decision in Armstrong Case and Dennis's Skiiing trip to Vail

sherer

Phil passes his job interview for the next 5 years

Wonder if this is partly down to the US government system. With it changes every 2 years and taking almost a year to get elected maybe thta was why this was closed down.

The Watergate stuff has only just been released to the public so maybe in 30 years time we will finally get to the truth

dennisn

sherer wrote:

Wonder if this is partly down to the US government system. With it changes every 2 years and taking almost a year to get elected maybe thta was why this was closed down.

Not really following you on this. Can you elaborate a bit? :?

hommelbier

The seemingly abrupt nature of the closing of the investigation has raised questions. The decision does seems to be at least questionable.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/concerns-over-closure-of-federal-investigation-into-armstrong-and-us-postal

cajun_cyclist

The abrupt closure of the case indeed does smack of some arm-twisting but in reality it doesn't seem political powers would not have that much clout for Lance Armstrong but I guess it is a possibility. It would have seen and I am not going to respond to any real politicising of this matter but these events would have seen more plausible if GW Bush had been president. So we have Obama as president, is it possible that someone said, "hey, the Livestrong charity does a lot of good" and that charity gives out grants as happened with Planned Parenthood last week. I don't know, but there seems to be a lot of headscratching about this.

'Like the fella said, ain't that a kick in the head."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKSm0tAvhs

RichN95.

cajun_cyclist wrote:

The abrupt closure of the case indeed does smack of some arm-twisting but in reality it doesn't seem political powers would not have that much clout for Lance Armstrong but I guess it is a possibility. It would have seen and I am not going to respond to any real politicising of this matter but these events would have seen more plausible if GW Bush had been president. So we have Obama as president, is it possible that someone said, "hey, the Livestrong charity does a lot of good" and that charity gives out grants as happened with Planned Parenthood last week. I don't know, but there seems to be a lot of headscratching about this.

Do you really think that Armstrong is going to be an election issue? I think most people are concerned about the economy.

What most likely happened was that Novitzky et al had spent 8 years and tens of millions of dollars chasing Barry Bonds, who got away a slap on the wrist. That can't happen again so they were told to bring some charges by a certain deadline. They didn't, so they got shut down.

ddraver

dennisn wrote:

sherer wrote:

Wonder if this is partly down to the US government system. With it changes every 2 years and taking almost a year to get elected maybe thta was why this was closed down.

Not really following you on this. Can you elaborate a bit? :?

This is the trouble with having elected law enforcement officers as opposed to neutral people who will (in theory) remain politically and morally neutral and pursue criminals and uphold the law regardless of what he may think or what will happen to them.

Binnotti (was it?) is looking for re-election soon and his opponent asking questions about why he's pursuing a brave cancer fighting angel like Armstrong could loose a lot of ticks in boxes come election day.

The theory is that he shut down the investigation so abruptly because his political campaign could suffer, not because of what was actually being discovered...

hmmm...

cajun_cyclist

Binnotti (was it?) is looking for re-election soon and his opponent asking questions about why he's pursuing a brave cancer fighting angel like Armstrong could loose a lot of ticks in boxes come election day.

The theory is that he shut down the investigation so abruptly because his political campaign could suffer, not because of what was actually being discovered...

I don't disagree with what you say however I would like to see confirmation that "Birotte", I had to look it up, is a US Attorney that IS elected. I'm not sure if He is elected to office, just like Novitsky doesn't seem to be elected. Could be though I find no confirmation of this.

They vote on judges though sometimes and other judges are appointed by the President or Governor whatever the case may be.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/prosecu ... 47522.html

So this article says Birotte states this from the office of the US District Attorney in Los Angeles so perhaps that is an elected office. Could be. I'd like to know who he would be running against.

dennisn

ddraver wrote:

dennisn wrote:

sherer wrote:

Wonder if this is partly down to the US government system. With it changes every 2 years and taking almost a year to get elected maybe thta was why this was closed down.

Not really following you on this. Can you elaborate a bit? :?

This is the trouble with having elected law enforcement officers as opposed to neutral people who will (in theory) remain politically and morally neutral and pursue criminals and uphold the law regardless of what he may think or what will happen to them.

Binnotti (was it?) is looking for re-election soon and his opponent asking questions about why he's pursuing a brave cancer fighting angel like Armstrong could loose a lot of ticks in boxes come election day.

The theory is that he shut down the investigation so abruptly because his political campaign could suffer, not because of what was actually being discovered...

hmmm...

I see what you're saying and anything is possible. I'm leaning more towards the idea that GJ's must hear some sort of tangible, usable, evidence within a reasonable amount of time or call it a day and pack it in. Some people question why it finished so quickly with little notice. Well, maybe that's the way these things usually end, with someone saying enough is enough. I don't find that hard to believe in light of GJ's usually, according to what I've heard, not lasting more than a year or so. I mean really, if you can't get a grip on the case by then, quit wasting time and money.

sherer

what I was trying to say is that in an election year no one really wants to pursue a major sportsman for a crime he might have done several years ago.

