and their families.
> 
> Notwithstanding above, I hate doping in sports and the impact that PEDs have had and are having at all levels. When coaches have to warn parents about the hazards of their obtaining PEDS for their high school kids something is wrong. A few years ago, my sister, who lives in an upscale part of Connecticut where uber-competitive Wall Street types live, was in the audience for such a lecture. She was shocked when parents were arguing with the coach's warnings. The only way to put a stake in the heart of the doping culture is to bring down high profile abusers. If you look at it just from the perspective of the individual case, the cost may be higher than any benefit that the doper derived from doping. (Although in the case of Lance Armstrong, he clearly has derived a substantial amount of money from his athletic success.) But, if you look at the potential positive impact that a high level prosecution may have on others, the cost is well worth it.


Gotta disagree with you, the only way to put a stake in the heart of doping is to cut out a victor in competition, close GNCs and outlaw all supplement sales etc... 
There will always be competitors who will look for an advantage over rivals and it wouldn't matter what pros are doping or getting busted.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

RRRoubaix said:


> Oh, they cared alright- but only for the short time it was on tv.
> I agree w/ Mohair; net effect= zero.
> This is a boondoggle and a waste of money.



In the end, did BALCO matter? 

Absolutely, it was a huge deal and make lasting impacts in baseball and track and field. People went to prison. Gold medals were lost. Certain players may never make it into the Hall of Fame in baseball. The general public's knowledge of the doping problem was raised significantly. 

The net effect is way, way more than zero. 

Some people are willing to give up on making the world a better and more fair place, just throwing their hands up and letting things be. I'm not one of them. I guess Novitzky is not one either. And there are many in the pro cycling world who aren't willing to sit on the sidelines any longer and just be a part of the corrupt system. They are working to fix it. Kudos to them.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Gatorback said:


> Some people are willing to give up on making the world a better and more fair place, just throwing their hands up and letting things be. I'm not one of them. I guess Novitzky is not one either.


I think you give Novitzky way too much credit. This isn't some altruistic thing with him, it's about being a bully. Period. He has found a situation in the FDA where is is allowed virtually unlimited US TAX DOLLARS to go on a vendetta against anyone. I'd love to see an accounting of how much he spent to get these people and how much he's is still spending and then let the US TAX PAYERS decide if the money is being well spent. I bet they would say no.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

Snpiperpilot said:


> I think you give Novitzky way too much credit. This isn't some altruistic thing with him, it's about being a bully. Period. He has found a situation in the FDA where is is allowed virtually unlimited US TAX DOLLARS to go on a vendetta against anyone. I'd love to see an accounting of how much he spent to get these people and how much he's is still spending and then let the US TAX PAYERS decide if the money is being well spent. I bet they would say no.



I'm curious. How do you know that there is absolutely nothing altruistic about Novitzky's work?


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

piano said:


> I'm curious. How do you know that there is absolutely nothing altruistic about Novitzky's work?


Have you ever heard the guy? He acts and talks like a mob enforcer. If he's in this for some high minded ideals, he hides it well. Mostly I think he goes to bed laughing his a$$ off that he had a job with virtually limitless resources and zero accountability. AS one of the people footing the bill, I would have hoped that someone was keeping an eye on the cost/benefits of this but the politics have perverted this into some sort of self aggrandizing glory seeking mess. They're more interested in finding the non existent smoking gun to nail a famous guy and bring him down than they are in cleaning up sport. If that was the FDA's true goal, they'd work on the real issue which is where they get the stuff. But, that's boring and hard and not the least but sexy or attention grabbing so it doesn't happen.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> Have you ever heard the guy? He acts and talks like a mob enforcer. If he's in this for some high minded ideals, he hides it well. Mostly I think he goes to bed laughing his a$$ off that he had a job with virtually limitless resources and zero accountability. AS one of the people footing the bill, I would have hoped that someone was keeping an eye on the cost/benefits of this but the politics have perverted this into some sort of self aggrandizing glory seeking mess. They're more interested in finding the non existent smoking gun to nail a famous guy and bring him down than they are in cleaning up sport. If that was the FDA's true goal, they'd work on the real issue which is where they get the stuff. But, that's boring and hard and not the least but sexy or attention grabbing so it doesn't happen.


You are directing your venom in the wrong direction. The media has played up Novitzky because of the notoriety achieved in the BALCO case but in the Armstrong case he is not the lead guy. 

Doug Miller runs the case for the Feds. Noviztky is one of multiple investigators working it. The direction of the case, the charges that will be filed, the strategy of the case will all be driven by Doug, not Jeff. 

This is not good news for Armstrong as Miller's office has the highest conviction rate in the nation. Whatever charges are filed, and I expect them to be significant, would have a high possibility of success. I would expect Armstrong to make a lot of noise, a smoke and mirrors media campaign, but ultimately he will settle like he always does....in this case though it would be a plea agreement. 

As for what Novitzky being out for glory....you would expect he would talk to the media then. The reality is there has been no leaks to the media and Novitzky's consent response has been "No Comment". Whatever public image he has is largely the result of the media campaigns of his targets and have little basis in reality.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

Still a waste of taxpayers dollars...

I think a very small portion of general publics knowledge has been raised and out of that portion most probably don't care. When sport doping topics come up, most people either either start channel surfing or get a snack from the kitchen. 

Not too many people really pay attention to sports in America and care even less unless it effects their wallets or future and PEDs is nowhere on that list. 

I bet if you interviewed people on the streets of America they would rather have taxpayer dollars go towards something that may help the greater good of our society instead of prosecuting an athlete...

here's a good sample question you can ask friends neighbors and co-workers and see who may really care...


Question: If you could earmark 5 million of your taxpayer dollars, what would you put it towards?

A: Prosecuting people who may have used performance enhancing drugs in sports 

B: Put it towards restoring infrastructure ie... highways, waterways

C: Environmental Protection

D: Hunger assistance across the country.

E: Crime fighting 

F: Healthcare 

I think it's a pretty insignificant issue away from this forum and to those it directly impacts.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

JimT said:


> Not too many people really pay attention to sports in America and care even less unless it effects their wallets or future and PEDs is nowhere on that list.


Are you on drugs? Or, do you live on Mars? I pay relatively little attention to sports and never start a conversation about sports. But, a significant number of conversations I have with people are about sports. The United States is sports crazed. If you ever take public transportation in the morning, most of the people who are reading newspapers are reading the sports section. Although cycling is not a mainstream sport in the US, most people know about Lance Armstrong and his Tour de France victories. How many of us have been riding when some passing motorist or other person on the street has yelled: "Hey, Lance." 

I don't have any animosity towards Lance Armstrong and if he doped it did not have any direct impact on me. But, the problem of PEDs is a serious issue from pro sports to high school sports People pattern their behavior on sports stars. A high level prosecution of someone like Lance Armstrong might cause some kid who is aspiring to athletic glory to think twice about PEDs. If that is the case, then I think that all of this is worth it.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

MarkS said:


> Are you on drugs? Or, do you live on Mars? I pay relatively little attention to sports and never start a conversation about sports. But, a significant number of conversations I have with people are about sports. The United States is sports crazed. If you ever take public transportation in the morning, most of the people who are reading newspapers are reading the sports section. Although cycling is not a mainstream sport in the US, most people know about Lance Armstrong and his Tour de France victories. How many of us have been riding when some passing motorist or other person on the street has yelled: "Hey, Lance."
> 
> I don't have any animosity towards Lance Armstrong and if he doped it did not have any direct impact on me. But, the problem of PEDs is a serious issue from pro sports to high school sports People pattern their behavior on sports stars. A high level prosecution of someone like Lance Armstrong might cause some kid who is aspiring to athletic glory to think twice about PEDs. If that is the case, then I think that all of this is worth it.


Thanks, You hit my point exactly,,, Mass transportation is just a small cross section of society and those people are just passing time, most people dont have time to read a paper before work. 

Go into a hospital and ask the nurse at the receptionist desk who is Alberto Contador or the butcher at the grocery who is Marion Jones and maybe you will get a little clearer picture of actual and not self perceived importance of the topic. 

Show those folks reading the sports section the questions on where to put tax dollars and maybe you'll get the point. Not many people I know or work with (other than the atletic ones) actually read the sports section of a newspaper, probably less than 10 %.

You have a nice story about the aspiring kid, what would be worse and which choice (if you could intervene) would you fix first? (although all are bad)

A) Kid introduced to PEDs
B) Kid introduced to meth, crack pot etc...
C) Kid killed by other kid whacked out on crack!

The reality of it all is there are more importaint issues that need to be delt with when it comes to allocating tax dollars in the real world so take off the rose colored glasses and I will move back to Earth and quit doing drugs....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

JimT said:


> Still a waste of taxpayers dollars...


How large would the crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? Does Armstrong get a pass on all crimes or just doping?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

It is funny how the same discussions keep popping up under different thread titles....somehow they always predictably regress into the same debate about LA.

