# Livestrong funds used to defend Lance



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303612804577531353567249064.html



> A spokesman for U.S. Rep. José Serrano (D., N.Y.), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, said his office was visited by a registered lobbyist working on behalf of the foundation, which works to increase awareness of cancer.
> 
> The lobbyist's main purpose, the spokesman said, was to talk about the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.


Disturbing


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Livestrong Lobbyist's Agenda Is Questioned - WSJ.com
> 
> Disturbing


More like disgusting. 

Funds given to a cancer charity should not be spent trying to get Armstrong off the hook for cheating. The cancer charity should not be used a ruse to get face time with politicians so they can be asked to interfere with the USADA.

The guy has no shame.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Livestrong Lobbyist's Agenda Is Questioned - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> Disturbing


I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Misleading thread title.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Misleading thread title.


Livestrong's lobbyist used to help Armstrong get away with cheating. Who do you think pays Livestrong's lobbyist?

Seems accurate to me.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Anyone have a complete article?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Funds used to defend Lance suggests the funds have gone into Lance's legal defense. 

As far as we know, they haven't. 


*Misleading thread title. *




Now is it a crime for a lobbyist to bring one topic up while discussing another topic? Do you guys consider lobbyists to be an upstanding, honest bunch? Have any of you ever been to K Street? LOL

Sorry. This isn't going anywhere. Thread titles like this--especially duplicates--reek of obsession and desperation.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Misleading thread title.


Lance does not have a chance in front of an AAA panel. Lobbying politicians is his defence


----------



## wesb321 (Oct 1, 2011)

If they have or do support him.. what's good for the goose is good for the gander IMHO.


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> *Misleading thread title. *



Since the Livestrong lobbyist was there on business, specifically to discuss the USADA, seems straightforward to me. Or is someone claiming that the lobbyist was performing official professional duties without getting paid? 

(If he was working without pay from the livestrong foundation, but still used the name to get in the door, I would still say it is inappropriate...but that is normal for Washington)


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

_Official business_, having a _specific topic_ to discuss, _official professional duties_...

First off, a spokesman claims that the lobbyist's "main purpose" was to discuss USADA. What do you think the lobbyist will describe has his main purpose for the visit? 

Do you have any idea how lobbying works? Have any of you ever talked to a lobbyist, even in a social setting?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> _Official business_, having a _specific topic_ to discuss, _official professional duties_...
> 
> First off, a spokesman claims that the lobbyist's "main purpose" was to discuss USADA. What do you think the lobbyist will describe has his main purpose for the visit?
> 
> Do you have any idea how lobbying works? Have any of you ever talked to a lobbyist, even in a social setting?


Move along, everyone does it. 

So the hundred bucks I donated to Livestrong isn't being used to raise awareness/help cancer sufferers, but is being used to change sporting rules?:mad2:

Seems we have an ethical cancer and it is spreading. I'm becoming aware of this.

We get it bro. Everything Armstrong does is ok. Well, newsflash, it's not ok. That's why he is going to be stopped and all the fanboys/idolaters/apologists will get the message it's not ok even though they will probably persist in their ingrained kool aid drinking behavior.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

This gives a clear picture of how LA operates.
He knows his only hope is to somehow torpedo the USADA.
The scary part is I bet he will be successful either with his lawsuit or getting USADA to back off.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

jnbrown said:


> This gives a clear picture of how LA operates.
> He knows his only hope is to somehow torpedo the USADA.
> The scary part is I bet he will be successful either with his lawsuit or getting USADA to back off.


I don't think the USADA can back off at this point. They would lose credibility. Anyone else they went after would point to the unfairness of letting the kingpin get away while going after the small fish.

The time to back off was before sending the charging letter.


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

trailrunner68 said:


> I don't think the USADA can back off at this point. They would lose credibility. Anyone else they went after would point to the unfairness of letting the kingpin get away while going after the small fish.
> 
> The time to back off was before sending the charging letter.


