# Armstrong doping thread 2.0



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Have fun. Less personal attacks this time please. And remember, the IGNORE feature is your friend. Just click on their name, click on add to ignore list and boom- no more posts from them.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Thanks for opening the thread. 

If you look at the last few locked threads you will see that most the time it was going fine until one poster joined and started baiting and insulting others.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

I say we go ahead, cut our losses and ban everyone who registered in 2010. That would clear 99% of the mudslinging :thumbsup:


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for opening the thread.
> 
> If you look at the last few locked threads you will see that most the time it was going fine until one poster joined and started baiting and insulting others.


In the absence of any new revelations, the discussions have been going around in circles, fed only by newcomers jumping into the fray without reading previous discussions, and by trolls and troll-baiters. I feel that this is getting to the point where a tutorial / FAQ is needed, and should be made mandatory reading to newcomers to this sub-forum. At least, that Bicycling article is a good start for most enthusiasts.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for opening the thread.
> 
> If you look at the last few locked threads you will see that most the time it was going fine until one poster joined and started baiting and insulting others.


Yeah, it seems to be one of those topics. Amusingly it happens in the bike and component forums on certain topics too (see e.g. the counterfeit frames/ebay carbon threads). Just wanted to make sure you guys could continue your discussion.


----------



## tbgtbg (Mar 13, 2009)

covenant said:


> ban everyone who registered in 2010. That would clear 99% of the mudslinging :thumbsup:


I'm adding a note just to see when I registered.... pretty sure it was before 2010.
On Armstrong, he could cycle, was smart and knew how to use PEDs... is my guess.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Yes, busting Armstrong, but not other dopers will fix cycling, amen.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

Armstrong cheated...it's obvious. Where there's smoke there's fire. Positive results swept under the rug. Inner circle coming clean.
Armstrong didn't cheat...it's obvious. Most tested athlete ever. No positive results just wins.

*yawn*

The sport is filthy and will never be clean until a positive = permanent ban and even then cheaters will try to stay one step ahead of the testing. 

In summation...blah blah blah.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Yes, busting Armstrong, but not other dopers will fix cycling, amen.


Do you really thing Armstrong is being singled out? Has anyone claimed that busting him will fix cycling? 

The majority of the problems lie with the UCI, DS', and Doctors. Armstrong is only a rapidly reducing part of the problem.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you really thing Armstrong is being singled out? Has anyone claimed that busting him will fix cycling?
> 
> The majority of the problems lie with the UCI, DS', and Doctors. Armstrong is only a rapidly reducing part of the problem.


I don't see you trying to remove Pantani's or Big Mig's wins.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Thank God, just what the internet needed. Another Armstrong thread.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

I waited until I read the full article to read and respond to this thread, so here are my thoughts:

Did LA dope? Probably, but I am intelligent enough to admit that I have no proof of it and neither do any of you. Of course that does not stop some of you to claim you have proof and to ignore certain lines in the "proof" you post. (i.e. "Depending on which criteria you applied. Yes, six of them failed the definitive criteria."). Which is worse, doping or convicting someone in a public forum based on things you claim are proof that do not hold up to any standard of proof? One thing I have always said is that if LA did not dope then he was a great winner of seven TdF and if he did dope then he was a great champion of seven TdF since he beat a peloton full of dopers. I am also amazed how many people choose to single LA out while making excuses for people like Pantani ("He was never caught for doping, he was sat down for 'health purposes"), Ullrich (Apparently Jan didn't have the money to dope like LA and didn't have advanced notice of tests like we "know" LA did), Merckx (He is the best ever so we ignore his positive tests and even claim he was framed) and Rasmussen (he was never caught doping). My thought is that he is retired, move on and go after the current dopers, the DS's that have had proven doping in their teams, etc. It's like the steroid hearing in baseball that were supposed to be about cleaning up baseball, but in reality were about the past. LA is history, let him have his glory like Merckx, Coppi, Anquetil, etc. (all dopers) and move on.

If you truly want to clean up cycling worry about what is going on NOW.


P.S.- I found the article to be cheesy with an "admission" that was really nothing. I could say that Doctor Falsetti admitted to sending emails to my boss filled with lies trying to get me fired but disguised it so he could assume innocence, but it was unmistakable in it's meaning but that really does not say anything but make a vague implication that could just be me thinking I heard something.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for opening the thread.
> 
> If you look at the last few locked threads you will see that most the time it was going fine until one poster joined and started baiting and insulting others.


Sorry about ruining the Armstrong thread for you. It was awful of me to post a thoughtful opinion and open myself up to personal attacks and insults. I'll try not to do such a horrible thing and ruin the forum for everybody.

P.S. Your post violates a #1 and #7 of the official Forum Guidelines clearly you know you should face punishment from the mods since you are all about the forum being run properly.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Perico said:


> I waited until I read the full article to read and respond to this thread, so here are my thoughts:
> 
> Did LA dope? Probably, but I am intelligent enough to admit that I have no proof of it and neither do any of you. Of course that does not stop some of you to claim you have proof and to ignore certain lines in the "proof" you post. (i.e. "Depending on which criteria you applied. Yes, six of them failed the definitive criteria."). Which is worse, doping or convicting someone in a public forum based on things you claim are proof that do not hold up to any standard of proof? One thing I have always said is that if LA did not dope then he was a great winner of seven TdF and if he did dope then he was a great champion of seven TdF since he beat a peloton full of dopers. I am also amazed how many people choose to single LA out while making excuses for people like Pantani ("He was never caught for doping, he was sat down for 'health purposes"), Ullrich (Apparently Jan didn't have the money to dope like LA and didn't have advanced notice of tests like we "know" LA did), Merckx (He is the best ever so we ignore his positive tests and even claim he was framed) and Rasmussen (he was never caught doping). My thought is that he is retired, move on and go after the current dopers, the DS's that have had proven doping in their teams, etc. It's like the steroid hearing in baseball that were supposed to be about cleaning up baseball, but in reality were about the past. LA is history, let him have his glory like Merckx, Coppi, Anquetil, etc. (all dopers) and move on.
> 
> ...


Dude, if this thread had a 'LIKE' button, I would have just clicked it! You just summed up my thoughts and feelings on the matter exactly!!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I don't see you trying to remove Pantani's or Big Mig's wins.


I don't see anyone trying to remove Armstrong's wins either.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Perico said:


> Sorry about ruining the Armstrong thread for you. It was awful of me to post a thoughtful opinion and open myself up to personal attacks and insults. I'll try not to do such a horrible thing and ruin the forum for everybody.
> 
> P.S. Your post violates a #1 and #7 of the official Forum Guidelines clearly you know you should face punishment from the mods since you are all about the forum being run properly.


Thanks for proving my point


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point


I realize you only see what fits your agenda (as you have proven time and again), but I will ask you to go read your first post in this thread to see the person "baiting and insulting others."


Your original post still violates rules 1 and 7 and both of these posts are off topic. If you really care about the discussions then you should ask coolhand to punish you as you violated the rules and you should make an attempt to stick to the topic in a manner that is within the forum guidelines.

I will be eagerly anticipating your next attempt to spin this into being an issue caused by someone else and to simply ignore what doesn't fit your agenda.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Perico said:


> I realize you only see what fits your agenda (as you have proven time and again), but I will ask you to go read your first post in this thread to see the person "baiting and insulting others."
> 
> 
> Your original post still violates rules 1 and 7 and both of these posts are off topic. If you really care about the discussions then you should ask coolhand to punish you as you violated the rules and you should make an attempt to stick to the topic in a manner that is within the forum guidelines.
> ...


It is clear I did not break any rules. Your attempts to derail yet another thread only serves to reinforce the validity of what I wrote.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Back to the topic please.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

*sigh*


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Falsetti- Went with the ignore and then spin mode this time.

The rules are very clear, but clearly you did not read them.

Your first post in this thread was an attempt to bait and insult and thus was an attempt to derail the thread, my first post was on topic, as it was in the previous thread. 

Keep trying anonymous internet tough guy.


Coolhand- When you allowed Falsetti to leave the topic and violate rules 1 and 7 in the second post of this thread you made it clear that it was ok to leave the topic and discuss other people. You really should apply what you say to *all* posters, not just certain ones, like you are doing here and as you did in the previous thread.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Coolhand said:


> Back to the topic please.


Agreed. 

