WSJ Part 2

1…4567810»

Comments

  • cajun_cyclist
    cajun_cyclist Posts: 493
    edited July 2010
    ...? I referred to the 'smoking gun' that doesn't appear to be here. If LA's name was associated with op puerto for instance and witnesses said that he doped then that would add some credence to the allegation.
    I believe the senior doctor in charge of his treatment has said that LA didn't say he had taken doping prducts, also stating that he would have been made aware of any statement by LA referring to performance enhancing substances by his associates. No such conversation is recorded and apparently it isn't recorded in his medical notes. Now that is a massive cover up if we believe that someone treating an individual for a critical illness wouldn't record detail relevant to cause/treatment. As a comparison Pantani's discussions with medical staff re. doping are recorded.- JohnnyCon

    We're sort of on the same wavelength.

    Okay, this incident that Floyd mentioned the other night on ABC News Nightline I may have heard vaguely referred to in the past, but Landis Alleges the US Postal Bus during the 2004 Tour went off to some sort of place off the beaten track, maybe in the forest and there, the team got "blood doped".

    That would mean, I expect that at least 12 members of the team, assistants and riders could have gone to this place. So to me, this means subpoenas for all of these people and then cross-checking testimony, they will be under oath and some may be given immunity from prosecution as well as being criminally liable to charges such as perjury.

    So, maybe this incident is not that big but to me, though not a smoking gun, if the truth of this situation can be ascertained or in fact, proven to be a total falsehood, it certainly could be persuasive evidence for whatever the truth may be.

    As I've said, I try to look at this as a neutral, but if you have a busload of 12 Posties, Postal workers, they cross check to see if this blood doping episode happened and it did, to me that's game over.

    Even if Lance escapes heavy legal ramifications, fines, having his winning titles stripped from him, the damaging effect of such disclosures again "IF" it happened would be massive.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    wasn't LA linked to Puerto as some of the bags were labeled Cowboy which was beleived to be him
  • cajun_cyclist
    cajun_cyclist Posts: 493
    I believe the senior doctor in charge of his treatment has said that LA didn't say he had taken doping prducts, also stating that he would have been made aware of any statement by LA referring to performance enhancing substances by his associates. No such conversation is recorded and apparently it isn't recorded in his medical notes. Now that is a massive cover up if we believe that someone treating an individual for a critical illness wouldn't record detail relevant to cause/treatment. As a comparison Pantani's discussions with medical staff re. doping are recorded.

    Interesting detail to what the Andreus said seemed to be said on the show as well by Betsy that in fact, the Andreus never came out proclaiming this stuff, "Lance said this" in a press conference but this only came out because it was subpoenaed for the insurance case by the SCA company.

    At least, this is the way I understand this.

    So, if we read into this, Betsy told acquaintances about this when it first occurred back '95ish (I forget that exact year) , and then is latered subpoenaed in the SCA case where this is first learned, it's an interesting timeline.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/16226502/Lanc ... ng-History
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    sherer wrote:
    wasn't LA linked to Puerto as some of the bags were labeled Cowboy which was beleived to be him

    Nope. There were bags labelled cowboy but no one ever seriously thought that was Armstrong. There was a rider who's nickname was cowboy but I can't remember who it was...
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • knedlicky
    knedlicky Posts: 3,097
    dennisn wrote:
    samiam wrote:
    Wow, Armstrong is totally farked. I honestly thought it would all blow over, but he is going down big time.
    Craaaazyyy.
    Whoa, not so fast. What you say may / may not happen, but the people investigating this haven't decided if they have enough evidence to go before a Grand Jury. If they do think they have enough then the Grand Jury has to agree. If they agree, THEN it goes to trial. And I still think that this is not going to be about whether LA doped or not. In the end it may not even be about LA in particular. I think some people are making the mistake of thinking that this is about someone using drugs. To me that's the small view of this.
    Interesting the interview LA gave on the train up towards Paris from the TT finish. After saying he’ll never race again in Europe, when asked what he’ll do next, he answered about a family holiday, then said ‘And seeing what trouble we get into’, a tear or two then running down his cheek.