The big thing about this is the timing. How bad will the USADA and Tygert come off if they are spending so much time on Armstrong while an Olympics is going on. Imagine the s--t storm that would come down from the politicians if a US athlete gets busted at the games after getting through the trials in their sport. Heads will roll.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

It explains this:

Congressman James Sensenbrenner questions Lance Armstrong probe - News | FOX Sports on MSN

Sensenbrenner is as evil of a "human" as you can possibly get.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Rundfahrt said:


> The big thing about this is the timing. How bad will the USADA and Tygert come off if they are spending so much time on Armstrong while an Olympics is going on. Imagine the s--t storm that would come down from the politicians if a US athlete gets busted at the games after getting through the trials in their sport. Heads will roll.


You are imagining things. The USADA won't take any blame for a U.S. athlete getting caught. In fact it will further justify their mission. 

By nailing Armstrong, the USADA will be able to take credit for taking down the biggest dope cheat in sports' history. That will send a message.


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

trailrunner68 said:


> You are imagining things. The USADA won't take any blame for a U.S. athlete getting caught. In fact it will further justify their mission.
> 
> By nailing Armstrong, the USADA will be able to take credit for taking down the biggest dope cheat in sports' history. That will send a message.


Really? You really think that, let's say a track guy gets nailed that nobody will ask why he wasn't caught a month or so before at the trials? That's naive. Why do you think Armstrong decided to file suit when he did? In order to get politicians involved and do it during the Olympics. I called the political involvement the first day after he filed it. 

The real problem here is that you have turned this into an emotional thing. Calling another cyclist who doped to win "the biggest dope cheat in history" is nothing but hyperbole in order to justify your emotional involvement. It's very obvious this is personal to you. The problem with making something like this personal is that rational thinking goes out the door.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Rundfahrt said:


> The big thing about this is the timing. How bad will the USADA and Tygert come off if they are spending so much time on Armstrong while an Olympics is going on. Imagine the s--t storm that would come down from the politicians if a US athlete gets busted at the games after getting through the trials in their sport. Heads will roll.


USADA is not in charge of testing at the Olympics so there would be zero effect

Should USADA ignore the testimony of over a dozen direct witness?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

INFLUENCE GAME: Lance Armstrong foundation puts lobbying heat on Anti-Doping Agency - The Washington Post



> The meeting was "substantially if not all about USADA and concerns about the process that Lance Armstrong is being put through," said Serrano spokesman Philip Schmidt.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Of course not!*



Rundfahrt said:


> Really? You really think that, let's say a track guy gets nailed that nobody will ask why he wasn't caught a month or so before at the trials? That's naive. Why do you think Armstrong decided to file suit when he did? In order to get politicians involved and do it during the Olympics. I called the political involvement the first day after he filed it.
> 
> *The real problem here is that you have turned this into an emotional thing. Calling another cyclist who doped to win "the biggest dope cheat in history" is nothing but hyperbole in order to justify your emotional involvement. It's very obvious this is personal to you. The problem with making something like this personal is that rational thinking goes out the door*.





Rundfahrt said:


> Not sure if this has been posted but this article does a pretty good job talking about what is wrong with the USADA and it's system of ensuring guilty results.
> Lance Armstrong: Victim? | Outside Celebrities | OutsideOnline.com
> 
> *No, this is not me defending LA,* I am simply adding some info to why an investigation on USADA is a good thing, regardless of Armstrong.



:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA is not in charge of testing at the Olympics so there would be zero effect
> 
> Should USADA ignore the testimony of over a dozen direct witness?





Doctor Falsetti said:


> INFLUENCE GAME: Lance Armstrong foundation puts lobbying heat on Anti-Doping Agency - The Washington Post


Thanks


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Rundfahrt said:


> Really? You really think that, let's say a track guy gets nailed that nobody will ask why he wasn't caught a month or so before at the trials? That's naive. Why do you think Armstrong decided to file suit when he did? In order to get politicians involved and do it during the Olympics. I called the political involvement the first day after he filed it.
> 
> The real problem here is that you have turned this into an emotional thing. Calling another cyclist who doped to win "the biggest dope cheat in history" is nothing but hyperbole in order to justify your emotional involvement. It's very obvious this is personal to you. The problem with making something like this personal is that rational thinking goes out the door.


