# Why was the Fed case dismissed?



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...port-lance-raises-questions-article-1.1173205

This is a question that will be asked often in the next few weeks



> “It’s hard to see why the United States Attorney’s office backed off,” said Golden Gate University law professor and dean emeritus Peter Keane. “The bottom line for both agencies was this: Was Lance Armstrong doping? So why would one agency, USADA, move forward and strip Armstrong of everything while another agency, the U.S. Attorney’s office, dropped everything?
> 
> “The U.S. Attorney will have to come up with some fairly substantial explanations as to why he didn’t go forward with this,” Keane added.





> the USADA report is not going to make the Los Angeles prosecutors look great.”


It will be answered.....and will include a few big politicians


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

"Was Lance Armstrong Doping?" was not the _bottom line_ in the federal case. 


Next!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Flying across state lines, and international borders, with drugs and undeclared cash. Wire fraud, Mail Fraud, Witness intimidation.....

Next


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Well now you've gone and disagreed with Prof Keane who says the bottom line is whether Armstrong doped. 

Maybe we can both agree that Prof Keane has no idea what he's talking about. He was demonstrably false when he said that "the U.S. Attorney will have to come up with some fairly substantial explanations as to why he didn’t go forward with this.” Prosecutors do not need to explain why they drop charges.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Well now you've gone and disagreed with Prof Keane who says the bottom line is whether Armstrong doped.
> 
> Maybe we can both agree that Prof Keane has no idea what he's talking about. He was demonstrably false when he said that "the U.S. Attorney will have to come up with some fairly substantial explanations as to why he didn’t go forward with this.” Prosecutors do not need to explain why they drop charges.


Nice selective edit. 

The USADA case will have clear evidence of criminal activity. Multiple investigators from multiple agencies along with both prosecutors agreed there was overwhelming evidence to support convictions. Charging papers were drawn up. The political pressure that resulted in this case being dropped will be exposed. 

Sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending nothing is wrong will not work.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nice selective edit.


What selective edit? Aside from capitalization of a single letter we posted the exact same quote.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The political pressure that resulted in this case being dropped will be exposed.


As it should be. It needs to be addressed if there was political pressure applied that resulted in this case being dropped for other than sound legal reasons.

However so far ONLY ONE cycling related entity has begun sorting this out, and even then only began to do so after a federal agency left them all but no choice after having done most of the work themselves while investigating associated federal crimes. The reasons behind the systemic failures also need to be determined and addressed.

Routing out LA is a great step, but IMO it does little to address what is happening in pro cycling NOW. It goes a long way to sorting out a black period that for the most part is now part of cycling's past. (Yes I know LA is still trying to compete in Tris etc... But the Postal doping thing was at its height a decade ago.)

To address what is happening in cycling now, and make lasting changes for the future, the systemic failures of the governing bodies and anti-doping agencies in dealing with this need to be examined, addressed, and real institutional changes made.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> As it should be. It needs to be addressed if there was political pressure applied that resulted in this case being dropped for other than sound legal reasons.
> 
> However so far ONLY ONE cycling related entity has begun sorting this out, and even then only began to do so after a federal agency left them all but no choice after having done most of the work themselves while investigating associated federal crimes. The reasons behind the systemic failures also need to be determined and addressed.
> 
> ...


Except, again, Armstrong was involved in an U23 team, the DS who is also under investigation by USADA is DS of a Protour team, the docs under investigation continue to work with athletes (one of them being Contador.) There could/should be sanctions handed down to a number of riders and staff who are currently involved in the sport (unless some really impressive deal was given.) How does that not relate to what's happening in cycling NOW? 

There's some kind of lack of understanding out there that this is limited to LA; it's not. It's a much broader scope than one guy, but you have to start somewhere.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I just assumed it was either election year politics, or L.A. has some important friends in high places. As someone else said elsewhere, the cancer card is a powerful one to play; and Lance is either very fortunate to be able to play it or very astute. He latched on to something that resonates through practically every family in the developed world.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> What selective edit? Aside from capitalization of a single letter we posted the exact same quote.


It is rather simple. 

It is well known that they are not legally mandated to explain why they dropped the case but over the next several months there will be an avalanche of evidence introduced into the public domain. USADA will release their decision, Kimmage will expose the corruption of the UCI, The Qui Tam case will move forward, the political pressure that influenced the dropping of the criminal case will be exposed in the national media. It will be hard to ignore the evidence of criminal activity. There will be pressure for them to explain their actions. 

Some would like to pretend that nobody cares. That it is just about needles. The media does not agree with this. 60 Minutes, Sports Illustrated, Wall Street Journal, NYT, NYDN,........they all think the public cares. There will be significant media coverage of this mess, making the obvious harder to ignore


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> Except, again, Armstrong was involved in an U23 team, the DS who is also under investigation by USADA is DS of a Protour team, the docs under investigation continue to work with athletes (one of them being Contador.) There could/should be sanctions handed down to a number of riders and staff who are currently involved in the sport (unless some really impressive deal was given.) How does that not relate to what's happening in cycling NOW?
> 
> There's some kind of lack of understanding out there that this is limited to LA; it's not. It's a much broader scope than one guy, but you have to start somewhere.


You're right! It certainly isn't limited solely to LA in scope. And it does relate to what's happening now because many are still active. The scope IMO needs to be broader still.

In this case what is happening is the prosecution of a relatively small group of individuals for violations that for the most part took place a decade ago. Which is good! But, many others slipped though undetected, and many continue to slip though undetected. How do you get them ALL? Or at least get more of them, and get them sooner? IMO the systemic failings that occurred here need to be addressed as well, and not just individuals prosecuted.

Basically the systems that exist to prevent these problems didn't work as they should have. Why? If that question can be answered, and the proper changes implemented, hopefully we can go a long way to ensuring nothing like this happens again, and having a cleaner more credible sport.

Moving forward I think things need to be done MUCH better. The way this has all gone down is pathetic. He should have been nailed in '99 or at least in '01 for a positive test. Actually probably before then... And multiple times!!! It didn't happen, it should have, and that pisses me off!!!

Anyone still think LA is my buddy? :thumbsup:

Do you now see where my exceptions to the USADA and the FDA lie?

USADA took way too long to get its ass in gear, and probably wouldn't have unless the FDA kicked it!! But because they are now anti-LA? Lets give their F$%&ups a free pass...... They're GREAT!!! :thumbsup: 

The FDA process was bad for sport! It was a legally and ethically questionable process that wasted millions selectively targeting a big fish that got through the net rather than fixing the net. WAY after the fact, and so Novitzky could solidify his rep as the 'Elliot Ness' of sport. Great you got him! (sort of...) But there are others... This isn't the fix cycling needs!!! But because the FDA is anti-LA? They're GREAT!! :thumbsup:

Landis and Tyler? Because they cheated and lied for years, and in Floyd's case defrauded on a grand scale, but are now Anti-LA? Free pass... They're GREAT! :thumbsup:

Hypo-fukking-critical bull$&#$ from simple minds who are following the crowd to jump on the hate LA bandwagon. Celebrating the darkest chapter in the history of a sport I love... Because you know.... Thats where the well informed crowd hangs out!!! 

Makes me as sick as those who blindly apologize for him, but at least in their case I can sympathize. Nobody likes finding out Santa Claus and the Easter bunny aren't real... The issue isn't as black and white as so many here would love for it to be....

LA? He's done!!! The only question is how bad the final car wreck is going to be and how long its going to burn.... That's obvious. But while everyone is rubbernecking, few are focused on where the freeway leads or on fixing the freeway so another pileup like this never happens!!!

Not directed at you Rob, or anyone in particular..... Honestly, just needed a good rant....


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Flying across state lines, and international borders, with drugs and undeclared cash. Wire fraud, Mail Fraud, Witness intimidation.....
> 
> Next


Yes, but I note nowhere do you refer to using illegal or performance enhancing drugs. So how is the bottom line was Armstrong doping? He could have engaged in the above listed activities without ever partaking himself. He could have been doped to the gills, but never done anything on your list.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is rather simple.
> 
> It is well known that they are not legally mandated to explain why they dropped the case but over the next several months there will be an avalanche of evidence introduced into the public domain. USADA will release their decision, Kimmage will expose the corruption of the UCI, The Qui Tam case will move forward, the political pressure that influenced the dropping of the criminal case will be exposed in the national media. It will be hard to ignore the evidence of criminal activity. There will be pressure for them to explain their actions.
> 
> Some would like to pretend that nobody cares. That it is just about needles. The media does not agree with this. 60 Minutes, Sports Illustrated, Wall Street Journal, NYT, NYDN,........they all think the public cares. There will be significant media coverage of this mess, making the obvious harder to ignore


All these things you love to bring up don't matter. As you like to point out, the USADA is not a federal agency. The Feds have a much greater burden of proof than the USADA, so it's not that much of a surprise that they dropped charges. The Feds also cannot cut the same deals the USADA can to get teammates to talk. The corruption of the UCI? A meaningless tangent to the Federal case. Qui Tam? Who the hell is Qui Tam? Then there is the whole jurisdictional problem. Give me a break. There is no public clamor for an explanation. They probably had some evidence, but so what? That's not how trials work. It was a loser case that rightfully got dropped. And in the end, the public doesn't care about a cycling team doping in Europe a decade ago. The only explanation the public wants is why did we waste all this money and time in the first place? Nobody cares.

