# The Armstrong Response???



## MarkS

Unless most of us are reading the tea leaves incorrectly, the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong are going to be substatiated and he is going to be fighting on several fronts. I assume that he already is and will continue to have the advice and advocacy of the best lawyers, experts and PR people that money can buy. But, how so you think he will respond?

1. The Tyler Hamilton/Floyd Landis approach: Deny, Deny, Deny. Come up with implausible excuses. 

2. The David Millar approach: Fold immediately. Make a deal. Do pennance in the desert and then come back as a born-again anti-doper.

3. Johan Bruyneel made me do it. I really did not know what I was doing.

4. Bill Clinton's/George W. Bush's gave me a secret pass. They told me that I could do whatever I had to so to win the "War on Terror" against the riders from those wimpy Euro countries that were giving them trouble.

5. My ex-wife/Sheryl Crow/the Olsen Twins must have spiked my food/drinks when I was not looking.

6. The labs spiked my samples. 

7. Cancer. USA. Livestrong. Cancer. USA. Livestrong. I am a hero. [email protected] you.


----------



## 3rensho

Hope for 2, settle for 7.


----------



## heathb

Where do you get that Armstrong is going to be defending himself. The investigation is going nowhere, if they had anything real we would have heard about it by now. 

The man is retired, it's over as far as I'm concerned. He grew up around the greatest dopers in history, those late 90's cyclists were as dirty as anyone has ever been. 

Lets just make sure the next generation of American riders like Taylor Phinney stay clean.


----------



## MarkS

heathb said:


> *Where do you get that Armstrong is going to be defending himself.* The investigation is going nowhere, if they had anything real we would have heard about it by now.


Sports Illustrated. Le Monde. This forum. Etc.



heathb said:


> The man is retired, *it's over as far as I'm concerned*. He grew up around the greatest dopers in history, those late 90's cyclists were as dirty as anyone has ever been.


But, it's not over insofar as others are concerned. And some of those others have subpoena and prosecutorial powers.

Your comment does raise another line of defense for Armstrong, however. "Everyone did it. I did not do anything that everyone else was doing. Thus, I still am #1." That line of defense may have some traction in the PR realm. But, it is no defense legally.



heathb said:


> Lets just make sure the next generation of American riders like Taylor Phinney stay clean.


This is something upon which we can agree. :thumbsup:


----------



## Snpiperpilot

MarkS said:


> Sports Illustrated. Le Monde. This forum. Etc.


Redacted to avoid feeding the trolls


----------



## ArkRider

heathb said:


> Where do you get that Armstrong is going to be defending himself. The investigation is going nowhere, if they had anything real we would have heard about it by now.
> 
> The man is retired, it's over as far as I'm concerned. He grew up around the greatest dopers in history, those late 90's cyclists were as dirty as anyone has ever been.
> 
> Lets just make sure the next generation of American riders like Taylor Phinney stay clean.


So Armstrong won't be defending himself because the investigators and prosecutors have not decided to make you privy to their investigation? Or is it just that since you're not concerned about it the prosecutor has to drop the case anyway?


----------



## heathb

At this point you'd have to have hard evidence. Either a positive sample, a video or a doctor that kept good notes for Armstrong's regimen.

If any of those things are in existence they probably would have come to light long ago. As for ex pro riders ratting him out. Floyd ruined that for everyone with his flipping the truth back and forth. None of these ex riders are credible sources for info, even though Floyd by all accounts is telling the truth finally....I hope.


----------



## mohair_chair

The only way he would have to defend himself is if he is charged with a crime. Doping wasn't a crime in this country, and even if it were, it didn't happen within the jurisdiction of the USA. Maybe they try to charge him with fraud, but that would be hard to sustain given the lack of victims who claim to be defrauded.

So Lance is best off sticking with #1. It's something he's been doing well for a long time now, so why change horses in midstream?


----------



## orange_julius

MarkS, I am not so sure that sports doping is the main focus of this investigation. At least, the investigators themselves haven't given much hint as to what crimes exactly are being investigated. So at best you'll hear lots of conjectures. 

It could be that as a side effect of the investigation and finalization we'll find out a lot about whether he and many others doped or not, but the public does not know for sure. The public, however, do not have a common standard of what it thinks it knows and believes :-D.


----------



## culdeus

mohair_chair said:


> The only way he would have to defend himself is if he is charged with a crime. Doping wasn't a crime in this country, and even if it were, it didn't happen within the jurisdiction of the USA. Maybe they try to charge him with fraud, but that would be hard to sustain given the lack of victims who claim to be defrauded.
> 
> So Lance is best off sticking with #1. It's something he's been doing well for a long time now, so why change horses in midstream?


I'm so sick of people thinking Lance can't end up like Marion Jones. It can happen very easily if he plays his cards wrong.


----------



## JSR

The premise of this thread seems a bit iffy. Why would any doping allegations against LA be more likely to be "substantiated" now than at some other time? 

I'd say the only chances they have to prove something against LA are:

1. Selling or providing dope to Flandis and/or others, which could be a crime. I'd rate the likelihood of this holdng up in court to be "NFW".

2. Lying to US Federal authourities about having taken dope. This one seems to be complicatged by the team havning been sponsored by the US Postal Service, to whom he presumably said that he didn't use dope. This is unlikely to succeed, because it would have to be proven that he had doped, which has, up to now, been impossible.

3. Imcome tax evasion based on any profits made selling dope or selling bikes to fuel the doping slush fund. This would seem to be the one avenue of attack which could be problematic for LA. Of course he could probablybuy his way out of this problem by paying back taxes and penalties, assuming the evaded amounts are not in the millions of dollars.

I say versions of numbers 1 and 7 will be main LA rrsponse.

JSR


----------



## mohair_chair

culdeus said:


> I'm so sick of people thinking Lance can't end up like Marion Jones. It can happen very easily if he plays his cards wrong.


I highly doubt it. This isn't Lance's first rodeo. The SCA case was good practice for Armstrong. By now, I expect that he's well schooled in defending himself and staying within the lines.


----------



## MarkS

orange_julius said:


> MarkS, I am not so sure that sports doping is the main focus of this investigation. At least, the investigators themselves haven't given much hint as to what crimes exactly are being investigated. So at best you'll hear lots of conjectures.
> 
> It could be that as a side effect of the investigation and finalization we'll find out a lot about whether he and many others doped or not, but the public does not know for sure. The public, however, do not have a common standard of what it thinks it knows and believes :-D.



This raises another potential outcome. Last year, Trek and Greg Lemond came to a settlement of their litigation before trial. The elephant in the room in the litigation was Lemond's allegations/insinuations that Armstrong was a doper. Although the terms of the settlement are not public, the settlement stopped a trial from going forward in which Lemond's side likely would have tried to offer evidence of Armstrong's doping. I could envision an outcome where Armstrong would plead to something or pay fines or come to some other agreement with respect to matters other than doping in exchange for any doping investigation being shut down.


----------



## orange_julius

MarkS said:


> This raises another potential outcome. Last year, Trek and Greg Lemond came to a settlement of their litigation before trial. The elephant in the room in the litigation was Lemond's allegations/insinuations that Armstrong was a doper. Although the terms of the settlement are not public, the settlement stopped a trial from going forward in which Lemond's side likely would have tried to offer evidence of Armstrong's doping. I could envision an outcome where Armstrong would plead to something or pay fines or come to some other agreement with respect to matters other than doping in exchange for any doping investigation being shut down.


I'm not a lawyer (but aren't you one?). I know that in a civil lawsuit between two parties it is possible to reach a settlement in which one or both parties are barred from discussing the specifics of the agreement. Is this possible in a Fed grand jury investigation? Or do all facts and arguments have to be made public in the end?


----------



## mohair_chair

orange_julius said:


> Is this possible in a Fed grand jury investigation? Or do all facts and arguments have to be made public in the end?


The proceedings of a grand jury are supposed to remain confidential. BALCO attorney Troy Ellerman did 30 months in prison for leaking the sealed grand jury transcripts. He was released after 16 months.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

MarkS said:


> This raises another potential outcome. Last year, Trek and Greg Lemond came to a settlement of their litigation before trial. The elephant in the room in the litigation was Lemond's allegations/insinuations that Armstrong was a doper. Although the terms of the settlement are not public, the settlement stopped a trial from going forward in which Lemond's side likely would have tried to offer evidence of Armstrong's doping. I could envision an outcome where Armstrong would plead to something or pay fines or come to some other agreement with respect to matters other than doping in exchange for any doping investigation being shut down.


The Trek Lemond dispute is a good example of potential strategy. Despite his claims to the contrary Armstrong, his lawyers and Media people were intimately involved in the case. The Judge made it clear that Armstrong's doping was indeed a key part. 

Greg's case was overwhelming. The judge dismissed much of Trek's case and said that the sole remaining claim was questionable but he would allow it to go forward to see if it could be expanded on during trial. Despite having little to stand on Armstrong legal aggressively filed motions and ran up the costs. It proved to be a bluff as ultimately they settled as it was clear they had not chance in court. This has been a common Armstrong strategy, aggressive legal stance coupled with a media campaign followed by a settlement

A key difference is Tim Herman is no longer the lead lawyer, Bryan Daly is. This could modify the strategy. Daly has a long relationship with the Feds, he used to work for them. This could temper....or increase, the response. He also has a history of working on Qui Tam cases so that could tell you what part Armstrong sees as the greatest risk. If the Government decides to join the Qui Tam case look for Daly to work on a settlement. 

Some like to pretend that nobody was damaged with the USPS sponsorship. The USPS contract had a clear anti doping clause inserted. They did this for a reason, they did not want their brand associated with doping. While some like to pretend that it is no big deal the USPS marketing people are not happy that their brand is now forever associated with organized doping. The team management not only violated but conspired to cover up their breach. 

Doping is indeed illegal in the US. Using prescription drugs without a prescription, using unapproved drugs, even blood is highly regulated. Armstrong biggest risk lies in how he responds. The smartest thing would be to negotiate a plea for any doping and tax related charges. He would likely escape with only financial penalties. 

Tax evasion and/or misuses of Foundation funds could be very damaging image wise, but could be negotiated away. 

Italy, France, and Belgium have all opened investigations. France has said they are waiting for the Feds to move forward prior to announcing not just their investigation but the status of the Astana transfusion kits investigation.

Armstrong could be tied up in legal issues for years in multiple countries. I doubt he will go to jail though.


----------



## spade2you




----------



## Doctor Falsetti

With Popo now cooperating it is only a matter of time before the Italian charges are made public. 

A far better target then Armstrong is Ferrari. Love to see that guy go down. That he evaded jail and made millions only drew other like him into the business.


----------



## B2

mohair_chair said:


> I highly doubt it. This isn't Lance's first rodeo. The SCA case was good practice for Armstrong. By now, I expect that he's well schooled in defending himself and staying within the lines.


If LA's 1999 sample comes back positive couldn't he be facing perjury charges from the SCA case???? 

I did read that the Feds have requested the sample and whoever the heck it is that has it plans on complying with the request didn't I?


----------



## JSR

B2 said:


> If LA's 1999 sample comes back positive couldn't he be facing perjury charges from the SCA case????
> 
> I did read that the Feds have requested the sample and whoever the heck it is that has it plans on complying with the request didn't I?


The chain of custody on those samples is said to be insuffficient for any criminal case. There's also the UCI-sponsored counter-report that exonerated LA, which would compromise any attempt to use that stuff.

JSR


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

JSR said:


> The chain of custody on those samples is said to be insuffficient for any criminal case. There's also the UCI-sponsored counter-report that exonerated LA, which would compromise any attempt to use that stuff.
> 
> JSR


The Same UCI report that the experts called. 



> “The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical,” “Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves.”
> 
> WADA was astonished the UCI “would expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in the objectivity, methodology, analysis or conclusions of such a report.”


Multiple UCI experts have since said that the 99 samples had no chain of custody issues and they were clear proof of Armstrong's doping. 
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
I am sure Armstrong's legal would have fun tearing apart the samples in court but I doubt this case would ever get to court. The samples would be just more evidence that adds to a narrative that would influence a plea deal. 

There is also the talk that the 99 samples were not the only samples requested. There is also the potential for samples to be tested for HemAssit as well as other drugs


----------



## slegros

MarkS said:


> Unless most of us are reading the tea leaves incorrectly, the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong are going to be substatiated and he is going to be fighting on several fronts. I assume that he already is and will continue to have the advice and advocacy of the best lawyers, experts and PR people that money can buy. But, how so you think he will respond?
> 
> 1. The Tyler Hamilton/Floyd Landis approach: Deny, Deny, Deny. Come up with implausible excuses.
> 
> 2. The David Millar approach: Fold immediately. Make a deal. Do pennance in the desert and then come back as a born-again anti-doper.
> 
> 3. Johan Bruyneel made me do it. I really did not know what I was doing.
> 
> 4. Bill Clinton's/George W. Bush's gave me a secret pass. They told me that I could do whatever I had to so to win the "War on Terror" against the riders from those wimpy Euro countries that were giving them trouble.
> 
> 5. My ex-wife/Sheryl Crow/the Olsen Twins must have spiked my food/drinks when I was not looking.
> 
> 6. The labs spiked my samples.
> 
> 7. Cancer. USA. Livestrong. Cancer. USA. Livestrong. I am a hero. [email protected] you.


Wow, seems like you are making a rather large assumption here that he will be proven guilty..... Personally I think the prudent course would be to wait and see what happens before rushing to any foregone conclusions......... It's a shame that innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to hold in the court of public opinion, and individuals tend to rush to judgement based on what may or may not be accurately reported in the press, often by biased sources who have a vested interest in the outcome.

I'm not ruling out the possibility he will be charged or convicted, it would certainly appear to be a possibility. What do you think his response should be if no charges are filed? Or if it is proven that certain individuals gave false testimony against Armstrong? Or if his drug tests from '99 are clean? Or if the '99 samples show evidence of tampering? Or...............


----------



## pedalruns

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Trek Lemond dispute is a good example of potential strategy.
> 
> Greg's case was overwhelming. The judge dismissed much of Trek's case and said that the sole remaining claim was questionable but he would allow it to go forward to see if it could be expanded on during trial. Despite having little to stand on Armstrong legal aggressively filed motions and ran up the costs. It proved to be a bluff as ultimately they settled as it was clear they had not chance in court. This has been a common Armstrong strategy, aggressive legal stance coupled with a media campaign followed by a settlement


I think this will continue no matter what.... Even if LA spends time in jail, this will still be the spin.... Bernie Madoff could learn a few things from this strategy, maybe they will even be cell mates and LA can teach him a few things. And the believers will still believe the media machine spin...


----------



## MarkS

slegros said:


> *Wow, seems like you are making a rather large assumption here that he will be proven guilty*..... Personally I think the prudent course would be to wait and see what happens before rushing to any foregone conclusions......... It's a shame that innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to hold in the court of public opinion, and individuals tend to rush to judgement based on what may or may not be accurately reported in the press, often by biased sources who have a vested interest in the outcome.
> 
> I'm not ruling out the possibility he will be charged or convicted, it would certainly appear to be a possibility. What do you think his response should be if no charges are filed? Or if it is proven that certain individuals gave false testimony against Armstrong? Or if his drug tests from '99 are clean? Or if the '99 samples show evidence of tampering? Or...............


No, I am not assuming that Armstrong will be found guilty of anything. What interests me is how someone who theoretically has access to the best legal and PR assistance that money can buy reacts to what I believe are credible allegations of doping. For example, how Johnson & Johnson responded to the tampering of Tylenol in the 1980s is now a textbook example of the superb handling of a potential legal and PR disaster. On the other hand, how the tobacco industry dealt with its legal and PR problems has not been as successful.


----------



## slegros

MarkS said:


> No, I am not assuming that Armstrong will be found guilty of anything. What interests me is how someone who theoretically has access to the best legal and PR assistance that money can buy reacts to what I believe are credible allegations of doping. For example, how Johnson & Johnson responded to the tampering of Tylenol in the 1980s is now a textbook example of the superb handling of a potential legal and PR disaster. On the other hand, how the tobacco industry dealt with its legal and PR problems has not been as successful.


I believe someone who theoretically has access to the best legal and PR assistance has already responded to the allegations.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/19/sportsline/main7261535.shtml

http://www.sportsgrid.com/media/lance-armstrong-responds-doping-allegations/

Responding to a hypothetical guilty verdict in an ongoing investigation is a different matter......


----------



## curtw

MarkS said:


> ...reacts to what I believe are credible allegations of doping...


You seem to have a mistaken personal definition. The phrase "credible allegations" is *not* synonymous with "admissible evidence."

I'm not some huge LA apologist, but as a cycling fan, I'd put my money on the Armstrong response being:


8. Bring it.


----------



## MarkS

curtw said:


> You seem to have a mistaken personal definition. The phrase "credible allegations" is *not* synonymous with "admissible evidence."
> 
> I'm not some huge LA apologist, but as a cycling fan, I'd put my money on the Armstrong response being:
> 
> 
> 8. Bring it.


I am very well aware that "credible allegations" are not the same thing as "admissible evidence." But, Lance Armstrong is fighting in both the court of public opinion, where the rules of evidence do not apply, and, potentially, in a court of law. A public figure or a public company has to manage its image with the public as much if not more so than deal with its legal liabilities. If the evidence supporting the credible allegations is weak or inadmissible, I would agree with you that Armstrong will say: "bring it." However, if the evidence supporting the credible allegations is stronger, I think that he might try to make a deal to keep a lid on things. Whatever criminal or civil liabilities Armstrong potentially could face are minor compared to the damage that public disclosure of good evidence of doping would have on his reputation and future endeavors.


----------



## Gatorback

I'm a lawyer and, given everything I've read, think they are going to get an admission and plea deal from him so that he can save face and if they don't they will nail his ass to the wall. But that's just my personal opinion.

This isn't rocket science at this point. If you engage in a course of conduct for a decade or so, there is a long trail of evidence. When the trail gets cracked open, it eventually mushrooms and its like the floodgates opening. It looks to me like that is what has happened. There are too many people he will have to discredit at this point.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Gatorback said:


> I'm a lawyer and, given everything I've read, think they are going to get an admission and plea deal from him so that he can save face and if they don't they will nail his ass to the wall. But that's just my personal opinion.
> 
> This isn't rocket science at this point. If you engage in a course of conduct for a decade or so, there is a long trail of evidence. When the trail gets cracked open, it eventually mushrooms and its like the floodgates opening. It looks to me like that is what has happened. There are too many people he will have to discredit at this point.


Speculation on a case you know nothing about from a legal, i.e. evidential perspective doesn't give me much faith in your skill or ethics.

Saying you are a lawyer is intended, on your part, to give weight to your opinion. It has, I suspect, done just the opposite. In this case, absent any personal knowledge, being a lawyer is not relevant to you stating what is, in fact, just opinion. Not opinion informed by legal knowledge as you have no specific knowledge of anything regarding this case,


----------



## slegros

Snpiperpilot said:


> Speculation on a case you know nothing about from a legal, i.e. evidential perspective doesn't give me much faith in your skill or ethics.
> 
> Saying you are a lawyer is intended, on your part, to give weight to your opinion. It has, I suspect, done just the opposite. In this case, absent any personal knowledge, being a lawyer is not relevant to you stating what is, in fact, just opinion. Not opinion informed by legal knowledge as you have no specific knowledge of anything regarding this case,


I agree, there is a very strong possibility that a lot of the 'evidence' has been overstated by the investigation, and there is as much likelihood at this point that in fact the investigation is going nowhere, and a lot of what we are hearing is spin from the prosecution side to justify the expense of the investigation. That was exactly the case in the French investigation into Armstrong which dragged on for ages then went away quietly with nothing to show for the effort. Of course there is also a good possibility the opposite is true... Fact is its too early to come to any conclusions, and only those directly involved with the investigation know its true status......


----------



## MarkS

Snpiperpilot said:


> Speculation on a case you know nothing about from a legal, i.e. evidential perspective doesn't give me much faith in your skill or ethics.
> 
> Saying you are a lawyer is intended, on your part, to give weight to your opinion. It has, I suspect, done just the opposite. In this case, absent any personal knowledge, being a lawyer is not relevant to you stating what is, in fact, just opinion. Not opinion informed by legal knowledge as you have no specific knowledge of anything regarding this case,


You are confusing and conflating two different types of knowledge: (1) knowledge of how the legal system works; and (2) knowledge of the actual facts of the Armstrong case. Gatorback's being a lawyer is relevant to the first type of knowledge. For what it is worth (and probably not too much for you) I am a lawyer and think that there is great merit to what Gatorback has written. From my perspective there are at least two things that support Gatorback's opinion, neither of which depend upon the actual "facts" of the case: (1) Federal prosecutors are a presistent lot and rarely just go away after they have conducted a major investigation; and (2) there has been a small, but perceptible change in how Armstrong has reacted to the latest investigation.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

MarkS said:


> You are confusing and conflating two different types of knowledge: (1) knowledge of how the legal system works; and (2) knowledge of the actual facts of the Armstrong case. Gatorback's being a lawyer is relevant to the first type of knowledge. For what it is worth (and probably not too much for you) I am a lawyer and think that there is great merit to what Gatorback has written. From my perspective there are at least two things that support Gatorback's opinion, neither of which depend upon the actual "facts" of the case: (1) Federal prosecutors are a presistent lot and rarely just go away after they have conducted a major investigation; and (2) there has been a small, but perceptible change in how Armstrong has reacted to the latest investigation.


No, I am not. There are things we know and things we speculate about. As Lawyers you are saying that If this is true then something legally might happen. As an engineer I see what Is not what might be. To speculate on what might happen IF, is pointless.

Now, as for your "facts". The prosecutors can be as tenacious as they want to be but they still have to base their case on facts and evidence. People have tried for 10 years to "get" lance and none have succeeded. That seems to indicate that building a credible case is far more difficult than they think it might be regardless of their desire. Aside from which, one has to question the use of tax dollars to continue such a fight given the long odds.

Regarding fact two. I see zero difference in Lance this time. You are all reading something into his retirement that may in fact be true but there is no evidence to support that this was a response to anything happening in the case. Lance has made no public statement other than a very pointed No comment. Is that evidence of a change or simply his opinion that there is nothing to be gained by responding to the facts. As lawyers wouldn't you both have to say that saying nothing is usually what you want a client to do? It's not his job to respond in the court of public opinion, especially if this might prejudice his case later. It is his job only to respond as required, under oath in a court. Doing otherwise is stupid and one thing most people agree on, Lance isn't stupid.

As lawyers, it is even more incumbent upon you to act on facts, not supposition. Isn't the first rule of being a lawyer to never ask a question you don't already know the answer to? What exact question to you KNOW to be answerable with any certainly in this case?