There are many rumors that USADA is working on a Non-Analytical positive case against Armstrong. I see no way that they could pursue this independently as Armstrong would bury them in legal costs and time. The far higher likelihood is that the Feds would make a sanction part of any plea deal like they did with Marion Jones. 

I doubt "taking down" Armstrong for doping would effect the sport much. Most Europeans, who make up the majority of fans, understand the reality of the sport. Hopefully by now the 500,000 (Or so) US fans who watch the big Tour stages on Versus have been captivated by the beauty and drama of the sport and will continue to watch long after their guy has retired. 

The Fed's have little interest in Armstrong's personal doping. They are interested in the supply networks that run globally. PED's are often mass produced by large companies for legit uses. Unlike Crack or Meth most PED's come with a lot number, tracking codes etc. Uncovering a large network that supplied these drugs to athletes world wide is a real possible outcome of this case, and could be the most damaging to the sport.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Perico said:


> Coolhand- When you allowed Falsetti to leave the topic and violate rules 1 and 7 in the second post of this thread you made it clear that it was ok to leave the topic and discuss other people. You really should apply what you say to *all* posters, not just certain ones, like you are doing here and as you did in the previous thread.


It's always a smart move to start arguments with the mod.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I don't see anyone trying to remove Armstrong's wins either.


Erm, isn't this your purpose on Earth?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Erm, isn't this your purpose on Earth?


Nope. 

This may come as a surprise to you but internet forums have little influence on the UCI and USADA


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> Yeah, it seems to be one of those topics. Amusingly it happens in the bike and component forums on certain topics too (see e.g. the counterfeit frames/ebay carbon threads). Just wanted to make sure you guys could stay in your corral and continue to go in circles, leaving the other forums in peace.


fixored


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



Perico said:


> Falsetti- Went with the ignore and then spin mode this time.
> 
> The rules are very clear, but clearly you did not read them.
> 
> ...


Which part of "back on point please" was confusing? Additionally, you seem to be instigating most of the trouble as of late. *Repeatedly* you were advised to simply put Doctor Falsetti on ignore if you dont like his posts. Take 48 hours to cool off, and when you come back, just ignore the posters you feel have no value. 

BTW- the idea I am biased in favor of the good doctor is my favorite accusation of the last year.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Armstrong is a natural. He is gifted. He has never failed a drug test. He is the most tested athlete in the world. I love Lance.

He is innocent. I want a Trek.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Coolhand said:


> Which part of "back on point please" was confusing? Additionally, you seem to be instigating most of the trouble as of late. *Repeatedly* you were advised to simply put Doctor Falsetti on ignore if you dont like his posts. Take 48 hours to cool off, and when you come back, just ignore the posters you feel have no value.
> 
> BTW- the idea I am biased in favor of the good doctor is my favorite accusation of the last year.


1) I tried to contact you via PM, but you never responded.

2) No I was not repeatedly advised. You made general advisement and ones specifically to Falsetti, but not to me.

3) You prove your bias in this thread when the second post after your original post is him not posting on topic, flaming and baiting. Clearly violating forum rules, but your response is to essentially tell him it is ok and to give me a "cool off" period.

If you wish we can discuss this in private...like I wanted to in the first place when I was attacked in the older thread without provocation.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Most people would take taken the repeated request to stay on point. Most.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Perico said:


> I waited until I read the full article to read and respond to this thread, so here are my thoughts:
> 
> Did LA dope? Probably, but I am intelligent enough to admit that I have no proof of it and neither do any of you. Of course that does not stop some of you to claim you have proof and to ignore certain lines in the "proof" you post. (i.e. "Depending on which criteria you applied. Yes, six of them failed the definitive criteria."). Which is worse, doping or convicting someone in a public forum based on things you claim are proof that do not hold up to any standard of proof? One thing I have always said is that if LA did not dope then he was a great winner of seven TdF and if he did dope then he was a great champion of seven TdF since he beat a peloton full of dopers. I am also amazed how many people choose to single LA out while making excuses for people like Pantani ("He was never caught for doping, he was sat down for 'health purposes"), Ullrich (Apparently Jan didn't have the money to dope like LA and didn't have advanced notice of tests like we "know" LA did), Merckx (He is the best ever so we ignore his positive tests and even claim he was framed) and Rasmussen (he was never caught doping). My thought is that he is retired, move on and go after the current dopers, the DS's that have had proven doping in their teams, etc. It's like the steroid hearing in baseball that were supposed to be about cleaning up baseball, but in reality were about the past. LA is history, let him have his glory like Merckx, Coppi, Anquetil, etc. (all dopers) and move on.
> 
> ...


So, if you really want to clean up society, just worry about what is going on now. Don't worry about prosecuting people for prior crimes. Not even murders committed 6 months ago. That is all water under the bridge. Work on preventing new murders and on education. Is that how you are essentially saying we should approach cleaning up cycling?

Me, I like punishing people for their crimes, even if they happened in the past. It kind of lets others know that just because they got away with the lax pee test, that they can still be prosecuted.

So, I vote for education and prosecution, and I don't think any doper should really be spared.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

fabsroman said:


> So, if you really want to clean up society, just worry about what is going on now. Don't worry about prosecuting people for prior crimes. Not even murders committed 6 months ago. That is all water under the bridge. Work on preventing new murders and on education. Is that how you are essentially saying we should approach cleaning up cycling?
> 
> Me, I like punishing people for their crimes, even if they happened in the past. It kind of lets others know that just because they got away with the lax pee test, that they can still be prosecuted.
> 
> So, I vote for education and prosecution, and I don't think any doper should really be spared.


Are "Law" & "Cycling Rules" even comparable in "reality" ?????


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> Are "Law" & "Cycling Rules" even comparable in "reality" ?????


Of course. Laws are often societal concepts in written form. When a rider tests positive the refrain is often to interject legal terms.....Due Process, Chain of custody, etc. 

Where is the line draw? The current statue of limitations is 8 years, would 6 months be better?


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Boy, there is some kind of feud going on here. Do I have to read every single post, vindicitave, slamming, whining, accusing..... before I can comment on Armstrong's Doping or not? There are too many of them.

I am going to go ahead and chime in without reading ALL the infighting, the personal slams, the accusations and personal attacks between posters here. All the journalist's and lawyer's slams elsewhere.

The single thing the no one refutes in all these endless "Did too, did not, did too..." arguments is that so far, nobody has proved, in an incontestable court-legal way, that Armstrong doped.

Now we have this writer-dude in some glossy mag that everyone is quoting...and yes, I read with interest...for about 2/3rds of the story (and it's an interesting story..but nothing but a story) until I got to the "Tables" where we should all find the "data" to "weigh the evidence for ourselves" BS...Just another guy, admittedly a guy who is 'making wages' off being really close to the subject and writing about it...putting all kinds of "Well, he had to have been doping, because______" out there like it was actual evidence and proof. But it's not, is it, or Armstrong would have been found guilty and we can move on...

When they finally prove he doped, beyond a doubt...Then all the Haters will be happy as hell and can say "Told you so"...But right now...he's not been proven guilty, so writing an article in a big (in the US anyhow) magazine just as if he is a doper anyway and writing like it is an established fact... that seems a little Palin-esque.

As public opinion is changed (by what we read and "hear") the Goal Posts get moved...The Bicycling Mag piece is written like "The Truth"...and people who aren't even a little familiar with any of this will go..."Hey, Lance is a Doper....I read it in Bicycling magazine"...and he will be guilty, tried and convicted in the press...If you say something often and loud enough, it soon enough is taken as 'fact'...even when it's not proven.

Hold up the beaker of Pee or the bag of blood in court....Prove it came right out of Lance Armstrong and that it does contain a banned substance....and then the guy is then "A Doper"...Done! 

Get a doctor who'll say, under oath..."I injected Lance Armstrong with _____ on such and such a date" and verify that testimony with other evidence so that whoever is judging this case will believe that evidence, beyond a shadow of doubt. Get a Guilty verdict in a legal trial or hearing and then....the Guy's then real a Doper.. Up till now, he's gotta remain a 'suspected doper'...an "accused-doper" or a former champion who's been accused of doping..

"he musta been a doper...look at how_____" blah blah blah. "Did too, did not, did too, did not...."

We've heard a lot of that but we have not heard any..."He's a proven doper" yet...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Ahhh....Suspend rational thought and ignore obvious until the UCI/WADA/Feds tell us what to think. 