Anyways, most of the USA does not tune into pro cycling. I would say most of the USA could care less about Sosa, Bonds etc etc etc also..

We are a very small group. The rest of America is not even sure what type of bike LA rides. "Streetbike" is what I hear a lot of people call it. Usually they end up saying..."You know, the bikes with the skinny tires..."

Until there is hard proof of drama, lies and scandal, the rest of America will be out of the loop on this one..


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

Snpiperpilot said:


> The prime basis for the current investigation is the alleged fraud that Lance committed in getting US Post Office to sponsor.


How do you know what the prime basis for the current investigation is? You didn't even acknowledge Miller as the lead of this, so I'm pretty sure you have no idea what this investigation is about.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> How large would the crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? Does Armstrong get a pass on all crimes or just doping?


Of course not but we make this decision every day. How much money Do the cops put into solving property crimes? How much into prohibition? I'd arguenthat we spend way more than we should on recreational drug. If it cost millions to run a case against LA or anyone for what they appear to be attempting I'd say that isn't a good use of our money. Thus is the FDA, I'd rather they looked into rampant prescription drug fraud both from the selling side as well as the making of fake replica drugs that harm many more people. While I admire LA for his charity work, that not why this is stupid, it's just that so little value is returned to the public even if they succeed which is far from a given.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> Of course not but we make this decision every day. How much money Do the cops put into solving property crimes? How much into prohibition? I'd arguenthat we spend way more than we should on recreational drug. If it cost millions to run a case against LA or anyone for what they appear to be attempting I'd say that isn't a good use of our money. Thus is the FDA, I'd rather they looked into rampant prescription drug fraud both from the selling side as well as the making of fake replica drugs that harm many more people. While I admire LA for his charity work, that not why this is stupid, it's just that so little value is returned to the public even if they succeed which is far from a given.


Ok, I will ask again. How large does his crime have to be for you to be OK with investigating him? 

You say you "admire LA for his charity work". Which part? Do you admire that they spend $2,000,000 per year to fly him around on a private jet? Is it admirable that they spend $4,000,000 per year to advertise his For Profit website? 

Some of Armstrong most questionable actions have been in regards to his foundation. From what I hear the Feds agree and are looking into it.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Ok we get it. You hate lance. But asking the same question over and over and throwing out unsupportable numbers doesnt make your case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> Ok we get it. You hate lance. But asking the same question over and over and throwing out unsupportable numbers doesnt make your case.


You have made the claim, without knowing what the investigation is about, that it is a waste of taxpayer money. If you believe this to be the case then it would be logical to ask if there is a point where you feel that it would be OK to investigate Armstrong or if the law does not apply to him? 

The numbers I provided are supportable, they come from Livestrong's 2009 audited financials.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The numbers I provided are supportable, they come from Livestrong's 2009 audited financials.


link?


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ok, I will ask again. How large does his crime have to be for you to be OK with investigating him?
> 
> You say you "admire LA for his charity work". Which part? Do you admire that they spend $2,000,000 per year to fly him around on a private jet? Is it admirable that they spend $4,000,000 per year to advertise his For Profit website?
> 
> Some of Armstrong most questionable actions have been in regards to his foundation. From what I hear the Feds agree and are looking into it.


So, you said the numbers are form the audit. Show me. The entire travel budget for the foundation for 2009 was 1,652,245. I assume most of that is not Lance's travel. Especially since I think the plane in question was registered on 10/7/2009 meaning the majority of the cost couldn't be attributed to that. Additionally, it's not clear that Mellow Johnny Aviation, Inc, the aircraft owner of record has a direct connection to Livestrong. Since Mellow Johnny Bike shop belongs to Lance, I assume the Aviation company does as well. The advertising costs you reference are for the entire foundation, there is no way to know that any of that accrues to the benefit of the for profit arms of the Lance armstrong business. 

So, let me summarize. You made all that up. You lied and took the facts to mean what you wanted. Are you better than AC? No. Better than Landis, No. Just a big old prevaricator.

As for your question of what is enough money? I can't answer that my position is that the cost has be to judged against the benefits in an air of transparency. There is nothing transparent about what is happening and how much it costs. If it cost 5 cents, that's too much for me until such time as you can show why spending that money makes sense. Why doesn't it make sense? Let's look at that.

As for what their going after legally. I can only speculate based on press reports. When the grand jury was empaneled last year, it was written that the investigation surrounded the issue of whether fraud had been committed against the government since the US post office is a quasi governmental agency. Let's assume he used drugs to enduce US postal into a business relationship. They now have to prove damages. How where they damaged? They paid for and got sponsorship, endorsement, ads, appearances etc by Lance Amstrong the reigning TdF champion during their entire relationship and benefited from that connection. To collect damages you'd have to prove them. They can't.

Additionally, I suspect there is a statute of limitations issue as to how much later they can bring charges. That was, at best, 6 years ago depending on when they allege the fraud occurred.

So, any more baseless claims you want to make?


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

covenant said:


> link?



http://livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2008-2009combinedauditreport

None of what he says is reported.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ok, I will ask again. How large does his crime have to be for you to be OK with investigating him?
> 
> You say you "admire LA for his charity work". Which part? Do you admire that they spend $2,000,000 per year to fly him around on a private jet? Is it admirable that they spend $4,000,000 per year to advertise his For Profit website?
> 
> Some of Armstrong most questionable actions have been in regards to his foundation. From what I hear the Feds agree and are looking into it.


If you look at the context of my post there was no mention about LA, postal service or whatever, I see you have a beef with LA but my beef is the allocation of taxpayer dollars used to prosecute these professional athletes. 

Like the Clemens/Bonds/Conseco witch hunt was a joke with all the high paid bureaucrats sitting there grilling ex-players on the taxpayer dime when it really doesn't make a difference in comparison to good that can be done with the money wasted. 
Education and rehabilitation for offenders would be a better spent dollar in comparison to just prove a point and determine someone is guilty. 
I really don't think the outcome of the court cases is what most people remember is the joke of the trial and waste of taxpayer dollars.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> https://livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2008-2009combinedauditreport
> 
> None of what he says is reported.


You are wrong. 

https://livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2008-2009combinedauditreport
Page 25, Functional Expenses.
2009 figures
Travel $1,922,995 Advertising $4,195,187...For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses..note also that the legal and Professional expenses are almost $10,000,000, 30% of all revenue. 

It is no surprise that Travel expenses exploded when Armstrong got a jet, 20 times what they were during the middle of his 7 Tour wins. 

Advertising? What type of "Awareness" Is it intended to raise? Most Livestrong advertising is very bland, the Livestrong logo. This advertising has done a great job of driving traffic to the FOR PROFIT .com site, it has done little to drive traffic to the foundations website. 

The For Profit website is in Blue, the flat line is the Foundation's .org










Most people give to Livestrong because they think the money is going to research. Do you think they would still give if they knew it went to jet fuel and to drive traffic to a for profit website? 

This is really only the tip of the iceberg and I am not the only person to notice. Livestrong financials have not escaped the notice of Doug Miller and the IRS.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> How large would the crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? Does Armstrong get a pass on all crimes or just doping?


An analogy for ya Doc: 

A cop pulls over a driver doing 48mph in a 35 mph zone meanwhile there are robberies and murders going on all up and down that same street. Can ya get what I am trying to say now?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Some people have a pretty skewed viewed of the governmental prosecutors and investigators. The prosecutor could likely make 10 times what he makes in the government sector if he moved to the private sector. Novitzky would probably make a lot more, maybe not 10 times as much, but he could definitely make more. 

I don't work for the government, but can tell you that I interact with legal professionals who do. They make less money in most cases than their counterparts in the private sector and tend to be very professional and dedicated to their job and their mission. Sure there are some bad apples, but most of these folks are not in it for the money. The ones who are go work for the defense.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Snpiperpilot said:


> Ok we get it. You hate lance. But asking the same question over and over and *throwing out unsupportable numbers* doesnt make your case.


You mean like someone did over on the Pro Racing forum? Something about 5000 tests?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

JimT said:


> An analogy for ya Doc:
> 
> A cop pulls over a driver doing 48mph in a 35 mph zone meanwhile there are robberies and murders going on all up and down that same street. Can ya get what I am trying to say now?


I absolutely get you and in many cases I would agree with you. The "Waste of taxpayer money" is a common refrain so I am curious at what point does it not become a waste. 

To use your speeder analogy is it 75mph in a 35 where you stop ignoring them? 

As I understand it the Armstrong case is far more then just dope.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

Excuse my ignorance, I haven't read much into this investigation. Compared with Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, et al., it seems like they'd have a somewhat harder time dredging up evidence on Armstrong, seeing as how most of what theoretically happened, took place abroad, and whatever trail Armstrong & co. left, is at minimum, 5+ years old. Most, if not all physical evidence was probably destroyed immediately after the fact, or at some point in the last 5-10 years. This just doesn't seem nearly as straight forward as the Balco and other domestic cases.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are wrong.
> 
> http://livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2008-2009combinedauditreport
> Page 25, Functional Expenses.
> ...


