evidence mounting against Lance Armstrong

Where are the people to apologize for their stubborn defiance of common sense? What's Lance on, he's on his bike 8 hours a day! He raises money for cancer, he would never take drugs. Floyd's a liar! He's never tested positive!

straight to Yeah but it doesn't matter cuz others did it too. Wow, you're all forgiven with such face saving!

It's okay to be tricked and admit you were wrong. I thought Lance was clean, rooted for him, was inspired by 2003. I thought Landis was clean, rooted for him, inspired by 2006. Time marches on, revealing truths, but some prefer to stick to the same exact positions. I guess it's no wonder that we have no political discussion, just groups yelling.

So what about the lab testing where they measured Lance's VO2 Max, cadence, wattage, slow twitch component, yadayada... It's not as if he wasn't an exceptional physical specimen (e.g. Usain Bolt), and not capable of exceptional performance. The possibility that it was all indeed credible remains.

He has attorneys lined up from here to Paris. They'll never touch him.

MarathonMind wrote:

The possibility that it was all indeed credible remains.

In the minds of people who haven't done the research.

He has attorneys lined up from here to Paris. They'll never touch him.

Can anyone explain why this is a criminal investigation?

The article says they are seeing if "armstrong defrauded sponsors," is that technically an offense? Is there a law about doping and then participating in professional athletics?

Wouldn't that mean that the 100-man list of A-Rod and company should be investigated as well? Did they not defraud sponsors?

I don't understand the problem. I thought it was legal for anyone who wished to (WWE wrestlers) to use steroids or supplements. Whether or not using PEDs was unethical is left to leagues to decide. If the MLB doesn't care about steroids, then no federal investigation takes place.

If people like Marion Jones go before a judge or Congress and say "I didn't use drugs," now there is a reason to investigate, because lieing before Congress/court is an offense.

But where exactly did Lance Armstrong break the law?

taxpayer concerned wrote:

Can anyone explain why this is a criminal investigation?

The article says they are seeing if "armstrong defrauded sponsors," is that technically an offense? Is there a law about doping and then participating in professional athletics?

Wouldn't that mean that the 100-man list of A-Rod and company should be investigated as well? Did they not defraud sponsors?

In Armstrong's case one of his sponsors was the US Government via the Postal Service. I think that creates a lot more problems. The assumption the postal service makes is it is sponsoring Armstrong and he is not cheating. If he is using the money for purposes other than stated I guess that can be some sort of fraud.

Unrelated I saw another article how the team reportedly would sell extra Trek bikes to have cash to pay for drugs. Trek couldn't figure out at first why it's bikes were on ebay.

And the team of course did not pay taxes on the bikes. Most certainly related to the investigation.

Some nerd wrote:

In the minds of people who haven't done the research.

and that is most people. And as stated early in this thread, there is little evidence at this point other than witness testimony. Clean or not Lance will walk.

"Novitzky, the lead investigator in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative steroids case, is trying to determine if Armstrong, his teammates, the owners or managers of his former team conspired to defraud their sponsors by doping to improve their performance and win more money and prizes."

I would love to see Armstrong get busted, but this particular charge -- conspiring to defraud their own sponsors by doping to improve their performance and win more money and prizes -- strikes me (on initial review) as immensely problematic. Can you imagine trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lance and his team thought that a sponsor like, for example, the Nike corporation, a manufacturer of high-performance racing bicycles, or even the United States Postal Service was acting in reliance on misrepresentations that the team was not doping? Even if a sponsor was so naive as to believe that Lance and his team weren't doping, it seems plausible that the sponsor didn't act in reliance on that mistaken belief, because it wasn't concerned with fielding a clean team, but rather with fielding a team that won money and prizes without getting caught for doping.

Of course, at this stage of the proceedings, it may not be all that important what the underlying criminal charges may be, since the threat of a perjury trap or obstruction charge may be all that's needed to get the truth. Although I don't necessarily doubt Lance's intent never to acknowledge that he doped, he might have a different view when he is under oath in a grand jury proceeding and he suspects that the evidence of his doping is already overwhelming.

As for the expense of the investigation, I'm not troubled by it. In fact, I'm willing to chip in my share of the expense; it's cheap entertainment. But I am concerned that the federal government, especially Congress, will use the results improperly, as a basis for further federal regulation of drugs or as propaganda for inflated claims about the medical risks of certain drugs and procedures. I applaud the search for truth about doping, but I abhore the medically dishonest scare tactics and possible regulatory overreach that I've seen in past responses to doping.

The going theory seems to be that LA pleads the 5th, the court grants him immunity, and then they ask all sorts of tough questions that force him to either deny the facts they have collected (perjury) or tell the truth (which is probably that he doped). This all assumes they have learned solid facts about doping in US Postal. But even if they've got these facts, I really doubt LA would talk when given immunity. Being found in contempt of the court is better than having to lie or tell the truth, in this case. And what would the court do anyway, give him jail time? Then he'll play the martyr. Fine him? Then the court looks like it's taking money away from a cancer charity.

Systemic doping wrote:

Get Real Real wrote:

A complete waste of tax payer dollars on something the tax payers don't give a crap about, all so a government attorney can make a name for himself investigating and potentially prosecuting a crime that no one in America REALLY cares about.

Let the French pay for it.