As an engineer, I'll wait till I have data to make a decision. I know what I'd like the truth to be but will act accordingly if that is proven to not be the case. Till then I defend the process and follow the normal course in the US where the presumption is innocence not like Italy where the presumption is guilt.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Now, as for your "facts". The prosecutors can be as tenacious as they want to be but they still have to base their case on facts and evidence. People have tried for 10 years to "get" lance and none have succeeded. .


Who has tried to "Get" Lance for 10 years? The UCI?


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who has tried to "Get" Lance for 10 years? The UCI?


Well there was that SCA case, and the French investigation....... Public allegations and innuendo by Paul Kimmage, Greg LeMond, Frankie Andreu, Floyd Landis etc. Much of which was introduced and used in both the SCA case and the French investigation. Several books attempting to prove his guilt (L.A. Confidentiel, From Lance to Landis.... etc.). Then theres the many on the internet who are 110% convinced he is guilty based on the fabulously accurate reporting out here in internetland who seem to take it as a personal affront that LA is not in jail sentenced to 200years.........

He has yet to be proven guilty in any properly binding sporting control or legal forum. If he is proven guilty in this latest round of investigations, then he deserves what he gets. Is there anything to lose in not rushing to a conclusion before the proceedings have run their course? I don't think so... Is there anything to be lost by rushing to conclusions based on incomplete or inaccurate information...... I think the answer to that should be self-evident.


----------



## izzyfly

Snpiperpilot said:


> No, I am not. There are things we know and things we speculate about. As Lawyers you are saying that If this is true then something legally might happen. As an engineer I see what Is not what might be. To speculate on what might happen IF, is pointless.
> 
> Now, as for your "facts". The prosecutors can be as tenacious as they want to be but they still have to base their case on facts and evidence. People have tried for 10 years to "get" lance and none have succeeded. That seems to indicate that building a credible case is far more difficult than they think it might be regardless of their desire. Aside from which, one has to question the use of tax dollars to continue such a fight given the long odds.
> 
> Regarding fact two. I see zero difference in Lance this time. You are all reading something into his retirement that may in fact be true but there is no evidence to support that this was a response to anything happening in the case. Lance has made no public statement other than a very pointed No comment. Is that evidence of a change or simply his opinion that there is nothing to be gained by responding to the facts. As lawyers wouldn't you both have to say that saying nothing is usually what you want a client to do? It's not his job to respond in the court of public opinion, especially if this might prejudice his case later. It is his job only to respond as required, under oath in a court. Doing otherwise is stupid and one thing most people agree on, Lance isn't stupid.
> 
> As lawyers, it is even more incumbent upon you to act on facts, not supposition. Isn't the first rule of being a lawyer to never ask a question you don't already know the answer to? What exact question to you KNOW to be answerable with any certainly in this case?
> 
> As an engineer, I'll wait till I have data to make a decision. I know what I'd like the truth to be but will act accordingly if that is proven to not be the case. Till then I defend the process and follow the normal course in the US where the presumption is innocence not like Italy where the presumption is guilt.


My feeling is that there is a huge disparity between the discipline of engineering and that of law. First off, engineering as you've alluded to has an air of predictability. Granted there are always unknown variables that can creep in to the equation, especially in the real world, you can design to a certain specification, certain risk that would hopefully cover your bases 90% of the time, when you deploy your design.
In the proverbial courtroom drama, you've got the biggest variable of all, which no design can foresee, and that is the fickleness of the human person. What was once a close-and-shut case for LA with the lack of credible evidence, we now see a wave of material witnesses who are stepping to the fore, and giving sworn testimonies which could harm, or help LA (nobody knows at this time). But having an opinion from a lah-yer (yes, I've always loved that Brooklyn play on the word), just brings some insight on how the court of public opinion, the current judicial system, and most importantly the new witnesses, or samples can play out in the LA case. As a fellow engineer, I salute your being a stickler to the tried-and-true plan and design according to specs with room for risk factors and variables. In the legal world, I think with all the 'new' evidence, or new witnesses, anything's up for grabs. Yes, I should have been a lah-yer, they're harder to outsource (darn it!


----------



## ChilliConCarnage

heathb said:


> Lets just make sure the next generation of American riders like Taylor Phinney stay clean.


Considering the people that have surrounded him in his early career, I hold little hope. I'd bet that train has already left the station.



Snpiperpilot said:


> Speculation on a case you know nothing about from a legal, i.e. evidential perspective doesn't give me much faith in your skill or ethics. Saying you are a lawyer is intended, on your part, to give weight to your opinion. It has, I suspect, done just the opposite. In this case, absent any personal knowledge, being a lawyer is not relevant to you stating what is, in fact, just opinion. Not opinion informed by legal knowledge as you have no specific knowledge of anything regarding this case,


His being a lawyer DOES give heavier weight to his comments, by virtue of the fact that he has legal experience that you don't.


----------



## MarkS

slegros said:


> Well there was that SCA case, and the French investigation....... Public allegations and innuendo by Paul Kimmage, Greg LeMond, Frankie Andreu, Floyd Landis etc. Much of which was introduced and used in both the SCA case and the French investigation. Several books attempting to prove his guilt (L.A. Confidentiel, From Lance to Landis.... etc.). Then theres the many on the internet who are 110% convinced he is guilty based on the fabulously accurate reporting out here in internetland who seem to take it as a personal affront that LA is not in jail sentenced to 200years.........
> 
> He has yet to be proven guilty in any properly binding sporting control or legal forum. If he is proven guilty in this latest round of investigations, then he deserves what he gets. *Is there anything to lose in not rushing to a conclusion before the proceedings have run their course?* I don't think so... Is there anything to be lost by rushing to conclusions based on incomplete or inaccurate information...... I think the answer to that should be self-evident.


Actually, there is something for the parties involved to lose -- wiggle room. The reason that most civil cases end in settlements before trial and most criminal prosecutions end in plea bargains before trial is because no litigant can be certain of the outcome until the end of the trial (and appeals) and a trial often is a winner take all event. Very few cases are open and shut, black and white cases. One advantage that an early settlement has in a case is that it can prevent the public disclosure of things that a party would not want to have disclosed. The thing that a party does not want to have disclosed may have nothing to do with the merits of the case. For example, I was involved in case involving a business dispute where my client settled early because it was going to have to give up emails in discovery that would have destroyed an executive's marriage. An early settlement gives the parties certainty and the ability to go on with their lives. 

I don't really care in absolute terms whether Lance Armstrong doped or not. I have come to my own conclusion and I think that a lot of other people have, too. What interests me at this point is how Armstrong and his advisers deal with the situation in which they find themselves. It is possible for Armstrong to be 100% innocent, be cleared in a court of law and still look like a doper in the eyes of the public. It also is possible for Armstrong to be 100% guilty, convicted in a court of law, and still remain an American hero in the eyes of the public. I think that the ultimate result will be somewhere between those two poles.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

ChilliConCarnage said:


> His being a lawyer DOES give heavier weight to his comments, by virtue of the fact that he has legal experience that you don't.


Actually, you;'re making my point for me. You think his being a lawyer matters which is why he added that. But, there are no known facts currently in evidence at least publicly regarding the instant case. All of what is discussed here and elsewhere is hearsay. Generally not admissible subject to the normal rules of evidence. Any testimony before the grand jury is sealed due to differences in the rules of evidence ( the lawyers may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that).

Without which a legal opinion on the outcome is baseless. He can speculate on legal outcomes based on different scenarios of what evidence MIGHT be presented but that isn't a legal opinion based on what WILL be presented or HAS been present. The difference is vast. Until a court case is brought which puts the evidence on the record, none of us have actionable information regardless of our profession.


----------



## spade2you

Snpiperpilot said:


> Actually, you;'re making my point for me.


I think you're the only one who believes that.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

spade2you said:


> I think you're the only one who believes that.


Ok, do you don't get the idea of logic. We understand. I can use smaller words. A legal opinion must be based on evidence. Not guesses. If you make up the facts, you make up the conclusions too. Is THAT clearer?

If there were evidence available, then being a lawyer and discussing possible outcomes might be relevant. I also have no issue with speculation as this entire thread is based on that. But, to speculate and represent as having any validity makes ZERO sense. But I'm just an engineer not a lawyer.


----------



## orange_julius

Snpiperpilot said:


> Ok, do you don't get the idea of logic. We understand. I can use smaller words. A legal opinion must be based on evidence. Not guesses. If you make up the facts, you make up the conclusions too. Is THAT clearer?
> 
> If there were evidence available, then being a lawyer and discussing possible outcomes might be relevant. I also have no issue with speculation as this entire thread is based on that. But, to speculate and represent as having any validity makes ZERO sense. But I'm just an engineer not a lawyer.


A legal opinion needs a ruling, or in the loose way that the term is used in this discussion, the accusation. The lack of general agreement in this public forum is the reason why it feels like I'm reading the same arguments over and over again. The same explanation is given yet and again that as of the time of this writing, the US Fed investigators have not shared what the accusation(s) is. 

Some posters believe that the accusation is (or should be) limited only to doping, probably also limited to the sports sanction related to doping. 

Some other posters believe that it's financial, either related to money laundering, tax evasion, or misuse or a non-profit's funds, as covered under finance laws. Or, some posters believe that it is related to the abuse of medicine related as related to misappropriation of a prototype drug. 

Regardless, when I can actually connect threads and reports and explanations together according to the various accusations, reading this forum has been informative and I thank all the contributors. 

And no, I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

slegros said:


> Well there was that SCA case, and the French investigation....... Public allegations and innuendo by Paul Kimmage, Greg LeMond, Frankie Andreu, Floyd Landis etc. Much of which was introduced and used in both the SCA case and the French investigation. Several books attempting to prove his guilt (L.A. Confidentiel, From Lance to Landis.... etc.). Then theres the many on the internet who are 110% convinced he is guilty based on the fabulously accurate reporting out here in internetland who seem to take it as a personal affront that LA is not in jail sentenced to 200years.........
> 
> He has yet to be proven guilty in any properly binding sporting control or legal forum. If he is proven guilty in this latest round of investigations, then he deserves what he gets. Is there anything to lose in not rushing to a conclusion before the proceedings have run their course? I don't think so... Is there anything to be lost by rushing to conclusions based on incomplete or inaccurate information...... I think the answer to that should be self-evident.


The SCA case was a civil case, it is not remotely close to a Federal investigation. 

SCA was hardly going to "Get him" No sanction or prison term was possible....The goal was to get his money.

Given the mountain of evidence that Armstrong has been doping for years it is not to much for the rational person to come to that conclusion. 

*"Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help." *
Jan Ullrich


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The SCA case was a civil case, it is not remotely close to a Federal investigation.
> 
> SCA was hardly going to "Get him" No sanction or prison term was possible....The goal was to get his money.
> 
> Given the mountain of *innuendo* that Armstrong has been doping for years it is not to much for the *irrational* person to come to that conclusion.
> 
> *"Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help." *
> Jan Ullrich


FYP!

Inuendo <> fact but you know that don't you ?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> FYP!
> 
> Inuendo <> fact but you know that don't you ?


No, I meant fact
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

There is plenty to discuss about if Armstrong will see trial, go to prison, etc....but does anybody really think he did not dope? Really?


----------



## ArkRider

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The SCA case was a civil case, it is not remotely close to a Federal investigation.


I think a number of posters are underestimating federal investigators and U.S. Attorneys. They are not government contract flunkies and the suggestion by some that because a few authors and private parties did not crack Armstrong, Armstrong must be clean or at least have everything locked down so tight as to be an impenetrable defense. 

If the articles I read were accurate, it was an arbitration and instead of vindicating Armstrong against doping accusations the case was based upon an interpretation of the contract that it did not matter whether or not Armstrong doped or not. He would have been entitled to the payments under the contract regardless or whether he rode clean or rode doped to the gills.

A federal investigation is a whole new ballgame. Think of your local amateur cycling wiz being dropped into a Pro Tour crit.


----------



## Big-foot

Snpiperpilot said:


> FYP!
> 
> Inuendo <> fact but you know that don't you ?


Are they still hiring at Public Strategies? How are the working conditions? I mean, do you get an office, a cubical or is it more of a boiler-room situation?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ArkRider said:


> I think a number of posters are underestimating federal investigators and U.S. Attorneys. They are not government contract flunkies and the suggestion by some that because a few authors and private parties did not crack Armstrong, Armstrong must be clean or at least have everything locked down so tight as to be an impenetrable defense.
> 
> If the articles I read were accurate, it was an arbitration and instead of vindicating Armstrong against doping accusations the case was based upon an interpretation of the contract that it did not matter whether or not Armstrong doped or not. He would have been entitled to the payments under the contract regardless or whether he rode clean or rode doped to the gills.
> 
> A federal investigation is a whole new ballgame. Think of your local amateur cycling wiz being dropped into a Pro Tour crit.


You are correct. SCA tried to bluff Armstrong by making the case about doping. They expected that he would back down when he found out they would have all these people testify. It did not work as Armstrong's legal knew the testimony would be sealed and that there was nothing in the contract that mentioned doping. When the judge made a ruling they settled. 

Armstrong then made the mistake of breaching the confidentially clause and bragging about the settlement.....so SCA released the transcripts.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Big-foot said:


> Are they still hiring at Public Strategies? How are the working conditions? I mean, do you get an office, a cubical or is it more of a boiler-room situation?


http://www.bazaarvoice.com/ the new myth machine


----------



## Gatorback

Snpiperpilot said:


> Actually, you;'re making my point for me. You think his being a lawyer matters which is why he added that. But, there are no known facts currently in evidence at least publicly regarding the instant case. All of what is discussed here and elsewhere is hearsay. Generally not admissible subject to the normal rules of evidence. Any testimony before the grand jury is sealed due to differences in the rules of evidence ( the lawyers may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that).
> 
> Without which a legal opinion on the outcome is baseless. He can speculate on legal outcomes based on different scenarios of what evidence MIGHT be presented but that isn't a legal opinion based on what WILL be presented or HAS been present. The difference is vast. Until a court case is brought which puts the evidence on the record, none of us have actionable information regardless of our profession.


If you take a little time to read and objectively evaluate what is in the public domain, you'll see there is some really unreliable evidence out there. And certainly some evidence that would not be admissible. 

But you will also see there is a hell of a lot of credible evidence that can be admissible when presented correctly. I'm not going to go through it for you. Most people can see it.

You might want to consider the fact that, as an engineer, you can see and understand things in the engineering world that non-engineers would not recognize. Or at least they wouldn't recognize it and understand it like you do. Maybe you should stop and consider that trial lawyers who investigate, prepare, and try cases for a living might also become quite skilled in recognizing a meritorious case when they see it.


----------



## covenant

Gatorback said:


> You might want to consider the fact that, as an engineer, you can see and understand things in the engineering world that non-engineers would not recognize. Or at least they wouldn't recognize it and understand it like you do. Maybe you should stop and consider that trial lawyers who investigate, prepare, and try cases for a living might also become quite skilled in recognizing a meritorious case when they see it.


Argument from authority :thumbsup:


----------



## JohnHemlock

Doctor Falsetti said:


> With Popo now cooperating it is only a matter of time before the Italian charges are made public.
> 
> A far better target then Armstrong is Ferrari. Love to see that guy go down. That he evaded jail and made millions only drew other like him into the business.


A Ukrainian cooperating to rat out a confederate? Unpossible. Ukrainians are mean, tough and stubborn, they make Uzbekhs look like the French.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

JohnHemlock said:


> A Ukrainian cooperating to rat out a confederate? Unpossible. Ukrainians are mean, tough and stubborn, they make Uzbekhs look like the French.


Not a Ukrainian that has lived in Italy for 15 years, is married to an Italian and does not want to spend a few years in Jail....... then be extradited back to the Ukraine, for the drugs the police found in his house.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, I meant fact
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
> 
> There is plenty to discuss about if Armstrong will see trial, go to prison, etc....but does anybody really think he did not dope? Really?


Not actionable. So still not factual. Never tested Or cross examined in any court. 

I'm not arguing the issue if whether he did or did not use drugs or other banned substances. My argument is clear and constant. Has anyone in a legal venue or sports related body convicted and punished him for such use? No. We can speculate till the cows come home but until something actionable happens and he is penalized it doesn't matter. I suspect that's what makes you all nuts. You're so sure he did it that it make you crazy that you can't prove it.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Gatorback said:


> If you take a little time to read and objectively evaluate what is in the public domain, you'll see there is some really unreliable evidence out there. And certainly some evidence that would not be admissible.
> 
> But you will also see there is a hell of a lot of credible evidence that can be admissible when presented correctly. I'm not going to go through it for you. Most people can see it.
> 
> *You might want to consider the fact that, as an engineer, you can see and understand things in the engineering world that non-engineers would not recognize. Or at least they wouldn't recognize it and understand it like you do. Maybe you should stop and consider that trial lawyers who investigate, prepare, and try cases for a living might also become quite skilled in recognizing a meritorious case when they see it*.


One last time. I have no issue with the idea that a lawyer would recognize more clearly tha a non lawyer what would be a good case. But, and this is the issue, NONE of us know what evidence they have. We have enough speculation to fill a month of the New York Times but no actual knowledge of the case they intend to present to either the grand jury or the court. I don't think that concept is so hard to grasp. He may well be as guilty as he'll but until the case is presented in a recognized venue nine of us have any idea if they can prove it to the satisfaction of a judge, a jury or another recognized authority.


----------



## Gatorback

Snpiperpilot said:


> One last time. I have no issue with the idea that a lawyer would recognize more clearly tha a non lawyer what would be a good case. But, and this is the issue, NONE of us know what evidence they have. We have enough speculation to fill a month of the New York Times but no actual knowledge of the case they intend to present to either the grand jury or the court. I don't think that concept is so hard to grasp. He may well be as guilty as he'll but until the case is presented in a recognized venue nine of us have any idea if they can prove it to the satisfaction of a judge, a jury or another recognized authority.


Well speak for yourself. 

You don't have to be in the grand jury room or a part of the investigation to accurately infer what much of the evidence is. You can't know all of it unless you are privy to the investigation. But you can accurately infer most of it. In fact, I think there are quite a few non-lawyers on here who can accurately see it. There are others who, from the posts, obviously have not only a workable understanding of our legal system but also seem to really know what is going on with the case. I can tell when someone is full of it when I read what they post, but will tell you there are a couple of posters on here who really know what they are talking about.

Can you see quarks and gluons? Or gravity for that matter? No, but I'm pretty sure you are confident they are there and existence.

Just so you will know, I'm pretty neutral on this forum and come here mostly because I find the topic interesting and worthy of discussion. Before I even got into cycling I was a Lance Armstrong fan. I loved watching him win the Tours, and especially loved the mountain stages. I did not think he doped. He was an American hero to me. I didn't think he doped and believe French newspapers were corrupt and out to get him. I didn't even own a road bike until after his initial retirement. My watching the Tour, largely because of him, is what got me interested in all the great things cycling has to offer. So he is largely responsible for pulling me into this great sport. Now I am a die hard fan, a Velominati so to speak, and can't friggin' wait for Milan San Remo and the Spring Classics to begin. And I think it is a crime that we don't get to watch the Giro on mainstream TV here in the U.S. And Lance Armstrong's success was a key catalyst for all of this for me.

But Lance Armstrong's role in getting me into cycling won't allow me to ignore the facts. I am one of those who refuse to stick my head in the sand, so my assessment of what was going on has changed. And right now I view Armstrong as one of the people who is standing in the way of cycling really cleaning up its act.


----------



## gh1

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The SCA case was a civil case, it is not remotely close to a Federal investigation.
> 
> SCA was hardly going to "Get him" No sanction or prison term was possible....The goal was to get his money.
> 
> Given the mountain of evidence that Armstrong has been doping for years it is not to much for the rational person to come to that conclusion.
> 
> *"Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help." *
> Jan Ullrich





> The goal was to get his money.


The goal was to keep from paying him money and you can bet that no matter what, SCA will sue to get that back plus interest.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Not actionable. So still not factual. Never tested Or cross examined in any court.
> 
> I'm not arguing the issue if whether he did or did not use drugs or other banned substances. My argument is clear and constant. Has anyone in a legal venue or sports related body convicted and punished him for such use? No. We can speculate till the cows come home but until something actionable happens and he is penalized it doesn't matter. I suspect that's what makes you all nuts. You're so sure he did it that it make you crazy that you can't prove it.


Ahhh, I got it now. The UCI and USA cycling are corrupt and incompetent so that means Lance is clean.


----------



## ArkRider

covenant said:


> Argument from authority :thumbsup:


Not really. Kudos for recognizing the logical fallacy, but fail on application.


----------



## ArkRider

gh1 said:


> The goal was to keep from paying him money and you can bet that no matter what, SCA will sue to get that back plus interest.


Probably not. I haven't seen the arbitration agreement, but more likely than not it was binding arbitration -- which means it's over.

There are very few ways to set aside a binding arbitration decision, and under most rules of arbitration that I have seen they would have had to have brought suit shortly thereafter (e.g. 90 days).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ArkRider said:


> Probably not. I haven't seen the arbitration agreement, but more likely than not it was binding arbitration -- which means it's over.
> 
> There are very few ways to set aside a binding arbitration decision, and under most rules of arbitration that I have seen they would have had to have brought suit shortly thereafter (e.g. 90 days).


It wasn't an arbitration decision, it was a settlement. Hamman will certainly attempt to get his money back but knows that he will likely have to stand in line.


----------



## MarkS

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It wasn't an arbitration decision, it was a settlement. Hamman will certainly attempt to get his money back but knows that he will likely have to stand in line.



If there was a settlement, rather than an arbitration decision, I think that it is even less likely that SCA will have any recourse abainst Armstrong. I would be shocked if the settlement agreement did not contain a release along the following lines:

_MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASE. The Parties, including their respective shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates, and independent contractors, hereby remise, release and forever discharge each other, their respective shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates, and independent contractors, of and from all and all manner of actions, causes of actions, suits, proceedings, debts, dues, contracts, judgments, damages, claims, demands, or obligations whatsoever which any Party ever had or now has, *known or unknown*, with respect to any other Party. This Mutual Release and all other terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective administrators, executors, successors, personal and legal representatives and assigns of the Parties._

Such a release would preclude a suit against Armstrong even if he lied in the arbitration proceeding that preceded the settlement agreement. Now, it is possible that only Armstrong gave a release since he was the plaintiff and received $$$. It also is possible that Armstrong could be criminally prosecuted for perjury if he lied under oath. But, I seriously doubt that SCA ever will get it money back.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Gatorback said:


> Well speak for yourself.
> 
> You don't have to be in the grand jury room or a part of the investigation to accurately *infer* what much of the evidence is. You can't know all of it unless you are privy to the investigation. But you can accurately *infer *most of it. .


in·fer (n-fûr) To conclude from evidence.