There is no limits to your lies. Travel is what it is. NOTHING says it was his travel. Nothing says they own the jet. Period. Even if they do, I see nothing wrong with it.

As for why the travel might have increased. I suspect from 1999-2005 he was sort of busy being a full time professional bike rider and did very little outreach for the foundation. Since he retired the first time and thoughout his return, he has meet with local officials and local cancer agencies at virtually every place they were whether it was for a race or not. 

As for the advertising, I have NO more insight into where the money went that you do. If you know something concrete feel free to share until then why not just remain silent. I do know you have NO insight into whether any of that money was illegally misdirected to support a for profit operation in violation of several IRS laws. BTW, since the report was audited that seem highly unlikely. Additionally, their high output relative to expense would seem according to the charity tracking web sites would seem to be prima facia evidence of a well run organization which wouldn't tolerate the shenanigans you impute. Unless of course the entire livestrong foundation and all their workers and volunteers are part the Lance Armstrong conspiracy.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> .
> Most people give to Livestrong because they think the money is going to research. Do you think they would still give if they knew it went to jet fuel and to drive traffic to a for profit website?
> 
> This is really only the tip of the iceberg and I am not the only person to notice. Livestrong financials have not escaped the notice of Doug Miller and the IRS.


I suspect people give to the foundation knowing that they give out 85 % of the money that comes in to cancer research and outreach.

Please give Doug my best as the only way the last statement could be known by you was if you were working for him. Last I checked activities of the Grand Jury are sealed.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Gatorback said:


> Some people have a pretty skewed viewed of the governmental prosecutors and investigators. The prosecutor could likely make 10 times what he makes in the government sector if he moved to the private sector. Novitzky would probably make a lot more, maybe not 10 times as much, but he could definitely make more.
> 
> I don't work for the government, but can tell you that I interact with legal professionals who do. They make less money in most cases than their counterparts in the private sector and tend to be very professional and dedicated to their job and their mission. Sure there are some bad apples, but most of these folks are not in it for the money. The ones who are go work for the defense.


Often they work for the government cause they couldn't survive in industry. I have no idea if that's true here but working for the government doesn't, per se, make you a saint.

I have spent most of my adult life working with the federal government as a contractor and I can tell you there are just about the same number of good people and incompetent people there as there is in the populace as a whole.

Novitzky could, indeed, make more in the private sector. I hear bounty hunting pays well.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

BAi9302010 said:


> Excuse my ignorance, I haven't read much into this investigation. Compared with Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, et al., it seems like they'd have a somewhat harder time dredging up evidence on Armstrong, seeing as how most of what theoretically happened, took place abroad, and whatever trail Armstrong & co. left, is at minimum, 5+ years old. Most, if not all physical evidence was probably destroyed immediately after the fact, or at some point in the last 5-10 years. This just doesn't seem nearly as straight forward as the Balco and other domestic cases.


Don't let the facts and logic interfere with a good rant.... ;-)

At this point, all they'll ever get is a circumstantial case. As you point out direct evidence doesn't exist. The outcome will largely depend on what they finally try to indict him for. Drug use, per se, isn't likely since it's not clear that the FDA and the US Atty have a case there or whether the statute of limitations has run. It has been speculated, and that's all we have since the grand jury records are sealed for now, that fraud or other misuse of government funds may be at issue. We'll have to see. So far, many possible dates for indictments have speculated and gone past with no case presented.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ok, I will ask again. How large does his crime have to be for you to be OK with investigating him?
> 
> You say you "admire LA for his charity work". Which part? Do you admire that they spend $2,000,000 per year to fly him around on a private jet? Is it admirable that they spend $4,000,000 per year to advertise his For Profit website?
> 
> Some of Armstrong most questionable actions have been in regards to his foundation. From what I hear the Feds agree and are looking into it.


That may exactly be part of the problem here according to the article. It seems that prosecutors are unsure as to what crime, if any, has been committed. The article seems to indicate that this is a case where prosecutors are reviewing all the evidence to see what charges can be laid, as opposed to what the article seems to indicate is the usual procedure of filing criminal charges and then supporting those charges with evidence.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> That may exactly be part of the problem here according to the article. It seems that prosecutors are unsure as to what crime, if any, has been committed. The article seems to indicate that this is a case where prosecutors are reviewing all the evidence to see what charges can be laid, as opposed to what the article seems to indicate is the usual procedure of filing criminal charges and then supporting those charges with evidence.


I would not put too much credence in the article it was written based on the input from Armstrong's lawyers, the Feds gave them nothing and most witnesses ignored Yost's request for comment. It was a puff piece. In return AP got the exclusive for Armstrong's 2nd retirement. 

It is almost sad to see how much Armstrong's media machine has fallen.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

ChilliConCarnage said:


> How do you know what the prime basis for the current investigation is? You didn't even acknowledge Miller as the lead of this, so I'm pretty sure you have no idea what this investigation is about.


Doug MIller is the lead Atty, I was discussing the investigator as you well know. Doug Miller is not the lead for the investigation which being led by the FDA. He was assigned in case any federal charges would arise from that. Legally, he works for Justice dept, while the investigation is done by the FDA and he can't lead that unless they change federal law. He has, however, attended many meetings with Novitzky overseas ( more money) and continues to follow the progress or lack thereof to provide legal information as part of that process. As for the exact details of the investigation, NONE of us have any ACTUAL information and if we did that broke the seal of the grand jury which seem bad and prejudicial should it occur.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I would not put too much credence in the article it was written based on the input from Armstrong's lawyers, the Feds gave them nothing and most witnesses ignored Yost's request for comment. It was a puff piece. In return AP got the exclusive for Armstrong's 2nd retirement.
> 
> It is almost sad to see how much Armstrong's media machine has fallen.


You keep saying that. If you saying it enough, does it make it true? Provide evidence that Armstrong atty wrote or provided direct input into that article please. Seems fair to ask.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> There is no limits to your lies. Travel is what it is. NOTHING says it was his travel. Nothing says they own the jet. Period. Even if they do, I see nothing wrong with it.
> 
> As for why the travel might have increased. I suspect from 1999-2005 he was sort of busy being a full time professional bike rider and did very little outreach for the foundation. Since he retired the first time and thoughout his return, he has meet with local officials and local cancer agencies at virtually every place they were whether it was for a race or not.
> 
> As for the advertising, I have NO more insight into where the money went that you do. If you know something concrete feel free to share until then why not just remain silent. I do know you have NO insight into whether any of that money was illegally misdirected to support a for profit operation in violation of several IRS laws. BTW, since the report was audited that seem highly unlikely. Additionally, their high output relative to expense would seem according to the charity tracking web sites would seem to be prima facia evidence of a well run organization which wouldn't tolerate the shenanigans you impute. Unless of course the entire livestrong foundation and all their workers and volunteers are part the Lance Armstrong conspiracy.


Why would Livestrong's travel be 20 times that of a foundation that has 5 times the revenue? The chart I provide gives a good example of which Livestrong benefits from the $4,000,000....it is clearly not the Foundation.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> I suspect people give to the foundation knowing that they give out 85 % of the money that comes in to cancer research and outreach.
> 
> Please give Doug my best as the only way the last statement could be known by you was if you were working for him. Last I checked activities of the Grand Jury are sealed.


No, less then 4% since inception has gone to research. You do realize that Flying Armstrong around on his jet and spending money on advertising that drives traffic to the For Profit website is all part of that 85%. 

GJ witness are allowed to talk about their testimony, everyone else is not. I am not the only person concerned with the way Livestrong spends their money, many associated with the foundation are disgusted with how the funds have been used and are increasingly vocal.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> You keep saying that. If you saying it enough, does it make it true? Provide evidence that Armstrong atty wrote or provided direct input into that article please. Seems fair to ask.


Did you really think the "Attorneys familiar with the case" were Doug Miller? Really?


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

Snpiperpilot said:


> The prime basis for the current investigation is the alleged fraud that Lance committed in getting US Post Office to sponsor.





Snpiperpilot said:


> As for the exact details of the investigation, NONE of us have any ACTUAL information...


Why are you arguing with yourself? You never win arguments with yourself!


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Why would Livestrong's travel be 20 times that of a foundation that has 5 times the revenue? The chart I provide gives a good example of which Livestrong benefits from the $4,000,000....it is clearly not the Foundation.