The USADA hasn't actually proven anything, by the way. Armstrong capitulated, and USADA never got its chance. Because there will be no hearing, a lot of their evidence will never be challenged, so they can play fast and loose and present whatever they want as "fact." Science will never be questioned. Witnesses will never be cross examined. Armstrong gave up that right with the USADA, but that would not be the case at a Federal trial. Everything would be challenged, and some of it would likely be thrown out or discredited. Based on the progression of the trial, some "evidence" would never have been presented. I know you will take anything the USADA says as fact, but in a real Federal trial, a jury won't. And the Feds obviously didn't think they had enough to go to trial.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

asgelle said:


> Yes, but I note nowhere do you refer to using illegal or performance enhancing drugs. So how is the bottom line was Armstrong doping? He could have engaged in the above listed activities without ever partaking himself. He could have been doped to the gills, but never done anything on your list.


In the criminal case charging papers were drawn up against multiple individuals for fraud, witness tampering, mail fraud, and drug distribution. there were ‘no weaknesses in the case’.



> “I talked to someone within the investigation but the reason why the case was shut down was due to a one-man decision. The evidence against those involved was absolutely overwhelming. They were going to be charged with a slew of crimes but for reasons unexplained he closed the case saying it wasn't open for discussion,” the source said.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/con...al-investigation-into-armstrong-and-us-postal


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> In the criminal case charging papers were drawn up against multiple individuals for fraud, witness tampering, mail fraud, and drug distribution. there were ‘no weaknesses in the case’.


Nice dodge, but don't change the subject.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> In the criminal case charging papers were drawn up against multiple individuals for fraud, witness tampering, mail fraud, and drug distribution. there were ‘no weaknesses in the case’.


Feel free to repeat things ad naseum but please stop being so dramatic and absurd. Every case has weaknesses. 

Moreover, IIRC the focus of the federal case was use of federal money (USPS) for systemic doping. Not merely doping. 

You should know this. Several here pointed out Armstrong's false talking point, that USADA was pursuing the same charges that the feds couldn't make stick. We knew that talking point was bogus because the focus of the two investigations was different. 

It's intellectually dishonest to now assert that the two investigations had the same scope and purpose. You're not doing anyone any favors by contradicting yourself and repeating what some ignorant law prof said.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> All these things you love to bring up don't matter. As you like to point out, the USADA is not a federal agency. The Feds have a much greater burden of proof than the USADA, so it's not that much of a surprise that they dropped charges. The Feds also cannot cut the same deals the USADA can to get teammates to talk. The corruption of the UCI? A meaningless tangent to the Federal case. Qui Tam? Who the hell is Qui Tam? Then there is the whole jurisdictional problem. Give me a break. There is no public clamor for an explanation. They probably had some evidence, but so what? That's not how trials work. It was a loser case that rightfully got dropped. And in the end, the public doesn't care about a cycling team doping in Europe a decade ago. The only explanation the public wants is why did we waste all this money and time in the first place? Nobody cares.
> 
> The USADA hasn't actually proven anything, by the way. Armstrong capitulated, and USADA never got its chance. Because there will be no hearing, a lot of their evidence will never be challenged, so they can play fast and loose and present whatever they want as "fact." Science will never be questioned. Witnesses will never be cross examined. Armstrong gave up that right with the USADA, but that would not be the case at a Federal trial. Everything would be challenged, and some of it would likely be thrown out or discredited. Based on the progression of the trial, some "evidence" would never have been presented. I know you will take anything the USADA says as fact, but in a real Federal trial, a jury won't. And the Feds obviously didn't think they had enough to go to trial.


Nice talking points!:thumbsup: Too bad you wasted all that time writing that post but added nothing of value. 

Investigators from multiple agencies and both prosecutors agreed that the evidence was overwhelming



> the reason why the case was shut down was due to a one-man decision. The evidence against those involved was absolutely overwhelming. They were going to be charged with a slew of crimes but for reasons unexplained he closed the case saying it wasn't open for discussion


The Feds can, and do, cut deals all the time. 

I suggest you Google FCPA if you think paying off the UCI is meaningless. There is a reason the FBI interviewed Martial Saugy

Qui Tam is the Whistle blower case

This is not about something that happened a decade ago in Europe. We both know that is not the case. USADA has plenty of evidence of recent activity of people currently involved in the sport

USADA's evidence is overwhelming. If it helps you to continue to believe the myth then by all means pretend there is nothing there......just don't expect everyone else to think the same as you do

You are welcome to pretend that nobody cares. Come back after a few months of heavy media coverage that exposes not just the overwhelming evidence of criminal activity but also the political interference that led to the recommendations of the investigators and prosecutors being ignored


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is rather simple.


Uhm. Why did you say "nice selective edit"? 

I think it's because you didn't fully understand the quote that you posted. And when I pointed out the absurdity of the quote you were surprised. But that's just my theory. What's your explanation? 




> It is well known that they are not legally mandated to explain why they dropped the case


It's not well known to Prof Keane, if we go by what he said in the article. He appeared to be fully ignorant of prosecutorial discretion. 


> over the next several months there will be an avalanche of evidence introduced into the public domain. USADA will release their decision, Kimmage will expose the corruption of the UCI, The Qui Tam case will move forward, the political pressure that influenced the dropping of the criminal case will be exposed in the national media. It will be hard to ignore the evidence of criminal activity.


First off, LOL at the public at large and media caring about this. The story is getting really tiresome. People are losing interest. Maybe 5 minutes a day, a few articles on sports pages, and a joke on the Late Show. But it's not going to be breaking news. You need some perspective. 

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that all of your predictions come true: More evidence comes out and there is national outrage....

Why would this: 


> There will be pressure for them [the feds] to explain their actions.


be true? 

Why would the feds have to explain why they dropped a case in Feb 2012 in light of evidence released from an investigation that concluded in Oct 2012? 

The only required explanation is prosecutorial discretion. Full stop. 

If they want to explain anything, they can simply say that the scope of the cases were different, the laws are different and that USADA has different rules of evidence.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Feel free to repeat things ad naseum but please stop being so dramatic and absurd. Every case has weaknesses.
> 
> Moreover, IIRC the focus of the federal case was use of federal money (USPS) for systemic doping. Not merely doping.
> 
> ...


You are confused. 

The Qui Tam case is focused on the use of USPS money to fund a doping program that was expressly forbidden in their agreement. 

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that I am saying the USADA case and the Federal case had the same scope and purpose, as I clearly am not. When the USADA evidence is made public it will be increasingly clear that not only were Armstrong, Bruyneel, and other breaking the rules of the sport but also the laws of the US (and other countries). This is why experts are saying 



> “The U.S. Attorney will have to come up with some fairly substantial explanations as to why he didn’t go forward with this,”


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm not going to repeatedly outline why the federal prosecutor owes no explanation. 

Maybe you are not saying that the cases had the same scope or purpose, but you are now disagreeing with your *expert* who said "The bottom line for both agencies was this: Was Lance Armstrong doping? So why would one agency, USADA, move forward and strip Armstrong of everything while another agency, the U.S. Attorney’s office, dropped everything?"

It seems that the *expert* was wrong in both of his quotes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> The story is getting really tiresome.


I suggest you turn off your computer, TV, and ignore the newspapers and magazines for the next few months. This story is just getting started

As for the rest of your post. I addressed all of your questions already. It is intellectually dishonest of you to pretend that I have not.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nice talking points!:thumbsup: Too bad you wasted all that time writing that post but added nothing of value.
> 
> Investigators from multiple agencies and both prosecutors agreed that the evidence was overwhelming
> 
> ...


I would question your reading comprehension, but now I think it's your extreme bias that prevents you from understanding anything I write.

I'll simplify it for you. The USADA is an arbitration. The federal case would be a trial. I know you know the difference, because you've posted about it several times. The standards are different. The procedures are different. The evidence is different. The charges are different. But now you are trying to convince us they are the same. I love it when your true colors come out.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

asgelle said:


> Nice dodge, but don't change the subject.


Perhaps I misunderstood your question? 

I doubt the Federal case would be much about using PED's, they seldom charge for this. It has been well reported in the links that I have provided that their focus was the organization, funding, and transportation of a sophisticated doping program over several years. Charges were to include 



> fraud, witness tampering, mail fraud, and drug distribution


Note that Lance was far from the only target of this investigation.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

slegros said:


> As it should be. It needs to be addressed if there was political pressure applied that resulted in this case being dropped for other than sound legal reasons.


Let's not forget that it was political pressure that resulted in the case being pursued in the first place.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Let's not forget that it was political pressure that resulted in the case being pursued in the first place.


Link?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I suggest you turn off your computer, TV, and ignore the newspapers and magazines for the next few months. This story is just getting started


Again, you fail to see the relative importance of this saga. I don't know if you read or understood the article that you posted. Here is another quote: 

_The announcement, which offered no explanations about why the case was closed, was made on the Friday before the Super Bowl - *guaranteeing it would get short shrift in the media that weekend*._

Think about that for a moment.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nice talking points!:thumbsup: Too bad you wasted all that time writing that post but added nothing of value.
> 
> Investigators from multiple agencies and both prosecutors agreed that the evidence was overwhelming
> 
> ...


Take your own advice "just don't expect everyone else to think the same as you do"

The media coverage will be stern, but full of lies as well as truths as is the case with the media these days. Also there may be a little thing call an election that might take up some of the media's attention over the next few months. Political interference happens all the time get used to it, the Fed prosecutors have. They choose to fight the battles that they feel are important.
I'm sure LA will continue to ride his bike in tris and organized rides as well. It stings when enemy #1 continues on with his life as hate just boils over the kettle for some.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> I would question your reading comprehension, but now I think it's your extreme bias that prevents you from understanding anything I write.
> 
> I'll simplify it for you. The USADA is an arbitration. The federal case would be a trial. I know you know the difference, because you've posted about it several times. The standards are different. The procedures are different. The evidence is different. The charges are different. But now you are trying to convince us they are the same. I love it when your true colors come out.