    The interviewer appeared to take the 'trouble' as meaning 'holiday fun' and the tears as some sort of sadness from LA about leaving the (European) race scene, but I wondered if LA had other things on his mind when he spoke of ‘trouble’ and the tears were because, even if it never actually comes out, he now realises that everyone really doubts him.

    A man doesn’t have to be convicted for some associated misdemeanour to feel destroyed in the field he loved but in which he used extreme unfair means to succeed, the suspicion alone can be enough. If LA is eventually exposed and humiliated, given the personality he has, I imagine he could be a danger to himself.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    iainf72 wrote:
    sherer wrote:
    wasn't LA linked to Puerto as some of the bags were labeled Cowboy which was beleived to be him

    Nope. There were bags labelled cowboy but no one ever seriously thought that was Armstrong. There was a rider who's nickname was cowboy but I can't remember who it was...

    ok cheers for that. I guess he didn't need Fuentes if he had Ferrari :D
  • cajun_cyclist
    cajun_cyclist Posts: 493
    edited July 2010
    knedlicky wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    samiam wrote:
    Wow, Armstrong is totally farked. I honestly thought it would all blow over, but he is going down big time.
    Craaaazyyy.
    Whoa, not so fast. What you say may / may not happen, but the people investigating this haven't decided if they have enough evidence to go before a Grand Jury. If they do think they have enough then the Grand Jury has to agree. If they agree, THEN it goes to trial. And I still think that this is not going to be about whether LA doped or not. In the end it may not even be about LA in particular. I think some people are making the mistake of thinking that this is about someone using drugs. To me that's the small view of this.
    Interesting the interview LA gave on the train up towards Paris from the TT finish. After saying he’ll never race again in Europe, when asked what he’ll do next, he answered about a family holiday, then said ‘And seeing what trouble we get into’, a tear or two then running down his cheek.

    The interviewer appeared to take the 'trouble' as meaning 'holiday fun' and the tears as some sort of sadness from LA about leaving the (European) race scene, but I wondered if LA had other things on his mind when he spoke of ‘trouble’ and the tears were because, even if it never actually comes out, he now realises that everyone really doubts him.

    A man doesn’t have to be convicted for some associated misdemeanour to feel destroyed in the field he loved but in which he used extreme unfair means to succeed, the suspicion alone can be enough. If LA is eventually exposed and humiliated, given the personality he has, I imagine he could be a danger to himself.

    Good post except for the last 9 words maybe being a bit too grim. Like it or not, US Postal let go of a lot of good riders. Frankie Andreu being one of those guys let go, Frankie did well one year in which he used EPO, (but in the book by Walsh, FA is never a big user, went to Switzerland to buy some of the pills one day) the next year, skipped using the r-EPO and was let go, I was just reading this the other day. Oddly, Landis left on his own will seeking greener pastures, I suppose Tyler Hamilton left in that same manner.

    US Postal let go a lot of good riders and I believe a few guys complained they didn't get their share of the winnings. So the point being, LA and JB must have done it to plenty of others and now, well, LA may know how they feel.

    Cycling's got some helluva types of personalities in it, Armstrong, Pantani, Landis, Lemond.

    I watched Lance on tv run that NY Marathon, pretty darn good to clock under 3 hours, with a pack that big, sure many many people were before him but when the record Marathon records are often around 2 hours and 6 minutes and in this range, still very good.

    If he'd stayed away from returning to the Tour, who knows how this might have been different, though surely, FL may have still felt a need to add to the public record, it may have played out less dramatically.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    Depending on the locale, EITHER a Judge OR a Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to bring the matter to trial. A Grand Jury(or Judge) is not a trial.
    As for Mrs. Ex LA, all I'm sure of is that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.

    She can be compelled to give evidence to the grand jury. Refusal to answer a question at a grand jury would result in the person being held in contempt of court. And lying would be perjury. And there will be no lawyer present.

    She can claim marital privilege and refuse to testify with no repercussions.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Moray Gub wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    Depending on the locale, EITHER a Judge OR a Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to bring the matter to trial. A Grand Jury(or Judge) is not a trial.
    As for Mrs. Ex LA, all I'm sure of is that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.