I have no idea but neither do you. You cant just impute a reason from thin air. You don't know and neither do I. If you have actual evidence that the $t1,652,245 ( the real travel number, not $4 million. Helps your argument if you use the right numbers) was used for the Jet go ahead and show us. Since the foundation has cancer summits all around the world, I imagine their travel is extensive. And with all the baggage fees these days, it all adds up.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> Don't let the facts and logic interfere with a good rant.... ;-)
> 
> At this point, all they'll ever get is a circumstantial case. As you point out *direct evidence doesn't exist*. The outcome will largely depend on what they finally try to indict him for. Drug use, per se, isn't likely since it's not clear that the FDA and the US Atty have a case there or whether the statute of limitations has run. It has been speculated, and that's all we have since the grand jury records are sealed for now, that fraud or other misuse of government funds may be at issue. We'll have to see. So far, many possible dates for indictments have speculated and gone past with no case presented.


They have direct witness testimony from multiple witnesses.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> I have no idea but neither do you. You cant just impute a reason from thin air. You don't know and neither do I. If you have actual evidence that the $t1,652,245 ( the real travel number, not $4 million. Helps your argument if you use the right numbers) was used for the Jet go ahead and show us. Since the foundation has cancer summits all around the world, I imagine their travel is extensive. And with all the baggage fees these days, it all adds up.


You are confused.

I suggest that you actually read my posts and then read the audited report, page 25. The numbers I have provided are correct.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did you really think the "Attorneys familiar with the case" were Doug Miller? Really?


Until they indict, Armstrong atty's would have no direct knowledge of what the Justice dept knows or does not know except for testimony made by their client. That whole pesky grand jury secrecy thing. 

I don't dispute that it would be sensible for them to do what you accuse them of, but what is sensible and what we know or can prove are very different. That's the prime difference in my point of view. I act on what I actually know, not what I think, impute, guess or otherwise dream up.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are confused.
> 
> I suggest that you actually read my posts and then read the audited report, page 25. The numbers I have provided are correct.


I quote from that page for year 2009

Advertising 4,195,187 .
Travel 1,922,995 .

The $1,652,245 figure I used for travel was from a different chart and appear to be the program cost, not the total cost. Regardless. Travel still under 2 million, not $4 Million. 

I actually read your post and since I had the report open I pasted the number directly to avoid such error. It's an engineer thing. We like numbers.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> They have direct witness testimony from multiple witnesses.


So, you're on the grand jury now. Only they and the US atty know what the witness statements say or do not say. They may well have testified to the fact that Lance ate a ham sandwich for lunch for all we know. 

And, FWIW, in case this escaped you, witness testimony is not direct evidence of anything except that they're willing to say something. As was the case from which the earlier depositions were posted, they mean nothing without corroborating evidence.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> I quote from that page for year 2009
> 
> Advertising 4,195,187 .
> Travel 1,922,995 .
> ...


You are confused. I have never written that travel expenses were $4 Millions



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You say you "admire LA for his charity work". Which part? Do you admire that they spend $2,000,000 per year to fly him around on a private jet? Is it admirable that they spend $4,000,000 per year to advertise his For Profit website?
> .


And



Doctor Falsetti said:


> http://livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2008-2009combinedauditreport
> Page 25, Functional Expenses.
> 2009 figures
> Travel $1,922,995 Advertising $4,195,187...For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses..


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> So, you're on the grand jury now. Only they and the US atty know what the witness statements say or do not say. They may well have testified to the fact that Lance ate a ham sandwich for lunch for all we know.
> 
> And, FWIW, in case this escaped you, witness testimony is not direct evidence of anything except that they're willing to say something. As was the case from which the earlier depositions were posted, they mean nothing without corroborating evidence.


You may want to read the WSJ and other sources who have said that the was doping on the team. 

Witness testimony of Armstrong transfusing and using illegal drugs is direct evidence.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are confused. I have never written that travel expenses were $4 Millions
> 
> 
> 
> And





Doctor Falsetti said:


> Why would Livestrong's travel be 20 times that of a foundation that has 5 times the revenue? The chart I provide gives a good example of which Livestrong benefits from the $4,000,000....it is clearly not the Foundation.


Sure looks like it to me. That's from your earlier post. I'm done. Keep it real. 

.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> Sure looks like it to me. That's from your earlier post. I'm done. Keep it real.
> 
> .


You really are confused, or perhaps embarrassed? 

You wrote


Snpiperpilot said:


> As for the advertising, I have NO more insight into where the money went.


To which I replied.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> The chart I provide gives a good example of which Livestrong benefits from the $4,000,000....it is clearly not the Foundation.


Of course the chart I was referring to was this one


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You really are confused, or perhaps embarrassed?


No, just tired of hitting my head against a brick wall. We won't agree. Actual facts are pointless to you as you prefer innuendo.

Have a nice healthy hate. I'm going to move on.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> No, just tired of hitting my head against a brick wall. We won't agree. Actual facts are pointless to you as you prefer innuendo.
> 
> Have a nice healthy hate. I'm going to move on.


I have given you facts, figures, even charts. You have done your best to twist and misrepresent what I have written. 

I suggest you revisit this conversation in 6 months and see if you still feel the same way


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I have given you facts, figures, even charts. You have done your best to twist and misrepresent what I have written.
> 
> I suggest you revisit this conversation in 6 months and see if you still feel the same way


Lets face it dude... You're just one of those guys Lance talked about from the podium after winning his 7th tour that don't believe in miracles...... ;-)


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

slegros said:


> Lets face it dude... You're just one of those guys Lance talked about from the podium after winning his 7th tour that don't believe in miracles...... ;-)


LMAO! :thumbsup:


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Snpiperpilot said:


> No, just tired of hitting my head against a brick wall. We won't agree. *Actual facts are pointless* to you as you prefer innuendo.
> 
> Have a nice healthy hate. I'm going to move on.


You mean like 5000 tests? Those kind of actual verified and documented facts?


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You really are confused, or perhaps embarrassed?


My vote = embarrassed *AND* confused.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> I have given you facts, figures, even charts.


Please do not further confuse people with facts, when rampant fanboi-ism and speculation will suffice.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

Snpiperpilot said:


> No, just tired of hitting my head against a brick wall. We won't agree. Actual facts are pointless to you as you prefer innuendo.
> 
> Have a nice healthy hate. I'm going to move on.


Aw come on, there is a sad kinda funniness to his vileness and rage towards LA... 

If we keep badgering him :ihih:
he may explode :mad5:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

JimT said:


> Aw come on, there is a sad kinda funniness to his vileness and rage towards LA...
> 
> If we keep badgering him :ihih:
> he may explode :mad5:


It is good of you to admit are here to troll and bait others into a confrontation.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

ChilliConCarnage said:


> My vote = embarrassed *AND* confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not further confuse people with facts, when rampant fanboi-ism and speculation will suffice.


Neither.

Would You care to discuss the baseless assumption of sealed testimony, drug tests and financials which do not say what he claims they say? I agree that LAF said their travel as either $1.6 or $1.9 million but DrF claims that is for N7LA. It certainly doesn't say that anywhere. He used a graph to show imputed benefit from the $4 million that LAF spent for advertising in favor of Livestrong.com. That not a valid measure and while I admit there has to be come benefit just based in the name, there is no way to decide or determine if that was the intent for the spending of a benefit. If Livestrong.com didn't exist LAF might still spend that same amount. None if us know. 

The primary difference is that while I might speculate in what I think, I don't derive data that doesn't exist. We know the raw numbers from the audited financials but no significant details, any that DrF claims are his opinion nothing more.

As fir what I said here. Two statements j made I have no objective basis for. I had heard the 5000 test figure but can't find a source. While exaggerated as I said earlier I expect that he is probably the most tested out if season athlete ever. I also speculated on the subject of the investigation. I base that on large numbers of press reports from numerous sources. Some, no doubt, favorable to LA and some clearly not so. The objective reality is that NONE of us is privy to the internals of the investigation or grand jury testimony. So, i'll continue to hope that LA is not indicted but will stop speculating on test reports we have not seen, drug tests we know nothing about and the imputed motives of people I don't have any persinal knowledge of. Seems like a good idea for all of us.

None of us will change our minds. I recall the definition of a zealot as being someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. With that said, now I'm really stopping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> Neither.
> 
> Would You care to discuss the baseless assumption of sealed testimony, drug tests and financials which do not say what he claims they say? I agree that LAF said their travel as either $1.6 or $1.9 million but DrF claims that is for N7LA. It certainly doesn't say that anywhere. He used a graph to show imputed benefit from the $4 million that LAF spent for advertising in favor of Livestrong.com. That not a valid measure and while I admit there has to be come benefit just based in the name, there is no way to decide or determine if that was the intent for the spending of a benefit. If Livestrong.com didn't exist LAF might still spend that same amount. None if us know.
> 
> ...


The first thing you ought to do when you find yourself in a hole is quit digging. 