It appears your extreme bias prevents you from understanding anything I write. 

I am well aware of the differing standards of proof, but that had nothing to do with the case being dismissed. If you read what I wrote, and the links I provided, the investigators from multiple agencies along with both the prosecutors, felt that they had more then enough evidence to convict. 



> ‘no weaknesses in the case’.





> the case was shut down was due to a one-man decision. The evidence against those involved was absolutely overwhelming. They were going to be charged with a slew of crimes but for reasons unexplained he closed the case saying it wasn't open for discussion,”


One political appointee ignored evidence, and the recommendations of the prosecutors and investigators, and dropped the case. He told them 20 minutes prior to issuing a press release, did not explain his position, and said it was not open for discussion. They even had witnesses coming in that day.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Maybe Armstrong blackmailed the prosecutor.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Link?


Here's your link as it doesn't really seem you need any basis to most of your claims.

Roadbikereview doping forum:
"Sources say political pressure was the cause to go after LA in the first place"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Again, you fail to see the relative importance of this saga. I don't know if you read or understood the article that you posted. Here is another quote:
> 
> _The announcement, which offered no explanations about why the case was closed, was made on the Friday before the Super Bowl - *guaranteeing it would get short shrift in the media that weekend*._
> 
> Think about that for a moment.


Thanks for proving my point. Even the political appointee tried to bury it

Do you think Armstrong being stripped has been a big media story? Cover of many major newspapers, extensive coverage on TV?

So if Sports Illustrated runs a major, multiple page spread on this in the next couple months will you admit you were wrong? If 60 Minutes does a big piece on it? How about if CBS and ABC have it both on their national and morning news? If the WSJ, NYT, NYDN, etc all have big, in depth coverage? Then will you admit you are wrong about nobody caring?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears your extreme bias prevents you from understanding anything I write.
> 
> I am well aware of the differing standards of proof, but that had nothing to do with the case being dismissed. If you read what I wrote, and the links I provided, the investigators from multiple agencies along with both the prosecutors, felt that they had more then enough evidence to convict.
> 
> ...


Source? Link? Oh you don't have one. Oh ok no worries then.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> Source? Link? Oh you don't have one. Oh ok no worries then.


I have given multiple links, but this one covers it well

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/con...al-investigation-into-armstrong-and-us-postal


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

The Feds decided prosecution was not worth the trouble; waste of resources. That is wholly within the prosecutor's discretion. For example, you blow by a State Trooper at 80 in a 70. He decides to finish his doughnut and lets you go. I guess your remedy is to complain to the Dept of Justice and your members of Congress. Good luck.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Bear in mind that dropping a criminal investigation before formal charges are lodged, doesn't preclude re-opening the proceeding down the road. There is no "double jeopardy" prohibition unless jeopardy attaches to a proceeding in the first place. The only bar to re-prosecution in a situation like this is the statute of limitations. In this case, the Govt. would likely rely on a "continuing course of conduct" theory to extend the time.

Also, anyone who appeared before the Federal grand jury received what's called "use and fruits" immunity from prosecution, unless they expressly waived this grant of immunity in the presence of counsel (and no lawyer, anywhere, is going to allow his client to testify after a waiver of immunity, as then there's a Fifth Amendment issue). This means that in addition to the Feds not being able to use their direct testimony, they also can't use any evidence that was obtained as a direct result of their testimony. So, to the extent that "others" may face charges, that would not include those who appeared before the grand jury, unless the Govt. can develop evidence independently of their testimony.

Election year politics only has a shelf life to the first Tuesday in November.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Investigators from multiple agencies and both prosecutors agreed that the evidence was overwhelming


First of all, clearly not all prosecutors agreed because one of them threw it out. And second, so what? They had plenty of evidence against Barry Bonds and failed to convict him. Lots of cases have plenty of evidence and yet they never go to trial. Lots of cases have overwhelming evidence and they still lose! Because juries are unpredictable. And when you are putting on a highly scientific case against an American hero, you better have some pretty exciting testimony to keep them awake. (Yeah, that's what he was at the time to the general public. Deal with it.) 



Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Feds can, and do, cut deals all the time.


Don't be naive. The Feds have no power to do anything to protect a rider from the USADA for giving testimony, and that is what active riders fear the most. Remember, the USADA isn't a government agency. And Armstrong might have feared Federal charges, and maybe Landis, but no other rider did. So the Feds had NO power to cut any deals for testimony.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> I suggest you Google FCPA if you think paying off the UCI is meaningless. There is a reason the FBI interviewed Martial Saugy


No jury gives a damn about the UCI being corrupt. For what the Feds were pursuing, it doesn't matter. Proving the UCI is corrupt, which would require a whole case of its own would only factor them out of the case. No way the Feds go through the expense of fighting jurisdictional battles to bring in witnesses from Europe to prove the UCI was corrupt. And it doesn't matter. If they had enough direct testimony to get Armstrong, they don't need to even mention the UCI.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Qui Tam is the Whistle blower case


No jury gives a damn about Qui Tam. That's a civil matter. The Feds were pursuing criminal charges.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> This is not about something that happened a decade ago in Europe. We both know that is not the case. USADA has plenty of evidence of recent activity of people currently involved in the sport


Oh, are we talking about the USADA now? I thought this was about the Feds? And what the Feds were interested in was something that happened a decade ago in Europe.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA's evidence is overwhelming. If it helps you to continue to believe the myth then by all means pretend there is nothing there......just don't expect everyone else to think the same as you do


What is the myth you keep referring to? I've got to know, because I am constantly confused whenever you mention it. I mean, what are we talking about, the moon landings being staged? Because I don't believe they were. What is this myth you claim I believe in???.

The USADA's evidence may be overwhelming, but it is also UNPROVEN. That's a fact. An incontrovertible fact. You cannot claim otherwise. None of the USADA evidence was ever put up to any kind of challenge. Armstrong willingly gave up that right and deserves the punishment that resulted. But that doesn't mean that all that evidence would have withstood cross examination. Parisotto's backpedaling in the face of the Ferrari rebuttal shows that.

And here's the ironic thing. None of the Fed's evidence was ever put to a challenge, either. But you stand solidly behind both, despite not even knowing what evidence they have!!!! In one case, the accusers walked away. In the other, the accused walked away. But you KNOW you are right, either way. 



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are welcome to pretend that nobody cares. Come back after a few months of heavy media coverage that exposes not just the overwhelming evidence of criminal activity but also the political interference that led to the recommendations of the investigators and prosecutors being ignored


You are right. I shouldn't say that nobody cares. Clearly there are about 10 people who care, of which you are one. The rest of the public doesn't give a damn. No one cared when the FDA went after Armstrong, clearly a political move in an attempt to deflect their failures with Bonds and BALCO, and no one cared when the dropped the whole thing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> First of all, clearly not all prosecutors agreed because one of them threw it out.


Wrong again. Doug Miller and Mark Williams were the two prosecutors. Both agreed on bring charges but their advice was ignored by their boss, a political appointee. 




mohair_chair said:


> So the Feds had NO power to cut any deals for testimony.


You are confused. The Feds certainly can cut deals with co-conspirators in exchange for a lighter sentence. I do not know why you assumed it has anything to do with USADA, I made no reference to them. Not that it matters but as part of Marion Jones plea deal with the Feds she had to accept a sanction and give up her medals. 



mohair_chair said:


> No jury gives a damn about the UCI being corrupt. For what the Feds were pursuing, it doesn't matter. Proving the UCI is corrupt, which would require a whole case of its own would only factor them out of the case. No way the Feds go through the expense of fighting jurisdictional battles to bring in witnesses from Europe to prove the UCI was corrupt.


You didn't Google FCPA did you? It is illegal for a US citizen to bribe a foreign government. After the Salt Lake City Olympic bribery scandal the law was amended to include Organizations like the UCI and the IOC

You may think nobody cares about foreign corruption, but you would be wrong. There has been a huge increase in prosecution of these types of case

Sharp Increases in Recent FCPA Enforcement — The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation




mohair_chair said:


> No jury gives a damn about Qui Tam. That's a civil matter. The Feds were pursuing criminal charges.


Again, you are confused. The Feds have "Joined" the Qui Tam case and will be supporting it on the civil side. My point is clear, the Qui Tam case will bring additional evidence of criminal activity into the public domain, not sure how you do not get that. 



mohair_chair said:


> The Feds were interested in was something that happened a decade ago in Europe.


2010 in Colorado is not a decade ago or in Europe. 



mohair_chair said:


> The USADA's evidence may be overwhelming, but it is also UNPROVEN. That's a fact. An incontrovertible fact. You cannot claim otherwise.


Funny stuff :thumbsup: 



mohair_chair said:


> The rest of the public doesn't give a damn. .


Yet you cared enough to post? You better tell Sports Illustrated, 60 Minutes, NYT, WSJ, NYDN, and all the hundreds of media outlets who think this is big news. "The Secret Race' debuted at #3 on the NYT's bestseller list....how is this possible if nobody cares? It has been in the top 20 for 6 weeks. How is this possible if nobody gives a damn?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

lol @ big news


Sure, the media will run the stories. But there are thousands of stories run every day. 

It's not just that this story is one of a thousand news stories that will be run. It's that it is already an OLD story.

Even if it makes the news, it's not breaking news. Everyone has heard about Armstrong. Everyone who cares has made up their mind. The USADA found him guilty...is it really news when the saga continues?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Blah, blah, blah, whatever. You didn't answer the important question. What is the myth that I supposedly believe in? I need to know.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> lol @ big news
> 
> 
> Sure, the media will run the stories. But there are thousands of stories run every day.
> ...


If nobody cares why is Tyler's book on the bestseller lists of the US and UK? 