    She can be compelled to give evidence to the grand jury. Refusal to answer a question at a grand jury would result in the person being held in contempt of court. And lying would be perjury. And there will be no lawyer present.

    She can claim marital privilege and refuse to testify with no repercussions.

    If she was married, yes. But she's not. The privilege does not exist when the marriage disappears.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • ratsbeyfus
    ratsbeyfus Posts: 2,841
    knedlicky wrote:
    A man doesn’t have to be convicted for some associated misdemeanour to feel destroyed in the field he loved but in which he used extreme unfair means to succeed, the suspicion alone can be enough. If LA is eventually exposed and humiliated, given the personality he has, I imagine he could be a danger to himself.

    I agree with a lot of this. Whether LA is convicted of doping or not, it's the wider public's perception of LA that is being damaged. Comparisons have been made with Al Capone... convicted of tax fraud but 'known' by the public as a 'gangster'. Similarly, OJ is widely regarded as a 'murderer' and Michael Jackson a 'paedo' even though neither were convicted. Cycling followers have 'known' for a while now that LA was the most successful cheat of recent times... regardless of the outcome of this investigation, if all of this manages to expose the myth of LAs 'superhuman' 7-tour victories to the wider public then all the better IMO.

    I had one of them red bikes but I don't any more. Sad face.

    @ratsbey
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    the only thing that worries me with this is if you had the same sort of investigation into Big Mig i'm sure the same sorts of things would be uncovered and the same could be true of most TdF winners since 1990, possibly even further.

    Need to wait for the outcome but if LA is found guilty what will the UCI do about other results and other dopers. I know the 7 years have past but will they take any action and look into doping any further
  • Monty Zoncolan
    Monty Zoncolan Posts: 341
    If I can try to add a couple of hopefully helpful points on the legal/procedural side of things:

    An accused person is convicted on facts that the court (judge and jury) finds are established. The facts are established by the evidence led before the court. The evidence either has to be accepted by the defence, or (almost always) corroborated (ie comes from more than one souce - documents like emails, physical evidence such as blood samples, or eyewitness testimony). The testimony of two witnesses alone can be enough to corroborate a fact. It usually will provided the jury consider the witnesses to be credible (ie ehonest) and reliable (able to remember clearly and correctly). Only in the 'smoking gun' situation would one uncorroborated piece of evidence be enough.

    So, the eyewitness testimony of a couple of witnesses in relation to a few of the events alleged could be enough, provided the defence don't undermine the credibility and/or reliability of those witnesses.

    You can imagine that the credibility issue will be central to any proceedings against LA since those that would be giving evidence against him will be painted as cheaters themselves, liars who have changed their story after the fact, people with personal grudges to pursue, seeking to advance some other interest, mentally unstable and so on.

    All of this of course relates to English/Scottish criminal proceedings but is fairly universal beyond these shores.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    knedlicky wrote:
    A man doesn’t have to be convicted for some associated misdemeanour to feel destroyed in the field he loved but in which he used extreme unfair means to succeed, the suspicion alone can be enough. If LA is eventually exposed and humiliated, given the personality he has, I imagine he could be a danger to himself.

    I agree with a lot of this. Whether LA is convicted of doping or not, it's the wider public's perception of LA that is being damaged. Comparisons have been made with Al Capone... convicted of tax fraud but 'known' by the public as a 'gangster'. Similarly, OJ is widely regarded as a 'murderer' and Michael Jackson a 'paedo' even though neither were convicted. Cycling followers have 'known' for a while now that LA was the most successful cheat of recent times... regardless of the outcome of this investigation, if all of this manages to expose the myth of LAs 'superhuman' 7-tour victories to the wider public then all the better IMO.