It is clear that Livestrong's travel costs are way out of line for a charity of their size. As I correctly wrote the 2009 travel expenses total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses. You will not find the head of the NCC flying around on this










No, Armstrong has not be tested 5000 times. Not even close. He is not the most test athlete, most tested cyclist, he is not even the most tested cyclist named Armstrong. It is easy to prove that this claim is just another of Armstrong's media inventions. You can see all American athletes testing history here. 

https://www.usantidoping.org/

You will see that during his 7 year run Armstrong was tested 1-2 times per year by USACycling/USADA. Their figures have him only being tested 27 times since 2001. 

The UCI numbers are a bit better, but still do not add up to 5000......or 500 for that matter

1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires.

2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires.

2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires.

2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires.

2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires.

2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires.

This would correspond with the words of his personal mechanic/assistant Mike Anderson who said that when he was with him every day for 2 years he was not once tested out of competition (OOC) in Europe. These supposedly surprise tests would not be a surprise anyways as we know from both Jesus Manzano and Floyd Landis that they would a get advanced notice of Surprise testing from Walter Viru....who was arrested last year for running a doping lab.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The first thing you ought to do when you find yourself in a hole is quit digging.
> 
> It is clear that Livestrong's travel costs are way out of line for a charity of their size. As I correctly wrote the 2009 travel expenses total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses. You will not find the head of the NCC flying around on this
> 
> ...


Hey Doc,
Don't hold your breath for Sniper to acknowledge your post. I referred him to the USDA website a few days and he dismissed it as being "worthless." I also gave him a link to some of the same data that you just posted. He never responded at all.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Big-foot said:


> Hey Doc,
> Don't hold your breath for Sniper to acknowledge your post. I referred him to the USDA website a few days and he dismissed it as being "worthless." I also gave him a link to some of the same data that you just posted. He never responded at all.


So assuming you're THE Big-foot, if the Novitzky investigation is successful and you get the whistle-blower money, how much of that will go to repay the FFF? Not trying to be a smart-ass here.... The article states that a possible motive for Floyd Landis in this is the money, but if there is either an intention or legal obligation to repay the Floyd Fairness Fund with any possible proceeds, it places the motivation in a different light......


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Big-foot said:


> You mean like someone did over on the Pro Racing forum? Something about 5000 tests?


So assuming you're THE Big-foot, if the Novitzky investigation is successful and you get the whistle-blower money, how much of that will go to repay the FFF? Not trying to be a smart-ass here.... The article states that a possible motive for Floyd Landis in this is the money, but if there is either an intention or legal obligation to repay the Floyd Fairness Fund with any possible proceeds, it places the motivation in a different light......


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

slegros said:


> That may exactly be part of the problem here *according to the article*. It seems that prosecutors are unsure as to what crime, if any, has been committed. _*The article seems to indicate*_ that this is a case where prosecutors are reviewing all the evidence to see what charges can be laid, as opposed to what the article seems to indicate is the usual procedure of filing criminal charges and then supporting those charges with evidence.


So the article is the end all? No chance of inaccurate or incomplete reporting?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Wrong spot...


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

ArkRider said:


> So the article is the end all? No chance of inaccurate or incomplete reporting?


Sure there's a chance!!! Most definitely! That's exactly why I referenced what the article seems to indicate, as opposed to putting forth the content of the article as definitive truth.....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

If the few livestrong funds that used for research were used to develop drugs that could be very useful for helping someone climb up a mountain fast would the groupies still say he "Did a lot of good"?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

So if it turns out that contrary to what this article says that some form of charges are imminent can we finally dismiss the babble that is coming from the Armstrong camp?


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

slegros said:


> So assuming you're THE Big-foot, if the Novitzky investigation is successful and you get the whistle-blower money, how much of that will go to repay the FFF? Not trying to be a smart-ass here.... The article states that a possible motive for Floyd Landis in this is the money, but if there is either an intention or legal obligation to repay the Floyd Fairness Fund with any possible proceeds, it places the motivation in a different light......


Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...?


----------



## nathanbal (Feb 23, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> How large would the crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? Does Armstrong get a pass on all crimes or just doping?


what crime did he commit that the US has jurisdiction over?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

nathanbal said:


> what crime did he commit that the US has jurisdiction over?


Ever heard of Baxter Pharmaceutical? Is tax evasion still a crime in the US?


----------



## nathanbal (Feb 23, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ever heard of Baxter Pharmaceutical? Is tax evasion still a crime in the US?


why is this thread in the doping forum if he's being investigated for not declaring income? i'm sure there's an accounting and tax forum somewhere else on the web.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

nathanbal said:


> why is this thread in the doping forum if he's being investigated for not declaring income? i'm sure there's an accounting and tax forum somewhere else on the web.


Hummm, wonder what he used those bags of cash from Post Tour crits for? 

Ever heard of Baxter Pharmaceutical? The real question is if any of the multiple investigations, Federal, USADA, or Qui Tam is progressing. The AP story written by Armstrong's lawyers says no....I hear otherwise.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Omerta!


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So if it turns out that contrary to what this article says that some form of charges are imminent can we finally dismiss the babble that is coming from the Armstrong camp?


Thats the long and short of it I guess, but I'd rephrase that from charges being imminent (imminent according to whom?) to charges actually being laid.

If charges are laid, I for one can't see them being laid without a solid basis. If charges aren't ever laid, well then the prosecutors were obviously unable to get enough to prosecute on..... So far almost a year in and no charges, that could either indicate difficulties forming a case, or a case being thoroughly put together. Only the prosectors would know for sure.....


----------



## nathanbal (Feb 23, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hummm, wonder what he used those bags of cash from Post Tour crits for?
> 
> Ever heard of Baxter Pharmaceutical? The real question is if any of the multiple investigations, Federal, USADA, or Qui Tam is progressing. The AP story written by Armstrong's lawyers says no....I hear otherwise.


i dont doubt they are progressing. however it would surprise me if they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the stuff that has been mentioned if it had of happened during the past 2 years. 10 years ago though??? i think they are dreaming. the worse lance is going to be hit with is perjury or some form of tax avoidance. just like balco.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

nathanbal said:


> i dont doubt they are progressing. however it would surprise me if they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the stuff that has been mentioned if it had of happened during the past 2 years. 10 years ago though??? i think they are dreaming. the worse lance is going to be hit with is perjury or some form of tax avoidance. just like balco.


If 1/2 of what I hear is correct Armstrong is in serious trouble. In a few months even the most hard core defenders will have trouble pretending he is not a dirtbag. 

Armstrong's sudden 2nd retirement happened for a reason. He is about to be hit by a years long $hitstorm.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

There will be a much different take on the progress of the investigation in Thursday LeMonde


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> In a few months even the most hard core defenders will have trouble pretending he is not a dirtbag.


So 3 months then? The countdown has begun :thumbsup:


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There will be a much different take on the progress of the investigation in Thursday LeMonde


'99 urine samples? What else?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If 1/2 of what I hear is correct Armstrong is in serious trouble. In a few months even the most hard core defenders will have trouble pretending he is not a dirtbag.
> 
> Armstrong's sudden 2nd retirement happened for a reason. He is about to be hit by a years long $hitstorm.


Right I agree, the fact that he was 39, and well past his prime had nothing at all to do with his retirement.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> '99 urine samples? What else?


Non-Analytical postive


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Big-foot said:


> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...?



So In your opinion then, the article is false in reporting that a possible motivation for Landis coming forward and assisting the Novitzky investigation is the whistleblower funds?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> So In your opinion then, the article is false in reporting that a possible motivation for Landis coming forward and assisting the Novitzky investigation is the whistleblower funds?


I would think that Landis is motivated by many things. Winning the Qui Tam case could be one of them. 

It is often confused but they are separate investigations though. Armstrong is likely looking at three long legal fights. The Doug Miller Federal case. The Landis Whistle Blower case, and the USADA "Non -Analytical positive" case.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

slegros said:


> So In your opinion then, the article is false in reporting that a possible motivation for Landis coming forward and assisting the Novitzky investigation is the whistleblower funds?




My confusion on your post was this, "So assuming you're *THE *Big-foot, if the Novitzky investigation is successful and *you* get the whistle-blower money." :confused5:


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Big-foot said:


> My confusion on your post was this, "So assuming you're *THE *Big-foot, if the Novitzky investigation is successful and *you* get the whistle-blower money." :confused5:


No my bad! Speaking hypothetically... Sorry for the confusion!

Based on the Bigfoot handle I merely assumed you were someone who was a FL supporter and thus would have a view one way or the other as to whether or not the possibility of whistleblower funds was motivating factor in Landis' decision to come forward.

In the event that FL does get whistleblower funds anyone know if there is a legal obligation or intention on the part of FL to repay the FFF with those funds? If there is, it certainly places FL's decision to come forward in a more altruistic light.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

How large should the crime be? It should be large enough to have a measureable, negative effect. Most agree that Lance's career "raised all boats" as the saying goes.