Got it:thumbsup:


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Gnarly 928 said:


> Boy, there is some kind of feud going on here. Do I have to read every single post, vindicitave, slamming, whining, accusing..... before I can comment on Armstrong's Doping or not? There are too many of them.
> 
> I am going to go ahead and chime in without reading ALL the infighting, the personal slams, the accusations and personal attacks between posters here. All the journalist's and lawyer's slams elsewhere.
> 
> The single thing the no one refutes in all these endless "Did too, did not, did too..." arguments is that so far, nobody has proved, in an incontestable court-legal way, that Armstrong doped.


What you said is correct. But the investigation is still ongoing. Many posters here insist that it will never be proven. Or that the investigation is a waste. Or that it's a witch-hunt. How do they know if the investigators haven't even stated their claims? 

Haven't we been here before? 



> Hold up the beaker of Pee or the bag of blood in court....Prove it came right out of Lance Armstrong and that it does contain a banned substance....and then the guy is then "A Doper"...Done!


Maybe they are working on it. Maybe the focus will not be the sports doping aspect, rather the misuse of medicine. Either way there is no reason to get worked up, just wait for the case to be brought to court or settled one way or another.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ahhh....Suspend rational thought and ignore obvious until the UCI/WADA/Feds tell us what to think.
> 
> Got it:thumbsup:


Innocent until proven guilty. Got it? :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

covenant said:


> Innocent until proven guilty. Got it? :thumbsup:


This is an internet forum, not a court of law. It is not mandatory to suspend rational thought just because the UCI is corrupt and has not yet issued a sanction. 

Got it? :thumbsup:


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

covenant said:


> Innocent until proven guilty. Got it? :thumbsup:


Is OJ Simpson innocent? A court of law found him "not guilty", so I must believe that he still looking for the real killers (on FL golf courses).


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Gnarly 928 said:


> The single thing the no one refutes in all these endless "Did too, did not, did too..." arguments is that so far, nobody has proved, in an incontestable court-legal way, that Armstrong doped.
> 
> 
> When they finally prove he doped, beyond a doubt...Then all the Haters will be happy as hell and can say "Told you so"...But right now...he's not been proven guilty, so writing an article in a big (in the US anyhow) magazine just as if he is a doper anyway and writing like it is an established fact... that seems a little Palin-esque.


Armstrong has never faced a trial on this issue, and unfortunately never will. Even the current investigation is quite limited in scope compared to trying the issue of "did he dope during his career." You can't say someone was acquitted, or "proven innocent" (which is an entirely different thing really), if they haven't even been tried on the issue. 

You know O.J. Simpson was never convicted of murder. Was he guilty? There is a court of public opinion and people can and do make rational judgments. I've read up on the subject enough to have formed some fairly solid judgments in my assessment, judgments based on quality evidence and not speculation, rumor, unsubstantiated internet talk, or EPO tests done by a French lab and linked up to Armstrong through a reporter. 

Others can choose to ignore the evidence, or discount good evidence because they don't WANT to believe it. That is there prerogative. The real truth in this instance is not somewhere in the middle, however, he either did or he didn't. 

If you were forced to bet your house on it, and give a yes or no knowing that the truth would in fact be revealed the next day, what would you say? Did he dope or did he not? Review the evidence. What do you really think? 

(Don't say it doesn't matter. Opinions do matter, especially when based on some legit evidence.)


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

HikenBike said:


> Is OJ Simpson innocent?


That depends if the person answering the question is Black or White.




HikenBike said:


> I must believe that he still looking for the real killers (*on FL golf courses*).


You haven't been keeping up with current events.
On December 5, 2008, Simpson was sentenced to a total of 33 years in prison for kidnapping and armed robbery.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

covenant said:


> You haven't been keeping up with current events.
> On December 5, 2008, Simpson was sentenced to a total of 33 years in prison for kidnapping and armed robbery.


Ah you see, that was all part of Orenthal's plan. See, the "real killer" is probably already in prison for other crimes (once a criminal...). So by getting himself incarcerated OJ now has the inside track on finding the culprit.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ahhh....Suspend rational thought and ignore obvious until the UCI/WADA/Feds tell us what to think.
> 
> Got it:thumbsup:


It sounds like you're coming to terms with Lance not being prosecuted/sanctioned by the UCI/WADA/Feds . Are we still on target for more developments in a few months or have things stalled completely?

*edited for the pedantic*


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

covenant said:


> You haven't been keeping up with current events.
> On December 5, 2008, Simpson was sentenced to a total of 33 years in prison for kidnapping and armed robbery.


Oh, yeah. I forgot about the Vegas incident. He WAS looking for the killers on the FL golf courses and in Vegas.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

covenant said:


> It sounds like your coming to terms with Lance not being prosecuted/sanctioned by the UCI/WADA/Feds . Are we still on target for more developments in a few months or have things stalled completely?


Please, take a moment: http://www.youryoure.com/


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Big-foot said:


> Please, take a moment: https://www.youryoure.com/


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

covenant said:


> That depends if the person answering the question is Black or White.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Totally different crimes. Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges against him for double murder. A different jury, using the same evidence but a different burden of proof, ruled against him and found that he did in fact commit one of those murders. (They were only considering one of the murders, not both, so were not asked to reach a decision on the other). 

If Armstrong were charged with DUI tomorrow and subsequently convicted, it would have no bearing on whether he doped during his professional cycling career.

If--through your "depends if you are black or white" comment--you are trying to suggest that a person can let their own prejudices skew their view of evidence, instead of looking at things purely objectively, well then I guess you are arguing one of my points for me, don't you think?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Big-foot, is that your idea with the gloves that fit photoshop? Brilliant work, regardless of whether anyone thinks Armstrong doped or not.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Gatorback said:


> Totally different crimes. Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges against him for double murder. A different jury, using the same evidence but a different burden of proof, ruled against him and found that he did in fact commit one of those murders. (They were only considering one of the murders, not both, so were not asked to reach a decision on the other).
> 
> If Armstrong were charged with DUI tomorrow and subsequently convicted, it would have no bearing on whether he doped during his professional cycling career.


Those are good points but I'm uncertain why you made them while quoting my post.



Gatorback said:


> If--through your "depends if you are black or white" comment--you are trying to suggest that a person can let their own prejudices skew their view of evidence, instead of looking at things purely objectively, well then I guess you are arguing one of my points for me, don't you think?


I usually just skim over your posts so If I've been arguing your points for you I'm unaware of it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

covenant said:


> It sounds like you're coming to terms with Lance not being prosecuted/sanctioned by the UCI/WADA/Feds . Are we still on target for more developments in a few months or have things stalled completely?
> 
> *edited for the pedantic*


Far from stalled, the investigation continues to expand....hence the delay. Armstrong has years of legal entanglements ahead of him.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Far from stalled, the investigation continues to expand....hence the delay. Armstrong has years of legal entanglements ahead of him.


That's easy to say....


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Big-foot said:


> Ah you see, that was all part of Orenthal's plan. See, the "real killer" is probably already in prison for other crimes (once a criminal...). So by getting himself incarcerated OJ now has the inside track on finding the culprit.


the real question is whether Lance is using grecian formula?


----------



## darkpromenade (Apr 13, 2011)

I've been lurking on this forum for months and I thought I would finally post up my thoughts.

I think it is looking more and more likely that Lance will make an admission of doping. The magazine article looks to me like the start of that process. I think the Lance camp would be pleased with the outcoem of the article (no real uproar) and will slowly begin to edge towards a (limited) release of the truth. 

There is real resistance from some people to accept that Lance doped and that is understandable, given the profile of the man and what he did for cycling, particularly cycing in the USA and the mythology surrounding him and cancer. These people will continue to support and believe in Lance regardless of any admissions he may make. When people invest emotionally in an idea (Lance as the Hero/Saviour) it is very difficult, very painful even, for them to give it all up. In some ways they will be able to identify more with him, because they will see he has flaws, just like the rest of us. 

On a separate note, I would like to thank the Good Doctor F for his contributions to this forum. It is clear that he has an "inside line" on these proceedings and his posts are inciteful. I have wondered at times if some of the vitriol that is directed at him comes from people in LAs circle, but we will never know. I thnk the calm and professional input of Gatorback also deserves a mention.