    Think i have seen it all now with comparisons being made to Al Capone and OJ Simpson,on reflection though i think maybe he is more like Charles Manson or Ed Gein or maybe even Johh Wayne Gacy now there is someone really akin to Lance eh !
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • ratsbeyfus
    ratsbeyfus Posts: 2,841
    Moray Gub wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    knedlicky wrote:
    A man doesn’t have to be convicted for some associated misdemeanour to feel destroyed in the field he loved but in which he used extreme unfair means to succeed, the suspicion alone can be enough. If LA is eventually exposed and humiliated, given the personality he has, I imagine he could be a danger to himself.

    I agree with a lot of this. Whether LA is convicted of doping or not, it's the wider public's perception of LA that is being damaged. Comparisons have been made with Al Capone... convicted of tax fraud but 'known' by the public as a 'gangster'. Similarly, OJ is widely regarded as a 'murderer' and Michael Jackson a 'paedo' even though neither were convicted. Cycling followers have 'known' for a while now that LA was the most successful cheat of recent times... regardless of the outcome of this investigation, if all of this manages to expose the myth of LAs 'superhuman' 7-tour victories to the wider public then all the better IMO.

    Think i have seen it all now with comparisons being made to Al Capone and OJ Simpson,on reflection though i think maybe he is more like Charles Manson or Ed Gein or maybe even Johh Wayne Gacy now there is someone really akin to Lance eh !

    You miss the point... but you know that already don't you? Time for the rolling eye emoticon I'm afraid. :roll:

    I had one of them red bikes but I don't any more. Sad face.

    @ratsbey
  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,823
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    knedlicky wrote:
    A man doesn’t have to be convicted for some associated misdemeanour to feel destroyed in the field he loved but in which he used extreme unfair means to succeed, the suspicion alone can be enough. If LA is eventually exposed and humiliated, given the personality he has, I imagine he could be a danger to himself.

    I agree with a lot of this. Whether LA is convicted of doping or not, it's the wider public's perception of LA that is being damaged. Comparisons have been made with Al Capone... convicted of tax fraud but 'known' by the public as a 'gangster'. Similarly, OJ is widely regarded as a 'murderer' and Michael Jackson a 'paedo' even though neither were convicted. Cycling followers have 'known' for a while now that LA was the most successful cheat of recent times... regardless of the outcome of this investigation, if all of this manages to expose the myth of LAs 'superhuman' 7-tour victories to the wider public then all the better IMO.

    Think i have seen it all now with comparisons being made to Al Capone and OJ Simpson,on reflection though i think maybe he is more like Charles Manson or Ed Gein or maybe even Johh Wayne Gacy now there is someone really akin to Lance eh !

    You miss the point... but you know that already don't you? Time for the rolling eye emoticon I'm afraid. :roll:

    Moray Gub and dennisn seem to have missed the point in this whole thread so this latest comment is no surprise
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    TakeTheHighRoad wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    knedlicky wrote:
    A man doesn’t have to be convicted for some associated misdemeanour to feel destroyed in the field he loved but in which he used extreme unfair means to succeed, the suspicion alone can be enough. If LA is eventually exposed and humiliated, given the personality he has, I imagine he could be a danger to himself.

    I agree with a lot of this. Whether LA is convicted of doping or not, it's the wider public's perception of LA that is being damaged. Comparisons have been made with Al Capone... convicted of tax fraud but 'known' by the public as a 'gangster'. Similarly, OJ is widely regarded as a 'murderer' and Michael Jackson a 'paedo' even though neither were convicted. Cycling followers have 'known' for a while now that LA was the most successful cheat of recent times... regardless of the outcome of this investigation, if all of this manages to expose the myth of LAs 'superhuman' 7-tour victories to the wider public then all the better IMO.

    Think i have seen it all now with comparisons being made to Al Capone and OJ Simpson,on reflection though i think maybe he is more like Charles Manson or Ed Gein or maybe even Johh Wayne Gacy now there is someone really akin to Lance eh !