You have NO evidence from which to infer anything. I have no doubt we all have ideas and things have been implied by people with actual knowledge but none of us had actual specific knowledge of anything at all. In this specific thread, I'm not defending Lance against any specific report but simply saying one thing. Unless you are a party to the investigation, are on the grand jury, are a member of a court involved in such proceedings or are Lance armstrong or one of his unindicted co-conspirators, you know exactly NOTHING.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

MarkS said:


> If there was a settlement, rather than an arbitration decision, I think that it is even less likely that SCA will have any recourse abainst Armstrong. I would be shocked if the settlement agreement did not contain a release along the following lines:
> 
> _MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASE. The Parties, including their respective shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates, and independent contractors, hereby remise, release and forever discharge each other, their respective shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates, and independent contractors, of and from all and all manner of actions, causes of actions, suits, proceedings, debts, dues, contracts, judgments, damages, claims, demands, or obligations whatsoever which any Party ever had or now has, *known or unknown*, with respect to any other Party. This Mutual Release and all other terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective administrators, executors, successors, personal and legal representatives and assigns of the Parties._
> 
> Such a release would preclude a suit against Armstrong even if he lied in the arbitration proceeding that preceded the settlement agreement. Now, it is possible that only Armstrong gave a release since he was the plaintiff and received $$$. It also is possible that Armstrong could be criminally prosecuted for perjury if he lied under oath. But, I seriously doubt that SCA ever will get it money back.


Certainly that would make it more challenging.....however if USADA was successful with a non-analytical positive that could change the entire premise of the agreement. Armstrong not have fulfilled his side of the agreement and thus would not have earned the payout.

USADA would have a tough case on their own however it could play out the way it did with Marion Jones who accepted a sanction as part of her plea deal, saving USADA a ton of cash pursuing the case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> in·fer (n-fûr) To conclude from evidence.
> 
> You have NO evidence from which to infer anything. I have no doubt we all have ideas and things have been implied by people with actual knowledge but none of us had actual specific knowledge of anything at all. In this specific thread, I'm not defending Lance against any specific report but simply saying one thing. Unless you are a party to the investigation, are on the grand jury, are a member of a court involved in such proceedings or are Lance armstrong or one of his unindicted co-conspirators, you know exactly NOTHING.


Direct witness testimony is evidence. 

Multiple people have told the Feds that they witnessed Armstrong doing drugs. Others have talked about witnessing bags of cash and numbered swiss bank accounts.


----------



## ArkRider

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Certainly that would make it more challenging.....however if USADA was successful with a non-analytical positive that could change the entire premise of the agreement. Armstrong not have fulfilled his side of the agreement and thus would not have earned the payout.
> 
> USADA would have a tough case on their own however it could play out the way it did with Marion Jones who accepted a sanction as part of her plea deal, saving USADA a ton of cash pursuing the case.


Thanks for pointing out that it was a settlement rather than a decision. A settlement could make it tougher, but the settlement would be a contract in and of itself, and so we would need to see the terms. I would, however, be surprised if Armstrong's legal team would have agreed to anything that would leave the door open in the event of any subsequent findings of past, present or future doping. As MarkS surmised, the settlement probably covered any claims that were or could have be brought against the other party, whether known or unknown.


----------



## Gatorback

Snpiperpilot said:


> in·fer (n-fûr) To conclude from evidence.
> 
> You have NO evidence from which to infer anything. I have no doubt we all have ideas and things have been implied by people with actual knowledge but none of us had actual specific knowledge of anything at all. In this specific thread, I'm not defending Lance against any specific report but simply saying one thing. Unless you are a party to the investigation, are on the grand jury, are a member of a court involved in such proceedings or are Lance armstrong or one of his unindicted co-conspirators, you know exactly NOTHING.


Speak for yourself. You obviously haven't been reading these forums and many of the credible news reports. 

Do you really think the federal investigators and prosecutors know LESS than what is in the public domain already?


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Direct witness testimony is evidence.
> 
> Multiple people have told the Feds that they witnessed Armstrong doing drugs. Others have talked about witnessing bags of cash and numbered swiss bank accounts.


Testimony <> fact. They say they say it he says they didn't. They have no proof to back up their claims. For all they know it could have been vitamin b-12. No one has needles with drugs, no one has test results presented in court and subjected to legal challenge. This case is entirely circumstantial for now. When that changes I'll stop saying it.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Gatorback said:


> Speak for yourself. You obviously haven't been reading these forums and many of the credible news reports.
> 
> Do you really think the federal investigators and prosecutors know LESS than what is in the public domain already?


I could gave a rats ass about reports. The discussion isn't about what has been written, it is about what has been proven. There is a world of difference. You are all entitled nee encouraged to voice opinion. But, don't masquerade that as fact. Until the evidence is shown in court cross examined and used to determine a verdict or judgment it means nothing. Additionally, we have no way to know the veracity of the reports. How many credible sources said Landis was innocent. How many said Contador was guilty? Are they still "credible"? Speculate all you like but don't delude yourself into knowing they are anything like facts. At least not yet. I not a mind reader and while I hope lance is clean when the objective and vetted evidence shows otherwise I will concede that then, and only then,it is fact.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Testimony <> fact. They say they say it he says they didn't. They have no proof to back up their claims. For all they know it could have been vitamin b-12. No one has needles with drugs, no one has test results presented in court and subjected to legal challenge. This case is entirely circumstantial for now. When that changes I'll stop saying it.


So when George backs up Landis' claims of blood doping on the bus are you going to sya that is circumstantial? Really? 

Bags of cash, numbered accounts. This is so not only about drugs.


----------



## covenant

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So when George backs up Landis' claims of blood doping on the bus are you going to sya that is circumstantial?


what if he doesn't?


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So when George backs up Landis' claims of blood doping on the bus are you going to sya that is circumstantial? Really?
> 
> Bags of cash, numbered accounts. This is so not only about drugs.


We don't know if he'll say that but if he does not it's not circumstantial. Witness testimony of what they see is considered to be direct evidence not requiring corroboration. 

But absent any evidence that does corroborate that I can't imagine that it would be actionable. Similar to Andrieu (sp) saying he saw it. Without a smoking gun,it isn't likely that it would be accepted. But if he does I agree it would be bad. What happens on cross might be interesting to see what they would to to try and discredit it. 

Not sure what the point was on the spurious bags of cash comment. Like usual a comment out of left field not related to the discussion


----------



## DMFT

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, I meant fact
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
> 
> There is plenty to discuss about if Armstrong will see trial, go to prison, etc....but does anybody really think he did not dope? Really?



- Once again, you are sooooo wrong on several levels.

SCA was NOT "...to get his money." SCA was to not PAY L.A. money.

Your link once again (broken record playing again) is NOT FACT. It IS opinion.
Try likening it to this "Dr.": Contador WON'T be banned for Plasticisers because THERE WASN'T AN APPROVED TEST. 
Now try this: L.A. wasn't and I don't think can be prosecuted from those '99 "test's" because THERE WASN'T AN APPROVED TEST.

On another note "Dr." - Where is all your anger, vitriol, rantings about Contador? You know, the guy that DID test positive for a banned substance......



Forgot to add, YOU are quoting JAN now??? Just keep's getting better....


----------



## DMFT

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not a Ukrainian that has lived in Italy for 15 years, is married to an Italian and does not want to spend a few years in Jail....... then be extradited back to the Ukraine, for the drugs the police found in his house.


Link to the report from CONI stating drugs were found in Popovichs house please.
Where's the WADA and UCI investigations and is Popo not free to race currently???


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DMFT said:


> - Once again, you are sooooo wrong on several levels.
> 
> SCA was NOT "...to get his money." SCA was to not PAY L.A. money.
> 
> Your link once again (broken record playing again) is NOT FACT. It IS opinion.
> Try likening it to this "Dr.": Contador WON'T be banned for Plasticisers because THERE WASN'T AN APPROVED TEST.
> Now try this: L.A. wasn't and I don't think can be prosecuted from those '99 "test's" because THERE WASN'T AN APPROVED TEST.
> 
> On another note "Dr." - Where is all your anger, vitriol, rantings about Contador? You know, the guy that DID test positive for a banned substance......
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot to add, YOU are quoting JAN now??? Just keep's getting better....


You are confused.,,,,again. 

While the UCI may not choose to sanction based on the 99 samples the Feds can use them to prosecute him. CONI sanctioned Basso, Scarponi, and Valverde on less....but the UCI would prefer to ignore it

Contador is a doper. He even is using Armstrong's old needle man Pepi Marti. I have not seen anyone disagree with this here so I find little need to address it. 

It appears the only anger and vitriol here comes from those who would prefer that the myth is not questioned and get angry at anyone who does


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DMFT said:


> Link to the report from CONI stating drugs were found in Popovichs house please.
> Where's the WADA and UCI investigations and is Popo not free to race currently???


You are under the misguided assumption that if it has not yet made it to the font page of cyclingnews then it has not happened.


----------



## covenant

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are under the misguided assumption that if it has not yet made it to the font page of cyclingnews then it has not happened.


prove it happened.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

covenant said:


> prove it happened.


Sport's Illustrated is lying?


----------



## covenant

"The _La Gazzetta dello Sport_, cited unnamed sources, who reported that police seized “substances currently being examined by investigators.”

That was back in November. Do you have a source document besides the Sports Illustrated article that confirms the substances were actually PEDs?


----------



## DMFT

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sport's Illustrated is lying?



- My Bad "Dr.", I forgot, you're on the inside and know everything with 1000% certainty....

Question that maybe you'll directly answer for once: Is S.I. in the business of selling mag's? Like NYT? Like VN? Like Mens Health? Like every-other Euro paper/mag???


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are under the misguided assumption that if it has not yet made it to the font page of cyclingnews then it has not happened.


And you, once again, are under the belief that is you read it soemwhere that means it must be true. Unless you work for one of the agencies or are personally involved, the objective truth is that you, personally,know exactly zero more than anyone else on this board. You are free to opine in any topic but don't delude yourself that you have some mystical extra knowledge that we don't have. We all interpret or infer IR otherwise masticate on then press reports and decide what we believe to be true but the real truth is that you choose to think your version is fact while most of use are sensible enough to realize that were all just giving our opinion. Until the evidence see then light of day in a recognized and authorized venue and is subject to examination and or legal challenge it, effectively, does not exist. 

The system demands that any evidence but subject to challenge to protect everyones rights. Right now this entire conversation is unbalanced and has no crosscheck. From your perspective guilty without a need for trial for me and some other innocent pending a proceeding in a recognized venue. That venue will not br cycling anymore, it may not be anywhere. Lots of what alleged took place so long ago the statue of limitations has run, must of it may have taken place in venues where it can't be dealt with here. In short we still have exactly zero actionable knowledge of what will or won't happen.


----------



## Gatorback

Snpiperpilot said:


> I could gave a rats ass about reports. The discussion isn't about what has been written, it is about what has been proven. There is a world of difference. You are all entitled nee encouraged to voice opinion. But, don't masquerade that as fact. Until the evidence is shown in court cross examined and used to determine a verdict or judgment it means nothing. Additionally, we have no way to know the veracity of the reports. How many credible sources said Landis was innocent. How many said Contador was guilty? Are they still "credible"? Speculate all you like but don't delude yourself into knowing they are anything like facts. At least not yet. I not a mind reader and while I hope lance is clean when the objective and vetted evidence shows otherwise I will concede that then, and only then,it is fact.


You might want to go see what OJ thinks about your assessment of the lack of value of evidence that has not yet been in a courtroom or wasn't accepted in a courtroom. It ruined his life. Just because evidence hasn't been validated by a court proceeding does not make it more or less true. You lack a fundamental understanding of the purpose and abilities of our judicial system.

It has not yet been proven in Court that Hilary Clinton is the U.S. Secretary of State. Does that mean she is not? Or that we can't accept she is not? 

Why are you so mad about all this, anyway? 

I come here because the subject of doping in sports, cycling in particular, is of interest to me and a topic that I find worthy of discussion. I do not have an agenda. Go pick a fight with someone else. Maybe you and some other engineer can argue about the court system.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Gatorback said:


> You might want to go see what OJ thinks about your assessment of the lack of value of evidence that has not yet been in a courtroom or wasn't accepted in a courtroom. It ruined his life. Just because evidence hasn't been validated by a court proceeding does not make it more or less true. You lack a fundamental understanding of the purpose and abilities of our judicial system.


Wow, that argument couldn't be less on point. OJ proves the issue. Not disproves it. Legally, from a criminal perspective, he is clean. From a liability perspective in civil court, not clean. The former required a different level of proof which the incompetent DA failed to prove. Notwithstanding the issue of Jury nullification which most certainly contributed.

His current state is due to the court of public opinion convicting him and keeping him out of any way to make money. That's fine but not germane to the issue of whether the justice system worked. Legally, he did not kill Nicole even if he did the reason what that the defense was allowed to question the evidence and provide alternate reasons for what it might mean. Lance deserves that chance as well.

I think that demonstrates a pretty decent idea of how the Judicial system works. How the court of public opinion works in up to each of us to determine. Legally, we know one thing. He hasn't been legally convicted or even accused of anything yet.



Gatorback said:


> It has not yet been proven in Court that Hilary Clinton is the U.S. Secretary of State. Does that mean she is not? Or that we can't accept she is not?


That is objective fact. The results or outcomes of drug tests NONE of us have seen are not. And, even if we had seem them, until an appropriate body has adjudicated the issue they have no meaning beyond being data. As with AC, the results are presented and the subject gets the chance to respond. That doesn't legally happen in the newspaper on or roadbikereview forums. 




Gatorback said:


> Why are you so mad about all this, anyway?
> 
> I come here because the subject of doping in sports, cycling in particular, is of interest to me and a topic that I find worthy of discussion. I do not have an agenda. Go pick a fight with someone else. Maybe you and some other engineer can argue about the court system.


Who's picking a fight? I don't agree and I present my reasons. Where I come from that is called a discussion. Sounds to me like you're the one looking for a fight were none exists.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DMFT said:


> - My Bad "Dr.", I forgot, you're on the inside and know everything with 1000% certainty....


Correct. None of my sources are public. You are welcome to rub my nose in it if I am wrong but so far the only thing I have not be correct about is the timing of the investigation,. 

Your boy is screwed. The IRS are on to him and his "charity", George, Tyler, (And Kristen) are talking and confirming there was organized doping on the team. Baby Carriage? Expect multiple other riders to confirm that they were pressured to dope. Popo was busted with dope and is working with the Italian police....Ferrari is also done, he will end up in prison. I also think, but do not know, that Floyd's Qui Tam case will gain some serious traction. USADA will open a non-analytical positive case against Lance. 

The Media is going to have a field day with this. Expect the top investigative journalists in the US to shortly run a piece that will have even you seriously questioning not just Armstrong but Livestrong. In France the same will happen in the next couple weeks with a new article from Damien Ressiot. 

bookmark this post, come back in a year


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Correct. None of my sources are public. You are welcome to rub my nose in it if I am wrong but so far the only thing I have not be correct about is the timing of the investigation,.


Another fantastic falsetti falsehood. (TM) 

Since nothing is public it is neither true or false. You can't prove a negative hypothesis.

Using analytics, you only have one sample we can validate. You were wrong on the date. You're batting 000.

We can't validate your non public sources, so until they are public, all we have is your word. With a batting average of zero, that doesn't lend too much credibility to you does it?

I've owned up to things I said that I can't back up. Will you do the same? 

Any more non public Livestrong travel reports details you'ld like to admit you have no data to support that you'ld care to own up to?

How about those unproven livestong.com advertising costs that you can't back up with facts?

Basically, your idea of debate it to take a known piece of information, decide it means something that it doesn't say and call it fact. 

You can call that analysis, I call it making stuff up.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Another fantastic falsetti falsehood. (TM)
> 
> Since nothing is public it is neither true or false. You can't prove a negative hypothesis.
> 
> Using analytics, you only have one sample we can validate. You were wrong on the date. You're batting 000.
> 
> We can't validate your non public sources, so until they are public, all we have is your word. With a batting average of zero, that doesn't lend too much credibility to you does it?
> 
> I've owned up to things I said that I can't back up. Will you do the same?
> 
> Any more non public Livestrong travel reports details you'ld like to admit you have no data to support that you'ld care to own up to?
> 
> How about those unproven livestong.com advertising costs that you can't back up with facts?
> 
> Basically, your idea of debate it to take a known piece of information, decide it means something that it doesn't say and call it fact.
> 
> You can call that analysis, I call it making stuff up.


Despite your response I assure you I will accept your apology with grace. Learning the reality of the myth can take some time for some to come to grips with


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Despite your response I assure you I will accept your apology with grace. Learning the reality of the myth can take some time for some to come to grips with


Don't wait. If it comes to pass that he did drugs, I'll admit that. I owe you no apology. 

You aren't stating facts, you're giving your opinion. When you stop admitting that it is, in fact, opinion and instead assert that it is fact you are, de facto, lying.

I do say and will continue to say that while it may become fact, it is not now publicly known to be so. If you said today was Friday and I said that was a lie, I would apologize.

Meanwhile, as usual, you haven't answered my last post. Will you admit that you have no factual basis for your claims about livestrongs travel budget and misappropriation of funds from livestrong.org's ad budget to benefit livestong.com? I'm betting you won't.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Don't wait. If it comes to pass that he did drugs, I'll admit that. I owe you no apology.
> 
> You aren't stating facts, you're giving your opinion. When you stop admitting that it is, in fact, opinion and instead assert that it is fact you are, de facto, lying.
> 
> I do say and will continue to say that while it may become fact, it is not now publicly known to be so. If you said today was Friday and I said that was a lie, I would apologize.
> 
> Meanwhile, as usual, you haven't answered my last post. Will you admit that you have no factual basis for your claims about livestrongs travel budget and misappropriation of funds from livestrong.org's ad budget to benefit livestong.com? I'm betting you won't.


None of what I have written is opinion. People used to be scared to talk, now they are vocal. Eventually it will filter out to you and the rest of the public.

I have already shown you that Livestrong's travel costs are far outside normal for the size of his foundation and that the $4 million in advertising has done nothing to drive traffic to the .org.....while the .com has exploded. You are free to pretend there is no correlation but more rational people will come to the same conclusion as I, and many others, have.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> None of what I have written is opinion. People used to be scared to talk, now they are vocal. Eventually it will filter out to you and the rest of the public.


Not public, means opinion. I could say I know who killed Kennedy but it hasn't filtered out to the public and that would be just as valid using your criteria.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> I have already shown you that Livestrong's travel costs are far outside normal for the size of his foundation and that the $4 million in advertising has done nothing to drive traffic to the .org.....while the .com has exploded. You are free to pretend there is no correlation but more rational people will come to the same conclusion as I, and many others, have.


You took one other charity and compared it. While they may not match, that doesn't mean that both aren't completely fine. Maybe Livestrong has a different idea of how to run a charity. They're doing work on a Global basis, maybe that has an effect on how much they spent or how they travel. What you know is exactly one thing. The total cost. You have no idea what they spent it on, where they went, how much if anything was spent on the jet. In short, you got a whole lot of nothing, like usual. Another FFF (TM)

As for the advertising, You know the cost, you know about traffic. You have no polling data to support your postulate that livestrong.org spent money in ways specifically designed to drive traffic to livestrong.com. I admit the confusion of the brands makes it nearly impossible to separate but I could easily make the argument that the increased name recognition for any livestrong entity like a tide, raises all boats.

I don't pretend that there is no correlation but I also don't pretend that I have found a smoking gun showing that livestrong.com or lance is engaging in a systematic plot to divert money from a charity to his benefit.

Instead of seeing a conspiracy at all turns, one might wonder if the easier explanation is true that there isn't one. I mean seriously, this isn't the manhattan project. There is no global cabal conspiring to take over the world.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Not public, means opinion. I could say I know who killed Kennedy but it hasn't filtered out to the public and that would be just as valid using your criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> You took one other charity and compared it. While they may not match, that doesn't mean that both aren't completely fine. Maybe Livestrong has a different idea of how to run a charity. They're doing work on a Global basis, maybe that has an effect on how much they spent or how they travel. What you know is exactly one thing. The total cost. You have no idea what they spent it on, where they went, how much if anything was spent on the jet. In short, you got a whole lot of nothing, like usual. Another FFF (TM)
> 
> As for the advertising, You know the cost, you know about traffic. You have no polling data to support your postulate that livestrong.org spent money in ways specifically designed to drive traffic to livestrong.com. I admit the confusion of the brands makes it nearly impossible to separate but I could easily make the argument that the increased name recognition for any livestrong entity like a tide, raises all boats.
> 
> I don't pretend that there is no correlation but I also don't pretend that I have found a smoking gun showing that livestrong.com or lance is engaging in a systematic plot to divert money from a charity to his benefit.
> 
> Instead of seeing a conspiracy at all turns, one might wonder if the easier explanation is true that there isn't one. I mean seriously, this isn't the manhattan project. There is no global cabal conspiring to take over the world.


Impressive. We now have the death of the myth compared to the assassination of a president and the development of the nuclear bomb.

In order that this thread is not completely derailed lets agree to disagree. I am confident that over the coming months multiple legal and media outlets will confirm my knowledge.


----------



## pretender

If it plays out the way Falsetti thinks it will, I will enjoy seeing the house of cards fall.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Doctor Falsetti said:


> In order that this thread is not completely derailed lets agree to disagree. I am confident that over the coming months multiple legal and media outlets will confirm my knowledge.


I guess we'll just have to wait. As I see it, you won't change your stance on Armstrong one way or another based on any findings, which is just fine. If he is convicted, you'll post triumphantly about justice and a new day for cycling, and if he let off the hook you'll wail about the corruption of the system. The Armstrong faithful will have a somewhat different take.

I personally hope he's let off the hook and allowed to fade off into the background. I honestly can't see how this will help cycling. He's done. As far as I know, Livestrong is not Balco, so his conviction will likely not affect the active dopers in the peloton. Guys are still getting caught and prosecuted in countries with far more draconian doping laws, as evidenced by Fabien Taillefer's case. Riders will still dope. 

An Armstrong conviction would not help further cycling in this country, as US sponsors will likely be even more leery of being connected with the sport. That means fewer races (on all levels), fewer US-based teams, less TV coverage... Armstrong's impact on generating revenue might be debatable, but his conviction would likely have very real impact. Some would call that a short-term impact, but in my experience is once a sport has fallen out of favor with sponsors, it rarely recovers. It would take another iconic figure (another, gasp, Lance) to put the sport back on the radar. I don't think anything less than a TDF winner would do, because for most of the US that's the only cycling race that exists.