Thousands of people paying $20 for a 300 page book about doping.....that is a lot of not caring.


----------



## hummina shadeeba (Oct 15, 2009)

*x*

whats your beef mohair? why do you insist on being contrary? the doctor has his info and youre seeming bitter


----------



## hummina shadeeba (Oct 15, 2009)

*what are you here for?*

for a discussion or just to try to beat the doctor? Youre being contrary just to do it from what it seems.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If nobody cares why is Tyler's book on the bestseller lists of the US and UK?
> 
> Thousands of people paying $20 for a 300 page book about doping.....that is a lot of not caring.


Holy crap. I just checked...52nd overall on the best seller list! I had no idea. And I suppose this enthusiasm will continue nonstop...forever!!!! (or until #1 enemy is burnt at the stake)

Check out the NYT Best Seller List. Listed under Hardcover, Nonfiction is The Secret Race -- securely in 18th place! 
Best Sellers - The New York Times

Note the top ten: 


> 1	NO EASY DAY, by Mark Owen with Kevin Maurer. (Dutton, $26.95.) An account by a former member of the Navy SEALs, written pseudonymously, of the mission that killed bin Laden.
> 
> 2	THE PRICE OF POLITICS, by Bob Woodward. (Simon & Schuster, $30.) Inside the debt-ceiling negotiations of 2011 with the Washington Post journalist.
> 
> ...


I see a book about shooting Osama, two or three books hating on Obama, some books about people being locked up, something about Lincoln written by O'Reilly, and I already forgot the rest. 

Scroll past the top ten. Look at the smaller font: #18 The Secret Race. It's down there. 

BIG NEWS!

THINGS ARE JUST GETTING STARTED!! 

JUST WAIT UNTIL QUI TAM!!!

60 minutes could air a story. I can imagine it now: Someone says mean things about Armstrong. Cut to a clip of Armstrong redirecting attention towards Livestrong. Some evidence is mentioned. Cut to clip of Armstrong saying he's moving on. Imagines of needles and some ex pro talking about how Armstrong supplied drugs. Cut to Armstrong at a charity event saying the focus is to fight this horrible disease. 


Have you ever heard of "rope a dope"? Continued outrage against Armstrong must be exhausting. 




Again, now that USADA won their battle, now that The Secret Race explains the doping and now that Armstrong said that he's not going to fight it or even talk about it any more, what is left?


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I suggest you turn off your computer, TV, and ignore the newspapers and magazines for the next few months. This story is just getting started
> 
> As for the rest of your post. I addressed all of your questions already. It is intellectually dishonest of you to pretend that I have not.


You keep saying this, yet... still no "beef.". Where's the beef? You keep saying "just wait til next week, then you'll see. It's ALL going to come out!" and yet... Still no beef.
<crickets>


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If nobody cares why is Tyler's book on the bestseller lists of the US and UK?
> 
> Thousands of people paying $20 for a 300 page book about doping.....that is a lot of not caring.


Books make the bestseller lists because people find the story interesting. It takes a great leap of faith to believe that all those people actually <u>care</u> about it. But you are really good at making great leaps of faith.

Take the book at #8 on the New York Times non-fiction bestseller list. It's called "Wild," by Cheryl Strayed. It's described as "A woman’s account of a life-changing 1,100-mile hike along the Pacific Crest Trail." Do you believe that everyone who bought that book cares about 1) long distance hiking or 2) the Pacific Crest Trail? Sure, it might inspire a few to do some trekking. But most will think it is a good story, and will move on to the next book, whatever it is.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Holy crap.


So much emotion for something you do not care about. Maybe if you yell louder people will care less?

It debuted at #3 in NYT Non-Fiction. Currently 18th after 6 weeks. Currently 12th in the UK. That is a lot of books about something people do not care about.

The top 3 post on the doping forum have 18,000 + views.....all about the Armstrong case


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Blah, blah, blah, whatever. You didn't answer the important question. What is the myth that I supposedly believe in? I need to know.


Don't hold your breath. 

I humiliated falsetti earlier in this thread when he hung on the words of a "legal expert" who spoke gibberish. Falsetti then claimed that I selectively edited a quote (the same exact quote he posted) but refused to explain or support his pathetic arguments. 




hummina shadeeba said:


> for a discussion or just to try to beat the doctor? Youre being contrary just to do it from what it seems.


I could probably get banned for asking this but I'm going to go ahead anyway: Do you believe that someone is a doctor because they have "doctor" in their username?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> You keep saying this, yet... still no "beef.". Where's the beef? You keep saying "just wait til next week, then you'll see. It's ALL going to come out!" and yet... Still no beef.
> <crickets>


Really? You do not think there is any beef? 

I can understand that some would like to focus on timing. It gives some hope, helps them ignore the inevitable. It does not really matter if it comes out today or next Wednesday but if that helps you cope then by all means seize on that


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> I humiliated falsetti earlier in this thread when he hung on the words of a "legal expert" who spoke gibberish. Falsetti then claimed that I selectively edited a quote (the same exact quote he posted) but refused to explain or support his pathetic arguments.


You humiliated yourself. It is clear to anyone who read the piece that the quote was describing that the upcoming avalanche of evidence would warrant an explanation as to why the Fed case was dropped. Neither I, nor the author claimed this was a legally required.....but of course you knew that


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So much emotion for something you do not care about. Maybe if you yell louder people will care less?


It's mock emotion. Who do you think is being mocked? 


> It debuted at #3 in NYT Non-Fiction. Currently 18th after 6 weeks. Currently 12th in the UK. That is a lot of books about something people do not care about.


Again, do you think the public's interest is waxing or waning here? 

Books are out and Armstrong is banned by USADA. Move evidence that he doped isn't going to mean much now, seeing how he already said that he's moved on. What interesting news will come from this?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You humiliated yourself.


Again with the "I'm rubber, you're glue"?

LOL


> It is clear to anyone who read the piece that the quote was describing that the upcoming avalanche of evidence would warrant an explanation as to why the Fed case was dropped. Neither I, nor the author claimed this was a legally required.....but of course you knew that


Look at the quotes. 

“*The bottom line for both agencies was this: Was Lance Armstrong doping? *So why would one agency, USADA, move forward and strip Armstrong of everything while another agency, the U.S. Attorney’s office, dropped everything?"

*WRONG*. The_ bottom line_ for the feds was not whether Armstrong doped. 


“*The U.S. Attorney will have to come up with some fairly substantial explanations as to why he didn’t go forward *with this,” Keane added.

*WRONG.* Prosecutors need not explain prosecutorial discretion. 


Let me quote someone in this thread who knows what they are talking about: 

_Why would the feds have to explain why they dropped a case in Feb 2012 in light of evidence released from an investigation that concluded in Oct 2012? 

The only required explanation is prosecutorial discretion. Full stop. 

If they want to explain anything, they can simply say that the scope of the cases were different, the laws are different and that USADA has different rules of evidence._


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The top 3 post on the doping forum have 18,000 + views.....all about the Armstrong case


Nobody is stopping you from refreshing these threads a thousand times per day.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

I've read a lot of books that I don't care about. Does anyone care that I read some books that I don't care about? I can't wait for the Qui Tam book. Just the name Qui Tam sounds like it should have a good story associated with it. I don't really care abot Qui Tam, he just better tell a good story. 

I never thought there would come a day when the NYT bestseller list would equate to what America CARES about......unless the point is that America cares about books.

Unbroken.....on the list for 87 weeks!!! America must really care about WW2 prisoners and/or olympic runners.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Again with the "I'm rubber, you're glue"?
> 
> LOL
> Look at the quotes.
> ...


I will try to make this as simple for you as possible. 

There are many elements to doping. Buying it, transporting it, financing it, hiding it, using it, making sure others do not talk about it. Some of these elements are criminal others would be better addressed by a sanction from USADA. Over the next few months we will see an avalanche of evidence. USADA will present evidence, the Qui Tam case will have evidence, and the media will also present even more. Much of this evidence will indicate that the criminal elements of doping were ignored by the Feds. There will also be significant evidence introduced into the public domain that will show that the primary reason the criminal case was due to political pressure on a political appointee. 

Keane and I agree that this will focus significant attention on why a political appointee ignored all this evidence and dropped a case that most involved saw as having overwhelming evidence. You think that the political appointee will be able to hide, Keane and I do not think he will. It is as simple as that


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Unbroken.....on the list for 87 weeks!!! America must really care about WW2 prisoners and/or olympic runners.


That is a great book


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> a few big politicians


Who?



> There will also be significant evidence introduced into the public domain that will show that the primary reason the criminal case was due to political pressure on a political appointee.


How does your conspiracy theory incorporate this?

"In this office in essentially every significant investigation, a prosecution memo is prepared prior to a charging decision to outline the legal theories, the evidence, and the strengths and weaknesses of a particular case. That in fact was done in this case," said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles. He added that "the prosecution memo was provided to the U.S. attorney and his management team well in advance of the final decision and…was thoroughly reviewed and discussed prior to the decision."
...
"We cannot and will not discuss the internal deliberations and the basis on which the U.S. attorney, after consulting with his management team, made the decision not to proceed in the case," said Mr. Mrozek, who added that "the decision was made [with] a full and fair consideration of all the relevant evidence and law."

Bark as loud as you like about _political pressure on a political appointee_ (as if that even matters -- it would still fall under prosecutorial discretion). The US Attorneys Office's official statement is that they thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and deliberated the relevant evidence before coming to a decision. Good luck getting them to change their tune. They've already told people to pound sand:

“We’ll let people speculate and criticize,” Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for Birotte’s office, said on Monday. “We’ve made our decision.”


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> *most involved* saw as having *overwhelming evidence*.