    You miss the point... but you know that already don't you? Time for the rolling eye emoticon I'm afraid. :roll:

    Moray Gub and dennisn seem to have missed the point in this whole thread so this latest comment is no surprise

    Nope the point about this thread seems to be about posters wetting their pants and getting all hysterical about what might happen and others taking amore practical viewpoint and just dealing with what actaully is happening.No prizes for guessing which category you fall into.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • ratsbeyfus
    ratsbeyfus Posts: 2,841
    Moray Gub wrote:
    TakeTheHighRoad wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    knedlicky wrote:
    A man doesn’t have to be convicted for some associated misdemeanour to feel destroyed in the field he loved but in which he used extreme unfair means to succeed, the suspicion alone can be enough. If LA is eventually exposed and humiliated, given the personality he has, I imagine he could be a danger to himself.

    I agree with a lot of this. Whether LA is convicted of doping or not, it's the wider public's perception of LA that is being damaged. Comparisons have been made with Al Capone... convicted of tax fraud but 'known' by the public as a 'gangster'. Similarly, OJ is widely regarded as a 'murderer' and Michael Jackson a 'paedo' even though neither were convicted. Cycling followers have 'known' for a while now that LA was the most successful cheat of recent times... regardless of the outcome of this investigation, if all of this manages to expose the myth of LAs 'superhuman' 7-tour victories to the wider public then all the better IMO.

    Think i have seen it all now with comparisons being made to Al Capone and OJ Simpson,on reflection though i think maybe he is more like Charles Manson or Ed Gein or maybe even Johh Wayne Gacy now there is someone really akin to Lance eh !

    You miss the point... but you know that already don't you? Time for the rolling eye emoticon I'm afraid. :roll:

    Moray Gub and dennisn seem to have missed the point in this whole thread so this latest comment is no surprise

    Nope the point about this thread seems to be about posters wetting their pants and getting all hysterical about what might happen and others taking amore practical viewpoint and just dealing with what actaully is happening.No prizes for guessing which category you fall into.

    You are indeed hysterical mr gubbible. :D

    I had one of them red bikes but I don't any more. Sad face.

    @ratsbey
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    TakeTheHighRoad wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    knedlicky wrote:
    A man doesn’t have to be convicted for some associated misdemeanour to feel destroyed in the field he loved but in which he used extreme unfair means to succeed, the suspicion alone can be enough. If LA is eventually exposed and humiliated, given the personality he has, I imagine he could be a danger to himself.

    I agree with a lot of this. Whether LA is convicted of doping or not, it's the wider public's perception of LA that is being damaged. Comparisons have been made with Al Capone... convicted of tax fraud but 'known' by the public as a 'gangster'. Similarly, OJ is widely regarded as a 'murderer' and Michael Jackson a 'paedo' even though neither were convicted. Cycling followers have 'known' for a while now that LA was the most successful cheat of recent times... regardless of the outcome of this investigation, if all of this manages to expose the myth of LAs 'superhuman' 7-tour victories to the wider public then all the better IMO.

    Think i have seen it all now with comparisons being made to Al Capone and OJ Simpson,on reflection though i think maybe he is more like Charles Manson or Ed Gein or maybe even Johh Wayne Gacy now there is someone really akin to Lance eh !

    You miss the point... but you know that already don't you? Time for the rolling eye emoticon I'm afraid. :roll:

    Moray Gub and dennisn seem to have missed the point in this whole thread so this latest comment is no surprise

    Well, I can't speak for Moray, but for me the point is that while you may curse LA in each and every post, the moment someone, like myself, questions your moral fiber you get all upset and angry. Gee, go figure. It's tit for tat. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. I think that's pretty plain. Then again I've said that more than a few times and apparently some people still don't "get it". I'm not surprised.
  • ratsbeyfus
    ratsbeyfus Posts: 2,841
    dennisn wrote:
    Well, I can't speak for Moray, but for me the point is that while you may curse LA in each and every post, the moment someone, like myself, questions your moral fiber you get all upset and angry. Gee, go figure. It's tit for tat. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. I think that's pretty plain. Then again I've said that more than a few times and apparently some people still don't "get it". I'm not surprised.

    I can't speak for MrTakeTheHighRoad but...

    125-08110B1.jpg

    I had one of them red bikes but I don't any more. Sad face.

    @ratsbey
  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,823
    The point being that one slightly provocative post elicits the same stock response from either side of the globe.

    Straight from the Livestrong handbook

Categories