Again. Can't you make a point without attacking the poster. Do I need to start reporting posts or what?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*English class*



Rundfahrt said:


> Really? You really think that, let's say a track guy gets nailed that nobody will ask why he wasn't caught a month or so before at the trials? That's naive. Why do you think Armstrong decided to file suit when he did? In order to get politicians involved and do it during the Olympics. I called the political involvement the first day after he filed it.
> 
> The real problem here is that you have turned this into an emotional thing. Calling another cyclist who doped to win "the biggest dope cheat in history" is nothing but hyperbole in order to justify your emotional involvement. It's very obvious this is personal to you. The problem with making something like this personal is that rational thinking goes out the door.



hy·per·bo·le   [hahy-pur-buh-lee] 
. 
1. 
obvious and intentional exaggeration. 


2. 
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.” 

He's literally the "biggest dope cheat in history." Name a bigger one.



trailrunner68 said:


> Again. Can't you make a point without attacking the poster.


Ahh no! What could their point possibly be? They do not have one thing. Nothing.

For whatever reason grown men are having a tough time coming to terms with the downfall of an idol. Maybe they shouldn't have idols?:idea:


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti, I know WADA does testing at the Olympics. Hence the reason I said that everybody would question why the athlete was not caught a month or so before at the trials. I also love how, when called on your avoiding my points in a thread you give rep and call me a troll. Very mature and open minded to the discussion.

trailrunner68, nice job avoiding the point I made. Feel free to run to the mods...all that does is prove your emotional investment in this. It is rather hypocritical of you since you started off any discussion with us by making a false attack against me claiming all of my posts are attacks.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> Do I need to start reporting posts or what?


I double dare you!


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Chris-X said:


> hy·per·bo·le   [hahy-pur-buh-lee]
> .
> 1.
> obvious and intentional exaggeration.
> ...


This is where you guys have become to emotionally involved. In sports doping which matters more to the world, Ben Johnson in 1988 Olympics or Lance Armstrong in the Tour? How about some of the Eastern Bloc athletes in the Olympics? Larisa Latynina won 9 golds and 18 total Olympic medals. Carl Lewis won 9 golds and 10 total. I could tell you many more but you get the point...though I doubt you will even give it a thought.





> Ahh no! What could their point possibly be? They do not have one thing. Nothing.
> 
> For whatever reason grown men are having a tough time coming to terms with the downfall of an idol. Maybe they shouldn't have idols?:idea:


Should I be like your buddy trailrunner and threaten to run to the mods? Nah, I am not emotionally involved.


Where did I say I even like Armstrong? Perhaps you can show me one post where I said he did not dope or that I even like him? If you weren't emotionally involved you wouldn't immediately label anyone not saying the same things as you.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Rundfahrt said:


> Chris-x, I have seen excellent info from multiple people, including Falsetti. Good discussion is where facts are used, logic is brought in, people are willing to see things from both sides and there are no insults. ( ruh-oh, that throws a wrench into your agenda!)


My agenda? I'd like to see the truth come out. Insults? It's insulting when people come out with nonsense to explain away what can be seen with one's own eyes. What logic are you seeing from the Armstrong fans?




Rundfahrt said:


> This is where you guys have become to emotionally involved. In sports doping which matters more to the world, Ben Johnson in 1988 Olympics or Lance Armstrong in the Tour? How about some of the Eastern Bloc athletes in the Olympics? Larisa Latynina won 9 golds and 18 total Olympic medals. Carl Lewis won 9 golds and 10 total. I could tell you many more but you get the point...though I doubt you will even give it a thought.
> 
> Should I be like your buddy trailrunner and threaten to run to the mods? Nah, I am not emotionally involved.
> 
> Where did I say I even like Armstrong? Perhaps you can show me one post where I said he did not dope or that I even like him? If you weren't emotionally involved you wouldn't immediately label anyone not saying the same things as you.


I'm not aware that I'm labeling anyone not saying the same things as I am, although I do believe they lack knowledge of the facts and basic sense.

A bigger point is the people who understand he doped but think he's being treated unfairly? Outright nonsense with no logical basis whatsoever. Worse than the fans are the apologists.

Ben Johnson went through my mind. Armstrong is bigger. Larisa Latynina? You're joking and this is where your whole emotional attachment nonsense breaks down. You're so interested in winning an argument you'll write any silliness no matter how ridiculous. Carl Lewis? For what? Ephedrine? But you are way out ahead of me assuming what I think.....