I can't say whether Lance really creates all that many new riders these days, other than those that get into it when they are touched by cancer. Those that haven't really moved on to cycling for the sake of cycling might quit, and a few less Treks might sit unsold, but overall I think people will still ride. I think gas prices have more to do with rider numbers than he does these days.

I believe he doped. I think most racers and racing spectators also believe it on some level these days. I also don't believe that prosectuting him will have any real positive effect on the sport in this country. In the end it's less about justice than about moving ahead.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Alaska Mike said:


> I guess we'll just have to wait. As I see it, you won't change your stance on Armstrong one way or another based on any findings, which is just fine. If he is convicted, you'll post triumphantly about justice and a new day for cycling, and if he let off the hook you'll wail about the corruption of the system. The Armstrong faithful will have a somewhat different take.
> 
> I personally hope he's let off the hook and allowed to fade off into the background. I honestly can't see how this will help cycling. He's done. As far as I know, Livestrong is not Balco, so his conviction will likely not affect the active dopers in the peloton. Guys are still getting caught and prosecuted in countries with far more draconian doping laws, as evidenced by Fabien Taillefer's case. Riders will still dope.
> 
> An Armstrong conviction would not help further cycling in this country, as US sponsors will likely be even more leery of being connected with the sport. That means fewer races (on all levels), fewer US-based teams, less TV coverage... Armstrong's impact on generating revenue might be debatable, but his conviction would likely have very real impact. Some would call that a short-term impact, but in my experience is once a sport has fallen out of favor with sponsors, it rarely recovers. It would take another iconic figure (another, gasp, Lance) to put the sport back on the radar. I don't think anything less than a TDF winner would do, because for most of the US that's the only cycling race that exists.
> 
> I can't say whether Lance really creates all that many new riders these days, other than those that get into it when they are touched by cancer. Those that haven't really moved on to cycling for the sake of cycling might quit, and a few less Treks might sit unsold, but overall I think people will still ride. I think gas prices have more to do with rider numbers than he does these days.
> 
> I believe he doped. I think most racers and racing spectators also believe it on some level these days. I also don't believe that prosectuting him will have any real positive effect on the sport in this country. In the end it's less about justice than about moving ahead.


You are correct that most people who have followed the sport understand that he, like many others, doped. Expect that to be a large part of the spin going forward....everybody doped but "I have done a lot of good". This changes the discussion from doping to if he actually "Did a lot of good". If the media and the legal system show that in fact he has not "Done a lot of good" this could be very damaging to Armstrong and would be a shock to the cancer community but would have comparatively little effect on the sport. 

I seriously doubt this will ever go to an actual trial. Expect lots of legal wrangling and delay tactics, but eventually a plea deal.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Alaska Mike said:


> I believe he doped. I think most racers and racing spectators also believe it on some level these days. *I also don't believe that prosectuting him will have any real positive effect on the sport in this country. In the end it's less about justice than about moving ahead*.


I'm in the camp that believes it't not likely that he is clean but hope he is.

OTOH, the highlighted part is the truest thing any of us have said.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> I'm in the camp that believes it't not likely that he is clean but hope he is.
> 
> OTOH, the highlighted part is the truest thing any of us have said.


And if Armstrong and/or the foundation is charged with multiple financial crimes is the message still to move on? Does he get a free pass for all crimes or just the doping?


----------



## DMFT

*That's the closest thing you've kinda posted..........*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are correct that most people who have followed the sport understand that he, like many others, doped. Expect that to be a large part of the spin going forward....everybody doped but "I have done a lot of good". This changes the discussion from doping to if he actually "Did a lot of good". If the media and the legal system show that in fact he has not "Done a lot of good" this could be very damaging to Armstrong and would be a shock to the cancer community but would have comparatively little effect on the sport.
> 
> I seriously doubt this will ever go to an actual trial. Expect lots of legal wrangling and delay tactics, but eventually a plea deal.


.....to making sense/reality.

- You mean: "You are correct that most people who have followed the sport understand that he, like many others, MAY have doped.

"Doing good" is immeasurable. No way to proove "did" or "did not".


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DMFT said:


> - You mean: "You are correct that most people who have followed the sport understand that he, like many others, MAY have doped.
> 
> "Doing good" is immeasurable. No way to proove "did" or "did not".


To take it to the extreme, what if funds meant for research were used to develop doping drugs? What if there was a board member who used his position to get Armstrong access to experimental drugs like HemAssit? Some would say that using funds thought to be going to raise awareness but instead used for jetfuel or lapdances would not count as "Good". 

It will be interesting to see how the media treats it. For years they would just parrot whatever talking points Armstrong media guys gave out....now they question everything.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are correct that most people who have followed the sport *think *that he, like many others *may have*, doped.


Fixed your post to make it accurate. No one can Understand something not actually in evidence to be true. There is not to understand. You may believe something not in evidence but that is not the same thing as to understand something you can't actually know.

I really don't get why that one point misses you every time. I suspect there may be a man in the moon and he wasn't discovered during the moon landings. Do I have any objective evidence on which to base that? More specifically evidence that has been subjected to the standard rigor of public examination not back room whisperings? No.

You say you know things cause people told you. That may be so but you have just as much evidence to back that up as I do on my man in the moon theory. Have they showed you the drug testing records, the forensic examinations of the residue tests on the needles and drug bags used? No. Why? Easy, if there were a smoking gun, that would already have leaked. So instead they're building a circumstantial case which takes a lot longer. THe last part is rank speculation on my part. Unlike you, I don't have deep throat dropping by the parking garage giving me the low down.


----------



## elrancho66

heathb said:


> Where do you get that Armstrong is going to be defending himself. The investigation is going nowhere, if they had anything real we would have heard about it by now.
> 
> The man is retired, it's over as far as I'm concerned. He grew up around the greatest dopers in history, those late 90's cyclists were as dirty as anyone has ever been.
> 
> Lets just make sure the next generation of American riders like Taylor Phinney stay clean.


I find it very convenient that Lance decided to "retire"the first time when the shite was beginning to hit the fan. In regards to new allegations of positive drug tests, other riders coming clean/getting nailed etc,,,,,,,,,,,, then staged a comeback after things cooled off.............do you really believe he decided to retire from pro cycling at the top, then got bored with life and the occasional mt bike race or marathon and decided launch a comeback? It makes for a great movie script!


----------



## Snpiperpilot

elrancho66 said:


> I find it very convenient that Lance decided to "retire"the first time when the shite was beginning to hit the fan. In regards to new allegations of positive drug tests, other riders coming clean/getting nailed etc,,,,,,,,,,,, then staged a comeback after things cooled off.............do you really believe he decided to retire from pro cycling at the top, then got bored with life and the occasional mt bike race or marathon and decided launch a comeback? It makes for a great movie script!


That may be the most idiotic argument in the history of arguments. Nothing ever quieted down, nothing ever will. If he really wanted to run away and hide, he would have really retired and moved to a desert island and ran away. I think twittering your entire life, while being the front man for a huge charity and flying around in a GIV with your name on the tail is a damn silly way to hide. As for coming back after retiring, I can come up with 4-5 examples of sports star easy. Let's see: Some basketball player I can recall got bored, played baseball and then came back to basketball a second and third time. The last time for charity. That would be Michael Jordan. Let me see, didn't lance ride for no salary and spend most of his off bike time at races in Cancer meetings. Sound familiar?

Gee, there was some football player, think he played for Green bay, a few times, then the jets, then the.....


Bjorn Borg came back, McEnroe came back, Seles came back. So many more names.

So, yes, silly premise. Hiding in plain sight is not hiding.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> I really don't get why that one point misses you every time. I suspect there may be a man in the moon and he wasn't discovered during the moon landings. Do I have any objective evidence on which to base that? More specifically evidence that has been subjected to the standard rigor of public examination not back room whisperings? No.


Most rational people can see that equating the probability of Armstrong doping with the probability that there is a man living on the moon is absurd.


----------



## pretender

elrancho66 said:


> I find it very convenient that Lance decided to "retire"the first time when the shite was beginning to hit the fan. In regards to new allegations of positive drug tests, other riders coming clean/getting nailed etc,,,,,,,,,,,, then staged a comeback after things cooled off.............do you really believe he decided to retire from pro cycling at the top, then got bored with life and the occasional mt bike race or marathon and decided launch a comeback? It makes for a great movie script!


AFAIK there wasn't anything especially suspicious about the timing of his first retirement.

The most recent retirement, on the other hand...


----------



## elrancho66

Snpiperpilot said:


> That may be the most idiotic argument in the history of arguments. Nothing ever quieted down, nothing ever will. If he really wanted to run away and hide, he would have really retired and moved to a desert island and ran away. I think twittering your entire life, while being the front man for a huge charity and flying around in a GIV with your name on the tail is a damn silly way to hide. As for coming back after retiring, I can come up with 4-5 examples of sports star easy. Let's see: Some basketball player I can recall got bored, played baseball and then came back to basketball a second and third time. The last time for charity. That would be Michael Jordan. Let me see, didn't lance ride for no salary and spend most of his off bike time at races in Cancer meetings. Sound familiar?
> 
> Gee, there was some football player, think he played for Green bay, a few times, then the jets, then the.....
> 
> 
> Bjorn Borg came back, McEnroe came back, Seles came back. So many more names.
> 
> So, yes, silly premise. Hiding in plain sight is not hiding.


I never said anything about him running away and hiding? Lance's ENORMOUS ego does not allow him to hide, be out of the spotlight or put down his Twitter device for very long.The guy CRAVES attention and tramples anyone who gets in his way,disputes his authority or tries to tarnish his legacy.The man is a world class CONTROL FREAK. The only time I can recall him "hiding" recently was when he bailed on the Leadville 100 because of his "nagging" hip injury from the TdF. Even though he was busy tweeting and being photographed dialing in his new Trek just a few days before the race and did not mention his injury. He had one of his PR chumps break the news while Lance was hiding out in Aspen and not twatting away on his phone. He bailed on Leadville for 2 reasons. 1. He was afraid he might not be able to beat Levi, Weins,JHK, Wells or the other top pros who finally put Leadville on their schedule. 2. He did not want to face the press and public.Lance is guilty IMO, but that's just my opinion. As I said before, the LA story would be an amazing movie but it doesn't add up in real life. The odds of Juan Pelota being the only clean rider in the TdF peloton who racked up 7 straight wins is very hard to believe.:thumbsup:


----------



## covenant

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Most rational people can see that equating the probability of Armstrong doping with the probability that there is a man living on the moon is absurd.


A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect. :thumbsup: 

​


----------



## JSR

Chill pills will be available at the start of your club ride on Saturday. They're legal. Everyone on this thread is advised to take as many as can be tolerated.

JSR


----------



## Tight Nipples

"Did so!'
"Did not!"
"Did so!'
"Did not.!'
"No way-ay!"
"Yes way!"

Geez! 

I'll be so glad when this is all over!


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Tight Nipples said:


> "Did so!'
> "*Can't prove it*!"
> "Did so!'
> "*Can't prove it*!!'
> "No way-ay!"
> "Yes way!"
> 
> Geez!
> 
> I'll be so glad when this is all over!


FYP. Btw, in order to be over, it must have started.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Does he get a free pass for all crimes or just the doping?


Agree with it or not, doping is the issue that got us here. Novitsky has pretty much stated that all of the other investigations are just ways to take down dopers and doping rings. Means to an end, so to speak. We're not talking about Pol Pot, so without the doping allegations no prosecutor would have wasted a dime on the case(s). Low probability of successful prosecution, expensive to bring to trial, and the prosecutor would end up looking like the "bad guy". The doping angle tipped it a little, but without doping-related charges and a (semi) successful prosecution, the rest will likely just crumble.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Alaska Mike said:


> Agree with it or not, doping is the issue that got us here. Novitsky has pretty much stated that all of the other investigations are just ways to take down dopers and doping rings. Means to an end, so to speak. We're not talking about Pol Pot, so without the doping allegations no prosecutor would have wasted a dime on the case(s). Low probability of successful prosecution, expensive to bring to trial, and the prosecutor would end up looking like the "bad guy". The doping angle tipped it a little, but without doping-related charges and a (semi) successful prosecution, the rest will likely just crumble.


Nope. 

Novitsky has stated nothing. He has made no comments on the investigation and he does not run the investigation, Doug Miller does. In addition to Novtizky, who worked for a decade as an investigator for the IRS, Miller has an IRS investigator and FBI investigator working full time on the case. There will be substantial financial component to the Federal charges. Bags of cash, Swiss bank accounts, Wire Fraud,


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope.
> 
> Novitsky has stated nothing. He has made no comments on the investigation and he does not run the investigation, Doug Miller does. In addition to Novtizky, who worked for a decade as an investigator for the IRS, Miller has an IRS investigator and FBI investigator working full time on the case. There will be substantial financial component to the Federal charges. Bags of cash, Swiss bank accounts, Wire Fraud,


We've been here before, Miller is a prosecutor, he gets the results of investigations, he does not, by statute, run them. The IRS, FDA and FBI don't work for Justice. Some icky separation of powers thing. And, unless you sit on the grand jury, YOU, have zero idea what charges, if any, will be proffered. If you do not, expect a visit from law enforcement to discuss issue involving breaking the grand jury seal. What you THINK is not fact.


----------



## davidka

pretender said:


> AFAIK there wasn't anything especially suspicious about the timing of his first retirement.
> 
> The most recent retirement, on the other hand...


Maybe. He has a pretty long history of defying persecution though. He went to Austraila, a race which should be easy for a Tour contender, and took a bit of a beating. I think he knew that California in May was going to be way harder and he just wasn't up for it anymore.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> We've been here before, Miller is a prosecutor, he gets the results of investigations, he does not, by statute, run them. The IRS, FDA and FBI don't work for Justice. Some icky separation of powers thing. And, unless you sit on the grand jury, YOU, have zero idea what charges, if any, will be proffered. If you do not, expect a visit from law enforcement to discuss issue involving breaking the grand jury seal. What you THINK is not fact.


Miller is in charge. He tells the investigators which avenues to pursue and decides which charges to bring. 

You are under the misguided assumption that the only way to know anything about the case is to sit the GJ room or what you have read in the limited coverage. The fact is the sport is buzzing with discussion about. Armstrong is freaking out. Contrary to popular perception Armstrong was surprisingly careless and people are talking, both privately and to investigators. 

Of course you will now response with something about Armstrong being "Detail Oriented" and you know this because Bob Roll told you on Versus. Armstrong is in for years of legal fighting, both here and abroad. It will be a slow train wreck


----------



## Big-foot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> *The fact is the sport is buzzing with discussion about. Armstrong is freaking out. Contrary to popular perception Armstrong was surprisingly careless and people are talking, both privately and to investigators. *


Not just within the sport, also within the bike industry. The US bike world is really pretty small and close knit. Many people in this lil biz have known one another for years and years. Most of Floyds "revelations" of last May were old news to many. And while what's been said to the grand jury by those who've been subpoenaed is sealed, a fair number of people (former team mates, USPS staff, former sponsors, etc.) have been questioned without being sworn. Some of them have shared what they've told the investigation. Yeah, as of now just gossip with "no proof," just someone's word. But when you see this much smoke you just gotta expect at least a little fire.

Personally I think that November Lima Alpha 7 is turning cross-wind for a gear-up landing.


----------



## MarkS

Snpiperpilot said:


> We've been here before, Miller is a prosecutor, he gets the results of investigations, he does not, by statute, run them. *The IRS, FDA and FBI don't work for Justice*. * Some icky separation of powers thing.* And, unless you sit on the grand jury, YOU, have zero idea what charges, if any, will be proffered. If you do not, expect a visit from law enforcement to discuss issue involving breaking the grand jury seal. What you THINK is not fact.


The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. The FBI, FDA and FBI all are Executive branch agencies. So, I don't know where you are getting your separation of powers thing You also don't have any idea as to how criminal investigations work. Yes, it is true that there are turf wars among government agencies and sometimes they do not sing from the same song sheet. But, when it somes to a major criminal investigation agencies work together and the US Attorney's Office and/or the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice ultimately calls the shots.


----------



## Gatorback

MarkS said:


> The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. The FBI, FDA and FBI all are Executive branch agencies. So, I don't know where you are getting your separation of powers thing You also don't have any idea as to how criminal investigations work. Yes, it is true that there are turf wars among government agencies and sometimes they do not sing from the same song sheet. But, when it somes to a major criminal investigation agencies work together and the US Attorney's Office and/or the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice untimately calls the shots.


He has no idea what he is talking about and isn't interested in trying to learn.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Gatorback said:


> He has no idea what he is talking about and isn't interested in trying to learn.


If you insist on logging on using two different id, at least say different things. You and the purveyor of FFF (TM) must be the same person.

The Justice Department does include the FBI but they does the investigations as they wish, they do not simply investigate what Justice wants. Also, the FDA and IRS while executive branch agencies to not ever report to Justice. They do collaborate but the leadership is separate. 

You care correct, I mean separation of authority not powers as in the three branches of government. My mistake.

As for who is learning it clearly isn't anyone here. No one yet, gets the difference between innuendo and actual facts. The cycling world is buzzing may be the most asinine argument ever. Buzzing about rumor, unsubstantiated guesses? What. You or FFF (TM) can say what you will but they are not FACTS. They are speculation, rumor and pure guesswork. There are no valid sources regarding what Novisky, Justice or any other agency know that represent facts. Facts are presented and validated in open court or other valid venues. I assure you all, internet web sites, rumor mongering and web forums are not now and never will be those venues.


----------



## Gatorback

Snpiperpilot said:


> If you insist on logging on using two different id, at least say different things. You and the purveyor of FFF (TM) must be the same person.
> 
> The Justice Department does include the FBI but they does the investigations as they wish, they do not simply investigate what Justice wants. Also, the FDA and IRS while executive branch agencies to not ever report to Justice. They do collaborate but the leadership is separate.
> 
> You care correct, I mean separation of authority not powers as in the three branches of government. My mistake.
> 
> As for who is learning it clearly isn't anyone here. No one yet, gets the difference between innuendo and actual facts. The cycling world is buzzing may be the most asinine argument ever. Buzzing about rumor, unsubstantiated guesses? What. You or FFF (TM) can say what you will but they are not FACTS. They are speculation, rumor and pure guesswork. There are no valid sources regarding what Novisky, Justice or any other agency know that represent facts. Facts are presented and validated in open court or other valid venues. I assure you all, internet web sites, rumor mongering and web forums are not now and never will be those venues.


Who are you even referring to when saying FFF (TM)? You are delusional. I have one screen name, that is it. You are delusional. 

Your suggestion that EVERYTHING posted or referenced on here is speculation, rumor, and guesswork is wrong. There is some, but there is also some real evidence--the kind of stuff that gets presented in court. Facts are not turned into facts because they are presented in court. Facts are facts. Sometimes they get presented in court, but that has nothing to do with whether they are facts or even evidence of some proposition for that matter. 

Is the evidence favoring the theory of relativity not evidence because it hasn't been presented in court? Are facts that support the existence of gravity not facts because they haven't been presented or validated in court? Heck no. As an engineer, you are probably investigating all the time. You use facts (data) to reach conclusions. Rarely (if ever) does this occur in a court proceeding for you. What you use to reach conclusions are facts and data nonetheless. You seem to want to suspend the laws of reality when it comes to answering questions that may, at some point, also be presented in a court. That isn't the way the world works. 

Who is FFF? And why in the world do you think I am "someone else?" 

Your are plain and simply off your rocker. As one poster said, everyone on this thread needs to take a chill pill. We'll give you a double dose.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Gatorback said:


> Who are you even referring to when saying FFF (TM)? You are delusional. I have one screen name, that is it. You are delusional.
> 
> Your suggestion that EVERYTHING posted or referenced on here is speculation, rumor, and guesswork is wrong. There is some, but there is also some real evidence--the kind of stuff that gets presented in court. Facts are not turned into facts because they are presented in court. Facts are facts. Sometimes they get presented in court, but that has nothing to do with whether they are facts or even evidence of some proposition for that matter.
> 
> Is the evidence favoring the theory of relativity not evidence because it hasn't been presented in court? Are facts that support the existence of gravity not facts because they haven't been presented or validated in court? Heck no. As an engineer, you are probably investigating all the time. You use facts (data) to reach conclusions. * Rarely (if ever) does this occur in a court proceeding for you. What you use to reach conclusions are facts and data nonetheless. You seem to want to suspend the laws of reality when it comes to answering questions that may, at some point, also be presented in a court. That isn't the way the world works. *
> 
> Who is FFF? And why in the world do you think I am "someone else?"
> 
> Your are plain and simply off your rocker. As one poster said, everyone on this thread needs to take a chill pill. We'll give you a double dose.


One, please refrain from calling names. It reduces the effectiveness of your position and it violates the TOS of this board.

FFF (TM) refers to Falsetti who makes fabulous falsetti falsehoods in a fashion similar to you which is why I made the comparison. Clearly sarcasm is lost here. Both of you take things not objectively known to be fact and represent them as such. Hence, I treat you as two sides of the same coin. Clearly, you're not one actual person, you just represent a virtually identical point of view.

For the purpose of this discussion. We have two kinds of "evidence". We have what we have read on internet and newspaper etc. This represents a specific point of view. Normally based on contemporaneous reports of something that may be fact but has not been presented for examination yet in a recognized venue. In the US, not sure where you are, we have the right to be presented with any evidence of a crime and may attempt to discredit that evidence. Perhaps it was contaminated or there is no chain of custody. Until that happens, it can't be considered to be fully vetted. 

The other evidence is what we hear? Unless I miss my guess, none of us in this forum have actual inside information on what the current investigations have turned up. We don't know that they have pictures of Armstrong with bags of money, wire fraud evidence, drug test results that are contrary to what anyone represents to be publicly true. We have tons of speculation but little hard "fact". Now, we are free to read and digest all of that and reach "conclusions" but at the end of the day, they are just that, conclusions, not fact. I own up to the fact that I have an opinion. I don't represent it as fact.

Now, if anyone has real facts that have withstood investigation and still stand and they can show where it came from that's great. But I haven't seen any in this or any other thread here yet. 

I actually think it's highly unlikely that Lance never took PED's but I'm willing to wait for a proper venue to determine that and not let the kangaroo court of the internet make that determination. A few years ago, many were sure that Hamilton and Landis and a dozen others were clean and now they admit that they are guilty. Let the process run it's course.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Let's simmer down with the insults and sock accusations and just stick to the premise. BTW- the ignore feature is your friend.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> I actually think it's highly unlikely that Lance never took PED's but I'm willing to wait for a proper venue to determine that and not let the kangaroo court of the internet make that determination. A few years ago, many were sure that Hamilton and Landis and a dozen others were clean and now they admit that they are guilty. Let the process run it's course.