The reason this is such a big waste is that it's small potatoes both in terms of cash amounts and exposure. If they would force the NFL, NBA, NBL to submit to WADA then you'd have cases like this all over the US (without all the jurisdictional issues) and they would be HUGE. The Green Bay Packers are a state funded team and many of them would have had some sort of public funding along the way. 

As someone pointed out earlier, nobody really cares. Mark McGuire might not get into the hall of fame but he did get a coaching job on his team. He's still in the sport, still making money. His team's fans seem glad to have him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> No my bad! Speaking hypothetically... Sorry for the confusion!
> 
> Based on the Bigfoot handle I merely assumed you were someone who was a FL supporter and thus would have a view one way or the other as to whether or not the possibility of whistleblower funds was motivating factor in Landis' decision to come forward.
> 
> *In the event that FL does get whistleblower funds anyone know if there is a legal obligation or intention on the part of FL to repay the FFF with those funds*? If there is, it certainly places FL's decision to come forward in a more altruistic light.


There is no obligation but he has indicated that paying back contributors is his goal. over 70% of the funds came from a few rich guys....who also happened to investors in Tailwind.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*understood but meaningless*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> There is no obligation but he has indicated that paying back contributors is his goal. over 70% of the funds came from a few rich guys....who also happened to investors in Tailwind.


FL has already commited fraud. He defrauded hundreds of thousands for his defense fund. Do you honestly believe he will pay anyone back????


I dont


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> How large should the crime be? It should be large enough to have a measureable, negative effect. Most agree that Lance's career "raised all boats" as the saying goes.
> 
> The reason this is *such a big waste is that it's small potatoes *both in terms of cash amounts and exposure. If they would force the NFL, NBA, NBL to submit to WADA then you'd have cases like this all over the US (without all the jurisdictional issues) and they would be HUGE. The Green Bay Packers are a state funded team and many of them would have had some sort of public funding along the way.
> 
> As someone pointed out earlier, nobody really cares. Mark McGuire might not get into the hall of fame but he did get a coaching job on his team. He's still in the sport, still making money. His team's fans seem glad to have him.


Which specific charge do you think are a waste? 

As of today no charges have been announced. The "Waste of taxpayer funds" phrase is a talking point invented by Armstrong's media people. Witch hunt is another. Some are buying into it and think Armstrong should escape investigation because of his fame. Luckily the Feds do not agree.


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Which specific charge do you think are a waste?
> 
> As of today no charges have been announced. The "Waste of taxpayer funds" phrase is a talking point invented by Armstrong's media people. Witch hunt is another. Some are buying into it and think Armstrong should escape investigation because of his fame. Luckily the Feds do not agree.


I dunno. I kind of like the theory of crime and punishment that seems to be advanced here.

It allows me to not pay my taxes, because it will cost the government too much money to prosecute me.

I can commit property crimes, just so long as I keep the value of what I steal/destroy below what it would cost the government to prosecute me.

I suppose I could even kill someone, so long as that someone was a poor person.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ttug said:


> FL has already commited fraud. He defrauded hundreds of thousands for his defense fund. Do you honestly believe he will pay anyone back????
> 
> 
> I dont


Hundreds of thousands? Really? Do you have a link? 

Most, 70%, of the money came from a small group of rich guys who he had told the truth to.....but they gave money anyways. 

Certainly he defrauded the few gullible fans who believed his fable but most of the cash came from guys who were well aware of the facts.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*a few?*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hundreds of thousands? Really? Do you have a link?
> 
> Most, 70%, of the money came from a small group of rich guys who he had told the truth to.....but they gave money anyways.
> 
> Certainly he defrauded the few gullible fans who believed his fable but most of the cash came from guys who were well aware of the facts.


Last I checked, a few much less one is enough to constitute fraud.

Ever go to his Facebook page? I think a few is a far cry from reality.

Gullible???? They believed in the same naive vision many folks have about doping ion our sport at that level. Gullible my balls. They can kiss my hairy white bean bag if anyone thinks thety were not defrauded.

That man is a bastrad filled liar, a sugar coated bastard, with bastard filling, coated with pure bastard icing and a bald faced liar. He is not worthy to small my ****. 

Then to have the jaded set of nads to call them gullible? 

Total BS and you dam well know it


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ttug said:


> Last I checked, a few much less one is enough to constitute fraud.
> 
> Ever go to his Facebook page? I think a few is a far cry from reality.
> 
> ...


Calm down. It is possible to discuss the topic without talking about your "Hairy white bean bag"


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hundreds of thousands? Really? Do you have a link?
> 
> Most, 70%, of the money came from a small group of rich guys who he had told the truth to.....but they gave money anyways.
> 
> Certainly he defrauded the few gullible fans who believed his fable but most of the cash came from guys who were well aware of the facts.


Falsetti, you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth here. You're arguing the "how large does the crime have to be?" in Armstrong's case, but then dismiss the ~30% of "gullible" fans in the Landis case. 

Both are fraud. and should be held accountable. One question though: If Armstrong is convicted of fraud with the USPS, does the USPS have to give back all the money obtained through false marketing?? How many cases have there been where BOTH sides of a case made substantial money off of it??? Just curious.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh really*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Calm down. It is possible to discuss the topic without talking about your "Hairy white bean bag"


Think about the sport just once.

Cycling, oh , you mean that sport where tiny men juice their blood so they can climb fast and ride really cool bikes? THEN later LIE their collectiev asses off and still get money?

Count me in!

WRONG

It destroys any attraction


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

wiz525 said:


> Falsetti, you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth here. You're arguing the "how large does the crime have to be?" in Armstrong's case, but then dismiss the ~30% of "gullible" fans in the Landis case.
> 
> Both are fraud. and should be held accountable. One question though: If Armstrong is convicted of fraud with the USPS, does the USPS have to give back all the money obtained through false marketing?? How many cases have there been where BOTH sides of a case made substantial money off of it??? Just curious.


I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I certainly agree that Floyd defrauded a good number of people, not hundreds of thousands but certainly there were many. Floyd pulled off a fraud and should be held accountable. My intention was to clarify the size and scope of the financial part of the fraud. The vast majority of the funds came from a small group of people who were well aware of the truth and not defrauded. Floyd certainly defrauded people but it was not hundreds of thousands and not millions of $$. For me the large portion of Floyd's fraud was the damage he did to the sport and the ADA's. This missinformation campaign will take years to correct. 

Not everyone agrees that the USPS sponsorship achieved it's goals.



> According to a February 2003 USPS Inspector General (OIG) report, the objective of the sponsorship was to "increase revenue and sales of Postal Service's products on a global basis and to increase sales in key international markets" with* a specific monetary goal of increasing [annual international] revenue by $20 million. However, despite the cycling team's outstanding performance and extremely high profile, revenues from USPS international operations in 2003 were actually $12.8 million less than four- years earlier in 1999.*
> Calling USPS's decision a "major victory for consumers," PostalWatch executive director Rick Merritt stated in a press release, "Talk about a government boondoggle, the pro-cycling sponsorship exemplifies just how delusional postal leadership can be. They raised domestic monopoly rates three times while forcing captive ratepayers to pay more than $50 million to sponsor a European sporting event and then, adding insult to injury, they achieved a negative result."


 http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/consumer/a/uspslance.htm


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*USPS and Lance*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I certainly agree that Floyd defrauded a good number of people, not hundreds of thousands but certainly there were many. Floyd pulled off a fraud and should be held accountable. My intention was to clarify the size and scope of the financial part of the fraud. The vast majority of the funds came from a small group of people who were well aware of the truth and not defrauded. Floyd certainly defrauded people but it was not hundreds of thousands and not millions of $$. For me the large portion of Floyd's fraud was the damage he did to the sport and the ADA's. This missinformation campaign will take years to correct.
> 
> Not everyone agrees that the USPS sponsorship achieved it's goals.
> 
> ...


All you need to do is hear the phrase "going postal". Look at what that team did for their image, it was incredible


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ttug said:


> All you need to do is hear the phrase "going postal". Look at what that team did for their image, it was incredible


Too bad it did not result in an increase in revenue. 

I am sure the USPS is excited at the prospect that their name will forever be associated with an organized doping program. I am sure they look forward to the thousands of articles that will be written over the next few years that will discuss the toxic practices of the USPS team.


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

Thanks for the numbers Falsetti. I wonder how much in the red they would have been if Armstrong did poorly! Jeepers, they might not be around anymore. 

And agree, they certainly aren't going to enjoy the bad publicity from this. Is there any push back from the USPS to the government on these investigations? Surely so?


----------



## zyzbot (Feb 3, 2004)

> I can commit property crimes, just so long as I keep the value of what I steal/destroy below what it would cost the government to prosecute me.


 Back in the mid 1980's when I did investigations for the Navy, the Federal prosecutors wouldn't take a case unless it was at least $2,000 in value. Thieves could stay in business for a while as long as they stole less than $2k at a time.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Too bad it did not result in an increase in revenue.
> 
> I am sure the USPS is excited at the prospect that their name will forever be associated with an organized doping program. I am sure they look forward to the thousands of articles that will be written over the next few years that will discuss the toxic practices of the USPS team.