Please, rational people understand that Armstrong is the biggest doping cheat ever and probably the biggest sporting fraud too.. Barry Bonds might be close but he was a great player before he cheated.


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Chris-X said:


> My agenda? I'd like to see the truth come out. Insults? It's insulting when people come out with nonsense to explain away what can be seen with one's own eyes. What logic are you seeing from the Armstrong fans?


There is your agenda again. Anything that doesn't fit your opinion is "nonsense" and you don't believe Armstrong fans use any logic.






> I'm not aware that I'm labeling anyone not saying the same things as I am, although I do believe they lack knowledge of the facts and basic sense.


Really? When you made comments implying that Armstrong is my idol you weren't labeling me?

Another example of your agenda. You label people who don't follow your opinion and then say they lack knowledge of the facts and basic sense." In other words you insult them.



> A bigger point is the people who understand he doped but think he's being treated unfairly? Outright nonsense with no logical basis whatsoever. Worse than the fans are the apologists.


Do you think the system used by the USADA is completely fair? Things like the USADA having the option to change the rules when they want (i.e. being able to decide not to allow the defense to interview witnesses) or having an arbitration process that has three judges, one picked by each side and the third agreed upon from a select list approved by only the USADA are completely fair? Would your opinion be the same if this was someone besides Armstrong? Is it even possible for you to be able to look at this issue without thinking about Armstrong? Out of curiosity are you American? If not, what nationality are you and what is your ADA's process like?



> Ben Johnson went through my mind. Armstrong is bigger. Larisa Latynina? You're joking and this is where your whole emotional attachment nonsense breaks down. You're so interested in winning an argument you'll write any silliness no matter how ridiculous. Carl Lewis? For what? Ephedrine? But you are way out ahead of me assuming what I think.....
> 
> Please, rational people understand that Armstrong is the biggest doping cheat ever and probably the biggest sporting fraud too.. Barry Bonds might be close but he was a great player before he cheated.


Why? You said he was the biggest dope cheat in history, are you saying that the Tour de France is bigger throughout the world then the Olympics and, especially the 100m in the summer games? Armstrong doped for 7 Tour wins, Latynina doped for many more wins. Does it matter what Lewis did, doping is doping. You guys go on and on about the 1999 corticoid positive, but you are quick to dismiss other doping at the same level. Lewis only was part of the most well known doping bust in sports history...and he was dirty himself! You see the issue here is that we are talking about sports, but you can't separate the non-cycling things from his doping. You have such an emotional attachment to seeing Armstrong burn that you dismiss anything that does not suit it out of hand, even making completely irrational arguments. You shout down and insult people. You label people. You literally can't stand people not having an opinion that jibes 100% with yours.

It's disappointing that you have chosen to go down this route because I thought that when you saw my response about who has excellent info and good discussion you would see that I am not some blind follower of Armstrong here to defend him at all costs and we could have some quality discussion. Apparently you don't have it in you. Fair enough. Enjoy your time.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Rundfahrt said:


> Things like the USADA having the option to change the rules when they want (i.e. being able to decide not to allow the defense to interview witnesses)


Link? You really should bring this up with Bill Stapleton next time you see him. 

This thread is about Livestrong using donor funds to screw with USADA. Perhaps you could use one of the many other threads that deal with this topic instead of high jacking this one

Thanks :thumbsup:


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

I bet he drowns kittens too.


----------



## Nob (Nov 24, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> So the hundred bucks I donated to Livestrong isn't being used to raise awareness/help cancer sufferers, but is being used to change sporting rules?.



Now there is a mouth full....that has never happened.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Rundfahrt said:


> There is your agenda again. Anything that doesn't fit your opinion is "nonsense" and you don't believe Armstrong fans use any logic..


Anything? Look, I don't have an agenda. If the Armstrong defenders come up with something good, I'm all ears. They haven't though. They've engaged in circular arguments for years. It started with he's clean. Then when it appeared there was substance to the allegations, they attacked the messenger. Then he never tested positive. Then everybody does it. It doesn't matter. He's helping people with cancer. Why do you hate him. The accusers can't prove it. It's speculation. You don't know what he was injecting and the witnesses aren't certain. 

