The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[rich p]

Phone call from the president .

Pat McQuaid?

 

[yello]

Pat McQuaid?

Well, yes, that's the other end of the spectrum.

 

[smutchin]

This is hilarious, for two reasons - one, that Lance is resorting to scraping the barrel to find "races" he can legitimately win, and two, that people care enough about it to complain...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/feb/06/lance-armstrong-banned-strava

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

Maybe because he hasn't. Birotte doesn't speak for every office nor every federal officer. There were a lot of people involved in the original investigation that were both surprised and disappointed (to put it mildly) that Birotte decided not to proceed. That was his job, his call for whatever reasons. Seems like he's saying he sees no cause to change his decision. That is, there's some factor we are not seeing, perhaps will never ever know.

But isn't that what I said? i.e.

Times have changed since Birotte felt that a prosecution would not stick. They have changed a lot. It would not be surprising if Birotte changed his opinion, what is surprising is that he says he hasn't. Why?

I am saying that I am surprised that he sees no reason to change his opinion. I don't just assume that there is 'some factor we are not seeing' particularly as this is in the 'States where such matters are supposed to be done in the open.

Maybe there is 'some factor'. I ask 'what is it?'. Yes I know, we are as mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on bullshit..

 

[BJH]

Still smacks to me of a planned and very orchestrated campaign that he had in mind with a spread out release of confessions aimed at providing the minimum to allow him to get off

The great thing is that it does seem to have backfired

When I rad his lawyers comments around why he will not have to pay it back I felt he was probably correct in terms of a strict legal view point and I don't see him paying it back

What they have probably underestimated is that it's that attitude that just pi##es people off even more.

The one good thing about him being made a scapegoat as he believes is that people like this prosecutor who dropped the case originally, will now see a nice opportunity to go for the jugular

Let's just hope they do because this guy truly deserves everything he gets.

Cold, calculating and with a sheet of ice behind his eyes throughout that interview, worked out prepared answers designed to get him off the hook. For him this has now gone out of control and he ain't the type of guy who confess all and beg for mercy.

As he's from Texas, I would just like to say "Fu5k him and the horse he rode in on"

 

[jdtate101]

This is hilarious, for two reasons - one, that Lance is resorting to scraping the barrel to find "races" he can legitimately win, and two, that people care enough about it to complain...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/feb/06/lance-armstrong-banned-strava

Just read that, and agree is hilarious is anyone really gives a damn if he uses Strava or not. I looked on hos profile and most of his activies are runs and don't really contain many segments. He's been doing loads in Honolulu, whilst hiding out.

 

[Radchenister]

I say ban him ... if Pharmstron ever comes in our local pub ... offering everyone free pints of EPO ... then we'll get him banned from there as well .

 

[johnr]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10647723

* USADA extends deadline
* SCA filing on Thursday
* FDA not investigating Pharmstrong
* Department of Justice keeps mum on the whole deal!

Hence the phrase: 'this one will run and run'

 

[ufkacbln]

But isn't that what I said? i.e.



I am saying that I am surprised that he sees no reason to change his opinion. I don't just assume that there is 'some factor we are not seeing' particularly as this is in the 'States where such matters are supposed to be done in the open.

Maybe there is 'some factor'. I ask 'what is it?'. Yes I know, we are as mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on bulls***..

Firstly there was not an investigation into Armstrong alone - to quote Birotte's press release at the time that his office:

is closing an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team owned in part by Lance Armstrong."

The team was being investigated as a whole, not just Armstrong
So is the right question being asked?

He is referring to a decision made at the time.

The evidence available at the time the decision was made hasn't changed, therefore there is no reason why his decision at the time should change.

 

[Noodley]

My view, which I have stated previously, is that the federal investigation was "dropped" as they realised it would take years of painful legal process with no gurantee of a victory - much easier to get the information out via USADA. The info is now all out there, more info than there was previously, so the Feds come back in and pick it up again - there is more information/evidence and more people willing to speak, including Armstrong himself, albeit not necessarily the truth.

 

[steveindenmark]

So now there is talk about Lance Armstrong actually joining forces with the USADA to help stamp out drug taking in cycling. The idea is almost beyond belief but you have to give him 10 out of 10 for business awareness. Can you just imagine the USADA paying him millions of dollars as a consultant? :O)

 

[rich p]

According to reports he is now 'willing' to speak to USADA having said that they were not competent a week or two ago. I'll believe it when it happens.
More smoke and mirrors and muddying the waters.
Bruyneel and Pepe Marti still haven't been up before the beak yet either. Any news on their cases?
I'm particularly interested in Marti as the USPS supplier of EPO when classified as a 'trainer', a role he also filled for Contador until a year or two ago.I haven't heard anyne speculate about whether AC will be fingered though. I'm not sure why Marti or Bruyneel, for that matter, would bother turning up in the US voluntarly either.

 

[yello]

I'm more inclined to go with Noodley's take on it rather than the phonecalls, bribes or donations that have been suggested by some. The investigators were angered because they thought the evidence was strong. Birotte didn't necessarily disagree but he could well have other factors to take into account. That's the role of a DA. They have to weigh up the pros and cons of proceeding with a prosecution and the evidence is only part of that decision process - rightly or wrongly.

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

Firstly there was not an investigation into Armstrong alone - to quote Birotte's press release at the time that his office:



The team was being investigated as a whole, not just Armstrong
So is the right question being asked?

He is referring to a decision made at the time.

The evidence available at the time the decision was made hasn't changed, therefore there is no reason why his decision at the time should change.

That sounds a reasonable explanation although the competence of the whole thing is dubious.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm more inclined to go with Noodley's take on it rather than the phonecalls, bribes or donations that have been suggested by some. The investigators were angered because they thought the evidence was strong. Birotte didn't necessarily disagree but he could well have other factors to take into account. That's the role of a DA. They have to weigh up the pros and cons of proceeding with a prosecution and the evidence is only part of that decision process - rightly or wrongly.

People who go with Noodley's take? Nobbers.