There you go again 

You cannot possibly know how MOST INVOLVED in a federal investigation viewed evidence. 

You cannot possibly know that most involved in a federal investigation viewed evidence as OVERWHELMING. 

You destroy your credibility when you exaggerate and make things up.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I have given multiple links, but this one covers it well
> 
> Concerns Over Closure Of Federal Investigation Into Armstrong And US Postal | Cyclingnews.com


I guess I missed the one about the witness coming in to meet with the Feds, maybe you did to as this article says nothing of that.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> There you go again
> 
> You cannot possibly know how MOST INVOLVED in a federal investigation viewed evidence.
> 
> ...


Tell you what: 

Come March of 2013 we'll all know if Dr. Falsetti is full of sh!t or not because the evidence he claims will come out will be out by then.

He set himself up for failure or success. So let's wait and see what unfolds.

Sound like a plan?




Personally; I think Dr. Falsetti will be found to be correct on his predictions and since USADA will be releasing info to UCI in a couple of weeks or so, we'll start to find out sooner rather than later how accurate the Doc is.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

cda 455 said:


> Tell you what:
> 
> Come March of 2013 we'll all know if Dr. Falsetti is full of sh!t or not because the evidence he claims will come out will be out by then.
> 
> ...


I like your plan. 

But it is already clear that he's stretching the truth. His claim that most involved [in the fed's investigation] viewed the evidence as overwhelming is a gross exaggeration of this hearsay from an unknown source:



> “I talked to someone within the investigation but the reason why the case was shut down was due to a one-man decision. The evidence against those involved was absolutely overwhelming. They were going to be charged with a slew of crimes but for reasons unexplained he closed the case saying it wasn't open for discussion,” the source said.


Contrast that with the statement from the US Attorney spokesman who said this: 


> "In this office in essentially every significant investigation, a prosecution memo is prepared prior to a charging decision to outline the legal theories, the evidence, and the strengths and weaknesses of a particular case. That in fact was done in this case," said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles. He added that "the prosecution memo was provided to the U.S. attorney and his management team well in advance of the final decision and…was thoroughly reviewed and discussed prior to the decision."
> ...
> "We cannot and will not discuss the internal deliberations and the basis on which the U.S. attorney, after consulting with his management team, made the decision not to proceed in the case," said Mr. Mrozek, who added that "the decision was made [with] a full and fair consideration of all the relevant evidence and law."



While the above is a prime example of falsetti stretching the truth, it's a moot point. The decision to drop the charges falls under prosecutorial discretion if it is politically motivated, due to lack of evidence, or purely whimsical. 





> Personally; I think Dr. Falsetti will be found to be correct on his predictions and since USADA will be releasing info to UCI in a couple of weeks or so, we'll start to find out sooner rather than later how accurate the Doc is.


USADA's info will most certainly implicate Armstrong. But it's not going to reveal contents of the US attorney management team discussions.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> There you go again
> 
> You cannot possibly know how MOST INVOLVED in a federal investigation viewed evidence.
> 
> ...


You would not believe me if I told you how I know so how about a few links? 

Surprise decision to drop investigation of Lance Armstrong looks suspicious - ESPN



> *the prosecutors and agents who worked on the case recommended to Birotte that he file criminal charges against Armstrong. The agents included investigators from the Food and Drug Administration, the FBI and the U.S. Postal Service, and they were talking about mail fraud, drug distribution, money laundering and witness tampering.*





> *The prosecutors in Birotte's office had prepared a formal written recommendation on the evidence that supported the suggested charges*. Sources familiar with the agents' work told ESPN.com that the prosecutors and agents were interviewing witnesses as late as last Thursday and Friday, as Birotte scheduled his announcement. *They were anticipating an indictment in a few weeks and had no idea that their two years of work was about to come to a sudden end*.





> the agents and prosecutors were caught by surprise when Birotte announced





> Other sources close to the case said investigators had described their evidence against Armstrong as being* the strongest of any of the government's doping-related cases.*


US Attorney



> “Sources who know about the case say that *within the agencies involved in the investigation, the FBI, the FDA, the US Postal Service, there is surprise, even shock and anger about the US Attorney’s decision,” *he said on today’s NPR sports news. “Those agencies reportedly only got about a half hour notice that the decision was going to be announced. And this was after there had been indications that *prosecutors were preparing to indict Armstrong and others on federal crimes, including mail fraud, drug distribution, wire fraud, witness tampering. *
> 
> “Those indictments were said to be coming soon, maybe even next month. *One source said there were absolutely no weaknesses in the case*.


Concerns Over Closure Of Federal Investigation Into Armstrong And US Postal | Cyclingnews.com



> there were ‘no weaknesses in the case’.





> the reason why the case was shut down was due to a one-man decision. *The evidence against those involved was absolutely overwhelming. They were going to be charged with a slew of crimes* but for reasons unexplained he closed the case saying it wasn't open for discussion,


”


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

All right falsetti, none of the hearsay from an unnamed source cancels out what I've quoted twice from the US attorney spokesman. And once again, the trump card is prosecutorial discretion. 

So I'll ask you again, who are the *big politicians *who are involved? 

Hmmm???????????????/


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If nobody cares why is Tyler's book on the bestseller lists of the US and UK?
> 
> Thousands of people paying $20 for a 300 page book about doping.....that is a lot of not caring.


Use your melon.... Cycling is a great sport that a lot of people participate in. If one of it's professionals disgraced by doping opens up about the culture of doping in cycling of course they're going to buy the book. That is why it is on the best selling list, people wanted a look into doping, products used, methods, how you get caught, etc. That's why I read the book. I have made my own conclusions on LA, and I didn't need Tyler's book to help me with that. 
Wait until Lance writes his story.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> All right falsetti, none of the hearsay from an unnamed source cancels out what I've quoted twice from the US attorney spokesman. And once again, the trump card is prosecutorial discretion.
> 
> So I'll ask you again, who are the *big politicians *who are involved?
> 
> Hmmm???????????????/



Disclaimer: *W.A.G.*


I wonder if it's the congressperson from Wisconsin (Where Trek corporate office is) who wanted to investigate USADA? :shrugs:


And there was at least one other but I can't remember who it was.


----------



## Dresden (May 26, 2009)

Barbara Boxer is one of the suspect politicians. If I remember correctly, Armstrong had a meeting with her some time prior to the federal charges being dropped. Some people think it's fishy that Livestrong gave $100,000 to Planned Parenthood the week the charges were dropped and Senator Boxer being so cozy with Planned Parenthood.

Congressman Sensenbrenner is the Wisconsin politician in question.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)




----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really? You do not think there is any beef?
> 
> I can understand that some would like to focus on timing. It gives some hope, helps them ignore the inevitable. It does not really matter if it comes out today or next Wednesday but if that helps you cope then by all means seize on that


As I posted elsewhere:

LA? He's done!!! The only question is how bad the final car wreck is going to be and how long its going to burn.... That's obvious. But while everyone is rubbernecking, few are focused on where the freeway leads or on fixing the freeway so another pileup like this never happens!!!

IMO we need to focus on where cycling goes from here, and on providing solutions to the problems as opposed to continually waving a big sign that points to the car wreck....

Many here seem to hold only one of 2 views.....

A) LA was a prolific athlete who raised the profile of cycling, raised the profile of cancer awareness, and did much to promote living a healthier lifestyle. A cancer survivor who many still respect and look up to. It will be a shame for cycling if he's convicted.

B) LA was a doper, a liar, and a cheat who got away with it for years, and ruined many lives trying to keep it secret. It will be a shame for cycling if he isn't fully brought to justice.

I'm not for A OR B. I believe BOTH simultaneously as they are not mutually exclusive.

I'm FOR CYCLING.

We should ALL be. Because no matter what happens here, cycling is in a no win situation. It either loses one of its biggest names due to scandal, or loses credibility for not prosecuting an obvious criminal. 

If a LA supporter expresses view A in part because they have a concern over the greater consequences of this debacle on the sport, I can sympathize. And you know what? They aren't wrong.. They have just chosen one viewpoint to the exclusion of the other, as opposed to embracing both. In doing so they are the same as you! Just the other side of the coin....

No need Doc. to stand on the street corner yellin' at all the kiddies that Santa Claus ain't real.... They'll figure it out on their own soon enough!


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> I humiliated falsetti earlier in this thread when he hung on the words of a "legal expert" who spoke gibberish. Falsetti then claimed that I selectively edited a quote (the same exact quote he posted) but refused to explain or support his pathetic arguments.
> 
> 
> I could probably get banned for asking this but I'm going to go ahead anyway: Do you believe that someone is a doctor because they have "doctor" in their username?


Humiliation, is that all you got? How about a little more in the way of reasoned argument backed up by examples. All you appear to have is what many others here have: Google and an overweening sense of the correctness of your every utterance. Using humiliation to prove yourself right sounds like a triathlete and cancer campaigner I know. It's not working for him either :idea: If you are serious about humiliating folks round here then I very much doubt you will be around to be proved wrong come next April.

BTW, Do you believe that someone is a hero just because they have "Hero" in their user name?


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I agree with Local Hero. Public support like this doesn't really help USADA
This "authority" from a Tier 3 Law School doesn't seem to understand the basics of the two cases, since he thinks the Feds went after Armstrong for doping, as opposed to the use of government funds, which is the reason the government got involved in the first place. For a professor who's supposed to be an authority on the law that's a pretty poor showing.
And then he goes on with the usual "why didn't the government do its job" and "someone will have to pay." Given how about 95% of people absolutely do not care about cycling, it doesn't really matter.