A marketing campaign is never a promise of success so their occasional failure is not a crime. The $12.8m drop in revenue is not related to the cycling team in any way. Their challenges are well known (Internet).

The "thousands" (?) articles that get written will not be read by many and will change the consumer habits of even fewer. It's cycling we're talking about here, not football. Investigating this seems like a waste because so few care. Chasing around a bike rider when doping and "fraud" is several times more prevelant and profitable in ball sports and big business in general? Make the Mexican border safer, investigate shady business practices that hurt the economy, something that matters.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> A marketing campaign is never a promise of success so their occasional failure is not a crime. The $12.8m drop in revenue is not related to the cycling team in any way. Their challenges are well known (Internet).
> 
> The "thousands" (?) articles that get written will not be read by many and will change the consumer habits of even fewer. It's cycling we're talking about here, not football. Investigating this seems like a waste because so few care. Chasing around a bike rider when doping and "fraud" is several times more prevelant and profitable in ball sports and big business in general? Make the Mexican border safer, investigate shady business practices that hurt the economy, something that matters.


The topic will not be cycling, it will be Armstrong. This will be a long, draw out series of legal entanglements that will be about much more then just doping and far more then just cycling. 

Does anyone really think the USPS is happy that their brand will be brought up continually in association with this debacle? Of course not.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The topic will not be cycling, it will be Armstrong. This will be a long, draw out series of legal entanglements that will be about much more then just doping and far more then just cycling.
> 
> *Does anyone really think the USPS is happy that their brand will be brought up continually in association with this debacle*? Of course not.


Given the strength of the Lance Armstrong "brand" and the fact that his team had two sponsors after USPS, I doubt that USPS will become synonymous with whatever happens in the current investigation. USPS will not be tagged the same way that Festina was tagged with the scandal at the 1998 Tour.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MarkS said:


> Given the strength of the Lance Armstrong "brand" and the fact that his team had two sponsors after USPS, I doubt that USPS will become synonymous with whatever happens in the current investigation. USPS will not be tagged the same way that Festina was tagged with the scandal at the 1998 Tour.


Very true. Radioshack is perhaps equally exposed. 

I heard from a Radioshack rider that Johan is working hard on securing the team for another year and is optimistic. I found that surprising but you never know. Also heard that Lance's sudden 2nd retirement was due to impending USADA charges and the need to distance himself from the team so it could possibly survive. On the surface that does not make much sense but then you think about what a mess it would be at the ToC if USADA had opened a Non-Analytical positive case against him and it makes much more sense


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

zyzbot said:


> Back in the mid 1980's when I did investigations for the Navy, the Federal prosecutors wouldn't take a case unless it was at least $2,000 in value. Thieves could stay in business for a while as long as they stole less than $2k at a time.


At least from what I've seen, it's not that the Feds are giving a free pass, but rather as long as there is concurrent jurisdiction they'll let the state/local people handle the smaller cases.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Very true. Radioshack is perhaps equally exposed.
> 
> I heard from a Radioshack rider that Johan is working hard on securing the team for another year and is optimistic. I found that surprising but you never know. Also heard that Lance's sudden 2nd retirement was due to impending USADA charges and the need to distance himself from the team so it could possibly survive. On the surface that does not make much sense but then you think about what a mess it would be at the ToC if USADA had opened a Non-Analytical positive case against him and it makes much more sense


I have a meeting in San Francisco at the beginning of the week of the TOC. I was thinking about staying over a few days to see a stage or two. Do you think that the investigation will blow up the TOC before May?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The topic will not be cycling, it will be Armstrong. This will be a long, draw out series of legal entanglements that will be about much more then just doping and far more then just cycling.
> 
> Does anyone really think the USPS is happy that their brand will be brought up continually in association with this debacle? Of course not.


I'm with MarkS, I think LA's feather's might get ruffled but if this is about defrauding USPS for money they shouldn't be on the same side of the bench, so to speak. There were guys @ USPS that might be brought forward to explain why they agreed to sponsor the team and what they knew about them but even so, the USPS sponsorship pre-dates LA's arrival.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> I'm with MarkS, I think LA's feather's might get ruffled but if this is about defrauding USPS for money they shouldn't be on the same side of the bench, so to speak. There were guys @ USPS that might be brought forward to explain why they agreed to sponsor the team and what they knew about them but even so, the USPS sponsorship pre-dates LA's arrival.


The anti-doping clause was inserted into the contract during a period that Armstrong was on the team. 

Remember, there are at least three US based cases here. The Federal one, the Qui Tam case, and the USADA case. You also have the strong possibility of French, Belgium, and Italian cases. The French have said they are waiting on the Feds before they move. The Italians have already raided Popo's house, finding drugs and communication with Ferrari. Popo is supposedly working with investigators now. 

This will take a long time to play out. Remember Operation Puerto? The first police action did not happen until 2 years after Manzano's interview. In comparison the Federal case is moving rapidly. 

Expect Armstrong to be tied up in legal actions in the US and Europe for years.


----------



## nathanbal (Feb 23, 2009)

falsetti - whats the difference between the qui tam case, the federal one and the usada? are they the same thing but being brought forward by two or three different bodies?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I'm still not seeing how LA is central to the investigation unless he was an owner of the team during the USPS years. If they prove he and others doped they were all still employees of Tailwind Sports, weren't they?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ahem*



davidka said:


> I'm still not seeing how LA is central to the investigation unless he was an owner of the team during the USPS years. If they prove he and others doped they were all still employees of Tailwind Sports, weren't they?


If he is shown to have doped, THAT would be the TURD IN THE PUNCHBOWL of pro cycling for the next decade.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

nathanbal said:


> falsetti - whats the difference between the qui tam case, the federal one and the usada? are they the same thing but being brought forward by two or three different bodies?


The Qui Tam case is Landis' baby. The Whistle blower lawsuit. Last year Armstrong, Bruyneel, Bill Stapleton, Thomas W. Weisel and numerous owner-investors in the various companies that operated the team were notified they were targets of the investigation. 

The big thing to look on the Qui Tam case is if the Feds "Join" the case. This means they have reviewed the evidence, found it had merit, and will pay for the case. If this happens Armstrong et al are screwed. They should just negotiate a settlement. Landis could still go ahead if the Feds do not join, there are many law firms that could take the case, but his position would not be as strong.....I would not be surprised if the Feds joined the case. 

The USDA case would be a sporting sanction. Much of this would rely on the information gathered by Novitzky and others. 

The Federal case is everything else. A long list of potential crimes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> I'm still not seeing how LA is central to the investigation unless he was an owner of the team during the USPS years. If they prove he and others doped they were all still employees of Tailwind Sports, weren't they?


I agree with you. I think that for the Federal case and Qui Tam case there are others with greater exposure. If Armstrong is smart he will tell the truth and work on a plea deal.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MarkS said:


> I have a meeting in San Francisco at the beginning of the week of the TOC. I was thinking about staying over a few days to see a stage or two. Do you think that the investigation will blow up the TOC before May?


No predictions, I made that mistake before. 

If you look at past history disruption is a common tactic. Armstrong has been working hard to disrupt the case, even having his legal meet with Eric Holder to lobby him....ballsy move that did not work. All of this consumes time. 

I would not expect everything to happen at once. You could have USADA start things off, the Feds then follow, the Qui Tam case after all that. The French have said they are sitting on the Astana transfusion kits case and will wait until the Feds make their move before launching their case.....it appears that Lance is looking at several years of legal entanglements.


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Italians have already raided Popo's house, finding drugs and communication with Ferrari. Popo is supposedly working with investigators now.


To be fair:

“The only thing found were medicines, 15 pills to be exact. The Italian public prosecutor has had these examined and they have been confirmed as being pills for cramp.”

“It is also not true that the police found evidence of links between Armstrong and Dr Ferrari. That’s because the electronics expert who has been asked to study the contents of two laptops and two mobile phones has still to submit his report to the magistrate Benedetto Roberti.”


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> To be fair:
> 
> “The only thing found were medicines, 15 pills to be exact. The Italian public prosecutor has had these examined and they have been confirmed as being pills for cramp.”
> 
> “It is also not true that the police found evidence of links between Armstrong and Dr Ferrari. That’s because the electronics expert who has been asked to study the contents of two laptops and two mobile phones has still to submit his report to the magistrate Benedetto Roberti.”


That is the spin from Popo's legal. SI has reported a different story. I guess we will know the truth soon.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> That is the spin from Popo's legal. SI has reported a different story. I guess we will know the truth soon.


In the spirit of fair disclosure, those quotes came from a Cyclingnews article titled "Popovych denies Sports Illustrated details".