Interesting that the CN articles, and others too, seem to say that charges were imminent. Maybe Fabinani was worth the money LA paid him after all, he is meant to have considerable clout and however it happened the case has been shut down rather than come to it's natural conclusion.

Just bacause the private GJ has been closed could the FDA etc make charges anyway with what they already have ?

dave_1

it's all over bar the shouting re LanceA

dennisn

sherer wrote:

what I was trying to say is that in an election year no one really wants to pursue a major sportsman for a crime he might have done several years ago.

Interesting that the CN articles, and others too, seem to say that charges were imminent. Maybe Fabinani was worth the money LA paid him after all, he is meant to have considerable clout and however it happened the case has been shut down rather than come to it's natural conclusion.

Just bacause the private GJ has been closed could the FDA etc make charges anyway with what they already have ?

Election year? Sure, it could happen. Gotta wonder though, as GJ tampering or trying to influence GJ's is very serious stuff.
As for the "natural conclusion" I'm not sure what that actually is, to be honest, or how they "shut down". It's not something you hear much about, if at all.

No clue about what FDA can or can't do.

moray_gub

sherer wrote:

what I was trying to say is that in an election year no one really wants to pursue a major sportsman for a crime he might have done several years ago.

Interesting that the CN articles, and others too, seem to say that charges were imminent. Maybe Fabinani was worth the money LA paid him after all, he is meant to have considerable clout and however it happened the case has been shut down rather than come to it's natural conclusion.

Just bacause the private GJ has been closed could the FDA etc make charges anyway with what they already have ?

The same CN had been saying for the best part of a year that charges were imminent id take that with a pinch of salt Maybe it natural conclusion was to shut it down as there was not enough evidence to go forward with it. Also its funny how this all turns round as this Fabiani character was being portyated in this very forum as some sort of clown not so long ago . A brief search of his history would tell you how highly he was regarded.

BikingBernie

The reason this investigation was pulled seems to have had little to do with a lack of incriminating evidence.

Cyclingnews spoke to a source who co-operated with the federal investigation. The source indicated that the NPR reports held weight.

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

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/did-u-s ... ostal-case

Simonhi

I may be late to the party but this did make me chortle !!!

dennisn

BikingBernie wrote:

The reason this investigation was pulled seems to have had little to do with a lack of incriminating evidence.

Cyclingnews spoke to a source who co-operated with the federal investigation. The source indicated that the NPR reports held weight.

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

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/did-u-s ... ostal-case

So, Cycling News talked to a "source", whom we don't know, and he talked to "someone", whom we don't know. Hate to say it but all that seems just a BIT lacking in credibility.

Doobz

dennisn wrote:

So, Cycling News talked to a "source", whom we don't know, and he talked to "someone", whom we don't know. Hate to say it but all that seems just a BIT lacking in credibility.

If you start naming your sources then pretty soon all your inside information starts to dry up.

You think people/journalists on the inside are so stupid to name their source?

:roll:

dennisn

Doobz wrote:

dennisn wrote:

So, Cycling News talked to a "source", whom we don't know, and he talked to "someone", whom we don't know. Hate to say it but all that seems just a BIT lacking in credibility.

You think people/journalists on the inside are so stupid to name their source?

:roll:

Not at all. It's just that it sounds a little childish to more or less say " I talked to a guy who knew this guy who heard someone say..........".

cajun_cyclist

If there is any shenanigans to let Armstrong off the hook in the criminal investigation, I'm just saying the anti-dopers, just like the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) might not be the kind of people you would want to tick off. Anti-dopers are there for a reason.

It is interesting that with the interviews of top man Tygart, he mentioned the Statute of Limitations, kind of interesting to mention seeing how it was a "general interview", he also mentioned they are there to protect "clean athletes". Rather stern talk.

sherer

have to say something still sounds fishy about all of this. As I said it seems to have been close down rather than come to the conclusion that LA didn't dope and didn't misuse public money.

if I was Novitzy (spelling ??) I would be really p***ed at this

ddraver

Now I appreciate that Cyclismas has caused issues recently but....

http://cyclismas.com/2012/02/from-the-o ... -decision/

This one at least looks serious...