Here's the other thing, the entire sport of cycle has been dirty so long, and so thoroughly...that to find anyone guilt guarantees that some ahole's get off scott free.

Wast of time and money, Americans don't care.

.

You're an idiot. This isn't about whether or not Armstrong was doping, every knows he was. What Jeff Novitsky is chasing down is systemic (corporate) involvement in doping. The DEA is going to follow this all the way up Phil Knights ass. I'd hate to be holding Nike stock when the shit hits the fan.

No, actually you are the idiot.

The average American couldn't care less about TDF, and that surrender monkey French sport.

At a time with unemployment at record levels, markets and the economy precariously perched for another dive at any time... People want jobs, and a recovering economy.

Read the post by the person who explained how this prosecutor has cooked up a scheme to create a federal conspiracy crime...when none of Lance's sponsors are complaining or filing suits against Lance -- and created an environment where other cyclists will be afraid of being prosecuted if they don't give "evidence" against Lance.

It is a stupid waste of money, and a pointless side show for the US government.

It is the duty of cycling as a sport to clean itself up.

The inequities abound, as many have mentioned, that it is impossible to retroactively catch and verify who cheated and who was clean.

And if you think Phil Knight had or has any direct knowledge of Lance doping, you have slam dunked yourself into the pantheon of idiocy.

First, he would not condone doping, he and Nike would have too much to lose, and as the leader of the Nike universe, he has a duty not to risk the company's reputation or the value of shareholders shares. Phil Knight being caught supporting anything about doping would result in shareholder lawsuits galore or worse.

Nike's many tiers of executives are adults who know that doping is a problem, that it goes on, and they are required to do due diligence and not knowingly involve the company with anyone who is doping. Ergo, they, like all shoe companies etc., know that it goes on and do their best not to align with someone who would be an obvious doper...and yet they still have to do business, signing and promoting athletes and athletic endeavors -- it is their business.

Yes, they would be naive to think that they will never sign a doped runner or athlete -- but you can be guaranteed that they avoid it like the plague -- maybe not because they would lose anything financial when a doper is caught whom they have sponsored -- but because they, as a company, could not, no how, ever, ever, as a huge publicly traded company afford to be caught knowingly aiding, abetting or supporting doping. Nike's brand reputation -- to the general public, is too valuable for them to risk direct knowledge of doping.

In the case of cycling, do you really think that no other company would have signed Armstrong if Nike hadn't???

They may have indeed been defrauded by Armstrong, but they probably wouldn't be complaining as they hardly would have lost money on the deal.

While a Phil Knight and other sporting goods executives know doping goes on, they cannot afford in their roles as corporate officers etc., to aid in athletes doping.

Doping, as the BALCO case proved is a high stakes, risky clandestine world.

Maybe the sporting goods companies turn a naive blind eye, on purpose -- cos let's face it, they are all still making money. But it would be business suicide for any sporting goods company to be behind an actual doping program.

"Although I don't necessarily doubt Lance's intent never to acknowledge that he doped, he might have a different view when he is under oath in a grand jury proceeding and he suspects that the evidence of his doping is already overwhelming."

Agreed, but will we ever get to the point where the government is able to compile enough evidence to force Lance or those who know about alleged USPS team doping to confess?

I don't think so. This stuff has been dug into for ten years by the French media and others. Certainly, the power of US law enforcement can dig up more stuff, but LA's alleged use was years ago and if he was a user, he's far too sophisticated to 1) have left evidence around, or 2) have anyone else he didn't totally trust around when he did dope.

Those who perhaps he did trust, he could easily discredit as blatant opportunists/haters (Landis, Andreu, O'Reilly, Anderson). The rest, (Brunyeel, Hincapie, Kristin Armstong) have too much too lose personally to rat him out absent a lot of evidence. Some may get intimated by the simple process of being interviewed under oath or by investigators, yes. But somehow I don't think that's likely, given the sophistication of the legal representation here.

They can probably assume, with quite a bit of confidence, that the government just simply can not find any direct evidence. They may find some additional circumstantial evidence, but that's not going to be enough.

That's what makes this different than BALCO or the Mitchell investigation... there's no paper trail.

MarathonMind wrote:

So what about the lab testing where they measured Lance's VO2 Max, cadence, wattage, slow twitch component, yadayada... It's not as if he wasn't an exceptional physical specimen (e.g. Usain Bolt), and not capable of exceptional performance. The possibility that it was all indeed credible remains.

If you are talking about the study by Ed Coyle, that's pretty much been discredited now.

Scoutmaster wrote:

Valid point sir, but if a 200 pound guy got himself down to 140 pounds and ran 26 20 for 10k would you suspect him of doping.

For lance to achieve what he did clean, it's the exact same performance.

Not quite. More like the 160 pound 28:20 guy got himself down to 140 pounds and ran 26:20. You can still call it drugs if you prefer but lets compare apples to apples, shall we?

I hope the law pinches him hard and takes away his opportunities to be with his kids. He shouldn't be allowed to see them anymore.

I would assume that he used performance enhancing supplements. If I'm not mistaken EPO wasn't on "the list" that time therefore by definition Armstrong wasn't doped.

It's the story of the past.

I would like to know what Bolt, Phelps and other stars are taking today.

"I would like to know what Bolt, Phelps and other stars are taking today."

Me too.

The initial derogatory remarks about the sport and the French notwithstanding, this is a very good post.