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/popovych-denies-sports-illustrated-details

A very telling part is the following: "Popovych’s lawyer is called Michele Re and is also his agent."


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

It's pretty common for sports agents to be lawyers. They are responsible for negotiating legal contracts as well as advising their athletes. If charges are broght to him you can bet that the lawyer's name will change.


----------



## zyzbot (Feb 3, 2004)

ArkRider said:


> At least from what I've seen, it's not that the Feds are giving a free pass, but rather as long as there is concurrent jurisdiction they'll let the state/local people handle the smaller cases.


They were getting a free pass in these cases. No one else was prosecuting. It was maddening.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Too bad it did not result in an increase in revenue.
> 
> I am sure the USPS is excited at the prospect that their name will forever be associated with an organized doping program. I am sure they look forward to the thousands of articles that will be written over the next few years that will discuss the toxic practices of the USPS team.



- It's called "The Information-age" good "Dr."................USPS was/IS goin' down anyways......"If anything", their relevence has been extended.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> - It's called "The Information-age" good "Dr."................USPS was/IS goin' down anyways......"If anything", their relevence has been extended.


By "Relevance" you mean the thousands of times over the next few years where their brand will be linked with "Doping, Fraud, Cheating"? Doubt USPS marketing people are too excited about that "Relevance"


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

-I find it very interesting that Falsetti made some very specific statements that his link does not back up in any way, but instead of admitting he was wrong, he chooses to keep pushing the numbers and hope people forget his specific claims. Pretty typical actions by someone who has proven many times that he is obsessed with hate for LA.

- USPS actually had their income go up and got a greater market share in Europe but the profit has gone down because of costs in delivering mail and things like email taking away "sales."

- I think anyone saying LA getting busted for doping would have zero affect should look at what happened to the TV ratings and bike sales when he retired the first time.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Perico said:


> -I find it very interesting that Falsetti made some very specific statements that his link does not back up in any way, but instead of admitting he was wrong, he chooses to keep pushing the numbers and hope people forget his specific claims. Pretty typical actions by someone who has proven many times that he is obsessed with hate for LA.


I'm just waiting for his overdramatic statements. I get a LOL at a lot of them. I expect a thread tomorrow to contain something to the extent that, "the streets will be paved in BLOOD when they finally obtain these samples" or something to that extent.


----------



## ragweed (Jan 2, 2009)

Perico said:


> - I think anyone saying LA getting busted for doping would have zero affect should look at what happened to the TV ratings and bike sales when he retired the first time.


I don't know the numbers for US TV ratings and bike sales post-Lance retirement 1.0 but this was an interesting read in Velonews on ASO's revenue -- http://tinyurl.com/24wbr74.

Here's a snippet:


> Added proof that Armstrong’s participation at the Tour had little effect on ASO income is contained within its year-to-year financial returns (see chart). Although total revenues for the privately held French company steadily increased during Armstrong’s Tour-winning seasons, first exceeding $100 million in 2002 and reaching $160 million by 2005,* they continued to rise after his retirement*.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Perico said:


> -I find it very interesting that Falsetti made some very specific statements that his link does not back up in any way, but instead of admitting he was wrong, he chooses to keep pushing the numbers and hope people forget his specific claims. Pretty typical actions by someone who has proven many times that he is obsessed with hate for LA.
> 
> - USPS actually had their income go up and got a greater market share in Europe but the profit has gone down because of costs in delivering mail and things like email taking away "sales."
> 
> - I think anyone saying LA getting busted for doping would have zero affect should look at what happened to the TV ratings and bike sales when he retired the first time.


As usual you respond with a personal attack. 

I gave you a link that supported what I wrote, you chose to ignore this an insult me. The team was given a* specific monetary goal of increasing [annual international] revenue by $20 million.* Revenues from USPS international operations in* 2003 were actually $12.8 million less than four- years earlier in 1999.*

USPS Office of Inspector General noted that* “the Postal Service was unable to track or verify revenue associated with sponsorships.” *

They were able to trace some nice costs. According to the OIG audit, one postal official ran up a $16,685 tab – including a $259 dinner cruise and first-class airfare – on a trip to watch the Tour de France.

I do not see anyone saying that a little dose of reality will not cause some drama with the groupies.....but is that a reason to ignore justice? Should investigators factor in TV ratings when considering Federal charges? Do you think the USPS marketing is happy to have their brand associated with an organized doping program? 

If Armstrong was really concerned about wasting taxpayer funds he should stop his charade and start working on a plea agreement. Drawing this out with a ridiculous smoke and mirrors media campaign will waste millions of both his and the taxpayer's money.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ragweed said:


> I don't know the numbers for US TV ratings and bike sales post-Lance retirement 1.0 but this was an interesting read in Velonews on ASO's revenue -- http://tinyurl.com/24wbr74.
> 
> Here's a snippet:


Please stop with your facts and figures. Don't you know that every bike sold, every viewer, every race entry was because of Lance? The entire sport will collapse if the truth gets out.....not that most fans do not already know it.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

To quote Jack, "Truth, you can't handle the truth!"

Its funny to watch the pro lance arguments sway away from utter denial to, well, its not such a big deal anyway, waste of time, money etc.... To quote the old cycling adage, "you got to spin to win!"


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Please stop with your facts and figures. Don't you know that every bike sold, every viewer, every race entry was because of Lance? The entire sport will collapse if the truth gets out.....not that most fans do not already know it.


What are they going to do, sell back their 5+ year old Treks, TdF VHS, and worn out US Postal and Discovery kits?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> What are they going to do, sell back their 5+ year old Treks, TdF VHS, and worn out US Postal and Discovery kits?


Nah, they will just collect dust in their garage while they go back to playing golf


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nah, they will just collect dust in their garage while they go back to playing golf


I'll agree with this for the most part. However, he rekindled interest in cycling in the US after Lemond. In Europe, this is obviously not a big deal as cycling is much more accepted, but I'd hate to think how small fields might be had Armstrong's efforts not inspired others to get into racing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I'll agree with this for the most part. However, he rekindled interest in cycling in the US after Lemond. In Europe, this is obviously not a big deal as cycling is much more accepted, but I'd hate to think how small fields might be had Armstrong's efforts not inspired others to get into racing.


I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As usual you respond with a personal attack.


Is posting facts really a personal attack? Is your skin really that thin?



> I gave you a link that supported what I wrote, you chose to ignore this an insult me.


1) No you didn't. You said "Do you admire that they spend $2,000,000 per year to fly him around on a private jet? Is it admirable that they spend $4,000,000 per year to advertise his For Profit website?"

Yet your link gave an amount for travel and said nothing of it being just for LA to fly on a private jet. When it comes to advertising your link did not say all $4m was for the "for profit" website, you just assumed it. You were either wrong or simply lying, I called you on it and now you are crying about being "insulted" and "personally attacked." Rather ironic coming from you of all people.


> The team was given a* specific monetary goal of increasing [annual international] revenue by $20 million.* Revenues from USPS international operations in* 2003 were actually $12.8 million less than four- years earlier in 1999.*
> 
> USPS Office of Inspector General noted that* “the Postal Service was unable to track or verify revenue associated with sponsorships.” *
> 
> ...


When it comes to this part it is simply your typical tactic of ignoring what doesn't suit your obsessive hate for LA. You completely ignore the true reasons that profits for the USPS went down, which I pointed out, because it does not fit your agenda.

Why does it seem that in any LA thread you get into the same things happen? You spout off, get called on it, ignore what doesn't suit your agenda, cry "poor little me" and obfuscate whatever you can't ignore.

You really should take coolhand's advice and use the ignore button instead of letting yourself get carried away and proving what an obsessed, little man you are.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ragweed said:


> I don't know the numbers for US TV ratings and bike sales post-Lance retirement 1.0 but this was an interesting read in Velonews on ASO's revenue -- http://tinyurl.com/24wbr74.
> 
> Here's a snippet:


I was not talking about the ASO, I was talking about the USA, which is what we seemed to be talking about.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Perico said:


> Is posting facts really a personal attack? Is your skin really that thin?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You conviently ignore that Livestrong's travel costs are absurd. Far, far, outside what other charities that are many multiples their size spend. Despite multiple requests by journalists for added information Livestrong refuses to address these out sized cost. Luckily there are many associated with Livestrong who are disgusted with this and when it is public that not only are many of those charges due to use of private jet travel but also that Livestrong co-signed the loan for Armstrong's jet I will accept your apology with grace and not rub your nose in it. 

You also ignore that despite $4,000,000 in advertising traffic to their website was flat.....while the for profit site that uses the far more common .com address exploded.....certainly this was just a coincidence. 

You also ignore that the Team was given specific targets that they did not even come close to achieving, then make claims with no back up. You have "called out" nothing, only ignored the obvious and hope that your bluster will somehow help....as usual it doesn't. 

As usual you will respond with "Asinine" "Obsessive, hater". Instead of the usual insults try the ignore button.


----------