Please, tell me some good argument they've come up with. Jeez, then they're arguing he's presumed innocent as if this forum is a court of law. Focus on the present, not the past, he's retired. Please come up with one decent argument which is not absolute bs.





Rundfahrt said:


> Really? When you made comments implying that Armstrong is my idol you weren't labeling me?.


Maybe I jumped the gun on that. At this point in time, no rational person, who knows the facts can have any doubt in their mind that Armstrong has doped for much if not ALL of his career. 



Rundfahrt said:


> Another example of your agenda. You label people who don't follow your opinion and then say they lack knowledge of the facts and basic sense." In other words you insult them.


People who know anything and have a basic morality, know that Armstrong doped and should be sanctioned. It's that simple. If they are going to vigorously state idiotic arguments on the matter, I will probably call them on it. It continually amazes me on these forums in particular and life in general that people will speak authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. Not only will they not back down, they'll step it up with attacks that often contradict what they initially stated.





Rundfahrt said:


> Do you think the system used by the USADA is completely fair? Things like the USADA having the option to change the rules when they want (i.e. being able to decide not to allow the defense to interview witnesses) or having an arbitration process that has three judges, one picked by each side and the third agreed upon from a select list approved by only the USADA are completely fair? * Would your opinion be the same if this was someone besides Armstrong? Is it even possible for you to be able to look at this issue without thinking about Armstrong?* Out of curiosity are you American? If not, what nationality are you and what is your ADA's process like?


Yes I do think USADA is completely fair. You realize that Armstrong's attorney Bill Stapleton was President of the Athletes Advisory Committee which helped dratt USADA procedures? 

The two bolded questions are stupid. Am I disgusted by Armstrong. Yes, because of all of his bs hiding behind cancer and rallying his fan base with the whole persecution angle.. Is it because I am an Armstrong "hater?" Are you out of your mind? 

I am an American, what that has to do with anything is beyond me.





Rundfahrt said:


> Why? You said he was the biggest dope cheat in history, are you saying that the Tour de France is bigger throughout the world then the Olympics and, especially the 100m in the summer games? Armstrong doped for 7 Tour wins, Latynina doped for many more wins. Does it matter what Lewis did, doping is doping. You guys go on and on about the 1999 corticoid positive, but you are quick to dismiss other doping at the same level. Lewis only was part of the most well known doping bust in sports history...and he was dirty himself! *You see the issue here is that we are talking about sports, but you can't separate the non-cycling things from his doping. You have such an emotional attachment to seeing Armstrong burn that you dismiss anything that does not suit it out of hand, even making completely irrational arguments*. You shout down and insult people. You label people. You literally can't stand people not having an opinion that jibes 100% with yours.
> 
> It's disappointing that you have chosen to go down this route because I thought that when you saw my response about who has excellent info and good discussion you would see that I am not some blind follower of Armstrong here to defend him at all costs and we could have some quality discussion. Apparently you don't have it in you. Fair enough. Enjoy your time.


Lots of assumptions about my "emotional" attachment to Armstrong's demise. The guy is a prick, what can I say? He annoys me and the irrational arguments of his defenders annoy me. 

Point out one irrational argument I've made. I'm sure I'd be rational enough to back down. 

Not one Armstrong defender has excellent info. Anyone with excellent info ceases being an Armstrong defender very quickly. The only person who has advanced any potentially worthwhile pro Armstrong arguments at all is 88 rex?? I think his name is. His main bone of contention is the passport evidence is somewhat equivocal or so he contends. USADA says it's not. He tends to favor Armstrong, for some reason, but has technical expertise I don't have the knowledge to dispute, so I don't. I don't agree with him at all about how the weight of the blood evidence will come into play or decide the case, and it seems he is staring into the sun regarding the witness testimony and it's role in the case.

Bottom line, I don't think there is much room for discussion. It's clear Armstrong is conclusively guilty and any other opinion rests on extraneous issues, not the facts.

PS, btw, I see you're new. These types of forums have been contentious for years which is why there are people continually being banned. So it's old ground for many of us. The outside piece you brought up had had a thorough going over a couple of days before you reposted it. Bottom line, the State actor, due process, and jurisdiction arguments are more bs from armstrong.