We should just shut down this forum for a few years until the plea deal as it is not possible to discuss the topic unless it has been proven in a court of law. 










Really, there were actually people that believed Tyler and Floyd?


----------



## MarkS

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really, there were actually people that believed Tyler and Floyd?


We each are stricken by the blinding light of truth on the road to Damascus at different times. I actually did believe Tyler for a short while. Maybe a few weeks. By the time he discovered his vanishing twin, I no longer was a believer. I never did believe Floyd.

Actually, it was the events of 2004 -- David Millar's quick confession and Tyler Hamilton's stonewalling that caused me to become skeptical of any cyclist's prostestations that he never doped. A year or two before that, I was at a dinner party with a lawyer who had done a lot of work for the US federation of another olympic sport. He spent most of the evening lecturing me about how cycling was drug-ridden, that with the exception of a few French teams, the Festina scandal in 1998 had not changed anything, and that Lance Armstrong was a doper extraordinaire, etc. I then was as vocal in denying doping, defending Lance Armstrong, and calling for proof as some of your critics are today. But, like St. Paul, now that I have had my conversion, I am almost as zealous in advocating the opposite of the position that I once took.


----------



## ttug

*Do 4*



MarkS said:


> Unless most of us are reading the tea leaves incorrectly, the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong are going to be substatiated and he is going to be fighting on several fronts. I assume that he already is and will continue to have the advice and advocacy of the best lawyers, experts and PR people that money can buy. But, how so you think he will respond?
> 
> 1. The Tyler Hamilton/Floyd Landis approach: Deny, Deny, Deny. Come up with implausible excuses.
> 
> 2. The David Millar approach: Fold immediately. Make a deal. Do pennance in the desert and then come back as a born-again anti-doper.
> 
> 3. Johan Bruyneel made me do it. I really did not know what I was doing.
> 
> 4. Bill Clinton's/George W. Bush's gave me a secret pass. They told me that I could do whatever I had to so to win the "War on Terror" against the riders from those wimpy Euro countries that were giving them trouble.
> 
> 5. My ex-wife/Sheryl Crow/the Olsen Twins must have spiked my food/drinks when I was not looking.
> 
> 6. The labs spiked my samples.
> 
> 7. Cancer. USA. Livestrong. Cancer. USA. Livestrong. I am a hero. [email protected] you.


Millar, I thought that was what you should do.

He was in public, he was humiliated and at that point, BAM, he spills the beans. That took balls, real ones, big ol sweaty hairy, drive a nail in the wall balls.

My LEAST favorite approach is Virenque. DOPE, win, DOPE, confess, DOPE, win LOTAS more, DOPE, retire. To the APPLAUS of your fans.........


----------



## Gatorback

Some folks really like to attack Falsetti on here, and he (or she) is quite willing to mix it up with some posters, but for those who want to argue with him I will give you a word of advice:

I have never met him (I'll just assume he's a he and not a she, for no good reason I guess), have no clue what he does for a living, and have no clue who he is. But I can tell you this--in my trained eye as a trial lawyer, he knows what he is talking about. With all the info he has posted here about investigations, the proceedings, etc., I'd be able to spot it easily if he were just a b.s. artist. And he is not a b.s. artist. He's got some good info, it appears very legit to my trained eye, and some of his analysis is excellent. He isn't just some random keyboard cowboy hurling b.s. out there.

Those people who want to attack him better get ready to be eat some crow. 

piperpilot, I live in the U.S. I am a trial lawyer, for 17 years now, and investigate and prepare cases for trial for a living. 

In a court of law in the U.S., relevant evidence is evidence which tends to prove or disprove a material fact. The rules of what evidence is admissible are complex, and I'm not going to try to give a dissertation. If you want to learn about the federal rules evidence, or any federal laws or regulations for that matter, the Cornell University School of Law maintains excellent resources. Here is a link to the _Federal Rules of Evidenc__e_:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

What evidence is there that Lance Armstrong doped, like most other elite pro cyclists of his time?

Well, there are at least 4 public accusers we know about who claim first hand knowledge and all have to be discredited: Landis, Armstrong's former massage therapist, Armstrong's former mechanic, and Frankie Andreau. Maybe they can be discredited, but there are 4 of them--that starts to get tough. In addition, Frankie Andreau's wife asserts having heard Armstrong (first hand knowledge of his statement, which is admissible as an admission) tell his doctors he doped.

There is his relationship with the infamous Dr. Ferrari. Let's just say if you have dinner with the Mob Boss at his table at the local Italian restaurant every Tuesday night, well, it doesn't look good in the eyes of must juries. Is it, standing alone, enough to convict? No way. Is it relevant evidence? Absolutely. 

There is the long, long list of his teammates and former teammates who have been busted at some point or just flat out admitted to doping. I'm not going to list them all. You can go look it up. They are listed on some other thread around here and include Landis, Hamilton, Frankie Andreau, and others (I'm missing quite a few). 

There is the fact virtually every top cyclist of his time, his competition, has been caught up in doping problems themselves. They can probably best be summarized by Jan Ulrich's comment about anyone who "can put one and one together" knows what was going on in professional cycling. Maybe that is the German way to say it is easier than putting two and two together.

There is a lot of junk out there. And there is evidence which, while relevant, ought to be viewed with caution until it is examined more closely--for example the EPO tests done on past blood samples and linked to Armstrong through a reporter. But if you look at just the legit stuff, there is really strong evidence against him.

I am going to try to find my own separate existence now, since apparently I'm just the other side of a coin of a guy or gal I don't know, but have gain some respect for because of what he or she has presented here.


----------



## rubbersoul

+1 for the previous post, very dispassionate, cogent post. Who's to say Snpiperpilot doesn't have a vested interest in the armstrong camp?


----------



## covenant

Gatorback said:


> Some folks really like to attack Falsetti on here, and he (or she) is quite willing to mix it up with some posters, but for those who want to argue with him I will give you a word of advice:
> 
> I have never met him (I'll just assume he's a he and not a she, for no good reason I guess), have no clue what he does for a living, and have no clue who he is. But I can tell you this--in my trained eye as a trial lawyer, he knows what he is talking about. With all the info he has posted here about investigations, the proceedings, etc., I'd be able to spot it easily if he were just a b.s. artist. And he is not a b.s. artist. He's got some good info, it appears very legit to my trained eye, and some of his analysis is excellent. He isn't just some random keyboard cowboy hurling b.s. out there.
> 
> Those people who want to attack him better get ready to be eat some crow.
> 
> piperpilot, I live in the U.S. I am a trial lawyer, for 17 years now, and investigate and prepare cases for trial for a living.
> 
> In a court of law in the U.S., relevant evidence is evidence which tends to prove or disprove a material fact. The rules of what evidence is admissible are complex, and I'm not going to try to give a dissertation. If you want to learn about the federal rules evidence, or any federal laws or regulations for that matter, the Cornell University School of Law maintains excellent resources. Here is a link to the _Federal Rules of Evidenc__e_:
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/
> 
> What evidence is there that Lance Armstrong doped, like most other elite pro cyclists of his time?
> 
> Well, there are at least 4 public accusers we know about who claim first hand knowledge and all have to be discredited: Landis, Armstrong's former massage therapist, Armstrong's former mechanic, and Frankie Andreau. Maybe they can be discredited, but there are 4 of them--that starts to get tough. In addition, Frankie Andreau's wife asserts having heard Armstrong (first hand knowledge of his statement, which is admissible as an admission) tell his doctors he doped.
> 
> There is his relationship with the infamous Dr. Ferrari. Let's just say if you have dinner with the Mob Boss at his table at the local Italian restaurant every Tuesday night, well, it doesn't look good in the eyes of must juries. Is it, standing alone, enough to convict? No way. Is it relevant evidence? Absolutely.
> 
> There is the long, long list of his teammates and former teammates who have been busted at some point or just flat out admitted to doping. I'm not going to list them all. You can go look it up. They are listed on some other thread around here and include Landis, Hamilton, Frankie Andreau, and others (I'm missing quite a few).
> 
> There is the fact virtually every top cyclist of his time, his competition, has been caught up in doping problems themselves. They can probably best be summarized by Jan Ulrich's comment about anyone who "can put one and one together" knows what was going on in professional cycling. Maybe that is the German way to say it is easier than putting two and two together.
> 
> There is a lot of junk out there. And there is evidence which, while relevant, ought to be viewed with caution until it is examined more closely--for example the EPO tests done on past blood samples and linked to Armstrong through a reporter. But if you look at just the legit stuff, there is really strong evidence against him.
> 
> I am going to try to find my own separate existence now, since apparently I'm just the other side of a coin of a guy or gal I don't know, but have gain some respect for because of what he or she has presented here.


tl;dr


----------



## PDex

Well done. 

I think we should start a poll on who we think Falsetti is; I get the impression he is a former rider with a strong network of contacts and may, in fact, have been called to testify. 

Care to guess? I have my list of candidates.




Gatorback said:


> Some folks really like to attack Falsetti on here, and he (or she) is quite willing to mix it up with some posters, but for those who want to argue with him I will give you a word of advice:
> 
> I have never met him (I'll just assume he's a he and not a she, for no good reason I guess), have no clue what he does for a living, and have no clue who he is. But I can tell you this--in my trained eye as a trial lawyer, he knows what he is talking about. With all the info he has posted here about investigations, the proceedings, etc., I'd be able to spot it easily if he were just a b.s. artist. And he is not a b.s. artist. He's got some good info, it appears very legit to my trained eye, and some of his analysis is excellent. He isn't just some random keyboard cowboy hurling b.s. out there.
> 
> Those people who want to attack him better get ready to be eat some crow.
> 
> piperpilot, I live in the U.S. I am a trial lawyer, for 17 years now, and investigate and prepare cases for trial for a living.
> 
> In a court of law in the U.S., relevant evidence is evidence which tends to prove or disprove a material fact. The rules of what evidence is admissible are complex, and I'm not going to try to give a dissertation. If you want to learn about the federal rules evidence, or any federal laws or regulations for that matter, the Cornell University School of Law maintains excellent resources. Here is a link to the _Federal Rules of Evidenc__e_:
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/
> 
> What evidence is there that Lance Armstrong doped, like most other elite pro cyclists of his time?
> 
> Well, there are at least 4 public accusers we know about who claim first hand knowledge and all have to be discredited: Landis, Armstrong's former massage therapist, Armstrong's former mechanic, and Frankie Andreau. Maybe they can be discredited, but there are 4 of them--that starts to get tough. In addition, Frankie Andreau's wife asserts having heard Armstrong (first hand knowledge of his statement, which is admissible as an admission) tell his doctors he doped.
> 
> There is his relationship with the infamous Dr. Ferrari. Let's just say if you have dinner with the Mob Boss at his table at the local Italian restaurant every Tuesday night, well, it doesn't look good in the eyes of must juries. Is it, standing alone, enough to convict? No way. Is it relevant evidence? Absolutely.
> 
> There is the long, long list of his teammates and former teammates who have been busted at some point or just flat out admitted to doping. I'm not going to list them all. You can go look it up. They are listed on some other thread around here and include Landis, Hamilton, Frankie Andreau, and others (I'm missing quite a few).
> 
> There is the fact virtually every top cyclist of his time, his competition, has been caught up in doping problems themselves. They can probably best be summarized by Jan Ulrich's comment about anyone who "can put one and one together" knows what was going on in professional cycling. Maybe that is the German way to say it is easier than putting two and two together.
> 
> There is a lot of junk out there. And there is evidence which, while relevant, ought to be viewed with caution until it is examined more closely--for example the EPO tests done on past blood samples and linked to Armstrong through a reporter. But if you look at just the legit stuff, there is really strong evidence against him.
> 
> I am going to try to find my own separate existence now, since apparently I'm just the other side of a coin of a guy or gal I don't know, but have gain some respect for because of what he or she has presented here.


----------



## orange_julius

There is an actual Dr. Herman Falsetti, who was involved with blood doping.

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2006/06/here_is_the_dop.html
http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopes.htm

I'm not saying it's the same person, however, and I doubt that it is the same person. But whoever the poster Falsetti is, maybe the choice of name is a play on Dr. Ferrari, who by now most posters here have heard of.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

orange_julius said:


> There is an actual Dr. Herman Falsetti, who was involved with blood doping.
> 
> http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2006/06/here_is_the_dop.html
> http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopes.htm
> 
> I'm not saying it's the same person, however, and I doubt that it is the same person. But whoever the poster Falsetti is, maybe the choice of name is a play on Dr. Ferrari, who by now most posters here have heard of.


I am not Herman, but I took my username in "Honor" of America's own Dr. Fuentes.

I do ride, but haven't raced for years. I still stay in touch with many friends who are involved in the sport. Some still ride, others work for teams, others sponsors and a bunch more are journalists. If you talk to anyone who has been around the sport for a while they are hearing the exact same things I hear, Armstrong is in serious trouble. He is facing multiple legal issues in multiple countries and they involve far more then just dope. The OP most likely has figured out who I am would likely tell you that I have a good grasp of the legal process and an even better grasp of the sport. 

One thing I have fond out is that the rumor mill is almost always right when it comes to Armstrong. Almost 10 years ago I heard about his involvement with Baxter and HemAssist. I did not believe it, now it is a big part of the case. I heard about Floyd staying in Armstrong's apartment to watch the fridge. I did not believe it until it came out in Floyd's emails. These days I hear about Swiss Bank Accounts, large sums of cash, and exploitation of the Foundation for personal gain. I hear Popo is working with the Italians and Ferrari is in serious trouble. I hear some *major* media is working on some seriously damaging pieces. 

I am sure people will continue to insult me, call me a hater, and SCREAM AT ME IN ALL CAPS. Sorry, that will do nothing to change the enevitiablity of what is going to happen. Anger is one of the stages of grief. Watching the myth die will be painful for some but I am sure that once those same people know they truth they will be far more shrill then I am about it. Nobody likes to fooled and there are going to be some seriously angry people when this all comes out.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

rubbersoul said:


> +1 for the previous post, very dispassionate, cogent post. Who's to say Snpiperpilot doesn't have a vested interest in the armstrong camp?


So, that's the tactic, accuse me of bias ? I could make a much better case for the other side. 

Gatorback. We've been through whether the evidence stands in its own and the fact that much if it requires corroboration is a big part of my objection to falsetti. He has presented lots of circumstantial evidence but there isn't any way in his mind for exculpatory evidence that contradicts that evidence. He may be Doug M or Novisky trolling for evidence. It really doesn't matter how convincing it is here, the question is whether they can make a case. As a matter of fact, I'm not clear how you evaluate the strength of a case you haven't seen, with evidence you haven't seen and contradictory evidence you haven't seen, As a trial attorney I'm sure you're not a fan of a rush to judgment and you believe that the accused, when and if it happens, is entitled to their day in court. If not, you might be in the wrong game. 

I'm sure there will be people who eat crow but I won't be one of them. I've never said he didn't dope, to the contrary I've said he probably has. But, and this is this issue, he has yet to charged by any agency or court with any drug offense or crime. I doubt anyone here has personal knowledge of the actual evidence being collected or what charges , precisely, will be proffered. 

Do you have specific knowledge of the evidence and actual charges? I.e. Anything not read in paper, magazines or the Internet? I don't dispute that the anecdotal evidence,circumstantial though it may be, is damning but my suspicions or yours are not admissible for good reasons. Based on these kinds of threads, I have to wonder if you could fund impartial jurors to try such a case..


----------



## Tight Nipples

*"I doubt anyone here has personal knowledge of the actual evidence being collected or what charges , precisely, will be proffered."*

What? Personal opinion and conjecture void of verified evidence. I thought that such things weren't allowed in this thread! Silly me. I guess I didn't read all the rules, or all the posts.

My bad. :blush2:


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Tight Nipples said:


> *"I doubt anyone here has personal knowledge of the actual evidence being collected or what charges , precisely, will be proffered."*
> 
> What? Personal opinion and conjecture void of verified evidence. I thought that such things weren't allowed in this thread! Silly me. I guess I didn't read all the rules, or all the posts.
> 
> My bad. :blush2:


 My issue is passing off conjecture as fact. You'll note the word, bolded above where it says *doubt*. I doubt, not I know. If someone knows that would be interesting but it's not likely which is what I said. If you wish to parse my words, please do a better job.


----------



## ttug

*well well well*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> So when George backs up Landis' claims of blood doping on the bus are you going to sya that is circumstantial? Really?
> 
> Bags of cash, numbered accounts. This is so not only about drugs.


I believe Dr Falsetti knows enough to understand that there will be MANY people disappointed when the fecal matter hits the rotary oscillator......hmmm, well done sir.


----------



## Mr. Scary

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'll bet Armstrong wished he had stayed retired the first time at this point...:thumbsup:


----------



## 55x11

MarkS said:


> We each are stricken by the blinding light of truth on the road to Damascus at different times. I actually did believe Tyler for a short while. Maybe a few weeks. By the time he discovered his vanishing twin, I no longer was a believer. I never did believe Floyd.
> 
> Actually, it was the events of 2004 -- David Millar's quick confession and Tyler Hamilton's stonewalling that caused me to become skeptical of any cyclist's prostestations that he never doped. A year or two before that, I was at a dinner party with a lawyer who had done a lot of work for the US federation of another olympic sport. He spent most of the evening lecturing me about how cycling was drug-ridden, that with the exception of a few French teams, the Festina scandal in 1998 had not changed anything, and that Lance Armstrong was a doper extraordinaire, etc. I then was as vocal in denying doping, defending Lance Armstrong, and calling for proof as some of your critics are today. But, like St. Paul, now that I have had my conversion, I am almost as zealous in advocating the opposite of the position that I once took.


And it's not just cycling. Most sports are drug-ridden. Baseball, football, soccer, track and field. Any sport where being faster and stronger helps, drugs are used to push the envelope, this is just human nature.


----------



## spade2you

Mr. Scary said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'll bet Armstrong wished he had stayed retired the first time at this point...:thumbsup:


Why? Just because you're retired doesn't mean that the investigation wouldn't happen.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

spade2you said:


> Why? Just because you're retired doesn't mean that the investigation wouldn't happen.


 If the investigation is, as speculated, more about non cycling related issues, then his status is pretty much irrelevant. Time will tell.


----------



## Mr. Scary

spade2you said:


> Why? Just because you're retired doesn't mean that the investigation wouldn't happen.


Floyd's accusations launched this, his actions were spurred by Armstrong's inclusion on the 2010 TOC.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Mr. Scary said:


> Floyd's accusations launched this, his actions were spurred by Armstrong's inclusion on the 2010 TOC.


They were looking long before Floyd lost his mind last year.


----------



## spade2you

Snpiperpilot said:


> They were looking long before Floyd lost his mind last year.


I think he lost that a little before last year.


----------



## Big-foot

Snpiperpilot said:


> They were looking long before Floyd lost his mind last year.


Yeah, that's what I'd heard too. There were rumblings of some type of investigation at least a year ago.But of course those rumblings are all unsubstantiated, unverified rumor. No proof.


----------



## rydbyk

Big-foot said:


> Yeah, that's what I'd heard too. There were rumblings of some type of investigation at least a year ago.But of course those rumblings are all unsubstantiated, unverified rumor. No proof.



Didn't you get the memo? "Proof" around here is simply what we "think". Especially when it comes to what I have to say.


----------



## velmingrafter

Snpiperpilot said:


> They were looking long before Floyd lost his mind last year.


Is it a fact that Floyd lost his mind, or just your opinion? I am no Floyd fan, but it is my opinion that when this whole mess clears, Floyd will look the most sane of the bunch.


----------



## ArkRider

Mr. Scary said:


> Floyd's accusations launched this, his actions were spurred by Armstrong's inclusion on the 2010 TOC.


Before anyone flies off the handle on this, no I do not _know _when the investigation started. However I find it hard to believe that the investigation and grand jury were all fired up based on Floyd's accusations. 

While some may presume a causal effect because they heard of Floyd's accusations and then the investigation I doubt things would have be put into motion that fast. I find it more likely that Floyd's public accusations came about because of the investigation.


----------



## DMFT

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am not Herman, but I took my username in "Honor" of America's own Dr. Fuentes.
> 
> I do ride, but haven't raced for years. I still stay in touch with many friends who are involved in the sport. Some still ride, others work for teams, others sponsors and a bunch more are journalists. If you talk to anyone who has been around the sport for a while they are hearing the exact same things I hear, Armstrong is in serious trouble. He is facing multiple legal issues in multiple countries and they involve far more then just dope. The OP most likely has figured out who I am would likely tell you that I have a good grasp of the legal process and an even better grasp of the sport.
> 
> One thing I have fond out is that the rumor mill is almost always right when it comes to Armstrong. Almost 10 years ago I heard about his involvement with Baxter and HemAssist. I did not believe it, now it is a big part of the case. I heard about Floyd staying in Armstrong's apartment to watch the fridge. I did not believe it until it came out in Floyd's emails. These days I hear about Swiss Bank Accounts, large sums of cash, and exploitation of the Foundation for personal gain. I hear Popo is working with the Italians and Ferrari is in serious trouble. I hear some *major* media is working on some seriously damaging pieces.
> 
> I am sure people will continue to insult me, call me a hater, and SCREAM AT ME IN ALL CAPS. Sorry, that will do nothing to change the enevitiablity of what is going to happen. Anger is one of the stages of grief. Watching the myth die will be painful for some but I am sure that once those same people know they truth they will be far more shrill then I am about it. Nobody likes to fooled and there are going to be some seriously angry people when this all comes out.



- Don't hurt yourself as you "pat your back" so to speak.... I don't think there are that many all-out defenders of L.A. out there as you'd like to think. MANY who actually ride are well aware that many top Pro's and even Domestic racers "dope". 

Then again, anyone that look's up to or lives by sporting icons is bound to be let down.
It's all spectacle these day's...Pro Football, Baseball, Hockey, Soccer etc. ALL have their issues....