Lance always put himself forward as the greatest, the guy that beat cancer and beat the world on a bike. As others have said, really,he just got lucky with the cancer. And it is looking more and more like he cheated on the bike. He cheated every single cycling fan who ever thought he was something special. And even if you say "they were all doing it", then they were all cheating. They were all being dishonest. They were all lying. None of them should be excused, including Lance.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Gatorback said:


> Armstrong has never faced a trial on this issue, and unfortunately never will. Even the current investigation is quite limited in scope compared to trying the issue of "did he dope during his career." You can't say someone was acquitted, or "proven innocent" (which is an entirely different thing really), if they haven't even been tried on the issue.
> 
> You know O.J. Simpson was never convicted of murder. Was he guilty? There is a court of public opinion and people can and do make rational judgments. I've read up on the subject enough to have formed some fairly solid judgments in my assessment, judgments based on quality evidence and not speculation, rumor, unsubstantiated internet talk, or EPO tests done by a French lab and linked up to Armstrong through a reporter.
> 
> ...


Opinions are...opinions and everyone is entitled to their own.. "legit evidence"...it seems like there are some different opinions on what is "legit evidence" In my opinion, which matters, there has yet to be any 'legit evidence' proving Lance Armstrong raced with dope.

He's not been tried or even formally charged..... because nobody thinks there is good enough reason (called irrefutable evidence) to try him..because they think they'd lose a case with just what they have. There will always be someone working on making a case, further investigation will go on and on until someone gets something usable..

Journalists and newspapers say...he doped..because it helps their circulation, helps them sell..But they can *say* almost anything and get away with it, unless Armstrong or whoever sues them and wins that case....different subject there. back to doping...

But you're saying.."look at the evidence...see, he is guilty, you can't deny that..." Fortunately we have a system that won't allow someone to be found guilty without a formal judgment being made and the accused being able to defend himself in a formal hearing of some sort...(except for Gitmo) Bring out the evidence, plop it down in front of the accused and all interested parties and then decide the case. We're supposed to do it that way, not just 'We all believe it, because you can't deny......."

Sure, he raced against and beat lots of convicted dopers...I guess we all have done that, given what we are recently hearing about widespread amateur doping. But does that make him (or you, or me) a confirmed doper.? No, it does not. Again, when and if irrefutable proof is presented in a formal and binding hearing and he's convicted of doping..then you can call him a doper.

We can all then righteously revile him even more, tear him down and stomp all over his reputation..send him over to Floyd and Tyler Hamilton's side of the ledger...

But for now, it is just Internet hearsay. "is too. Is not Is too" It should read..."In my opinion, Lance Armstrong doped"...not "Armstrong is a doper"


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

You are right that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Remember that I'm a trial lawyer and my job is to work with, evaluate, and present evidence on a daily basis. Maybe my opinion carries a little more weight to some. But maybe not. 

Thousands of crimes occur every day in the U.S. alone that are never prosecuted. They doesn't mean those who committed them are not guilty. It just means they got away with it.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

darkpromenade said:


> On a separate note, I would like to thank the Good Doctor F for his contributions to this forum. It is clear that he has an "inside line" on these proceedings and his posts are inciteful.


I love this quote because Dr F has been both "insightful" and "inciteful" with his postings, depending on which side of the fence you are on.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Gnarly 928 said:


> But for now, it is just Internet hearsay.


The mountain of evidence that Armstrong doped has moved far beyond "Internet Hearsay"


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Gatorback said:


> Big-foot, is that your idea with the gloves that fit photoshop? Brilliant work, regardless of whether anyone thinks Armstrong doped or not.


Yup, and thanks. I love playing with Photoshop.


----------



## gobes (Sep 12, 2006)

darkpromenade said:


> I've been lurking on this forum for months and I thought I would finally post up my thoughts.
> 
> I think it is looking more and more likely that Lance will make an admission of doping. The magazine article looks to me like the start of that process. I think the Lance camp would be pleased with the outcoem of the article (no real uproar) and will slowly begin to edge towards a (limited) release of the truth.
> 
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

Gatorback, or any other law-type: What do you think the Bonds' decision will play on Armstrong, or even Clemens and others under investigation?? The fact that one juror in the Bonds case pretty much blew up for the prosecution for an extraordinarily weak case says a lot to me. Especially since there are similar investigators (is this true?). 

Sure, Bonds was found guilty on obstruction of justice, but that's a Loss for the Feds...


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

The first two sentences of Jason Stark's article sort of sum up my position on Clemens or Armstrong or anyone else. . .

"So let's get this straight. The only thing we've learned about Barry Bonds is that he was evasive?

The government could have assembled a panel of distinguished baseball writers to convict him on that charge like 15 years ago.

So THAT'S what The Trial of the Home Run King has taught us? I've never felt prouder of the fine work my tax dollars have been doing all this time.

Just try to digest what went down here. This extravaganza started eight years ago, with Jeff Novitzky combing through the trash bin in the BALCO parking lot. 

It took a long time and a lot of money to convict Barry Bonds of something we already knew he was guilty of.

The United States attorney general would later announce the BALCO indictments personally.

Greg Anderson would spend 436 productive days in jail, all for the thrill of dodging this witness stand.

And I'm pretty sure more millions of dollars were invested in this case over the years than the Royals have spent on their bullpen.

All so a jury could determine that Barry was guilty of being evasive?

If that doesn't swell your pride in being an American, it's hard to imagine what else would.

The point, then, is that those of us who have to assess history, vote on the Hall of Fame and appear on important American sports talk shows haven't exactly been given massive guidance by this trial.

But I'm trying my best to take the position that we did get something out of it. So here's what I think it's now safe to come away with:

• The Home Run King HAS been convicted of a federal felony here. It may not be as forceful or serious a felony as a conviction on lying about performance-enhancing drug use would have been. But it's enough to make the sight of Bonds standing outside the courthouse, flashing the old V For Victory sign, just a tad excessive. Don't you think? 

If Barry can name one other player of his era who has been convicted of any federal felony related to PEDs, he's been digging harder through those court records than the rest of civilization. So for us Hall of Fame voters, this is still a bigger, darker black mark against his candidacy than we've been handed on any other name that's likely to appear on that ballot.

• One other important point here: As the prosecution emphatically pointed out during this trial, Bonds never denied USING steroids. He only denied "knowingly" using steroids.

Not that this would come as a dramatic revelation to anyone who read "Game of Shadows." And "Game of Shadows" certainly told us far more about why he used what he used than these court proceedings ever did. 

But what's made "steroid era" Hall of Fame voting such an impossible mission is the insanity of trying to play the who-did-what guessing game. So at least there's now zero remaining reason to have to guess anymore about Barry. It's all right there in the court records.

• And speaking of those court records, they're also chock full of juicy details about PED use in baseball. Just not about Barry's PED use.

Something did happen during this trial that had never happened before, you know.

We had major league baseball players -- past and present -- march up to a real federal witness stand and testify, under oath, on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, about what the heck really went on in "the steroid era."

Randy Velarde proved just how easy it is to get PEDs while playing.
And we appreciate that. Seriously.

We heard Jason Giambi report that his good friends from BALCO told him that without their help, he'd definitely test positive for steroids when that dastardly MLB test force showed up. So they so kindly began sending packages, right to his home, that contained testosterone, "the clear," "the cream" and a dosing calendar.

We heard his brother, Jeremy, tell almost the same story, and recount how Greg Anderson bragged to him that what BALCO was delivering to him was "undetectable" (assuming that no investigators were about to rummage through his trash collection, at least).

But it was the other two players who made it into the witness' chair that were most deserving of our attention.

There was Randy Velarde. He laid out a must-read tale of being referred, by teammate Bobby Estalella, to Anderson for the finest test-beating drugs around. Then the two of them would meet up in -- yikes! -- "various parking lots," where Anderson would inject him with the goods. Right there in the lot. Between the white lines. No details available on whether they set the parking brake first.

And finally, there was Marvin Benard. He talked about how he started using veterinary steroids in Mexico, then took advantage of having a premium supplier like Anderson hanging around his clubhouse and upgraded to BALCO's "better, cleaner stuff." 

See? It was that easy. The drug dealer was allowed by this sport to walk through the clubhouse doors every single day -- for years. So if you were interested in his services, you could just step right up, like you were cruising through the drive-thru at Taco Bell or something.

And these weren't players setting out to break baseball's most hallowed records, friends. They weren't among the 10 or 12 "cheaters" we spend all our time obsessing on when we discuss this embarrassing period of baseball history.