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

chris-x, pretty much the response I expected, a lot of bluster and a lot of closed minded attitude and excuses. Oh,well, I guess I now know better then to try to have a rational discussion with you if Armstrong's name is involved in the topic in any way.


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Link? You really should bring this up with Bill Stapleton next time you see him.
> 
> This thread is about Livestrong using donor funds to screw with USADA. Perhaps you could use one of the many other threads that deal with this topic instead of high jacking this one
> 
> Thanks :thumbsup:


The information has been posted all over. Ironic that you would ask for links when you refuse to give them when it suits you.

Why should I bring it up with Stapleton? Oh, wait you think I am here to defend Armstrong and because Stapleton was involved in the creation of this process I shouldn't be able to have a negative opinion.

Your minion chris-x is the one who took the thread off the specified original post topic. It is rather interesting to look at this thread and see how you post off topic if you think you can come up with a response to suit your agenda...and whine when you can't.

Here is a real question: Why is it that you simply can't stand anyone who does not agree with absolutely everything you say? Things like someone seeing legitimate issues with the process, even if they think Armstrong doped. I am betting you can't really answer that question directly and honestly.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

Rundfahrt said:


> Doctor Falsetti, I know WADA does testing at the Olympics. Hence the reason I said that everybody would question why the athlete was not caught a month or so before at the trials. I also love how, when called on your avoiding my points in a thread you give rep and call me a troll. Very mature and open minded to the discussion.
> 
> trailrunner68, nice job avoiding the point I made. Feel free to run to the mods...all that does is prove your emotional investment in this. It is rather hypocritical of you since you started off any discussion with us by making a false attack against me claiming all of my posts are attacks.


It's pretty obvious that drug testing is not 100% effective.
Many dopers have avoided positive tests many times and where eventually caught.
Many never tested positive and later confessed.
What you say about the USADA failing to catch somebody during the Olympic trials makes no sense what so ever.


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

jnbrown said:


> It's pretty obvious that drug testing is not 100% effective.
> Many dopers have avoided positive tests many times and where eventually caught.
> Many never tested positive and later confessed.
> What you say about the USADA failing to catch somebody during the Olympic trials makes no sense what so ever.


I agree with the first three, but am not sure why they are posted in response to me.

The problem with the last one is that you aren't thinking from a politicians point of view. If you are a politician under pressure because of the huge debt and you see a government funded agency (yes they do get government money even if it is not 100% of the funds) spend a lot of money going after one guy then see an American athlete nailed about a month after being tested by the USADA at the trials get busted at the Olympics you are going to jump on it. How easy is it to say "Look at what a waste this is, spending all our money going after a retired athlete and then having to have someone else catch a cheat from America because we couldn't do it." It's a slam dunk with the people, especially those who don't care if Armstrong doped due to his cancer work.

(and no, before I get attacked, this is not a defense of Armstrong in any way)


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Enough. Stick to your points everyone, not your armchair psychoanalysis of anyone who disagrees with you. Also enough of the jibes about ties to the Armstrong camp, perceived cognitive ability or other various insults or attempts at baiting each other. If you don't like someone just put them on ignore.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Is Rundfahrt banned?


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

I'm surprised nobody has called equally USADA out on using tax payer funds to try to prosecute Armstrong based on the evidence they have. Everyone in the cycling industry I know agrees their allegations can't be proven based on the evidence they have, so the likely end result is Armstrong gets tainted by the allegations, USADA is neutered because they lose the case, and the lawyers win because they can afford their 50 foot Benneteaus after their invoices get paid.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



Local Hero said:


> Is Rundfahrt banned?


Yes, returning banned user.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

gordy748 said:


> I'm surprised nobody has called equally USADA out on using tax payer funds to try to prosecute Armstrong based on the evidence they have. Everyone in the cycling industry I know agrees their allegations can't be proven based on the evidence they have, so the likely end result is Armstrong gets tainted by the allegations, USADA is neutered because they lose the case, and the lawyers win because they can afford their 50 foot Benneteaus after their invoices get paid.


USADA was created to sanction athletes for doping violations. The Armstrong case is perfectly in line with that (generalized) mission statement, and I have no problem with taxpayer funds being used to fulfill that statement.