Since he seems to be little informed about the situation, I wonder why he would speak up in the first place, let alone have access to the USADA file. It almost sounds like USADA recruited a couple of friends to speak up about the issue in anticipation for the file coming out. Or maybe since he's from California he has a beef against Los Angeles prosecutors...
I have to say, the UCI have set standards of stupidity recently (especially with their win against Landis today) but USADA is being pretty terrible at public relations as well. Contradictory information about the release of the file several times in the past 2 months, and then hiring lawyer support to promote their file to the uninformed public ?


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Actually if you take the time to read their discussion, you will realize that Falsetti is trying to defend the authority he posted, when said authority clearly doesn't understand what's going on in the Armstrong case.

It is one thing to agree that Armstrong doped and to want him punished, and it's another to blindly trust anything anyone says, just because you share the same point of view. And people in this forum really, REALLY need to learn that when someone disagrees with you about the way the Armstrong case is handled, it doesn't necessarily mean they are blind Armstrong supporters. That's become the go to attack at anyone trying to have a constructive discussion about the weaknesses and potential failures in the way the case is currently being handled. 
You can't deny USADA's PR has been pretty terrible recently. Either it's been terrible, or it's been nonexistent, which comes down to the same thing.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

There's something comical about a guy posting here dozens of times a day arguing that nobody cares about Lance's doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

moskowe said:


> I agree with Local Hero. Public support like this doesn't really help USADA
> This "authority" from a Tier 3 Law School doesn't seem to understand the basics of the two cases, since he thinks the Feds went after Armstrong for doping, as opposed to the use of government funds, which is the reason the government got involved in the first place. For a professor who's supposed to be an authority on the law that's a pretty poor showing.
> And then he goes on with the usual "why didn't the government do its job" and "someone will have to pay." Given how about 95% of people absolutely do not care about cycling, it doesn't really matter.
> 
> ...


Nope,

The Fed Criminal case was not about using Government funds. That is the Civil Qui Tam case, which it appears the Feds have joined. Keane is correct that the Fed Criminal case that was dropped was about doping. The funding, transportation, and cover-up of doping.

USADA did not "hire a lawyer to promote their file". It is hard to say they have been terrible at PR. USADA extended the expected date of the UCI file once. It was for a good reason, additional information.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

moskowe said:


> Actually if you take the time to read their discussion, you will realize that Falsetti is trying to defend the authority he posted, when said authority clearly doesn't understand what's going on in the Armstrong case.
> 
> It is one thing to agree that Armstrong doped and to want him punished, and it's another to blindly trust anything anyone says, just because you share the same point of view. And people in this forum really, REALLY need to learn that when someone disagrees with you about the way the Armstrong case is handled, it doesn't necessarily mean they are blind Armstrong supporters. That's become the go to attack at anyone trying to have a constructive discussion about the weaknesses and potential failures in the way the case is currently being handled.
> You can't deny USADA's PR has been pretty terrible recently. Either it's been terrible, or it's been nonexistent, which comes down to the same thing.


If you are going to be critical you might as well try to read what I have written. 

USADA has the facts on their side. They could get sucked into a public back and forth with Armstrong's media machine but ultimately focusing on delivering a complete file to the UCI and the public is far better use of their limited resources then chasing Armstrong's disinformation campaign


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope,
> 
> The Fed Criminal case was not about using Government funds. That is the Civil Qui Tam case, which it appears the Feds have joined. Keane is correct that the Fed Criminal case that was dropped was about doping. The funding, transportation, and cover-up of doping.
> 
> USADA did not "hire a lawyer to promote their file". It is hard to say they have been terrible at PR. USADA extended the expected date of the UCI file once. It was for a good reason, additional information.


I agree USADA has been terrible with their PR. They are beginning to come off as amateurish. They should have taken their time, fully developed and prepared their case and then hit on all fronts.

This additional information excuse is nonsense... How can anything be used that came in after they sanctioned him unless they plan on bringing additional charges? Lets sanction him based on what we already have because its enough, but then lets hold off forwarding to the UCI because we want to add more? Forward what you had when you filed the charges, then leave the additional new evidence in reserve if the UCI challenges it....

This excuse that they were prepared for an arbitration hearing and didn't expect LA to concede is also BS. What the hell were they planning on bringing to the arbitration hearing? Following the hearing what did they expect the UCI to do? Take their word for it? Of course the UCI is going to need to see a reasoned decision. I'm no fan of the UCI but IMO they would be remiss if the DIDN'T ask for a reasoned decision considering USADA is asking them to vacate results of a race they sanction.

USADA needs to get it together.......


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Maybe they [USADA] don't have a file to send. Ever think of that? Like many have remarked here, the whole kit is corrupt.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

sir duke said:


> Humiliation, is that all you got? How about a little more in the way of reasoned argument backed up by examples. All you appear to have is what many others here have: Google and an overweening sense of the correctness of your every utterance. Using humiliation to prove yourself right sounds like a triathlete and cancer campaigner I know. It's not working for him either :idea: If you are serious about humiliating folks round here then I very much doubt you will be around to be proved wrong come next April.
> 
> BTW, Do you believe that someone is a hero just because they have "Hero" in their user name?


Slow down. 

One of two things happened when Prof Keane was quoted in that article. Either the "expert" didn't know what he was talking about or he was misquoted twice. Both things he said are incorrect. 



Fireform said:


> There's something comical about a guy posting here dozens of times a day arguing that nobody cares about Lance's doping.


What does your personal attack add to this discussion?


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I think everyone agrees that USADA has the facts on their side. The problem is that they seem to have no clue about how to properly present those facts to the public. 

If they'd been a little smarter, they would have just said "We have the file. The UCI will received it before *time X a couple of months from the announcement* and no further communication will be given until the UCI receives it." That would have come out as a lot more professional, given them a margin of error, and prevented the UCI and about half the american media from commenting on how long it's taking them. And would also prevent them from having to resort to some random law professor at a third tier school who'd probably never heard about the case before to get some attention now.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

moskowe said:


> I think everyone agrees that USADA has the facts on their side. The problem is that they seem to have no clue about how to properly present those facts to the public.
> 
> If they'd been a little smarter, they would have just said *"We have the file. The UCI will received it before *time X a couple of months from the announcement* *and no further communication will be given until the UCI receives it." That would have come out as a lot more professional, given them a margin of error, and prevented the UCI and about half the american media from commenting on how long it's taking them. And would also prevent them from having to resort to some random law professor at a third tier school who'd probably never heard about the case before to get some attention now.


This is exactly what they did. In his interview with l'equipe, which was done a month ago, Travis said by the end of the month. He revised this to by Oct 15th. The Law professor was not hired by them and is not their spokesperson

In the long run it does not matter if it comes out this week, next week, or 3 weeks from now. A month from now we will be talking about samples from French and Spanish labs, not when the report came out


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I don't doubt that the law professor is a good professor, a competent attorney, and an all-around good guy. I just think his quotes in that article are incorrect. Either he misspoke or what he said was taken out of context. Maybe he does not know what he's talking about. Or maybe the guy did a 15 minute phone interview and the journalist used the most "interesting" soundbites in that article. It would not be the first time for a law prof to get something wrong or a journalists to misquote statements, or some combination of both. 

The bottom line in the federal case was *not* "Was Armstrong doping?"
and
The U.S. Attorney will *not* have to come up with some fairly substantial explanations as to why he didn’t go forward.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Local Hero said:


> What does your personal attack add to this discussion?


It's not a personal attack. I'm simply pointing out that your argument that nobody cares about this issue is self-contradictory. You obviously care about it a great deal, or you wouldn't be here making post after post in defense of LA. 

In order for your argument to make any kind of sense, one would have to accept the proposition that you're somehow different from all the other Lance fanboys out there who don't care about the issue. Not only do I not see any shred of evidence for that idea, you haven't even suggested it yourself.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Fireform said:


> It's not a personal attack. I'm simply pointing out that your argument that nobody cares about this issue is self-contradictory. You obviously care about it a great deal, or you wouldn't be here making post after post in defense of LA.
> 
> In order for your argument to make any kind of sense, one would have to accept the proposition that you're somehow different from all the other Lance fanboys out there who don't care about the issue. Not only do I not see any shred of evidence for that idea, you haven't even suggested it yourself.


This is boring. 

If you want to talk about the facts, the law or public opinion I will be happy to respond.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator's Note*



Fireform said:


> It's not a personal attack. I'm simply pointing out that your argument that nobody cares about this issue is self-contradictory. You obviously care about it a great deal, or you wouldn't be here making post after post in defense of LA.
> 
> In order for your argument to make any kind of sense, one would have to accept the proposition that you're somehow different from all the other Lance fanboys out there who don't care about the issue. Not only do I not see any shred of evidence for that idea, you haven't even suggested it yourself.


Stick to the points and not your personal appraisal of other poster's posting motivations. That way is where posting vacations lie.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Ok, so someone, let's call him Poster A, puts up post after post insisting that no one cares about Lance Armstrong's doping. Someone else, let's call him Poster B, points out that, logically, the thesis can't be true because Poster A cares about the issue. And that's an attack?

???

I'm giving myself a posting vacation from DF. I'm a little tired of watching people defend fraud and intimidation, whatever the virgin-pure motives may have been. Because it's true that most of the peloton was doping during LA's era, including all of his serious rivals. He's the only one of the bunch who made serious money on the specific proposition he was clean. He's the only one who tried to shame everyone who doubted him, telling us while doped to the gills that he felt sorry for us because we didn't believe in miracles. 

I used to believe in him. I used to think doping was a minor issue. That was many years ago, before the evidence began to become public. Now, I think that for him to have said and done the things he's done, well, I just have to wonder what he has left to call a soul. TH said in his book that he feels sorry for Lance, and maybe that will be the best response in the long run.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> lol @ big news
> 
> 
> Sure, the media will run the stories. But there are thousands of stories run every day.
> ...