I ll type the first 3 letters for you, in case I ve missed something - FAI.....

dennisn

sherer wrote:

have to say something still sounds fishy about all of this. As I said it seems to have been close down rather than come to the conclusion that LA didn't dope and didn't misuse public money.

if I was Novitzy (spelling ??) I would be really p***ed at this

I think you may be looking at GJ's in the wrong way. The do not declare whether a person did or did not do something. They simply decide whether the evidence warrants
a trial by jury. There is a huge difference in the two, or so I understand, as I have never had GJ duty. Although I have served on a murder TRIAL jury. As I understand it England had GJ's until the 1930's when it was replaced with something called a "Committal Procedure". How the two differed, if they did, is not known to me. All I can say is that people can have GJ's investigate them but it doesn't mean they have committed a crime any more than a trial by jury means your guilty simply because, well, you're on trial, so you must be guilty. I would guess that GJ testimony is kept secret to protect innocent people from having things simply assumed about them because they are being investigated. From time to time you will hear the news talk about someone who is under GJ investigation but the reason or reasons are not known.

symo

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/did-u-s ... ostal-case


apparently the US attorney made a political call.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 73618.html

Which is fun as it means Tex is still hopefully going to be prosecuted for his years of PED abuse via WADA and therefore US postal will then come a lookin' and the FBI will be then involved again.

Silly US legal system. You want to get a nice UK one, perhaps become our largest suburb again?

sherer

symo wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/did-u-s-attorneys-disagree-on-whether-to-close-armstrong-u-s-postal-case


apparently the US attorney made a political call.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 73618.html

Which is fun as it means Tex is still hopefully going to be prosecuted for his years of PED abuse via WADA and therefore US postal will then come a lookin' and the FBI will be then involved again.

Silly US legal system. You want to get a nice UK one, perhaps become our largest suburb again?

Tried to explain that the Dennis but he so far hasn't been able to see it.

Not sure if this will go full circle though as if this goes to WADA \ USAC etc I can just see a sanction and then that will be it

dennisn

sherer wrote:

symo wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/did-u-s-attorneys-disagree-on-whether-to-close-armstrong-u-s-postal-case


apparently the US attorney made a political call.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 73618.html

Which is fun as it means Tex is still hopefully going to be prosecuted for his years of PED abuse via WADA and therefore US postal will then come a lookin' and the FBI will be then involved again.

Silly US legal system. You want to get a nice UK one, perhaps become our largest suburb again?

Tried to explain that the Dennis but he so far hasn't been able to see it.

Not sure if this will go full circle though as if this goes to WADA \ USAC etc I can just see a sanction and then that will be it

Sorry if my ramblings haven't helped you. Hell, I only live here. You can't expect me to understand it. No one does.

symo

Dennis, I would not take it too hard; the vagueness of the US legal system and that it is flavoured by politics rather than by justice is something for many non-US residents somewhat hard to understand. Your comments have been useful.

cajun_cyclist

Fraud was always going to be a stretch, Doping has always been the question here.

And a lot of people just say let's move on in relation to doping somewhat distant in the past.

But the USADA boss Tygart was interviewed here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-s ... -armstrong , as I said but it may not have been clear, it is interesting that he talks about the statute of limitations, won't apply in a nutshell and how his job is to protect clean athletes. Stern talk.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnis ... 53016026/1

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ished.html

mfin

cajun_cyclist wrote:

Fraud was always going to be a stretch, Doping has always been the question here.

And most people just say let's move on in relation to doping somewhat distant in the past.

But the USADA boss Tygart was interviewed here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-s ... -armstrong , as I said but it may not have been clear, it is interesting that he talks about the statute of limitations, won't apply in a nutshell and how his job is to protect clean athletes. Stern talk.

Apart from CAS for one, who've just banned Ulrich for doping in the same era http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/7557591/jan-ullrich-banned-two-years-stripped-2005-tour-third-place

sherer

mfin wrote:

cajun_cyclist wrote:

Fraud was always going to be a stretch, Doping has always been the question here.

And most people just say let's move on in relation to doping somewhat distant in the past.

But the USADA boss Tygart was interviewed here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-s ... -armstrong , as I said but it may not have been clear, it is interesting that he talks about the statute of limitations, won't apply in a nutshell and how his job is to protect clean athletes. Stern talk.

Apart from CAS for one, who've just banned Ulrich for doping in the same era http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/7557591/jan-ullrich-banned-two-years-stripped-2005-tour-third-place

The thing is the CAS case was started by the UCI the same UCI who again turned a blind eye to LA.

Not read the full PDF yet but one of the things in the press release mentions Ullrich associating with Fuentes a known doping doctor, although i'm not sure if he was ever charged with anything. Ullrich also paid Fuentes a lot of money for no real reason. LA is guilty of both of these with Ferrari but again the UCI never looked into this and Frank Schleck paid money to one doping doctor, can't remember the name, and again the UCI did nothing.

Nothing like consistency

mfin

"Sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes and you should believe in these people."

"(Apart from the only other two people stood next to me, cos they are dopers)"

ddraver

The kids a doper? Wow Riis started them early at CSC!!!