We're talking Randy Velarde and Marvin Benard. They never had a 20-homer season in their lives, let alone a 70-homer season.

But they got the memo that there was stuff out there that could keep them employed and make them a few extra bucks, and everybody else was using it. So what the heck. Why not them, too?

And we repeat: They could order it right there in their own clubhouse.

Amazing.

So see? This case taught us a little about the steroid era after all. OK, so maybe it taught us more about Marvin Benard than it did about Barry Bonds. But at least it wasn't a complete waste of Jeff Novitzky's garbage forays.

And coincidentally, these revelations came along just a few days before Tax Day, too. So won't that warm your heart as you're writing your check to the IRS this week?

Hey, of course it will, I'm sure it will. Just, much like "the clear" and "the cream," that warmth figures to be 100 percent undetectable.

Jayson Stark is a senior writer for ESPN.com.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Since the start of this case Armstrong has worked the media with aggressive talking points. It is comical to see how wrong his claims have been. 

He has often pretended that the case does no bother him and he is not thinking about it. At the same time he and his vast legal team have been actively lobbying Eric Holder in an attempt to get the case dropped....it is not getting dropped. 

Last month there was "Article" Written by Armstrong's legal team that was syndicated by the AP. It said the case was stalled and going nowhere. Now we see that the case was far from stalled but rapidly expanding. More targets, more charges, more agencies involved. News of millions of dollars in financial transfers to Ferrari from the US. 

A few weeks ago we hear from Rep Jack Kingston who questions the FDA's involvement......only to find out the that case has moved far beyond the FDA and now involves multiple Federal Agencies. 

Armstrong has clearly lost control of the narrative. 

Shane Stokes has a good overview of the latest. 
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8...Service-investigation-continuing-onwards.aspx




> Contrary to suggestions made in an AP article released in February, there are little clear indications of ‘serious hurdles,’ as was stated then.
> 
> VeloNation has spoken to sources with knowledge of the matter and understands that investigators are continuing to build what they feel is a solid case. This website understands that Floyd Landis’ claims have been bolstered over time by the testimony of *multiple witnesses*, with these corroborating suggestions that systemic doping took place on the team.


----------



## flatlander_48 (Nov 16, 2005)

Gatorback said:


> If--through your "*depends if you are black or white*" comment--you are trying to suggest that a person can let their own prejudices skew their view of evidence, instead of looking at things purely objectively, well then I guess you are arguing one of my points for me, don't you think?


Very telling comment, isn't it?


----------



## PLAYONIT (Aug 25, 2009)

Armstrong on Oprah 4/26.....


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

Gatorback said:


> You are right that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Remember that I'm a trial lawyer and my job is to work with, evaluate, and present evidence on a daily basis. Maybe my opinion carries a little more weight to some. But maybe not.
> 
> Thousands of crimes occur every day in the U.S. alone that are never prosecuted. They doesn't mean those who committed them are not guilty. It just means they got away with it.


My question is will the '99 samples be allowed in court? I'm sure this will be one of the big contentions if the prosecution tries to admit it. 

How was the contract with USPS structured? I know it had provisions against doping, but how was it worded? If the contract simply says "no doping" then what constitutes doping? Is the accepted definition of doping "not meeting the standards of the governing body" in which you're competing? Is there a broader view that even if you're compliance with the rules and have never had an official sanction that you could still be considered in violation of your contract? From a contractual standpoint doping may not be "doping" if it wasn't proven in the manner in which "doping" is controlled. Is the standard in some USPS guide book that makes you contractually liable for 'B' samples that didn't disqualify you from your event? That's without getting into the chain of custody issues. I think there's a good argument that any Armstrong samples aren't useful in proving an argument for contract violation and would only serve to do harm to his image. It would seem like a personal vendetta against the man.

The defense has a pretty good argument that whatever went on caused no harm to USPS and actually helped their image. At this point by prosecuting this they can they help their image with the general public? It's like a lawsuit against someone where the fact that the lawsuit was even filed is used as evidence in the lawsuit. It's frivolous now that the team has moved on and LA is retired. The USPS wasn't even behind the allegations and I haven't heard that they're suing Armstrong. You have FL as the whistleblower but the only harm to any party at this point can come from the investigation and trial itself. The only damages that could be warranted would come from the trial process itself, not the outcome or any decision.

As far as criminal misconduct goes, refer back to validity of the evidence in regard to the contract. Is doping in another country a crime that's prosecutable in the United States? Wouldn't they have to prove the money trail to the drugs before activity that took place in another country was admissible in court? Again, is doping that isn't caught technically considered doping? What's the precedent for a Federal conviction on "suspected doping"?

Is the Government's case about making an example of a cyclist now that they've went through Baseball and Track and Field?

I can't see anything substantial coming out of this unless there's an overwhelming amount of personal testimony and EPO receipts from locations in the greater Austin metro area. It's just another way for the government to spend that ungodly check I wrote 2 weeks ago.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

frontierwolf said:


> My question is will the '99 samples be allowed in court? I'm sure this will be one of the big contentions if the prosecution tries to admit it.
> 
> How was the contract with USPS structured? I know it had provisions against doping, but how was it worded? If the contract simply says "no doping" then what constitutes doping? Is the accepted definition of doping "not meeting the standards of the governing body" in which you're competing? Is there a broader view that even if you're compliance with the rules and have never had an official sanction that you could still be considered in violation of your contract? From a contractual standpoint doping may not be "doping" if it wasn't proven in the manner in which "doping" is controlled. Is the standard in some USPS guide book that makes you contractually liable for 'B' samples that didn't disqualify you from your event? That's without getting into the chain of custody issues. I think there's a good argument that any Armstrong samples aren't useful in proving an argument for contract violation and would only serve to do harm to his image. It would seem like a personal vendetta against the man.
> 
> ...


I feel like I'm on the Chris Matthews show. You have asked a dozen questions or so questions covering all kinds of issues. I've got only limited time to play around on the internet, then it is off to work for a day of addressing my client's cases. 

But, I'll give some answers. If you want me to take a stab at all of those, maybe present them one or two at a time.

In terms of whether the '99 samples are admissible, there is not enough info in the public domain to make that assessment. The issues are far more complex than just the ultimate question of "are they admissible." You have chain of custody issues, validity of testing after they were stored for years (did the samples degrade), and many others. You can't even assess all the evidentiary issues until you look at the details of the evidence. We don't even know for sure the information about the samples that has been reported is accurate because the reporting was essentially an investigation of its own that pieced together info. I would say those '99 samples are of undetermined value and we can't tag them as reliable evidence at this point.

In terms of the USPS contract, you could get a hold of it if you want to review it. It is a public record. I'd just suggest that the actual terms of the contract are not that important in the criminal investigation. If you accept money from a federal governmental agency, you are automatically bound by numerous law regarding the use of those funds regardless of what the contract says. The fact the USPS put something specific in there regarding "no doping" is just added ammunition to all the law out there. If Armstrong doped, and used federal governmental money to do so, the prosecutors probably don't even need to rely on the terms of the contract to hang him. 

The level of harm to the USPS and the government is not even if relevant issue at this point to the criminal investigation. It is a criminal investigation, not a civil case at this point. The level of harm would be relevant if he is convicted and a judge is deciding on sentencing, but if a crime was committed a crime was committed. Does it harm anyone when a harmless, strung out junkie fires up some crack cocaine on a street corner? The answer is often no, but they go to jail. 

Is it frivolous to prosecute a mob boss for murder if they have "retired" and are no longer killing? I don't think so. 

Is this case about making an example of cyclists now that the feds have gone after and convicted folks in Baseball and Track & Field? Yes, absolutely. And a whole lot more as well. It is letting everyone out there know if you misuse federal funds, you can be prosecuted. 

I will pose a question to you:

Why would you be opposed to an investigation when you don't know the details and don't know the outcome? It seems anyone opposed to the investigation is being a little premature in their judgment. I have quite a bit of confidence in most U.S. Attorneys. They are busy folks, as a whole take their jobs very seriously, and are not going to waste time on an investigation that is going nowhere or that is not worthwhile. Because there are plenty of crimes out there to investigate and prosecute. That doesn't mean there are no bad apples, but if the investigation were wayward attempts by recalcitrant prosecutors and investigators this thing would have been shut down long ago. Don't underestimate the power of Armstrong and his money and his supporters. The fact the investigation hasn't gone away is telling in itself.