I think the Fed case was a blatant waste of money by that douche Novitzky. At no point should it have been a federal case, it should have been handed to USADA from the start. If that poor excuse for a Howie Mandel impersonator hadn't been so keen on seeing his name in the papers, this whole USADA case would have been finished quite some time ago.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Without the fed case and grand jury subpoenas/testimonies, do you think USADA would have the ammunition to investigate Armstrong? 

For some reason I feel like there has been evidence sharing. Am I wrong here?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> USADA was created to sanction athletes for doping violations. The Armstrong case is perfectly in line with that (generalized) mission statement, and I have no problem with taxpayer funds being used to fulfill that statement.
> 
> I think the Fed case was a blatant waste of money by that douche Novitzky. At no point should it have been a federal case, it should have been handed to USADA from the start. If that poor excuse for a Howie Mandel impersonator hadn't been so keen on seeing his name in the papers, this whole USADA case would have been finished quite some time ago.


It was not Novitzky's case. He was not in charge nor did he gather most of the evidence

Should the Feds investigate paying people to move drugs around? Paying large sums of money for drugs? Intimating witnesses?

You may want to save the outrage. Lance's fun with the Feds is far from over.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Mike Allen editorializes for Lance Armstrong - Erik Wemple - The Washington Post

Back on topic. 

Armstrong's lobbying efforts include getting journalists to misrepresent USADA's financials

Desparation


----------



## Urb (Jul 19, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Desparation


Do you mean desperation and if so do you really think so at these early stages in the fight? I certainly do not.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Urb said:


> Do you mean desperation and if so do you really think so at these early stages in the fight? I certainly do not.


Why do you think it's early in the fight?

He's got 3 weeks to reply, correct?

Do you realize that he has to stop USADA hearings before they start. Once they're underway, he's done.


----------



## Urb (Jul 19, 2010)

Chris-X said:


> Why do you think it's early in the fight?
> 
> He's got 3 weeks to reply, correct?
> 
> Do you realize that he has to stop USADA hearings before they start. Once they're underway, he's done.


I could be wrong but I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that. Things may get desperate closer to 3 weeks time from now but that's not here or now. At this moment I see a game being played.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Mike Allen editorializes for Lance Armstrong - Erik Wemple - The Washington Post
> 
> Back on topic.


Fascinating. 

It seems that one of the underlying premises here is that USADA is allowed to use lobbyists while Armstrong is not. 

Seems fair...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Fascinating.
> 
> It seems that one of the underlying premises here is that USADA is allowed to use lobbyists while Armstrong is not.
> 
> Seems fair...


You didn't read the link did you?

The concern is who pays for the lobbyist. Most would agree that Livestrong using foundation funds to lobby key member of the house Ways and Means committee about USADA is unethical. It is also unethical to push friendly reporters to write lies about how USADA spends their funding.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Urb said:


> Do you mean desperation and if so do you really think so at these early stages in the fight? I certainly do not.


There is no way he wins the case in front of the AAA panel so he is doing anything possible to kill USADA before this starts. He is disparate.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You didn't read the link did you?


I did!


> The concern is who pays for the lobbyist.


Donors vs Taxpayers?


> Most would agree


 Most would agree? Nice weasel words! I think most would agree that what's good for the goose is good for the gander! 


> that Livestrong using foundation funds to lobby key member of the house Ways and Means committee about USADA is unethical.


Did this even happen? 

I read the article. I heard what the congressman's staffer said. But you're stretching things. Again. 


> It is also unethical to push friendly reporters to write lies about how USADA spends their funding.


A blog or Kimmage article attacking Armstrong is OK but a story questions USADA funding is seen as "pushing friendly reporters to write lies"?

...ok if you say so. 

I just hope we can agree it is OK for USADA to use lobbyists, because they are the "good guys" in this situation, their money is well spent, and their judgment is infallible. And prosecuting a retired cyclist is the best way to spend this money and clean up the sport during an Olympic year.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He is disparate.


Disparate, eh? 

Hey doc, why don't you respond in the other thread where I asked you the sciency questions. You made some claims about the effects of altitude training and blood doping. I was hoping that it wasn't just empty hand waving on your part. Can you please respond with substance? 