There are thousands and thousands of fairly educated people that still have not read an article about Lance's doping or who have yet seen the 60 minutes special featuring Tyler etc etc etc.

Sometimes good people are just late to the party. They know who Lance is and probably describe themselves as a "fan" of what Lance was able to do (beat cancer and win some bike races), but have jobs, kids and other interests. Sooner or later, these folks will find out. As this happens, Lance will most likely lose more "fans". 

Also, someone who understands that Lance doped, yet are not aware that he paid off officials to forgive failed tests AND tattled on his own team mate for doping, will most likely change their mind immediately about Lance when informed of this.

The whole "they all doped" does not fix this^^

There are still massive amounts of people on other boards claiming that "Lance passed 500 tests...never failed a test!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I too used to think it was just a bunch of bitter French out to get the American who pwned them...oops.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

All right, all right. Armstrong's reputation will continued to be tarnished and even more will know that he doped if Sports UIllustrated and 60 minutes portray him in a negative light, especially now that he has stopped defending himself and refuses to talk about it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> There are thousands and thousands of fairly educated people that still have not read an article about Lance's doping or who have yet seen the 60 minutes special featuring Tyler etc etc etc.
> 
> Sometimes good people are just late to the party. They know who Lance is and probably describe themselves as a "fan" of what Lance was able to do (beat cancer and win some bike races), but have jobs, kids and other interests. Sooner or later, these folks will find out. As this happens, Lance will most likely lose more "fans".
> 
> ...


People hate corruption. They hate special treatment. Over the next few months the news will not only be about doping but about the many people and organizations who enabled this mess. UCI and USAC, labs in Spain and Switzerland, Media. They people who job it was to insure it did not got this far looked the other way for a decade


----------



## Tight Nipples (Feb 18, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> ...now that he has stopped defending himself and refuses to talk about it.


It's going to be very interesting to see how much "refusing to talk" he'll do once USADA's fecal-fan splatters later this month.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> ...now that he has stopped defending himself and refuses to talk about it.


LA is too narcissistic to follow through on either one of these claims.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Fireform said:


> Ok, so someone, let's call him Poster A, puts up post after post insisting that no one cares about Lance Armstrong's doping. Someone else, let's call him Poster B, points out that, logically, the thesis can't be true because Poster A cares about the issue. And that's an attack?
> 
> ???
> 
> I'm giving myself a posting vacation from DF.


Too bad your posting vacation from the forum did not stop you from leaving visitor messages on my user profile. 

Don't worry. I took care of it. 



> Showing Visitor Messages
> 6 Hours Ago Fireform
> This message has been deleted by Local Hero. Reason _boring_



It's OK if you do not agree with what I say. There is no need for you to follow me around or pour through my posting history and then rant and ramble on my profile, saying that I take things too seriously. Feel free to ignore me.


----------



## Chainstay (Mar 13, 2004)

HikenBike said:


> LA is too narcissistic to follow through on either one of these claims.


There are too many supporters of him and his the foundation that are willing to believe what he says. He will probably go public with some sort of denial which will include further attacks on the USADA and the witch hunt.

How about "I never tested positive in a drug test and have been tested x times"

I would be suprised if he outright accuses Hincapie, Levi and other team mates of lying.


----------



## chaulk61 (Jan 20, 2009)

Chainstay said:


> I would be suprised if he outright accuses Hincapie, Levi and other team mates of lying.


Mr Armstrong's new talking point seems to be "it is time to move on". Like his defenders who make the "it happen so long ago" argument, he seems to realize the "most tested athlete/never failed a drug test" routine is no longer fooling anyone.

Lance Armstrong: My Conscience Is Clear | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

chaulk61 said:


> Mr Armstrong's new talking point seems to be "it is time to move on". Like his defenders who make the "it happen so long ago" argument, he seems to realize the "most tested athlete/never failed a drug test" routine is no longer fooling anyone.
> 
> Lance Armstrong: My Conscience Is Clear | Cyclingnews.com


It is interesting that Lance it spewing this "Time to move on" stuff..... because he certainly hasn't. He has lobbyist actively lobbying to cut USADA's funding. He has friendly Rep's working to obstruct USADA. Sensenbrenner and Conyers put forward a meaningless bill that asked for things already provided by USADA. One of the reasons for the delay in submital of the file to the UCI is that Tygart has had to travel to D.C. multiple times to counter intentional misinformation by Lance's paid liars.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

chaulk61 said:


> Mr Armstrong's new talking point seems to be "it is time to move on". Like his defenders who make the "it happen so long ago" argument, he seems to realize the "most tested athlete/never failed a drug test" routine is no longer fooling anyone.
> 
> Lance Armstrong: My Conscience Is Clear | Cyclingnews.com


If people don't move on now, when will they? And name one person here who has parroted an Armstrong talking point. Personally, I've moved on with my life. Yeah, others won't move on. It's sad. I'm aware that it's out there. It's like, why are you continuing? You got what you wanted; Lance Armstrong never did anything in his life. Great. For some, it's like, shouldn't you be out training and focusing on what you're doing? F%^&ing move on. So strange.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is interesting that Lance it spewing this "Time to move on" stuff..... because he certainly hasn't. He has lobbyist actively lobbying to cut USADA's funding. He has friendly Rep's working to obstruct USADA. Sensenbrenner and Conyers put forward a meaningless bill that asked for things already provided by USADA. One of the reasons for the delay in submital of the file to the UCI is that Tygart has had to travel to D.C. multiple times to counter intentional misinformation by Lance's paid liars.


I'm pissed at LA. He should have taken Tygart's deal. It was more than fair, and would have allowed him and his supporters to save some face, while simultaneously satisfying the need for justice.

It would have allowed the focus to more quickly move on to the UCI, and the other jokers involved with this, and then on to making lasting systemic changes in cycling. Lance could have even chosen to be part of that process after Tygart's deal..... Instead he chose this path.. I'm shaking my head in disbelief......


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

What were the terms of Tygart's deal?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> What were the terms of Tygart's deal?


From what I know of it he would have lost 2 tours, but kept 5. And I don't believe it included a lifetime ban, he could have returned to sanctioned competition at some point. I'm fairly sure that under the terms of the deal, a lot of the info against him would have also been kept confidential in exchange for his testimony.

Anyone please correct me if I'm wrong. Doc.?

I found this:

USADA chief executive says Lance Armstrong could have kept 5 Tour de France titles if he'd come clean | road.cc | Road cycling news, Bike reviews, Commuting, Leisure riding, Sportives and more


----------



## chaulk61 (Jan 20, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> If people don't move on now, when will they? And name one person here who has parroted an Armstrong talking point. Personally, I've moved on with my life. Yeah, others won't move on. It's sad. I'm aware that it's out there. It's like, why are you continuing? You got what you wanted; Lance Armstrong never did anything in his life. Great. For some, it's like, shouldn't you be out training and focusing on what you're doing? F%^&ing move on. So strange.


Just a general observation. In this and other forums, in the past, you got a lot of "he never failed a test" etc. You don't see much of that any more. Recent pro - Armstrong posts are questioning (incorrectly) why the USADA is going after a retired cyclist, rather than focusing on current riders. There are numourous examples of this in threads on this sub forum. Indeed, the second half of your post proves my point (any ironic intentions on your part aside).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> I'm pissed at LA. He should have taken Tygart's deal. It was more than fair, and would have allowed him and his supporters to save some face, while simultaneously satisfying the need for justice.
> 
> It would have allowed the focus to more quickly move on to the UCI, and the other jokers involved with this, and then on to making lasting systemic changes in cycling. Lance could have even chosen to be part of that process after Tygart's deal..... Instead he chose this path.. I'm shaking my head in disbelief......


Agree, He should have taken the deal. Tygart says publicly that it was 2 tours but I have heard from other witnesses he was offered 6 months, keep his results. 

It would have been a huge benefit to the sport. Taken down a bunch of doctors, McQuaid and Verburggen. Instead of media campaigns that ask fans to suspend rational thought he could have helped purge the sport of some of it's most toxic elements


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Agree, He should have taken the deal. Tygart says publicly that it was 2 tours but I have heard from other witnesses he was offered 6 months, keep his results.
> 
> It would have been a huge benefit to the sport. Taken down a bunch of doctors, McQuaid and Verburggen. Instead of media campaigns that ask fans to suspend rational thought he could have helped purge the sport of some of it's most toxic elements


Absolutely!!! For sure!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## chaulk61 (Jan 20, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is interesting that Lance it spewing this "Time to move on" stuff.....* because he certainly hasn't.* He has lobbyist actively lobbying to cut USADA's funding. He has friendly Rep's working to obstruct USADA. Sensenbrenner and Conyers put forward a meaningless bill that asked for things already provided by USADA. One of the reasons for the delay in submital of the file to the UCI is that Tygart has had to travel to D.C. multiple times to counter intentional misinformation by Lance's paid liars.


Yeah, behind the scenes I am sure he is fighting all this with everything he has got. He has a hell of a lot to lose. What I find interesting is the shift in the talking points for public consumption.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

chaulk61 said:


> Just a general observation. In this and other forums, in the past, you got a lot of "he never failed a test" etc. You don't see much of that any more. Recent pro - Armstrong posts are questioning (incorrectly) why the USADA is going after a retired cyclist, rather than focusing on current riders. There are numourous examples of this in threads on this sub forum. Indeed, the second half of your post proves my point (any ironic intentions on your part aside).


Please, reread the article you posted.


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

Ok I'm confused and probably an idiot for even questioning anything on this subject.