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Gatorback said:


> I feel like I'm on the Chris Matthews show.
> 
> ***
> 
> I'd just suggest that the actual terms of the contract are not that important in the criminal investigation. If you accept money from a federal governmental agency, you are automatically bound by numerous law regarding the use of those funds regardless of what the contract says. The fact the USPS put something specific in there regarding "no doping" is just added ammunition to all the law out there. If Armstrong doped, and used federal governmental money to do so, the prosecutors probably don't even need to rely on the terms of the contract to hang him.


I'd add that any contractual issues would be pretty minor. While it would certainly be an issue if this was a civil breach of contract issue instead of a criminal investigation, you cannot contract to commit crimes (o.k., o.k., there's that old line about boxing and battery, but other than that  ) or to excuse crimes.

Using Gatorback's analogy with the mob, would it really matter what type of agreements the mob had as to when, why and how someone could whack someone else? Somehow I don't see a prosecutor making a statement that he would have prosecuted a mobster for murdering another mobster, but the agreements among all the mobsters as to when and how you can be killed were too ambiguous.

Further, I have to wonder how many posters think law enforcement officers and prosecuting attorneys work. "Gee I'd like to investigate that bank robbery, but because we don't already have enough evidence to prosecute we shouldn't waste time doing any investigations to locate and develop evidence." Seems to be a _non sequitor_ argument.


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

Gatorback said:


> The level of harm to the USPS and the government is not even if relevant issue at this point to the criminal investigation. *It is a criminal investigation, not a civil case at this point.* The level of harm would be relevant if he is convicted and a judge is deciding on sentencing, but if a crime was committed a crime was committed. *Does it harm anyone when a harmless, strung out junkie fires up some crack cocaine on a street corner? The answer is often no, but they go to jail. *
> 
> *Is it frivolous to prosecute a mob boss for murder if they have "retired" and are no longer killing? I don't think so. *
> 
> ...


Where I have the problem is that this is a criminal case. If the team can account for all USPS funds being used for legitimate, non-doping costs of running a team then were the funds misused? Particularly if there is no paper trail tying funding to an alleged systematic doping program?

The question with the drug use should have been are any US citizens harmed when a junkie fires up crack in Amsterdam? Is it worth the funding to investigate and prosecute that junkie? Is it worth the time to tie down every instance of doping and prosecute it based on the laws at the time in whatever country it occurred in?

I don't think anyone has accused LA of murder yet, but there is a line that has to be drawn on when the cost and negative consequences of a trial outweigh the potential benefit to the public good. If someone went to the police and said I ran a redlight 3 years ago when I lived in another state I don't think they're going to open a file and start looking for corroborating witnesses. Yes the scope of the crime is different but I don't equate sports doping to gang violence either.

You do have alot of confidence in US attorneys. The whole sports doping mess as a Federal issue has been political from the start. It goes back to Politicians and their ties to Baseball. Further than that it goes back to Franchise owners trying to reign in the players and knock them down a bit. The details I know are that; 
1) Sports doping as a criminal issue is politically motivated 
2) Jeff Novitzky has been accused of bias and illegally obtaining evidence. His motives are unclear to me. It's incredible to me that most Federal attorney's never make the news yet he has a constant media exposure due to his continual pursuit of high profile defendants. 
3) The initial allegations come from un-reliable sources. Similar to if one mob boss told you about murders committed by a rival mob boss. Especially when you know it's a ploy by one to take down the other.
4) All Cycling accusers have something to gain by taking LA down. FLandis is no longer the preeminent US cycling doper. Lemond is once again the greatest American cyclist. 
5) The fact that the investigation is ongoing means nothing to me. Investigations move slow. There has to be overwhelming evidence of innocence to stop one once it has started, like trying to stop a train. I've seen investigations run for years and go to trial with only weak circumstantial evidence that's easily refuted. 

To me this is a political game and a media circus. The only possible outcomes I see are another notch in Novitzky's bedpost, hurt LA, and set back cycling in the US. I'm not a Novitzky fan and I don't hate LA so there's nothing positive in this for me. I'd be happier if they took Novitzky's budget and sent it to help families displaced by the Alabama tornadoes.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

You and I have very different viewpoints on this stuff. 

The Feds got involved in baseball because the owners would not do anything about it. They got involved in track and field because the doping authorities there didn't have the funds to legitimately keep up with the dopers and put a stop to it--and may not have even wanted to do so. Do we see a similar pattern here of the "authorities" in a sport not really wanting to control doping, but at the same time looking like they are trying to do so? 

We are not talking about running red lights, or firing up a joint in Amsterdam, we are talking about $40+ million in federal governmental funds that may have be misused. We are talking about an alleged pattern and practice of criminal activity for monetary gain. There are probably dozens of charges that could be brought. 

As a lawyer, I'm in favor in living by the rule of law. You can't do that if you don't enforce it, because many people won't respect it. 

What is really wrong with doping? In my mind, innocent guys are getting cheated. They want to be clean, but learn they can't do so and still win. They have to either play the game or get out. That isn't fair. It isn't fair in sports (doping), the business world, or anywhere else. Play by the rules or you should pay a price.


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

The owners *couldn't* do anything about it. They had to go through the government because the MLB Players association was too strong for the owners. You think the senators involved in those hearings weren't on the owner's speed dials? Even the president was an owner. It was a political tactic in the 100+ year old owner/player relationship.

I agree completely about living by the rule of law. I just haven't heard or read anything that seems credible regarding a $40 million dollar fraud against the US government. 

USPS got what they paid for, a high profile team with an American cyclist who won races without failing any doping controls. I can just see LA up on the stand now saying "you want the truth? you can't handle the truth" He played by the rules of the game and won 7 times in a row. Just take a look at the Bicycling Mag chart about who he was competing against. Around 70% of the top 10 in all 7 tours have a *known* connection to doping. To single him out because he was the winner, or there's a technicality that one of his sponsors was the Federal Government seems like an 'aha!' moment. "We know what you were doing, we endorsed it, paid you for it, and used it to our advantage but now that you're retired and no use to US cycling we want it back." Do you really think The Postal Service didn't realize that cycling was dirty back then? Do you think Bicycling puts a pic of LA on the front because any LA news sells magazines or because they're trying to clean up the sport?

Yeah guys are cheating. They will always cheat unless there's a zero tolerance/lifetime ban policy put in place. Even then you'll have cheating, but then again, this isn't about doping at all. It's about fraud because he wasn't caught for doping. He was accused by what seemed to be a very bitter Floyd from the emails that were published last year. That's what they're going on? Floyd is known to have been untruthful in the past, and to my knowledge he didn't produce any real evidence other than his accusations. This investigation has to run into the millions and all because of Floyd? That doesn't seem like much to go on. 

I think it's a waste of time and money because I still don't see what the endgame is here. The US government won't reform international cycling. What kind of verdict/penalty are we talking about? Johann Bruyneel in a jail cell? LA fined a million bucks? Lance on the stand and hoping you can get him to perjure himself? 

I'm not saying that what anyone did was right, and I don't judge people who haven't been caught when I don't have credible information, but the investigation really seems like a publicity stunt. Maybe they'll turn up a vast secret conspiracy to defraud the government but I don't think anyone will go to jail. I don't think any riders or coaches will be fined. Reputations will probably suffer if there's a trial but even that's not guaranteed if it looks like a witch hunt. 

At the end of the day Bicycling magazines and news sites will probably be the biggest benefactors of the whole process. The cycling world will keep turning as the next un-detectable drug is developed, so on and so forth.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Gatorback said:


> As a lawyer, I'm in favor in living by the rule of law.





Gatorback said:


> I'm an attorney and can guarantee you no judge would ever look at a bunch of subpoenas in a situation like this as a fishing expedition.





Gatorback said:


> Remember that I'm a trial lawyer and my job is to work with, evaluate, and present evidence on a daily basis.





Gatorback said:


> If you've been reading the doping forum for a little while, and I'm pretty sure you have, then you know I'm a trial lawyer in the U.S





Gatorback said:


> I've also litigated against incorporated businesses with boards, including a couple of non-profits, in connection with my job as a lawyer.





Gatorback said:


> I live in the U.S. I am a trial lawyer,





Gatorback said:


> I'm a lawyer and, given everything I've read,





Gatorback said:


> I'm a civil trial lawyer and maintain a case load in the 60-75 range at most times





Gatorback said:


> I'm a trial lawyer. You give me all that evidence for a closing argument in front of a jury, I'll rip Armstrong to pieces.