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am not Herman, but I took my username in "Honor" of America's own Dr. Fuentes.
> 
> I do ride, but haven't raced for years. I still stay in touch with many friends who are involved in the sport. Some still ride, others work for teams, others sponsors and a bunch more are journalists. If you talk to anyone who has been around the sport for a while they are hearing the exact same things I hear, Armstrong is in serious trouble. He is facing multiple legal issues in multiple countries and they involve far more then just dope. The OP most likely has figured out who I am would likely tell you that I have a good grasp of the legal process and an even better grasp of the sport.
> 
> One thing I have fond out is that the rumor mill is almost always right when it comes to Armstrong. Almost 10 years ago I heard about his involvement with Baxter and HemAssist. I did not believe it, now it is a big part of the case. I heard about Floyd staying in Armstrong's apartment to watch the fridge. I did not believe it until it came out in Floyd's emails. These days I hear about Swiss Bank Accounts, large sums of cash, and exploitation of the Foundation for personal gain. I hear Popo is working with the Italians and Ferrari is in serious trouble. I hear some *major* media is working on some seriously damaging pieces.
> 
> I am sure people will continue to insult me, call me a hater, and SCREAM AT ME IN ALL CAPS. Sorry, that will do nothing to change the enevitiablity of what is going to happen. Anger is one of the stages of grief. Watching the myth die will be painful for some but I am sure that once those same people know they truth they will be far more shrill then I am about it. Nobody likes to fooled and there are going to be some seriously angry people when this all comes out.


Ex Racer. Interesting. All sorts of things I could say. But, factual information for a change.

The rest of this message is just more speculation. I won't scream, in all caps, I won't call you a hater. Mostly, I just feel sorry for you. Going through life looking for the bad in people, finding joy in schadenfreud seems kind of pointless to me.

More really good speculation. Very entertaining, if nothing else.

I'd rather look for positive messages in life. Here is one. Last week, Livestrong passed $400 million in revenue. Based on their 85% conversion, that means $340 million went to cancer programs. A pretty valuable legacy. Even if the other $60 million went into his pocket, I wager that $340mill is about $339,900,000 more than anyone here helped raise for charity. Yes, that last number is made up, I have no idea how much anyone here raised for charity but even if it's more than $100,000, I expect it to be far short of $340 million. 

You can sit on the sidelines and find fault or you can get out on the front line and take part.


----------



## chaulk61

Snpiperpilot said:


> I'd rather look for positive messages in life. Here is one. Last week, Livestrong passed $400 million in revenue. Based on their 85% conversion, that means $340 million went to cancer programs. A pretty valuable legacy. Even if the other $60 million went into his pocket, I wager that $340mill is about $339,900,000 more than anyone here helped raise for charity. Yes, that last number is made up, I have no idea how much anyone here raised for charity but even if it's more than $100,000, I expect it to be far short of $340 million.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> So you pick....
> 
> 7. Cancer. USA. Livestrong. Cancer. USA. Livestrong. I am a hero.....
> 
> 
> .....for the defence strategy?


----------



## Snpiperpilot

chaulk61 said:


> Snpiperpilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather look for positive messages in life. Here is one. Last week, Livestrong passed $400 million in revenue. Based on their 85% conversion, that means $340 million went to cancer programs. A pretty valuable legacy. Even if the other $60 million went into his pocket, I wager that $340mill is about $339,900,000 more than anyone here helped raise for charity. Yes, that last number is made up, I have no idea how much anyone here raised for charity but even if it's more than $100,000, I expect it to be far short of $340 million.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> So you pick....
> 
> 7. Cancer. USA. Livestrong. Cancer. USA. Livestrong. I am a hero.....
> 
> 
> .....for the defence strategy?
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really. I'd choose say nothing. Doing anything about this in public seems pointless. He has much to lose and very little to gain by addressing the issue unless charges are proffered and then the best place to answer is in whatever venue the charges come in.
> 
> I do think that he's actually doing something with his life unlike most of us. There are lots of people who talk a good game on charity but damn few who follow through. $400 million is a lot of follow through. We can argue all day about his guilt or innocence but compared to most sports guys, he decided to leave something behind when he retired beside just a few lines in the record book. And, he did that long before he was anywhere near as famous as he is now. He started the foundation in 97. Long before he had ideas of winning the tour. He did it when he was pretty much unknown. I give him credit for that.
> 
> If something comes of these charges, I hope his charity survives. They do a lot of good for the cancer world, losing anyone doing that kind of work would hurt everyone.
Click to expand...


----------



## chaulk61

Snpiperpilot said:


> chaulk61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really. I'd choose say nothing. Doing anything about this in public seems pointless. He has much to lose and very little to gain by addressing the issue unless charges are proffered and then the best place to answer is in whatever venue the charges come in.
> 
> I do think that he's actually doing something with his life unlike most of us. There are lots of people who talk a good game on charity but damn few who follow through. $400 million is a lot of follow through. We can argue all day about his guilt or innocence but compared to most sports guys, he decided to leave something behind when he retired beside just a few lines in the record book. And, he did that long before he was anywhere near as famous as he is now. He started the foundation in 97. Long before he had ideas of winning the tour. He did it when he was pretty much unknown. I give him credit for that.
> 
> If something comes of these charges, I hope his charity survives. They do a lot of good for the cancer world, losing anyone doing that kind of work would hurt everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough....point taken. That said, there is something about him that just rubs me the wrong way.
Click to expand...


----------



## Snpiperpilot

chaulk61 said:


> Fair enough....point taken. That said, there is something about him that just rubs me the wrong way.


Trust me, I get that. He's arrogant as hell. Even if he were pure as the driven snow, he'd have tons of people who hate him just cause of what a prick he is. He's equal parts, sports hero, sports jerk in the ochocinco mold, hero and villain. But, at least for now, his foundation does a lot of good stuff. If he goes down, the foundation will, I suspect, not survive and that would be a sad outcome from the perspective of the cancer world.


----------



## pretender

Oh no, no more yellow bracelets.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

pretender said:


> Oh no, no more yellow bracelets.


There are more colors of Jelly bracelets than anyone can count. Choose a charity. I wear a yellow one for the 6 people in my family that cancer got. If we start losing ta ta's I'll add pink.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Ex Racer. Interesting. All sorts of things I could say. But, factual information for a change.
> 
> The rest of this message is just more speculation. I won't scream, in all caps, I won't call you a hater. Mostly, I just feel sorry for you. Going through life looking for the bad in people, finding joy in schadenfreud seems kind of pointless to me.
> 
> More really good speculation. Very entertaining, if nothing else.
> 
> I'd rather look for positive messages in life. Here is one. Last week, Livestrong passed $400 million in revenue. Based on their 85% conversion, that means $340 million went to cancer programs. A pretty valuable legacy. Even if the other $60 million went into his pocket, I wager that $340mill is about $339,900,000 more than anyone here helped raise for charity. Yes, that last number is made up, I have no idea how much anyone here raised for charity but even if it's more than $100,000, I expect it to be far short of $340 million.
> 
> You can sit on the sidelines and find fault or you can get out on the front line and take part.



"Programs".....like flying Armstrong to paid speaking engagements, driving traffic to his for profit website and promoting his brand, Legal and profession cost that eat up 30% of all revenue? $14 million on travel and advertising over the last 3 years? Really? Great programs. Like this one, lots of money tossed at it, lots of promotion, zero result
http://vimeo.com/10612816
Raising money on a false premise to support a lifestyle and build a brand is not admirable. 

I feel sorry for those so desperate to believe a myth they ignore the obvious. I am just one voice. The IRS and multiple large media outlets are on to this and they will expose far more then a reading of the public info. In order to avoid future embarrassment you may want to tone down the defense of this fraud.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> "Programs".....like flying Armstrong to paid speaking engagements, driving traffic to his for profit website and promoting his brand, Legal and profession cost that eat up 30% of all revenue? $14 million on travel and advertising over the last 3 years? Really? Great programs. Like this one, lots of money tossed at it, lots of promotion, zero result
> http://vimeo.com/10612816
> Raising money on a false premise to support a lifestyle and build a brand is not admirable.
> 
> I feel sorry for those so desperate to believe a myth they ignore the obvious. I am just one voice. The IRS and multiple large media outlets are on to this and they will expose far more then a reading of the public info. In order to avoid future embarrassment you may want to tone down the defense of this fraud.


Let it go. They get to decide and the IRS gets to determine if that's OK, not you.

How much money have YOU, raised for a cause? Started a foundation lately? Spent thousands of hours working the issues, meeting with leaders from foreign nations, promoting a course of action? Let's discuss that for a change. 

You have the luxury of sitting around taking pot shots at people but I see no evidence that you do anything else but complain. As Colonel Nathan Jessup would say "I'd suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post"


----------



## fuzz-tone

Snpiperpilot said:


> As Colonel Nathan Jessup would say "I'd suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post"


Col. Jessup might be a bad reference here, but I suspect the outcome for Armstrong will be about the same... 

"You can't handle the truth", and the **** will hit the fan in open court.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

fuzz-tone said:


> Col. Jessup might be a bad reference here, but I suspect the outcome for Armstrong will be about the same...
> 
> "You can't handle the truth", and the **** will hit the fan in open court.


Relative to where it was directed, I find it apt. He complains but does nothing, which is what Jessup said.

I can handle the truth, I've said that before. I'm just not prepared to decide what the truth is until I have actual info to base it on. Others have a different standard. I assume you're one of them.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Let it go. They get to decide and the IRS gets to determine if that's OK, not you.
> 
> How much money have YOU, raised for a cause? Started a foundation lately? Spent thousands of hours working the issues, meeting with leaders from foreign nations, promoting a course of action? Let's discuss that for a change.
> 
> You have the luxury of sitting around taking pot shots at people but I see no evidence that you do anything else but complain. As Colonel Nathan Jessup would say "I'd suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post"


Denial is one of the phases of grief. You choose to ignore the facts I have presented that does not mean they are not valid or that I am a bitter hater. 

The fact is Livestrong's travel costs are absurd. It is legitimation to point out that they are many, many times that of comparable charities. $4,500,000 over the last 3 years? In the last 3 years the NCC spent $300,000......and they raised over $500,000,000. More then Livestrong has raised in it's entire 14 year history

In the last 3 years Livestrong has spent $8,500,000 on advertising. This has resulted in zero traffic growth to their website......while Armstrong's for profit website's traffic has exploded. This is an epic waste of money. Zero return on investment. 

Paid appearances, campaigns that go nowhere. It is not hating to point this out. 

As for my activities. Last year myself and 7 friends raised $74,000 for a children's leukemia ward. Working on breaking $100,000 this year......but even if I did nothing my points would still be valid.


----------



## covenant

Doctor Falsetti said:


> . Like this one, lots of money tossed at it, lots of promotion, zero result
> http://vimeo.com/10612816
> Raising money on a false premise to support a lifestyle and build a brand is not admirable.


Do you have any details on the C-1 Project? All I could find was the video you posted. It appears the idea was stillborn and they went with the Livestrong Summit instead in 2006. So did they actually raise money under the C-1 project?

*i guess not*


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Denial is one of the phases of grief. You choose to ignore the facts I have presented that does not mean they are not valid or that I am a bitter hater.
> 
> The fact is Livestrong's travel costs are absurd. It is legitimation to point out that they are many, many times that of comparable charities. $4,500,000 over the last 3 years? In the last 3 years the NCC spent $300,000......and they raised over $500,000,000. More then Livestrong has raised in it's entire 14 year history
> 
> In the last 3 years Livestrong has spent $8,500,000 on advertising. This has resulted in zero traffic growth to their website......while Armstrong's for profit website's traffic has exploded. This is an epic waste of money. Zero return on investment.
> 
> Paid appearances, campaigns that go nowhere. It is not hating to point this out.
> 
> As for my activities. Last year myself and 7 friends raised $74,000 for a children's leukemia ward. Working on breaking $100,000 this year......but even if I did nothing my points would still be valid.


1. You don't know me. You have no idea what I feel, or what stage of anything I may be in.
2. Again, your opinion is not fact. I don't know, NOR do you, what any of that money was spent on. Frankly, I don't care. That's a matter for the foundation, their board and the IRS. As long as the three of them are OK with it, what you or I or anyone else thinks is completely beside the point.
3. Nice job on the fundraising, just $399,826,000 to go.
4. I don't recall saying you were a hater. I said some people enjoy schadenfreud which I believe to be a wasted emotion where people take joy in the pain of others. I don't quite get why your belief that he did drugs colors your opinion of everything he does and stops you from seeing the benefits of what he does for his foundation. Let's say for the sake of argument that they do spend money in ways you don't like. Does that make the money they do spend on program support for cancer outreach and research any less valuable? Maybe instead of raising $400 mill and "wasting" 100 mill they raised $350 and only wasted $50 mill, would that remaining $300 million spend any differently? Does the first $74,000 he raises do any less than the money you raised?

I'm not a negative person, I'll believe the best until evidence says otherwise and then weigh the continued value of my support against what they've done. Is Jock Boyer a worse racer after his accusations? Has the stuff he's done since then had less value because of those accusations?

I don't like the way people trash others here, it rubs me the wrong way. Mostly, I just hate the rush to judgement. There is plenty of time for things to work themselves out.

I know we all have opinions but the side we're on doesn't make the other evil or bad or someone to be hated. It just makes them someone with a different opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Gatorback

piperpilot, do you not have any concerns the problems Falsetti raises about the Foundation could be true?

I am concerned. They deserve attention. I'm not ready to attack or defend LiveStrong, but I sure as hell want the feds investigating whether the allegations of misuse of funds or the abuse of the organization are true or not. 

What is your relationship to LiveStrong? It seems to me you are connected to the organization in some way and have trouble stepping back and looking at these questions objectively. That is understandable for some people. I help clients all the time to try to view matters from an objective perspective when it is very personal and emotional to them. I tend to think your viewpoint is skewed for personal reasons, maybe understandably so, but I wouldn't criticize Falsetti for raising these issues unless you know for a fact that he is wrong.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Snip


Ok, let me see if I get this straight. 

Livestrong can spend outrageous sums on travel and unproductive advertising and nobody should question it because it would be "Negative" 

Never Question the myth.....:thumbsup: Got it.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Gatorback said:


> piperpilot, do you not have any concerns the problems Falsetti raises about the Foundation could be true?
> 
> I am concerned. They deserve attention. I'm not ready to attack or defend LiveStrong, but I sure as hell want the feds investigating whether the allegations of misuse of funds or the abuse of the organization are true or not.
> 
> What is your relationship to LiveStrong? It seems to me you are connected to the organization in some way and have trouble stepping back and looking at these questions objectively. That is understandable for some people. I help clients all the time to try to view matters from an objective perspective when it is very personal and emotional to them. I tend to think your viewpoint is skewed for personal reasons, maybe understandably so, but I wouldn't criticize Falsetti for raising these issues unless you know for a fact that he is wrong.


There is a maxim which says in most cases the easiest explanation is the one that is true.

The truth is, I haven't the foggiest ideas if any of what he says is true. It does seem a bit on the conspiratorial side for my taste. It seems like a secret plan to divert funds from a charity to a commercial interest would involve a lot of people for quite little actual gain. 

Livestrong.com as a commercial entity is privately owned and I know nothing about how it runs as a business. I agree that the commercial and philanthropic entities are confusing and I'm not clear the extent to which they are mutually advertising for each other. Dr Falsetti believes that the .org part pays for ads that are done solely to benefit the .com entity. I don't find his argument compelling for a lot of reasons but mostly cause there is no way to know what the .org advertising budget was actually spent on, nor is there a way to directly measure the effects of that money on the .com entity. To the extent that spending such .org money detracts from their purpose, I would hope they can defend that spending to their board and their volunteers and paid staff. I do know that I don't know they reasons why they spend what they do, nor do I know that it is, per se, excessive without knowing what they spent the money for and what the intent was.

Dr Falsetti also believes that the .org groups pays for and signed a finance agreement for the plane lance flies. If that's true, they have to justify that decision. Is the amount of travel done for the foundation sufficient to justify that cost if true? Without the costs and uses of the plane, I can't answer that question. I also have no idea whether Lance or the foundation have any cost sharing arrangement for the plane. For example, it is common for a company plane to be available for a CEO for business use with an agreement that any personal use is reimbursed to the company on a per hour basis. They may do something like that. I'm not privy to that information. Again, the cost alone is not sufficient to make any case that there is a diversion of charity assets to anyones benefit. Their books are audited regularly and they have a board that oversees how they operate as well as a need to maintain records to justify their tax status to the IRS. Doing anything that jeopardizes that seems risky and given Lance's income from other sources, I don't see why they'd take that risk.

FWIW, I have zero direct relationship with Livestrong beyond having several cancer victims in my family and the fact that the foundation provided a lot of useful information to me and my family during those times. I have subsequently participated in fund raising for them as a team member. That's the extent of my connection.

I'm an engineer by profession, trained to look at data not speculation. I don't have any issue with Dr F asking the questions but I do object to him deciding without any empirical data on where it goes that there is malfeasance. He noted that the expenses for advertising and travel were larger than some other organization of similar size. A valid question but one we don't have data to put to rest. Not satisfied, he gave an explanation but one he can't actually prove. The ad money may help livestrong.com but even if it does, we have no knowledge that the ad were done with that purpose in mind. He also noted that the travel is larger than average and decided that the money was for the plane and was unjustified. Again, he has no data that he has revealed. He states that the .org cosigned the note which does seem odd but without knowing the actual reason or veracity, we can't know that it was actually an incorrect transaction. There could be a legally valid reason for such an arrangement other than the one posited by Dr F. 

As with most of my differences, my issue is about what we know and what we believe. I have no actual knowledge of wrongdoing by Lance either in cycling or his charity work. I have significant suspicions about his cycling career with no proof but no valid reasons to suspect anything about his charity. I go with the simplest explanation which is that creating and hiding a vast conspiracy of the size required would be pretty hard and not pay off much so why do it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> There is a maxim which says in most cases the easiest explanation is the one that is true.
> 
> The truth is, I haven't the foggiest ideas if any of what he says is true. It does seem a bit on the conspiratorial side for my taste. It seems like a secret plan to divert funds from a charity to a commercial interest would involve a lot of people for quite little actual gain.
> 
> Livestrong.com as a commercial entity is privately owned and I know nothing about how it runs as a business. I agree that the commercial and philanthropic entities are confusing and I'm not clear the extent to which they are mutually advertising for each other. Dr Falsetti believes that the .org part pays for ads that are done solely to benefit the .com entity. I don't find his argument compelling for a lot of reasons but mostly cause there is no way to know what the .org advertising budget was actually spent on, nor is there a way to directly measure the effects of that money on the .com entity. To the extent that spending such .org money detracts from their purpose, I would hope they can defend that spending to their board and their volunteers and paid staff. I do know that I don't know they reasons why they spend what they do, nor do I know that it is, per se, excessive without knowing what they spent the money for and what the intent was.
> 
> Dr Falsetti also believes that the .org groups pays for and signed a finance agreement for the plane lance flies. If that's true, they have to justify that decision. Is the amount of travel done for the foundation sufficient to justify that cost if true? Without the costs and uses of the plane, I can't answer that question. I also have no idea whether Lance or the foundation have any cost sharing arrangement for the plane. For example, it is common for a company plane to be available for a CEO for business use with an agreement that any personal use is reimbursed to the company on a per hour basis. They may do something like that. I'm not privy to that information. Again, the cost alone is not sufficient to make any case that there is a diversion of charity assets to anyones benefit. Their books are audited regularly and they have a board that oversees how they operate as well as a need to maintain records to justify their tax status to the IRS. Doing anything that jeopardizes that seems risky and given Lance's income from other sources, I don't see why they'd take that risk.
> 
> FWIW, I have zero direct relationship with Livestrong beyond having several cancer victims in my family and the fact that the foundation provided a lot of useful information to me and my family during those times. I have subsequently participated in fund raising for them as a team member. That's the extent of my connection.
> 
> I'm an engineer by profession, trained to look at data not speculation. I don't have any issue with Dr F asking the questions but I do object to him deciding without any empirical data on where it goes that there is malfeasance. He noted that the expenses for advertising and travel were larger than some other organization of similar size. A valid question but one we don't have data to put to rest. Not satisfied, he gave an explanation but one he can't actually prove. The ad money may help livestrong.com but even if it does, we have no knowledge that the ad were done with that purpose in mind. He also noted that the travel is larger than average and decided that the money was for the plane and was unjustified. Again, he has no data that he has revealed. He states that the .org cosigned the note which does seem odd but without knowing the actual reason or veracity, we can't know that it was actually an incorrect transaction. There could be a legally valid reason for such an arrangement other than the one posited by Dr F.
> 
> As with most of my differences, my issue is about what we know and what we believe. I have no actual knowledge of wrongdoing by Lance either in cycling or his charity work. I have significant suspicions about his cycling career with no proof but no valid reasons to suspect anything about his charity. I go with the simplest explanation which is that creating and hiding a vast conspiracy of the size required would be pretty hard and not pay off much so why do it?


Occums Razor: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

I have given you multiple facts and figures. You chose to ignore them

It is a simple fact that Livestrong's travels costs are *way* out of line for a charity of their size. No matter how you spin it they are *many multiples *of what they should be. You can pretend it is not an issue, say that pointing it out is "Negative" but it does not make the costs any less absurd. 

The brand Livestrong is owned by the Foundation. Despite this Demand Media Gave Armstrong stock worth over $13,000,000 to use a brand that he does not own. This was publicly filed as part of their S1 I gave you multiple experts who say that this is a conflict of interest. 

I have given you a chart and figures from Alexa, the premier tracker of internet traffic. It clearly showed that despite spending $8,500,000 on advertising over the last 3 years there was little traffic growth to the foundations website, while the .com exploded. The Foundation received little benefit from that $8,500,000. Perhaps they should have been more honest in their advertising?


----------



## wipeout

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Denial is one of the phases of grief.


Rock. Crawl. Under. Now. Falsies.


----------



## Gatorback

piperpilot,

I sit on 3 different boards, two dealing with larger, complex organizations and one a small cycling related board. For the latter one, I drafted all our by-laws that included necessary conflict of interest policies for 501(c)(3) requirements. I've also litigated against incorporated businesses with boards, including a couple of non-profits, in connection with my job as a lawyer.

My assessment of whether we can trust a board to "discover" misuse of funds and abuse of funds and take action is a little different from yours. Boards are most often controlled by a few principles who are also often executives or former executives of the organization. Most board members come and go, but there are usually a few mainstays who know a lot more about the organization and the nitty gritty details. It takes years to learn complex businesses. Most board members just scratch the surface and have to rely on executives and accountants (complex accounting reports). 

While boards technically hire and fire executives, the reality is that executives most of the time control the boards. If not the executives, there are usually a couple of board members who are in a position of much great authority. 

I am very confident the abuse of non-profits is quite significant. The IRS and other governmental investigators do not have the manpower and other resources to be closely scrutinizing even just the big organizations, much less the mid-level and small players. Abuse of non-profits comes in all shapes and sizes, different degrees, and often times in shades of grey that raise ethical issues more than hard and fast break the law legal issues. 