1) I thought the meat of Fed investigation was for trafficing, illegal distribution, etc. not whether or not LA actually doped

2) the "USADA strip Armstrong of everything" really? I guess they believe they can. I loved this statement.

"Phill Bates, a member of the international cycling union's arbitration tribunal, yesterday described USADA's actions against Armstrong as unenforceable and described the organisation's chief executive Travis Tygart as an "egomaniac publicity hunter".

3) The USADA did proceed because of politics and I quote:

Travis Tygart, the head of the USADA,has said that one important purpose of his organization is to find and expose the truth, and he (Tygart) responded to Wisconsin congressman James Sensenbrenner's criticism of the Armstrong investigation by saying, in part, that clean athletes "rightly depend upon USADA to ensure that no matter how famous or anonymous, we will treat each alleged offender the same"

"Injustice For All", Bill Strickland, Bicycling, October 2012, 52 

Sorry but that statement is almost laughable. If it was even close to being true there wouldn't be get out of jail cards ... a.k.a. "granting immunity or delayed sentencing to admitted dopers".

So I guess many believe the rentless pursuit of LA was in the name of justice and cleaning up the sport? Regardless of deals made and who may have rode the tour this year just as guilty?

This debate will never end and I doubt doping will either.


----------



## chaulk61 (Jan 20, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> Please, reread the article you posted.


Point taken


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Too bad your posting vacation from the forum did not stop you from leaving visitor messages on my user profile.
> 
> Don't worry. I took care of it.
> 
> ...


 Evidently this post hurt Fireform deeply, as he gave me negative rep for it. And the insults he left for me on my user profile were insufficient to express his distaste for what I have to say on these boards. Accompaning negative rep is this note from Fireform: 

_You're a jerk. And you're on ignore._​





BBL, crying.


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

chaulk61 said:


> Mr Armstrong's new talking point seems to be "it is time to move on". Like his defenders who make the "it happen so long ago" argument, he seems to realize the "most tested athlete/never failed a drug test" routine is no longer fooling anyone.
> 
> Lance Armstrong: My Conscience Is Clear | Cyclingnews.com


Well the claim of "most tested ever athlete" is still valid; but can be combined with "never get caught and punished in competition" instead of "never failed a drug test".

I wanted to believe in LA for the longest time but like most honest and thinking cycling fans it is over for the Armstrong era. The next step is to eliminate doping altogether, but that I fear will be a very difficult and long term process; particularly when retried dopers are still allowed in cycling.


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

chaulk61 said:


> Just a general observation. In this and other forums, in the past, you got a lot of "he never failed a test" etc. You don't see much of that any more. Recent pro - Armstrong posts are questioning (incorrectly) why the USADA is going after a retired cyclist, rather than focusing on current riders. There are numourous examples of this in threads on this sub forum. Indeed, the second half of your post proves my point (any ironic intentions on your part aside).


That is the new talking point, now that the omerta has been broken by credible witnesses are that this is a witch hunt, a waste of taxpayer money and the USADA should focus on current athletes and let sleeping dogs lie. 

The reality is that cycling has a history of PED use which was not super surprising, but until the advent of EPO and transfusions made their entry into the peleton the great riders (Merckx, Lemond, Hinault) were still able to dominate using mostly their talent (and probably some stimulants). In Slaying the Badger someone talks about how cycling prior to the 80s was a poor mans job, and that PED use was just part of the job (but pro EPO PED could not take joe average and make him dominant). 

So now it is all about saving the face and not getting bad PR for Livestrong, pretty sad actually, just admit it Lance, america loves to forgive fallen heroes.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

brentley said:


> That is the new talking point, now that the omerta has been broken by credible witnesses are that this is a witch hunt, a waste of taxpayer money and the USADA should focus on current athletes and let sleeping dogs lie.


Haven't heard much of that one lately either since LA is an active license holder in WADA signatory sport and co-owns a youth development team managed by the son of the guy who introduced him to his doping doctor.


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

goloso said:


> Haven't heard much of that one lately either since LA is an active license holder in WADA signatory sport and co-owns a youth development team managed by the son of the guy who introduced him to his doping doctor.


All true, but that is still what Joe Six Pack thinks about the whole thing (if it even registers).

The PR machine hums on.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Armstrong Lawyer Attacks Pending USADA Report | Cyclingnews.com
You're all wrong. Clearly the Fed investigation stopped for lack of proof and USADA only took up the case with the help of big tobacco companies, because Armstrong not only is a shining beacon of hope for cancer survivors, but for all non-smokers as well.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

moskowe said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyer-attacks-pending-usada-report
> You're all wrong. Clearly the Fed investigation stopped for lack of proof and USADA only took up the case with the help of big tobacco companies, because Armstrong not only is a shining beacon of hope for cancer survivors, but for all non-smokers as well.


Link ain't be working.


Yeah; LA is done fighting  .



OTOH, I fully expect this from Pharmstrong. In addition; The argument LA's lawyers are presenting, as per the article, sounds pretty lame and outright desperate.


Here's the workable link:

Armstrong Lawyer Attacks Pending USADA Report | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

What a joke. The sad thing is that so many are taken in when the Big Lie is repeated at high volume. 

Lance's lawyers resemble a platoon of well trained, well equipped infantry deployed on a beach, training their sights on the incoming tsunami.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Link be fixed.

Edit: too late. 

I have to admit that one is pretty clever, in a way. It must have taken a lot of time to come up with something credible enough to make a public statement out of...


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm perplexed.


Pharmstrong says he doesn't care about yesterday, he's done fighting, his conscience is clear, etc. yet here he is (Via his lawyers) fighting on  .


If he is done fighting (Won't go to arbitration), that means he's done-done, right??? 

He can move on with his life now, right??? 

No need for lawyers anymore (In regards to fighting USADA), right???


Unless I'm missing something, he's sending mixed signals that shows his actions speak differently than his words.


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

Fireform said:


> What a joke. The sad thing is that so many are taken in when the Big Lie is repeated at high volume.
> 
> Lance's lawyers resemble a platoon of well trained, well equipped infantry deployed on a beach, training their sights on the incoming tsunami.


They are running the crisis management PR playbook to perfection. Enough deny and fight everything and spread it far, wide and very loudly will often cause the public to support you. The leveraging of Livestrong etc. is sort of despicable. This is not about Lance being an anti-smoking guy, this is all about Lance being a fraud, and fighting the charges since he so much to lose.

At some point it will become apparent that the emperor has no clothes and at that point public perception may come around. In the regular playbook Lance goes on TV and apologizes to the public and maybe cries; but I believe that his tragic flaw is that he really believes that this is not about the doping, but something else.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Make no mistake, Armstrong's lawyers are good.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

You mean, they're good at being bad ?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Put yourself in their shoes. You're Lance Armstrong's lawyer. Really think about that for a second. What can you possibly say?


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I would run for cover if I was LA's lawyer, and try to salvage my career. NOT make the kind of statement which shows extreme desperation. Surely they have to be smarter than this ? Does he just not listen to what they say, or are they dumb ?


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*$$$$$$$$*



moskowe said:


> I would run for cover if I was LA's lawyer, and try to salvage my career. NOT make the kind of statement which shows extreme desperation. Surely they have to be smarter than this ? Does he just not listen to what they say, or are they dumb ?


They are not dumb. This is just what they do, and there is only *one* reason why they do it:
Cabaret- Money - YouTube


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

moskowe said:


> I would run for cover if I was LA's lawyer, and try to salvage my career. NOT make the kind of statement which shows extreme desperation. Surely they have to be smarter than this ? Does he just not listen to what they say, or are they dumb ?


 Running for cover is not an option. What statement would you make? 

They were hired by Armstrong to represent him -- they can't do much about the laws or evidence against him -- they have a duty to zealously advocate for their client. There is a lawyers' adage: If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table. 

I've said twice now that Armstrong's attorneys are good. What I am saying is that Armstrong's back is up against the wall, all seems hopeless, and these guys come out swinging time and time again.

What you're seeing is the best table pounding and PR money can buy.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Running for cover is not an option. What statement would you make?
> 
> They were hired by Armstrong to represent him -- they can't do much about the laws or evidence against him -- they have a duty to zealously advocate for their client. There is a lawyers' adage: If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table.
> 
> ...



Makes one wonder why doesn't Pharmstrong just walk away like he basically described he would?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> Makes one wonder why doesn't Pharmstrong just walk away like he basically described he would?


Because he never intended to walk away. He saw the USADA's cards, and threw in his hand when it came to arbitration. That doesn't mean he intended to give up fighting on other fronts.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

mpre53 said:


> Because he never intended to walk away. He saw the USADA's cards, and threw in his hand when it came to arbitration. That doesn't mean he intended to give up fighting on other fronts.


So....he continues lying  .

Nice.




Why do I keep giving him the benefit of doubt :mad2: ???


----------



## rockstar2083 (Aug 30, 2005)

I'm confused about the Big Tobacco charge. Armstrong's PR folks seem like they have the Big Tobacco gameplan memorized versus USADA.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

rockstar2083 said:


> I'm confused about the Big Tobacco charge. Armstrong's PR folks seem like they have the Big Tobacco gameplan memorized versus USADA.


A long time ago, I was taught how to try a case by some very good lawyers. Here's the bottom line: when you have a winning case, you try it tight. You stick to the facts, ask questions that you know can only be answered favorably for your client, avoid histrionics, and let the evidence do the talking for you. You question witnesses with a scalpel, not a shotgun.

On the other hand, when you have a loser, throw everything including the kitchen sink in there and hope that something sticks, or at least you confuse that one stupid juror who'll hang the jury and get you a do-over. :lol:

Or as someone said above---you pound your fist on the table. :wink:


----------