Gatorback said:


> I don't know Falsetti, but I'm an attorney and it is apparent to me through what he writes that he is knowledgeable.





Gatorback said:


> but it sure seems to me--as a lawyer and litigator--





Gatorback said:


> Our legal system is not perfect. I'm a lawyer. I try cases.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Creepiest post ever.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

covenant said:


>


Hey Covenent, what are your qualifications to analyze a legal matter? 

Let us know.

P.S. In case you didn't know, I'm a trial lawyer. I live and practice in the U.S. I prepare and try cases for a living, reviewing and analyzing evidence for use in court all the time. I wanted to make sure you know so that you'd understand maybe there is a chance I know when I'm talking when it comes to legal matters. So just in case you were not paying close attention, now you know.


----------



## flatlander_48 (Nov 16, 2005)

I have tried not to waste much time on this controversy, but it seems that events have sort of overrun that. So, could the legal minds here explain some things to a humble engineer?


_" If you accept money from a federal governmental agency, you are automatically bound by numerous law regarding the use of those funds regardless of what the contract says." _I can understand if there was a line item for, say, Transportation, and some of that money was used for illegal purposes. That would clearly be misrepresentation. However, how can that apply to your personal salary? That would say that no civil servant could ever place an illegal bet for example, using part of his federal salary, for fear of repercussions.
And, if this stands, why couldn't Armstrong counter-sue for monies equal to the promotional value? In other words, the USPS would have to relinquish the benefits it received if it was deemed to have been obtained illegally?
Many have said that one of the significant indicators of whether or no Armstrong used anything illegal is what happened to others on Postal; meaning Landis, Heras and Hamilton. They have all been discovered and banned at some point, so why isn't the government going after them? I seem to remember that someone got immunity in return for testimony. Hamilton maybe?
The thing is, saying that Armstrong is a much more visible target is basically saying that the others are too small to care about, isn't it? That also seems wrong to me.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Gatorback said:


> Hey Covenent, what are your qualifications to analyze a legal matter?
> 
> Let us know.
> 
> P.S. In case you didn't know, I'm a trial lawyer. I live and practice in the U.S. I prepare and try cases for a living, reviewing and analyzing evidence for use in court all the time. I wanted to make sure you know so that you'd understand maybe there is a chance I know when I'm talking when it comes to legal matters. So just in case you were not paying close attention, now you know.


My 15 years of legal experience is on the law enforcement side of the coin. Hence, my lack of input concerning the actual legalities of the Armstrong case.

Wait! Your a lawyer??? I had no idea. :thumbsup:


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

The Lance A. topic always seems to bring out the worst in people. 
So sad, discussion always degenerates into personal attacks. 
Guilty or not, convicted or acquitted, I wish he would just go away, sigh...


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

*Tired of this?*



adimiro said:


> The Lance A. topic always seems to bring out the worst in people...


Tired of being tired?


----------



## flatlander_48 (Nov 16, 2005)

Any answers out there?



flatlander_48 said:


> I have tried not to waste much time on this controversy, but it seems that events have sort of overrun that. So, could the legal minds here explain some things to a humble engineer?
> 
> _" If you accept money from a federal governmental agency, you are automatically bound by numerous law regarding the use of those funds regardless of what the contract says." _I can understand if there was a line item for, say, Transportation, and some of that money was used for illegal purposes. That would clearly be misrepresentation. However, how can that apply to your personal salary? That would say that no civil servant could ever place an illegal bet for example, using part of his federal salary, for fear of repercussions.
> And, if this stands, why couldn't Armstrong counter-sue for monies equal to the promotional value? In other words, the USPS would have to relinquish the benefits it received if it was deemed to have been obtained illegally?
> ...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Are there any lawyers here that can chime in? Wait, I would rather hear from a cop. I don't understand why it is such a crime to clarify that Gator is a practicing attorney.

He has tons of posts here. So what if he clarifies 20 times to individuals that what he is saying has some credibility with regards to the legal system. 

If he didn't clarify, we would just write him off as some schmuk who pretends to understand the law. Kind of what I have done with a number of teh poasters here..


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

I believe an intelligent argument is self evident. No need to bolster it with claims of authority at every opportunity. 

Appealing to _your own_ Authority is still Appealing to Authority.

But that's just me. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

covenant said:


> I believe an intelligent argument is self evident. No need to bolster it with claims of authority at every opportunity.
> 
> Appealing to _your own_ Authority is still Appealing to Authority.
> 
> But that's just me. :thumbsup:


You do not have to be a lawyer to make an intelligent sounding argument, or an intelligent argument. But when it comes to figuring out what is admissible evidence in court and what is not, however, having a law degree and practicing as a trial lawyer for a couple of decades seems to have some relevance--wouldn't you think? 

I do not appreciate your attempts to attack me personally in a subtle way by making fun of me. Nice technique, very clever, used by trial lawyers all the time, but in court I would call you out on it and say that you don't have any good arguments, so you attack the person. That is called an _ad hominem_ argument and is of no value. Cicero commented on it a few thousand years ago: _ When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. _ 

Have you ever read jury instructions? If so, you'd know that juries are specifically instructed they can consider the qualifications of a witness in determining the weight and value of their testimony. Similar logic applies here. The validity of my arguments and comments are what is most important, but qualifications are a relevant factor in deciding whether I am giving opinions of value. 

Instead of attacking me, why don't you try attacking my analysis? 

Come on, let's hear it. Show us what you've got if you don't like things I've had to say. Where do you disagree with me? And why?


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Please, I'm not attacking you or your person. I'm merely pointing out your continued use of a textbook logical fallacy to bolster you argument. 
You as a person are separate from your method of debate. The latter is what's being discussed. Nice try with the self victimization angle though. :thumbsup: 

If you insist on us accepting the validity of your arguments and the relevance of your opinions you need to establish your credibility.

In a court of law it's a given. On an anonymous message board it's not.

I'm not expecting you to come out with your name and what law office you work for nor, am I asking you to.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

covenant said:


> Please, I'm not attacking you or your person. I'm merely pointing out your continued use of a textbook logical fallacy to bolster you argument.
> You as a person are separate from your method of debate. The latter is what's being discussed.


What "textbook logical fallacy" are you referring to?


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=3332564&postcount=80


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

covenant said:


> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=3332564&postcount=80


So you bring issue to his bringing up that he is a lawyer. Not to any other content of his posts. Correct?


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

I saw a trend and brought it to light, that is all. Like I said a couple of pages back, I just skim over his posts. My eyes glaze over after the first paragraph or two. But I did see a phrase I thought was being repeated. A couple of minutes of searching confirmed my thoughts. And all the results I posted are just from the last couple of months, which is why it stood out to me in the first place.

Until Armstrong is adjudicated one way or another I couldn't care less about the speculation leading up to it. I just like taking potshots from the peanut gallery :thumbsup:
So sue me! Oh wait...:blush2:


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

covenant said:


> I saw a trend and brought it to light, that is all. Like I said a couple of pages back, I just skim over his posts. My eyes glaze over after the first paragraph or two. But I did see a phrase I thought was being repeated. A couple of minutes of searching confirmed my thoughts. And all the results I posted are just from the last couple of months, which is why it stood out to me in the first place.
> 
> Until Armstrong is adjudicated one way or another I couldn't care less about the speculation leading up to it. I just like taking potshots from the peanut gallery :thumbsup:
> So sue me! Oh wait...:blush2:


Well when you are done taking potshots from the peanut gallery and are ready to actually debate the issues, let me know. I'm interested in serious discussion regarding the issues surrounding Armstrong and other doping matters. I'm always game for debate. If you've got anything valuable to add to the substantive doping issues discussed on this forum, let's hear it. 

Frankly, I don't think you've got it in you and that is why you have not done so already. *So I am, in fact, calling you out right now: show me why I'm wrong. *

By the way, subtle suggestions that you are "above" actually reading what I've posted, and only skimmed through it and "glaze over" when doing so, is just another variation on the _ad hominem_ argument, just very subtle and not direct. Clever technique, but it is also a cop out. You are not up to the challenge. 