There are other "simple explanations" for the LiveStrong foundation that are different than the one you propose. I wouldn't assume your simple explanation is even accurate. It doesn't take a vast conspiracy for a large organization to break the law. The events of the last 5 years alone in the U.S. ought to give plenty of examples of how a relative few can manipulate massive business and billions of dollars while thousands of employees just fall in line and do their jobs without even realizing and/or knowing they are part of something that stinks and is illegal.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

wipeout said:


> Rock. Crawl. Under. Now. Falsies.


Calm down. I am talking fraud, not cancer

The myth is dying, some people are having trouble with it. You will see denial, anger, and eventually acceptance.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Gatorback said:


> There are other "simple explanations" for the LiveStrong foundation that are different than the one you propose. I wouldn't assume your simple explanation is even accurate. It doesn't take a vast conspiracy for a large organization to break the law. The events of the last 5 years alone in the U.S. ought to give plenty of examples of how a relative few can manipulate massive business and billions of dollars while thousands of employees just fall in line and do their jobs without even realizing and/or knowing they are part of something that stinks and is illegal.


I guess it comes down to this. I'm not prepared to assume an explanations for any of what people see from outside without some actual data. 

Dr F could be absolutely correct in all his, I'll be generous, hypotheses of why Livestrong.org spends money the way they do. But, he has no actual internal knowledge of what the money went for. Why they spent the amount they did? The extent to which Lance did or did not benefit? What arrangements, if any, exist for cost sharing of the plane? 

We also have no understanding of what the advertising money was spent for or what the intent was? Is the vimeo c-1 video a smoking gun or just an early version of an idea for changing cancer research funding that didn't work? I don't sit on the livestrong board, I don't attend their financial meetings, I don't meet with the CEO to discuss how they run the organization. Their financials get audited, the auditors print a report on what they find.

If people don't like the answers, if their costs are too high relative to their outlays, they stop getting money. I haven't seen the year to year figures but they seem to be doing a decent job of what their core mission is. They seem to have significant support with the public.

If they're doing bad stuff and wasting money eventually, that will come out but it sure hasn't yet. Unless there is more to the story than we know yet. I'm sure Dr F will go back to his web traffic stats, and his stories of plane financing but without the financials to back what he says, they're just theories.

FWIW, you say that my simple explanation may be wrong. I'm not aware that I have one. What I have is insufficient information to have an explanation. Until I do, my explanation is that I don't need or have one. 

I read the most recent S1 filing from Demand Media. They took a non cash charge for a total of $1 million for the granting of an option for 1.25 million share at a cost of $6 per share if exercised. At the time the options were given, the stock was not public so it could not be exercised. If exercised today, that would be in excess of $20 million if Lance still owns the options. According to the S1, they were for services to be rendered through Dec of 2011. This could be a quid pro quo for the use of the service mark but there is no way to know that from the filing. Is that a sweetheart deal. Yep, but that's not uncommon when you want to get a famous person to be associated with your company. I don't know enough about the business to know if that's illegal in any sense of the word.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Calm down. I am talking fraud, not cancer
> 
> The myth is dying, some people are having trouble with it. You will see denial, anger, and eventually acceptance.


So, based on that response, we can assume you are in the Anger phase?


----------



## MarkS

Gatorback said:


> piperpilot,
> 
> I sit on 3 different boards, two dealing with larger, complex organizations and one a small cycling related board. For the latter one, I drafted all our by-laws that included necessary conflict of interest policies for 501(c)(3) requirements. I've also litigated against incorporated businesses with boards, including a couple of non-profits, in connection with my job as a lawyer.
> 
> My assessment of whether we can trust a board to "discover" misuse of funds and abuse of funds and take action is a little different from yours. Boards are most often controlled by a few principles who are also often executives or former executives of the organization. Most board members come and go, but there are usually a few mainstays who know a lot more about the organization and the nitty gritty details. It takes years to learn complex businesses. Most board members just scratch the surface and have to rely on executives and accountants (complex accounting reports).
> 
> While boards technically hire and fire executives, the reality is that executives most of the time control the boards. If not the executives, there are usually a couple of board members who are in a position of much great authority.
> 
> I am very confident the abuse of non-profits is quite significant. The IRS and other governmental investigators do not have the manpower and other resources to be closely scrutinizing even just the big organizations, much less the mid-level and small players. Abuse of non-profits comes in all shapes and sizes, different degrees, and often times in shades of grey that raise ethical issues more than hard and fast break the law legal issues.
> 
> There are other "simple explanations" for the LiveStrong foundation that are different than the one you propose. I wouldn't assume your simple explanation is even accurate. It doesn't take a vast conspiracy for a large organization to break the law. The events of the last 5 years alone in the U.S. ought to give plenty of examples of how a relative few can manipulate massive business and billions of dollars while thousands of employees just fall in line and do their jobs without even realizing and/or knowing they are part of something that stinks and is illegal.



I have had similar experiences -- I currently am on the board of a 501(c)(3) that I helped organize and obtain IRS clearance; I spent many years as the President of the board of another 501(c)(3) and the Chairman of a 502(c)(7). I personally have reviewed and signed many Form 990s. I have represented non profits in matters relating to their internal affairs. I also am on a committee of a well-know national legal organization that is developing principles for non profit governance. I agree 100% with what Gatorback has written.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Lance Armtrong never doped and that the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which owns the Livestrong trademark, has fully complied with all of its legal obligations. Even so, there are credible allegations out there that merit a public response by Lance Armstrong and the Foundation. Snpiperpilot thinks that eveyone should just sit back and wait until the authorities complete their investigations. For better or worse, the world does not work that way. Lance Armstrong and the Lance Armstrong Foundation are marketing the man and the charity to the public _now._ My position is that until I hear something credible from them, I am going to suspend any support of them (which includes pledging in support of friends who are riding/soliciting for Livestrong related events).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> I guess it comes down to this. I'm not prepared to assume an explanations for any of what people see from outside without some actual data.
> 
> Dr F could be absolutely correct in all his, I'll be generous, hypotheses of why Livestrong.org spends money the way they do. But, he has no actual internal knowledge of what the money went for. Why they spent the amount they did? The extent to which Lance did or did not benefit? What arrangements, if any, exist for cost sharing of the plane?
> 
> We also have no understanding of what the advertising money was spent for or what the intent was? Is the vimeo c-1 video a smoking gun or just an early version of an idea for changing cancer research funding that didn't work? I don't sit on the livestrong board, I don't attend their financial meetings, I don't meet with the CEO to discuss how they run the organization. Their financials get audited, the auditors print a report on what they find.
> 
> If people don't like the answers, if their costs are too high relative to their outlays, they stop getting money. I haven't seen the year to year figures but they seem to be doing a decent job of what their core mission is. They seem to have significant support with the public.
> 
> If they're doing bad stuff and wasting money eventually, that will come out but it sure hasn't yet. Unless there is more to the story than we know yet. I'm sure Dr F will go back to his web traffic stats, and his stories of plane financing but without the financials to back what he says, they're just theories.
> 
> FWIW, you say that my simple explanation may be wrong. I'm not aware that I have one. What I have is insufficient information to have an explanation. Until I do, my explanation is that I don't need or have one.
> 
> I read the most recent S1 filing from Demand Media. They took a non cash charge for a total of $1 million for the granting of an option for 1.25 million share at a cost of $6 per share if exercised. At the time the options were given, the stock was not public so it could not be exercised. If exercised today, that would be in excess of $20 million if Lance still owns the options. According to the S1, they were for services to be rendered through Dec of 2011. This could be a quid pro quo for the use of the service mark but there is no way to know that from the filing. Is that a sweetheart deal. Yep, but that's not uncommon when you want to get a famous person to be associated with your company. I don't know enough about the business to know if that's illegal in any sense of the word.


You still don't get it. Livestrong is a poor investment. They are not efficient with their cash and suck money from more effective cancer foundations. This is a bad thing. 

Even if Livestrong did not spend millions flying Armstrong around on his jet their travel costs were *WAY* out of line for a charity of their size. livestrong spent $1,922,995 the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses. Jet fuel or donkey carts that is a poor investment. 

If Livestrong's goal is to raise awareness then driving people to the foundation's website is a key goal. The internet is the best way to reach the largest amount of people. Despite spending $8,500,000 in advertising over the last 3 years the website shows no traffic growth. Whoever is doing their advertising should be fired. They should hire the guy who does the .com as their traffic has exploded, despite limited advertising. 

The experts disagree with you on the Demand Media deal. I would suggest you read the first version of the S1, there were many revised versions prior to the IPO. In the first version Armstrong was paid $1 million a year for 3 years for his "Work". The warrents he was given, 1 million at the $6 strike price were for the use of the Livestrong name.....a brand he does not own. You may not see an issue with this but the experts do. 



> "This blurs the lines between the foundation and its charitable mission, and the personal gain of its founder,'' said Ken Berger, president and executive director of Charity Navigator. "It's mixing two purposes in a way that smells of a conflict of interest. The most precious thing a charitable organization has is the public's trust, and things like this put a ***** in that.''
> 
> Daniel Borochoff, founder and president of the American Institute of Philanthropy in Chicago, said he was uncomfortable with the arrangement, especially because Armstrong remains chairman of the board of the foundation. "Nonprofits have to be concerned not only with actual conflicts of interest, but the appearance of conflicts of interest,'' Borochoff said.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

MarkS said:


> I have had similar experiences -- I currently am on the board of a 501(c)(3) that I helped organize and obtain IRS clearance; I spent many years as the President of the board of another 501(c)(3) and the Chairman of a 502(c)(7). I personally have reviewed and signed many Form 990s. I have represented non profits in matters relating to their internal affairs. I also am on a committee of a well-know national legal organization that is developing principles for non profit governance. I agree 100% with what Gatorback has written.
> 
> For the sake of argument, let's assume that Lance Armtrong never doped and that the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which owns the Livestrong trademark, has fully complied with all of its legal obligations. *Even so, there are credible allegations out there that merit a public response by Lance Armstrong and the Foundation*. Snpiperpilot thinks that eveyone should just sit back and wait until the authorities complete their investigations. For better or worse, the world does not work that way. Lance Armstrong and the Lance Armstrong Foundation are marketing the man and the charity to the public _now._ My position is that until I hear something credible from them, *I am going to suspend any support of them (which includes pledging in support of friends who are riding/soliciting for Livestrong related events)*.


We're going to have to disagree I guess. There are questions being asked. How credible they are clearly depends on where you place your fulcrum. I really don't think these are question well suited to be asked and answered in the press or on web forums. At least, if I were them, that would not be my venue of choice. I don't think I said we should wait until the investigation are complete but right now we have no idea what evidence they actually plan to act or or what charges with bill proffered. I think both of those questions materially affect the outcome. 

As for your donations or lack thereof, that is absolutely your right. I just hope that you find another charity more in keeping with your desires. I've lost 6 family members so Livestrong is just one of a number of places where my money and that of my family go. Each agency has different goals and we divide our support to address our differing goals.

My only short term goal with LA and Livestrong.org is to keep an open mind. I, personally, don't have enough evidence to make a decision, maybe I require a level of certitude others here do not. YMMV.

Gatorback and MarkS: You both seem to indicate that charity, in general, gets inadequate oversight from their boards ( not putting words in your mouths but that seems to be what I take out from your statements). Given that there are places that also do oversight and rank charities on efficiency already, what else do you think is needed to help the public make informed decisions?


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You still don't get it. Livestrong is a poor investment. They are not efficient with their cash and suck money from more effective cancer foundations. This is a bad thing.
> 
> Even if Livestrong did not spend millions flying Armstrong around on his jet their travel costs were *WAY* out of line for a charity of their size. livestrong spent $1,922,995 the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses. Jet fuel or donkey carts that is a poor investment.
> 
> If Livestrong's goal is to raise awareness then driving people to the foundation's website is a key goal. The internet is the best way to reach the largest amount of people. Despite spending $8,500,000 in advertising over the last 3 years the website shows no traffic growth. Whoever is doing their advertising should be fired. They should hire the guy who does the .com as their traffic has exploded, despite limited advertising.
> 
> The experts disagree with you on the Demand Media deal.* I would suggest you read the first version of the S1, there were many revised versions prior to the IPO. In the first version Armstrong was paid $1 million a year for 3 years for his "Work". *The warrents he was given, 1 million at the $6 strike price were for the use of the Livestrong name.....a brand he does not own. You may not see an issue with this but the experts do.


I don't see an S1 that says that. Can you direct me to it? Serious request, I'd like to see what changes were made.

Edited to add. The first S1 I can find is dated 8/6/10 with several revisions since. Is that the version you are discussing?


----------



## covenant

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I gave you multiple experts who say that this is a conflict of interest.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> The experts disagree with you on the Demand Media deal.


Who are these experts? I looked back and all you mentioned was the IRS and multiple large Media outlets.

And I'd still like more information on the C-1 program.

And official confirmation about the PEDs seized from Popo's house.

And a source which confirms: "Prior to this conference Greg Lemond asked some questions about the program and Lance's press person invited him to not only attend but they reserved a seat in the front row and said that he could ask the first questions."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> I don't see an S1 that says that. Can you direct me to it? Serious request, I'd like to see what changes were made.
> 
> Edited to add. The first S1 I can find is dated 8/6/10 with several revisions since. Is that the version you are discussing?


I agree, with all the changes it is confusing. Sometimes they say Armstrong received 1,250,000 shares other times he received some and CSE, his management company received some. I do not see him listed as a key shareholder selling shares so it would appear he "made" close to $20 million selling the Livestrong brand to Demand Media. Too bad that did not all go to the group that actually owned the brand, The Foundation


----------



## MarkS

Snpiperpilot said:


> Gatorback and MarkS: You both seem to indicate that charity, in general, gets inadequate oversight from their boards ( not putting words in your mouths but that seems to be what I take out from your statements). *Given that there are places that also do oversight and rank charities on efficiency already, what else do you think is needed to help the public make informed decisions*?


I think that the IRS 990 form, which has been beefed up in recent years, has brought a lot of transparency to the charities world. The type of reporting that is available today (and comments by people like Dr. F who read the 990s) goes a long way to helping the public make informed decisions. State Attorneys' General have enforcement powers with respect to non profits and the IRS also has enforcement powers. 

The response of State Attorneys General often is motivated (or not motivated) by political concerns. For example, the Pennsylvania Attorney General was quite active with respect to the affairs of the Milton Hershey Trust when it wanted to sell its controlling interest in the Hershey Company (something that the locals did not want) and the Barnes Foundation (which wanted to break the donor's will to enable the museum to move to a location favored by the political powers that be). Given that most state attorneys general are elected officials, I do not see any real change with respect to their enforcement efforts.

The IRS has been active in the field of public charities and private foundations. However, the IRS has been under continued attack in Congress for overzealous enforcement generally and just yesterday there was an public radio report about an effort in Congress to strip several hundred million dollars for the IRS's enforcement budget.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

covenant said:


> Who are these experts? I looked back and all you mentioned was the IRS and multiple large Media outlets.
> 
> And I'd still like more information on the C-1 program, how much was spent on it and why it went nowhere.
> 
> And official confirmation about the PEDs seized from Popo's house.


 Did you actually read my posts? Ken Berger, president and executive director of Charity Navigator and Daniel Borochoff, founder and president of the American Institute of Philanthropy in Chicago were both critical of the Demand Media deal. 

I suggest you ask Livestrong about the C-1 program

As for Popo. Benedetto Roberti has not issued his formal report yet but SI had this to say



> The officials had been looking for Popovych, one of Lance Armstrong's Radio Shack teammates, to execute a search warrant. Italian authorities say the Ukrainian cyclist was startled but cooperative. He led them through olive groves to his house beside a cemetery. There the officials found drug-testing documents, medical supplies and performance-enhancing drugs. They also found e-mails and texts that, they say, establish that as recently as 2009 Armstrong's team had links to controversial Italian physician Michele Ferrari, with whom the Texan had said he cut ties in 2004.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I agree, with all the changes it is confusing. Sometimes they say Armstrong received 1,250,000 shares other times he received some and CSE, his management company received some. I do not see him listed as a key shareholder selling shares so it would appear he "made" close to $20 million selling the Livestrong brand to Demand Media. Too bad that did not all go to the group that actually owned the brand, The Foundation


Which S1 are you referring to? I'd like to compare apples to apples. Otherwise we're going to have a circular discussion.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Gatorback and MarkS: You both seem to indicate that charity, in general, gets inadequate oversight from their boards ( not putting words in your mouths but that seems to be what I take out from your statements). Given that t*here are places that also do oversight and rank charities on efficiency *already, what else do you think is needed to help the public make informed decisions?


These ranking can be very misleading. It can be easy to say that 85% of revenue goes to programs but it is the strength of those programs and what is spent on them that is important. Some would say spending money to fly board members to paid speaking engagements is not a good use of program expenses.


----------



## covenant

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did you actually read my posts? Ken Berger, president and executive director of Charity Navigator and Daniel Borochoff, founder and president of the American Institute of Philanthropy in Chicago were both critical of the Demand Media deal.
> 
> I suggest you ask Livestrong about the C-1 program
> 
> As for Popo. Benedetto Roberti has not issued his formal report yet but SI had this to say


My mistake on the experts, I simply missed it in your previous posts.

You used the C-1 program as an example of "lots of money tossed at it, lots of promotion" but I couldn't find any source to back either assertion. In fact, nothing other than that one video you posted.

I'm aware of the SI article. I was looking for _ official confirmation_. SI makes retractions all the time for stuff they report.

thanks for your response :thumbsup: 

still waiting on that source about Greg being invited to the Lance press conference :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

covenant said:


> still waiting on that source about Greg being invited to the Lance press conference :thumbsup:


Here is a account from someone who is *clearly not* a LeMond Fan.http://quickrelease.tv/?cat=28



> Lemond didn’t gatecrash the press conference, he had asked Lance’s agent if he could attend


What I wrote



> Prior to this conference Greg asked some questions about the program and Lance's press person invited him to not only attend but they reserved a seat in the front row and said that he could ask the first questions.


Of course there are two sides of the invite/ask story. The fact is he did not crash the press conference, his attendance was arranged in advance as was being allowed to ask the first question.


----------



## covenant

chiguhrr said:


> First post. Question. How come whole stadiums booed Barry Bonds but Lance Armstrong is still getting fanatical support? Has Bonds been convicted of anything?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Bonds#BALCO_scandal

Lance's wikipedia page doesn't have an _indictment_ section, yet :thumbsup:


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Dr F, do you have the S1 you are looking at? I'd honestly like to see what it says compared to what I found.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

chiguhrr said:


> This has won my heart! LANCE! YOU ARE MY HERO!
> 
> Sincerely and love too,
> 
> Sniperpilot....


Kind of a cheap shot but I can confirm that he is good in bed.... ;-)

(Yes, that is sarcasm!)


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> These ranking can be very misleading. It can be easy to say that 85% of revenue goes to programs but it is the strength of those programs and what is spent on them that is important. Some would say spending money to fly board members to paid speaking engagements is not a good use of program expenses.


Some would, others would not. A disagreement on what you spend your money on, doesn't make it subversive or illegal.

BTW, Regarding the Berger and Borochoff criticism, I found the following quotes in an article on the initial arrangements with Demand Media:



> "This blurs the lines between the foundation and its charitable mission, and the personal gain of its founder,'' said Ken Berger, president and executive director of Charity Navigator. "It's mixing two purposes in a way that smells of a conflict of interest. The most precious thing a charitable organization has is the public's trust, and things like this put a ***** in that.''
> 
> Daniel Borochoff, founder and president of the American Institute of Philanthropy in Chicago, said he was uncomfortable with the arrangement, especially because Armstrong remains chairman of the board of the foundation. "Nonprofits have to be concerned not only with actual conflicts of interest, but the appearance of conflicts of interest,'' Borochoff said.


No intimation that it was illegal just that they thought it was ill advised. A fair criticism but not a smoking gun so far as I can see.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Dr F, do you have the S1 you are looking at? I'd honestly like to see what it says compared to what I found.


Sorry, I can only find the one that refers to the stock compensation not cash. I have the PDF. It refers to two different amounts. At one point it talks about some going to CSE and some to Lance



> Lance Armstrong Common Stock January 15, 2008 1,062,500 $ 6.00/share
> Capital Sports & Entertainment, LLC Common Stock January 15, 2008 187,500 6.00/shar


The other has it all going to Lance



> in the form of a ten-year warrant to purchase 1,250,000 shares of our common stock at $6.00 per share in exchange for certain services to be performed by Mr. Armstrong through December 2011


I have also seen other S-1's that show different amounts. To be fair it is not uncommon of a firm to change their S-1 many times prior to their IPO, especially an IPO like Demand that had multiple issues due to their questionable accounting practices. 

I would assume that you and I see the term "Certain Services" differently. You may see this as Armstrong doing promotion for Demand Media, even though there is no evidence of this. I have yet to see Armstrong participate in any press conference, commercial, or promotional event for Demand Media

The most obvious is the $20,000,000 in stock is compensation for getting the foundation to give Demand the rights to the Livestrong name.....something I, and many experts, find very questionable.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Some would, others would not. A disagreement on what you spend your money on, doesn't make it subversive or illegal.
> 
> BTW, Regarding the Berger and Borochoff criticism, I found the following quotes in an article on the initial arrangements with Demand Media:
> 
> No intimation that it was illegal just that they thought it was ill advised. A fair criticism but not a smoking gun so far as I can see.


Could you point to the post where I said any of this was illegal? I think it is ethically very questionable but it is not illegal. I would be surprised that anything that the IRS would investigate would show up in a 990 filing.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Could you point to the post where I said any of this was illegal? I think it is ethically very questionable but it is not illegal. I would be surprised that anything that the IRS would investigate would show up in a 990 filing.


I'm not saying that you did. But, you made the point, several times that this was evidence of your position which is that it was not an OK transaction. I'm simply saying that they didn't not say that. They said it had the possibility of clouding the name. Neither said it was illegal but was poor form. Radically different.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sorry, I can only find the one that refers to the stock compensation not cash. I have the PDF. It refers to two different amounts. At one point it talks about some going to CSE and some to Lance
> 
> 
> 
> The other has it all going to Lance
> 
> 
> 
> I have also seen other S-1's that show different amounts. To be fair it is not uncommon of a firm to change their S-1 many times prior to their IPO, especially an IPO like Demand that had multiple issues due to their questionable accounting practices.
> 
> I would assume that you and I see the term "Certain Services" differently. You may see this as Armstrong doing promotion for Demand Media, even though there is no evidence of this. I have yet to see Armstrong participate in any press conference, commercial, or promotional event for Demand Media
> 
> The most obvious is the $20,000,000 in stock is compensation for getting the foundation to give Demand the rights to the Livestrong name.....something I, and many experts, find very questionable.