Thank you!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> I did!
> r.


clearly you didn't 

USADA does not use taxpayer funds to lobby. Armstrong's paid liars fed false info to a friendly reporter saying they did. Oops. Reporter had to take down his fake story. Oops.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I read that part.

Is the underlying premise that it is OK for USADA to lobby Washington but it is not OK for Armstrong or Livestrong to do it. Got it!


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

What fake story? Are you saying the McCain story was a fake and he didn't come out in support of USADA?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Without the fed case and grand jury subpoenas/testimonies, do you think USADA would have the ammunition to investigate Armstrong?
> 
> For some reason I feel like there has been evidence sharing. Am I wrong here?


From what everything has been said, there was nothing shared (grand jury testimony is sealed, no?)

So where'd they get the information?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> From what everything has been said, there was nothing shared (grand jury testimony is sealed, no?)
> 
> So where'd they get the information?


Vaughters talked to the USADA in 2004. Some of his riders may have talked to the USADA independent of the federal investigation. Other riders may have figured that everything would come out during the federal investigation so they might as well do a deal with the USADA. The USADA has probably been working with the French and Italians. The Italians supposedly have wiretapped conversations and electronic communication of Dr. Ferrari conversing with his clients. That could be interesting.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

So much speculation!


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> So much speculation!


We definitely know that Vaughters told everything to the USADA in 2004. He said so on another forum.

We know that Vaughters not only told his riders that they would not be fired for cooperating with the investigation but that he expected them to cooperate. It is a good bet that all the ex-Postal/Disco riders that are employed by Slipstream have talked to the USADA.

We know that the Italians are investigating Ferrari and have wiretapped communications. They have also traced financial transactions back to the U.S. We can only guess whether the USADA has obtained any of that information.

We also know that right before sending the June letter to the conspirators, the USADA talked with the French doping authorities. The obvious guess is that they were confirming that evidence would be available.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

So much _betting_ and _guessing_!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

trailrunner68 said:


> Vaughters talked to the USADA in 2004. Some of his riders may have talked to the USADA independent of the federal investigation. Other riders may have figured that everything would come out during the federal investigation so they might as well do a deal with the USADA. The USADA has probably been working with the French and Italians. The Italians supposedly have wiretapped conversations and electronic communication of Dr. Ferrari conversing with his clients. That could be interesting.


Exactly. So the information existed before the fed probe. One would expect the "blood manipulation" exists independent of the fed probe as well. USADA has a better shot than the idiot fed probe ever did.

Hence why my opinion is that the fed investigation was a waste of resources when it should have been up to USADA all along.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> What fake story? Are you saying the McCain story was a fake and he didn't come out in support of USADA?


The story that USADA used taxpayer funds for lobbying. It was fake. Invented as an attempt to smear USADA


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The story that USADA used taxpayer funds for lobbying. It was fake. Invented as an attempt to smear USADA


But we agree that USADA has lobbyists and participates in lobbying, right? 

And falsey, did you see my questions regarding the effects of blood doping and altitude training? You made some outlandish claims in another thread and I challenged you to back them up. Can you please support what you've said? 

I don't want to have to continue to call you out on this. But I would like for you to either support what you've said or back away from the comment and concede that you were being less than accurate.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> But we agree that USADA has lobbyists and participates in lobbying, right?
> 
> And falsey, did you see my questions regarding the effects of blood doping and altitude training? You made some outlandish claims in another thread and I challenged you to back them up. Can you please support what you've said?
> 
> I don't want to have to continue to call you out on this. But I would like for you to either support what you've said or back away from the comment and concede that you were being less than accurate.


You are trolling again. 

If you feel there is something wrong with WADA/UCI blood testing I suggest you open a thread to explain how their process is flawed. Comparing it to your local hospital isn't enough. 

This thread is about Armstrong using foundation funds to lobby against USADA, please stop trying to highjack


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> But we agree that USADA has lobbyists and participates in lobbying, right?


USADA can and should 'lobby' to support their organization's mission. 

Livestrong should do the same--but their mission is not defending Lance from doping charges and they've got no particular reason to weigh in on USADA's funding. Livestrong isn't (or at least doesn't say it is) the 'Lance Fairness Fund'.


----------