P.S. Did I happen to mention that I'm a trial lawyer? I just wanted to make sure you knew.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

But see, I really _don't care_ about debating these issues. I can see it means everything to you, your post count in The Doping Forum reflects that. 
I come in once or twice a day, read the latest and may comment on something I find humorous or ironic. That's how I find my enjoyment. 

And that is one of the most transparent attempts at goading someone into doing something I've ever seen. Gave me a chuckle. :thumbsup:


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

I think the point that covenant is getting at is that being a lawyer doesn't separate you from your personal bias on a message board. It gives you a better understanding of the technical and procedural aspects of the case, but since you don't have inside knowledge of the evidence it's still personal opinion. 

I think LA probably has attorney's that are pretty experienced and well regarded. They probably wouldn't agree with all of your opinions either. 

This thread shouldn't be about personal qualifications to backup opinions anyway. It's about LA and the investigation. As I've mentioned before, my personal opinion is that the ultimate value of it is entertainment, like Court TV or a reality show. The general public isn't really going to benefit from any penalties that come out of a trial and there is the potential for negative results for American cycling as a whole. Floyd and Lemond may get some LA money though. I guess that's good enough for them.

One question that always comes back to me though, does anyone really think that LA was doping in 2009 or whenever it was he finished third in the TdF? If he can still finish third when he was washed up and only get beat by the new stars he never raced against, doesn't it at least open the door to the possibility that he did legitimately win the 7?


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

covenant said:


> But see, I really _don't care_ about debating these issues. I can see it means everything to you, your post count in The Doping Forum reflects that.
> I come in once or twice a day, read the latest and may comment on something I find humorous or ironic. That's how I find my enjoyment.
> 
> And that is one of the most transparent attempts at goading someone into doing something I've ever seen. Gave me a chuckle. :thumbsup:


When the law is on your side, stick to the law. When the facts are on your side, stick to the facts. When neither is on your side then pound your fist.

You're just fist pounding. When someone uses their experience or their status to self validate an argument it can be a major red flag that the argument is a fallacy. 

But you still have to prove the fallacy. Just pointing to the red flag is not sufficient.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

frontierwolf said:


> If he can still finish third when he was washed up and only get beat by the new stars he never raced against, doesn't it at least open the door to the possibility that he did legitimately win the 7?


No.

Nobody is arguing that Armstrong wasn't a very talented cyclist. If anything, his impressive (but incredibly lucky) podium at the 2009 Tour showed that he was all too human.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

DZfan14 said:


> When the law is on your side, stick to the law. When the facts are on your side, stick to the facts. When neither is on your side then pound your fist.


I believe its actually:

"_When the law is on your side, you pound on the law. When the facts are on your side, you pound on the facts. When neither are on your side, you pound on the table._"


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

frontierwolf said:


> One question that always comes back to me though, does anyone really think that LA was doping in 2009 or whenever it was he finished third in the TdF? If he can still finish third when he was washed up and only get beat by the new stars he never raced against, doesn't it at least open the door to the possibility that he did legitimately win the 7?


If I was a betting man, I'd put money on him still doping to some extent. Whole different ball game now though, as far as, how much he could dope (which is true about all the rest too). His 3rd place may have been nothing more than age or not pushing it as far as the others.

His HCT levels during the Tour at least suggest he was doing something to maintain them unlike in the Giro earlier in that year.


----------



## flatlander_48 (Nov 16, 2005)

OK, I know it isn't as much fun as a Pissing Contest, but I'd still like to hear what people have to say...



flatlander_48 said:


> I have tried not to waste much time on this controversy, but it seems that events have sort of overrun that. So, could the legal minds here explain some things to a humble engineer?
> 
> _" If you accept money from a federal governmental agency, you are automatically bound by numerous law regarding the use of those funds regardless of what the contract says." _I can understand if there was a line item for, say, Transportation, and some of that money was used for illegal purposes. That would clearly be misrepresentation. However, how can that apply to your personal salary? That would say that no civil servant could ever place an illegal bet for example, using part of his federal salary, for fear of repercussions.
> And, if this stands, why couldn't Armstrong counter-sue for monies equal to the promotional value? In other words, the USPS would have to relinquish the benefits it received if it was deemed to have been obtained illegally?
> ...


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

flatlander_48 said:


> OK, I know it isn't as much fun as a Pissing Contest, but I'd still like to hear what people have to say...


OK, I'll bite. What you asked have been asked and discussed many times, so maybe people are tired of talking about the same thing over and over again. Or maybe, perhaps surprisingly, people are tired of conjecturing. Or, perhaps it requires some background searching and reading that they don't want to spend time on. 

And no, I'm not a lawyer so take whatever I say here with lots of salt. 



> " If you accept money from a federal governmental agency, you are automatically bound by numerous law regarding the use of those funds regardless of what the contract says." I can understand if there was a line item for, say, Transportation, and some of that money was used for illegal purposes. That would clearly be misrepresentation. However, how can that apply to your personal salary? That would say that no civil servant could ever place an illegal bet for example, using part of his federal salary, for fear of repercussions.


Well, an illegal bet is illegal in the first place. Is this a question or an opinion? 



> And, if this stands, why couldn't Armstrong counter-sue for monies equal to the promotional value? In other words, the USPS would have to relinquish the benefits it received if it was deemed to have been obtained illegally?


Doesn't this depend on whether the contract is written as a transaction of goods/services or not? To answer that, why don't you look at the contract and tell us how it was written.



> Many have said that one of the significant indicators of whether or no Armstrong used anything illegal is what happened to others on Postal; meaning Landis, Heras and Hamilton. They have all been discovered and banned at some point, so why isn't the government going after them? I seem to remember that someone got immunity in return for testimony. Hamilton maybe?


Maybe the government is going after all of them. To find out for sure we have to wait for the trial(s).



> The thing is, saying that Armstrong is a much more visible target is basically saying that the others are too small to care about, isn't it? That also seems wrong to me.


Is this a question or an opinion? The "too important to pursue" angle has been discussed quite a bit on other threads.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

covenant said:


> But see, I really _don't care_ about debating these issues.





Ahh, I see. You have no interest in actually discussing the topic and would prefer to just heckle those that do. 

You may want to read the forum rules:thumbsup:


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ahh, I see. You have no interest in actually discussing the topic and would prefer to just heckle those that do.
> 
> You may want to read the forum rules:thumbsup:


Serious Doctor Falsetti is Serious!

I'm in too good a mood and had too much whiskey and coke tonight to care! I figure I'd be sanctioned by the flinty eyed moderator if I was disrupting you guys too much.
At least no one can blame me for getting a thread closed.

Carry on, I'll try not to have too much more fun at y'alls expense.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

hampsten88 said:


> If that's not trolling I don't know what is.


I'll go with the latter :thumbsup:


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

hampsten88 said:


> Yet the former is admitted by you.


That's your interpretation. Why am I arguing this???


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I'll just leave covenant alone and ignore him since he has actually admitted he isn't even interested in the issues this forum exists to discuss. He got called out and cowered back into a corner and acted like he doesn't care. 

For those of you who are interested in serious discussion, well I'm glad to have folks to talk to who have similar a similar interest. And that is true for those of you that I agree with and those of you that I don't. I'm appreciative of the opportunity to discuss issues of interest to me with others who also have an interest.

Edit: Ignore feature successfully activated.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Gatorback said:


> acted like he doesn't care.


Who's acting?? My posting history speaks for itself. Another lame attempt to goad me. 



Gatorback said:


> Edit: Ignore feature successfully activated.


Awwww....that's too bad. I would do likewise but invariably someone will quote your posts and it would all be for naught.
It's a hamstrung feature.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

covenant said:


> My 15 years of legal experience is on the law enforcement side of the coin. Hence, my lack of input concerning the actual legalities of the Armstrong case.
> 
> Wait! Your a lawyer??? I had no idea. :thumbsup:


Law enforcement and the criminal mind, the only separation being the degree of afflicted psychosis and which side of the law the "outfit" says you are on... Go trim your moustache and enjoy your donut.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Mr. Scary said:


> Law enforcement and the criminal mind, the only separation being the degree of afflicted psychosis and which side of the law the "outfit" says you are on... Go trim your moustache and enjoy your donut.


----------



## Metro commuter (Apr 8, 2011)

HikenBike said:


> Is OJ Simpson innocent? A court of law found him "not guilty", so I must believe that he still looking for the real killers (on FL golf courses).


The State failed to establish that OJ was guilty of the charges brought against him. He may or may not be innocent.


----------