All of the S1s I found say that they took a non cash charge of .4, .4 and .2 million related to the stock warrant issued to Lance. There are differing amts of stock but all are consistent that the combined total to Lance and CSE are always 1.25 million shares at $6 per share issued at the earlier of the IPO or 2018. All the S1, consistently say they they are for Lance's endorsement services which is above board.

There are also 1.25 million shares to LAF for the use of their service mark. 

I see nothing to support your claim that Demand Media paid Lance a cash payment of $13 million or that they paid anyone but the LAF for the rights to the service mark. They did not sell the service mark so far as I can tell, they licensed the mark. A common occurrence. Personally, I tend to agree that having both a commercial and charity with a name so similar is nearly guaranteed to cause confusion but as long as they don't lie i'm not sure it's illegal, just stupid. If stupid were illegal, most of us would be in the clink some of the time.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> All of the S1s I found say that they took a non cash charge of .4, .4 and .2 million related to the stock warrant issued to Lance. There are differing amts of stock but all are consistent that the combined total to Lance and CSE are always 1.25 million shares at $6 per share issued at the earlier of the IPO or 2018. All the S1, consistently say they they are for Lance's endorsement services which is above board.
> 
> There are also 1.25 million shares to LAF for the use of their service mark.
> 
> I see nothing to support your claim that Demand Media paid Lance a cash payment of $13 million or that they paid anyone but the LAF for the rights to the service mark. They did not sell the service mark so far as I can tell, they licensed the mark. A common occurrence. Personally, I tend to agree that having both a commercial and charity with a name so similar is nearly guaranteed to cause confusion but as long as they don't lie i'm not sure it's illegal, just stupid. If stupid were illegal, most of us would be in the clink some of the time.


I never said they paid him $13 million in cash, That was the difference in the stock and the stock price. There are variable amounts and strike prices in the various S-1. The last one had it at 625,000 shares of our common stock at $12.00 and had Armstrong selling up to 32,500 shares at the IPO. 

I agree, stupid not Illegal. I have never said anything different. Given the choice I would give my funds to smart charities.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I never said they paid him $13 million in cash, That was the difference in the stock and the stock price. There are variable amounts and strike prices in the various S-1. The last one had it at 625,000 shares of our common stock at $12.00 and had Armstrong selling up to 32,500 shares at the IPO.
> 
> I agree, stupid not Illegal. I have never said anything different. Given the choice I would give my funds to smart charities.


Sorry, yes you did say stock not cash. My mistake.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> The brand Livestrong is owned by the Foundation. Despite this Demand Media Gave Armstrong stock worth over $13,000,000 to use a brand that he does not own. This was publicly filed as part of their S1 I gave you multiple experts who say that this is a conflict of interest.


But, they clearly didn't give him the stock for the trademark, they gave it to him for services. The S1 says the gave the stock to the LAF for the service mark. That clearly isn't the same.


----------



## Gatorback

Snpiperpilot said:


> Gatorback and MarkS: You both seem to indicate that charity, in general, gets inadequate oversight from their boards ( not putting words in your mouths but that seems to be what I take out from your statements). Given that there are places that also do oversight and rank charities on efficiency already, what else do you think is needed to help the public make informed decisions?


1. First and foremost, you need honest and ethical people running these business (and for-profit businesses for that matter), but unfortunately our society does not always work that way;

2. Government will never discover all misdeeds, no matter how much oversight there is, but adequate funding to investigate is appropriate (I'm not going to try to say what "adequate" funding would be because that is a matter of legitimate debate and depends on many factors such as how stringent reporting regulations are, how many businesses are out there to keep an eye one, and so on)--MarkS did report the 990 has been strengthened and that is a step in the right direction;

3. Honest, ethical, and politically unbiased governmental investigators and attorneys help (there are lots of them out there, but these agencies aren't immune from their own rats and/or spineless folks who cave to political pressure);

4. Independent organizations that rate and supervise non-profits can help; and

5. Effective investigations to discovery the wrongdoers, punish them, and deter others from such conduct.

There are other ways. I'd get into the issue of private attorney's general, shareholder derivative suits, and similar procedural issues, but those get politically heated. And, admittedly, there is the potential for abuse there as well. 

This all goes back to #1 above in the long run. 

Can we trust the people running all this stuff associated with Lance Armstrong? I have some significant concerns. I've not gone to check Falsetti's numbers on the travel budget issue, but they are probably verifiable and I've got no reason to doubt him. That issue alone raises big time red flags in my assessment. 

There is no one answer on how to prevent abuse and misuse of charitable organizations. But there are a lot of little things which, when combined, can make a real difference.

Now if you want to really look at some wrongdoers lets start talking about some for-profit businesses. But I would think that is for a political forum.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

I did a bit of research by looking at the audited financials of the LAF for the last 7 years.




Code:


Year	Travel	Advertising
2003	$96,000.00	$190,000.00
2004	$368,000.00	$1,613.313
2005	$1,077,132.00	$3,024,372.00
2006	$1,053,169.00	$2,315,782.00
2007	$983,194.00	$2,027,711.00
2008	$1,479,743.00	$2,379,929.00
2009	$1,922,995.00	$4,195,187.00

The cost are pretty consistent except for that last year of advertising. I think that look a bit odd in context. The travel on the whole doesn't seem really awful but before we were throwing a 4 million dollar number around. I found that too but the current figures are all from the same spot in each years report so I think they're reasonably consistent.

I don't see any really odd travel numbers, certainly nothing to show the plane issue showing up. Additionally, that wasn't registered till late 2009 so I don't think that shows up yet. If, indeed, it ever does.

Overall, the numbers seem pretty consistent save that one addvertising number.

One last thing on the Demand Media issue. When they entered into the deal, Demand Media wasn't public and the IPO could just as easily have tanked and the option would have been worthless. A risk that happen every day. My brother has company options that are $20 under water and may never have value.

BTW, as a consumer, I'd never use the livestong.com site, frankly it's a piece of **** like nearly everything Demand Media does. I don't get how they make money.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> I did a bit of research by looking at the audited financials of the LAF for the last 7 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Year	Travel	Advertising
> 2003	$96,000.00	$190,000.00
> 2004	$368,000.00	$1,613.313
> 2005	$1,077,132.00	$3,024,372.00
> 2006	$1,053,169.00	$2,315,782.00
> 2007	$983,194.00	$2,027,711.00
> 2008	$1,479,743.00	$2,379,929.00
> 2009	$1,922,995.00	$4,195,187.00
> 
> The cost are pretty consistent except for that last year of advertising. I think that look a bit odd in context. The travel on the whole doesn't seem really awful but before we were throwing a 4 million dollar number around. I found that too but the current figures are all from the same spot in each years report so I think they're reasonably consistent.
> 
> I don't see any really odd travel numbers, certainly nothing to show the plane issue showing up. Additionally, that wasn't registered till late 2009 so I don't think that shows up yet. If, indeed, it ever does.
> 
> Overall, the numbers seem pretty consistent save that one addvertising number.
> 
> One last thing on the Demand Media issue. When they entered into the deal, Demand Media wasn't public and the IPO could just as easily have tanked and the option would have been worthless. A risk that happen every day. My brother has company options that are $20 under water and may never have value.
> 
> BTW, as a consumer, I'd never use the livestong.com site, frankly it's a piece of **** like nearly everything Demand Media does. I don't get how they make money.


BPC:idea: 

Livestrong
Travel $1,922,995.00 
Advertising $4,195,187 
Revenue $35,284,215.

National Cancer Coalition 
Travel $108,559 
Advertising $4,960
NCC Revenue* $170,196,570*

Get it?


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> BPC:idea:
> 
> Livestrong
> Travel $1,922,995.00
> Advertising $4,195,187
> Revenue $35,284,215.
> 
> National Cancer Coalition
> Travel $108,559
> Advertising $4,960
> NCC Revenue* $170,196,570*
> 
> Get it?


You may not like how they run it but it isn't the story you've been telling. Their program has been consistent. They didn't suddenly start running numbers that support your position. I agree that the national cancer coalition has great numbers but I have no understanding of why or how that happens any more than you have insight into how livestrong chooses to spent their money. Overall, Livestrong has decent numbers on charity navigator. 

We could just as easily choose the girl scouts,they spent $ 29 million on travel in 2009. Are you going to start beating up on cookie sellers outside the supermarket next?

I know you can't be even passingly objective about this but you should at least try. .Are you ready to admit that you don't know what they spent the travel money on? That you have no insight into how they decide to spend the money? That you have no actual knowledge of the internal planning and operations? Saying it's awful doesn't make it awful no matter how often you say it. I gave you numbers, you gave me theories. I don't pretend to know how the spending was decided upon or if they are happy with how they chose to spent it. I guess that's the real difference. I admit what I do and do not know while you just keep making the same stuff up and calling it the truth.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> You may not like how they run it but it isn't the story you've been telling. Their program has been consistent. They didn't suddenly start running numbers that support your position. I agree that the national cancer coalition has great numbers but I have no understanding of why or how that happens any more than you have insight into how livestrong chooses to spent their money. Overall, Livestrong has decent numbers on charity navigator.
> 
> We could just as easily choose the girl scouts,they spent $ 29 million on travel in 2009. Are you going to start beating up on cookie sellers outside the supermarket next?
> 
> I know you can't be even passingly objective about this but you should at least try. .Are you ready to admit that you don't know what they spent the travel money on? That you have no insight into how they decide to spend the money? That you have no actual knowledge of the internal planning and operations? Saying it's awful doesn't make it awful no matter how often you say it. I gave you numbers, you gave me theories. I don't pretend to know how the spending was decided upon or if they are happy with how they chose to spent it. I guess that's the real difference. I admit what I do and do not know while you just keep making the same stuff up and calling it the truth.


Is this a joke? a 500% increase in 4 years is consistent? It is clear you have no interest in a real discussion of this topic.


----------



## Byke Dood

Mr. Scary said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'll bet Armstrong wished he had stayed retired the first time at this point...:thumbsup:






You know he really doesn't like to lose :mad2: 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQsqS-mY3jI


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Is this a joke? a 500% increase in 4 years is consistent? It is clear you have no interest in a real discussion of this topic.


Just when I think it's impossible for you to be more obtuse you surprise me.  In the same period their overall program increased by a bit over 2.5 fold as well. So, while the last year is higher, not anywhere near the extent to which you proclaim it. Still waiting for all the data on the airplane. And the windfall stock option and the internal reports on how they spent the money and on and on and on. I find it fascinating how you answer the stuff you like and ignore all the stuff you don't. Did that attention to detail help a lot with your racing career or it is just reserved for internet web sites?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Just when I think it's impossible for you to be more obtuse you surprise me. In the same period their overall program increased by a bit over 2.5 fold as well. So, while the last year is higher, not anywhere near the extent to which you proclaim it. Still waiting for all the data on the airplane. And the windfall stock option and the internal reports on how they spent the money and on and on and on. I find it fascinating how you answer the stuff you like and ignore all the stuff you don't. Did that attention to detail help a lot with your racing career or it is just reserved for internet web sites?


Math is not your strong suit is it? 

Travel cost went up 500% while revenue when up 100%, hardly consistent. I have given you plenty of facts, figures, comparisons. You chose to ignore them.


----------



## samh

better not to argue with someone who doesn't know what's going on.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Math is not your strong suit is it?
> 
> Travel cost went up 500% while revenue when up 100%, hardly consistent. I have given you plenty of facts, figures, comparisons. You chose to ignore them.


No, you give me numbers that fit your "facts". I just give you numbers and refuse to make up facts. 

Still waiting for all the other answers. No answer on where your fake plane facts come from? No answer on where your fake experts come from after I debunk them. No answer on how you "know" the internal decisions processes of an organization you are not part of. 

None of these "facts" are interesting so you ignore them. When you start acknowledging the things you don't know, it mike make the ones you might actually know more credible. In the instant case travel went up 2.5 time relative to overall size. I don't have an explanations to why but instead of making up facts (big plane, lances ego etc) I just say I don't know. You, never say I dont know. Interesting.


----------



## rubbersoul

what a bunch of clowns


----------



## Big-foot

Snpiperpilot said:


> No, you give me numbers that fit your "facts". I just give you numbers and refuse to make up facts.


Oh, you mean like "5000 tests"? Numbers like that? Which would mean getting tested every day, seven days a week for nearly 14 years? I get it now. Thank you for explaining.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Big-foot said:


> Oh, you mean like "5000 tests"? Numbers like that? Which would mean getting tested every day, seven days a week for nearly 14 years? I get it now. Thank you for explaining.


I admitted I had that number wrong. Do you feel better now. Your contribution was so insightful. Sitting on the sidelines taking cheap shots is easy. Jump in and add something useful to the conversation.


----------



## covenant

chiguhrr said:


> Chiguhrr doesn't do "cheap shot."
> 
> Chiguhrr reads the coin.
> 
> The coin has been called re Armstrong on doping and fraud.
> 
> Are you having problems reading the coin? It's very simple. That is why I suspected emotions were clouding your coin reading.
> 
> Hate is an emotion too and while I know that you don't like the good Doctor Falsetti for reading the Armstrong coin, I didn't think you hated him.
> 
> Disliking the readers of the coin is IMHO, a very strange phenomenon. Sometimes this dislike rises to level of hate, and the coin reader is killed. This is also known as "killing the messenger." Perhaps you can explain this phenomenon to me. I'm simple, I just read the coin.
> 
> Armstrong called heads. Tails came up. He has a future reservation in a place called Lompoc.
> 
> Doctor Falsetti has done a good job explaining how the coin in the Armstrong situation has come to its final resting place on Tails. I don't do that. I just read the coin.
> 
> The good Doctor has explained the coin's somesaults, midair twisting, bouncing, rolling, hiding, getting lost amidst the other coins, but no matter the journey, there are only two possible answers.
> 
> The answer here is tails. Why are you having difficulty reading the coin?
> 
> Chiguhrr.
> 
> BTW, Armstrong doesn't believe "Hope rides again." He believes in the coin, and as you know, he who lives by the coin, dies by the coin.
> 
> I'll be happy to straighten you out further if you request it.


Where were you in '07?


----------



## pretender

chiguhrr gets it atmo


----------



## covenant

chiguhrr said:


> El Paso, but I get around.
> 
> I'm known as Mr. Ubiquitous.
> 
> You can call me Anton.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Chiguhrr


No, I mean you should have used that material in 2007, when that schtick would have been funny. :thumbsup:


----------



## Big-foot

*Dear Sir..*



Snpiperpilot said:


> I admitted I had that number wrong. Do you feel better now. Your contribution was so insightful. Sitting on the sidelines taking cheap shots is easy. Jump in and add something useful to the conversation.


If you owned up to the "5000 tests" fallacy then I apologize for poking at you. I never saw such a post. I hope that you can see that your courtroom standard of verifiable facts on this board would seem very hypocritical if you had indeed not acknowledged that.

As far as joining in on this thread's ongoing debate, I have to admit that the good Dr. does a fine job of representing my opinion and frankly I don't have the time that you and he seem to have for researching facts and composing posts 

Now if you'll excuse me, rain is coming in a few hours and will continue through the weekend. So I'm getting out for a couple of hours on the bike. I hope that you can do the same.

Bigfoot


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Big-foot said:


> If you owned up to the "5000 tests" fallacy then I apologize for poking at you. I never saw such a post. I hope that you can see that your courtroom standard of verifiable facts on this board would seem very hypocritical if you had indeed not acknowledged that.
> 
> As far as joining in on this thread's ongoing debate, I have to admit that the good Dr. does a fine job of representing my opinion and frankly I don't have the time that you and he seem to have for researching facts and composing posts
> 
> Now if you'll excuse me, rain is coming in a few hours and will continue through the weekend. So I'm getting out for a couple of hours on the bike. I hope that you can do the same.
> 
> Bigfoot


Honest enough. Heading out now. Weather overcast but no rain. Sun this weekend!!

chiguhrr: Coin? Really. Isn't that just admitting defeat? Is that supposed to be clever? Mostly is just sounds silly. No coin involved. Coins aren't deterministic. If being clever, you mean he chose wrong, that may yet be the case but isn't now.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

chiguhrr said:


> Arguing with the coin makes as much sense as spitting into the wind.


It's true that DrF is full of hot air.... Point taken.


----------



## rubbersoul

Snpiperpilot said:


> It's true that DrF is full of hot air.... Point taken.


pot calling the kettle black?


----------



## Snpiperpilot

chiguhrr said:


> Bad analogy.
> 
> Doctorr Falsetti tells the truth. Tails.
> 
> Snpiperpilot is either in fantasyland or is not telling the truth.


Honestly, my comment was meant to be humor but since you choose, once again, to libel me, I'll defend myself, one last time. I don't agree with the lies that falsetti tells, and I guess that means we will never see eye to eye.

I see the facts, I am curious about them. Examples being the travel and ad revenue for Livestrong.org. They are, to some degree, odd. But, whereas I find them just odd, Dr F makes up reasons. He has no knowledge of why they spent that money but felt free to speculate. The same is true, mostly, for the whole doping situation. There are lots of rumors, lots of "people tell me" statements in what Dr F says. That isn't any kind of objective evidence. Lance may well be guilty as heck and while I would find that sad, it will be what it will be. But, I haven't made up a result when none exists. Does that make me a pot calling the kettle onyx. No, I don't think so.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Snpiperpilot said:


> Honestly, my comment was meant to be humor but since you choose, once again, to libel me, I'll defend myself, one last time. I don't agree with the lies that falsetti tells, and I guess that means we will never see eye to eye.
> 
> I see the facts, I am curious about them. Examples being the travel and ad revenue for Livestrong.org. They are, to some degree, odd. But, whereas I find them just odd, Dr F makes up reasons. He has no knowledge of why they spent that money but felt free to speculate. The same is true, mostly, for the whole doping situation. There are lots of rumors, lots of "people tell me" statements in what Dr F says. That isn't any kind of objective evidence. Lance may well be guilty as heck and while I would find that sad, it will be what it will be. But, I haven't made up a result when none exists. Does that make me a pot calling the kettle onyx. No, I don't think so.


Funny how you try to ignore the multiple comparision I have given that show that Livestrong's travel expenses are way out of line for a charity of their size. 

Remember when I told you that this investigation was not only about drugs, that Doug Miller was running the show and Novitzky was just one of multiple investigators? Your response was pure obfustication. 

Charles Pelkey had a good story up on Velonews today. It appears that the investigation, far from being stalled, is growing with the involvement of multiple agencies.......confirming what I wrote. 




> sources close to the case told VeloNews that the investigation now involves several federal agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and both the civil and criminal divisions of the Department of Justice.
> 
> Assistant U.S. Attorney Doug Miller continues to head the Department of Justice team in the Central District of California, while balancing that with remaining items on his prior case load. Fellow Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Williams has been assigned full-time to the case. Novitzky has recently shifted his attention away from the Armstrong investigation to the upcoming trial of former San Francisco Giants star Barry Bonds


Before you start to make up things about Pelkey you should know he is a licensed attorney with a good contacts in the legal system. He writes


> the Armstrong case is moving forward, with witnesses having been interviewed as recently as this past week.


----------



## curtw

Doctor Falsetti said:


> ...Remember when I told you that this investigation was not only about drugs, that Doug Miller was running the show and Novitzky was just one of multiple investigators? Your response was pure obfustication.


I refudiate your obfustication!


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Funny how you try to ignore the multiple comparision I have given that show that Livestrong's travel expenses are way out of line for a charity of their size.
> 
> Remember when I told you that this investigation was not only about drugs, that Doug Miller was running the show and Novitzky was just one of multiple investigators? Your response was pure obfustication.
> 
> Charles Pelkey had a good story up on Velonews today. It appears that the investigation, far from being stalled, is growing with the involvement of multiple agencies.......confirming what I wrote.
> 
> Before you start to make up things about Pelkey you should know he is a licensed attorney with a good contacts in the legal system. He writes


Not making anything up. Witnesses were interviewed. Wow, damning evidence. They may well have said Lance had a ham sandwich. Almost as useful as your c-1 link.

Can you provide a link? The only article I could find from today on Velonews was about biological passports.

BTW, convenient of you not to mention this article about how annoyed congress is about the FDA.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...gation-of-armstrong-doping-allegations_163459

Doug Miller still doesn't run the show no matter how much you want him to. The FDA doesn't work for him. And while the FBI reports to the Attorney General, Doug Miller doesn't direct their work either. He uses what they find. He doesn't get to decide, directly what they do.


----------



## Big-foot

Snpiperpilot said:


> Not making anything up. Witnesses were interviewed. Wow, damning evidence. They may well have said Lance had a ham sandwich. Almost as useful as your c-1 link.
> 
> Can you provide a link? The only article I could find from today on Velonews was about biological passports.
> 
> BTW, convenient of you not to mention this article about how annoyed congress is about the FDA.
> 
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/03/news/georgia-congressman-questions-fda-investigation-of-armstrong-doping-allegations_163459
> 
> Doug Miller still doesn't run the show no matter how much you want him to. The FDA doesn't work for him. And while the FBI reports to the Attorney General, Doug Miller doesn't direct their work either. He uses what they find. He doesn't get to decide, directly what they do.


That IS the Pelkey article. Perhaps you didn't read the second part?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Big-foot said:


> That IS the Pelkey article. Perhaps you didn't read the second part?


Reading and Math has proved to be a bit of a challenge for him in the past.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

chiguhrr said:


> Libel?
> 
> I left you an out. You're operating under the illusion of Armstrong's innocence.
> 
> He's going to prison. Face reality.


I need no out. Libel is defined as making knowingly false statement. I an neiterh in fantasyland nor lying. And I am not they guy who rambled on about coins. 

I'll face reality when it is. I'm on record as saying I believe he doped but what I believe and what anyone has proved are not the same. I don't honestly understand why that is a tough concept.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

Big-foot said:


> That IS the Pelkey article. Perhaps you didn't read the second part?


It's not under his byline. We have idea what his "contribution" was. 

Since it wasn't under his name, I assumed you meant another one. Additionally, since that one had no new info I though you must have another articl in mind. If that's a "good" story I guess a bad one would be really awful. It says, interestingly, that Novisky isn't on the case anymore. It also says that they interviewed people. That's incredibly damaging data. That may explain why the headline ignored it. I suppose they could have gotten some cheap page views by saying Tiger woods knows nothing about the Lance Armstrong case but they thought that would be equally misleading.


----------



## Snpiperpilot

chiguhrr said:


> Go on, call it!
> 
> I eagerly await the lawsuit.:lol:


Ooh another coin joke. You da man....


----------

