Novitzky gets the Ball rolling
i,Fred
And now it begins. Ball gets served with a warrant regarding doping on Rock
Racing:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/06/24/2010-06-24_fed_roid_probe_on_ball.html
Brad Anders
> And now it begins. Ball gets served with a warrant regarding doping on Rock
> Racing:
>
That's it? They're going after a defunct pro team with an out-of-
business bankroller? This is going to lead to the downfall of the
EMPIRE OF LANCE? Guess I was expecting a bit more fireworks.
Side note: Landis needs to write a new book after all this is over,
"Don't Burn Your Bridges, Nuke 'em!"
Brad Anders
B. Lafferty
beginning.
Scott
I agree. It's only beginning.
On another note, did anyone really believe that all those "ex" dopers
on Rock Racing had really cleaned up?
B. Lafferty
And the criminal search warrant is under seal so that no one will know
who has talked and provided evidence leading to the issuance of the
warrant. It's just the beginning of a long process. Sit back and enjoy
the show, folks.
DA74
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have the distinct feeling that this opening salvo is meant to start
applying pressure to those who may have information that will assist
the prosecutors in targeting the big fish. These motherfuckers are
going to start singing like a Spring Nightengale when they get
confronted with the consequences of lying to the Feds and the reality
of prison life for skinny white guys with the build of Kate Moss at
the end of a coke binge at NY Fashion Week.
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am going to open some Champagne - great news.
rickhopkins
More likely only Landis will go to jail for continuing to lie - if I
am not mistaken he still claims not to have taken synthetic
testosterone at the TDF so either he is lying or he was correct and
the test was wrong. Want to bet he is still lying. When the feds
have no hard evidence on anyone else, they will slip away. Keep in
mind they just lost an important appeal in the Barry Bonds case last
week, that case is evaporating unless they can win the next appeal
(what another yr to 1.5 yrs and several experts have noted every day
that goes by without a trial the harder a conviction will be). If you
can't convict Bonds, don't hold to much hope for this mini adventure
will shake much loose. You may want to keep the cork in it for now.
i,Fred
>rickhopkins <rick_3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Jun 25, 6:38=A0pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I am going to open some Champagne - great news.
>More likely only Landis will go to jail for continuing to lie - if
>I
>am not mistaken he still claims not to have taken synthetic
>testosterone at the TDF so either he is lying or he was correct and
>the test was wrong. Want to bet he is still lying. When the feds
>have no hard evidence on anyone else, they will slip away. Keep in
>mind they just lost an important appeal in the Barry Bonds case last
>week, that case is evaporating unless they can win the next appeal
>(what another yr to 1.5 yrs and several experts have noted every day
>that goes by without a trial the harder a conviction will be). If
>you
>can't convict Bonds, don't hold to much hope for this mini adventure
>will shake much loose. You may want to keep the cork in it for now.
Rick,
First off, this case has nothing to do with BALCO
so any comparison on the merits of one based on the
other is meaningless. Different circumstances,
different sports, different players - only the genre
is the same.
Secondly, the feds are not interested in prosecuting
athletes for doping. That is a well established fact,
so don't get your hopes up for Floyd taking the perp
walk anytime soon. As has already been discussed here,
the investigation is looking into the misappropriation
of funds as they relate to organized doping practices.
i,Fred
rickhopkins
I, Fred,
You are naive to believe this is not about drugs. No evidence of
doping, no case. If Floyd has taken them down a wild goose chase (and
as I already noted he is probably still lying as he claims not to have
taken synthetic testosterone) and wasted fed $, believe me after the
Balco case if they have nothing to show for their effort (which is
what I suspect will happen regardless of guilt), Floyd my become
someones bitch. In some respects, the feds have no alternative but to
investigate, that is not the same thing as there is evidence to
indite. As I said don't pop the corks just yet.
Rick
KGring
Dumbass -
The BALCO case is relevant. The two cases share the same agent.
BALCO was much more serious. There was an ongoing drug research and
manufacturing facility.
I doubt much will come from the current Floyd stuff *unless* some of
the accused really were involved in an actual distribution ring *and*
it's provable with hard evidence, ie. paper trail.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
DA74
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rickster,
You've got to stop posting while drinking, and if you're going to do
it anyway then let's swap the Smirnoff for some Stoli. You deserve it
bro. And don't even think about going down whisky road - you see where
that got our friend Floyd (but if you're in the market for some
southern hospitality then pick up some Jeremiah Weed).
Anyway, I digress. Now as far as the matter at hand, of course the
case is about drugs. Novitsky works for the FDA for fucksake and we
sure as shit know this ain't about food unless we're looking in the
pantry to see if Jan is still stuffing his face full of Svenhards
butter horns.
With all that established you can bet your Assos lederhosen that
nobody but nobody on the home team is going to spend any of your hard
earned tax dollars without having a pretty good fucking clue that
there's something rotten in Denmark if you insist on using BALCO as a
benchmark. Now that might be news to you but it ain't news to anyone
who's spent any trigger time as a carbon cowboy.
At this point it's just a matter of scaring the shit out of everyone
with subpoenas, quizzical looks and endless simple questions over a
dimly lit table in a room with no windows to see who sings first. I'll
tell you right now, it's not going to be hard to get these guys to
roll over and corroborate Floyd's story. There's just too much at risk
on the downside and too many of them at this point - the tide has
turned. I'm very interested in what the boys in the Vaughters camp
will come out with, given that they have carte-blance immunity from
turtleneck Doug as far as job security goes.
-DA74
rickhopkins
Its Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
I believe, Novitsky cut his teeth on BALCO, and if you think what has
or will happen with Bonds has no affect on how serious this
investigation becomes, than you live on another planet. My suspicion
is that when things start working there way through, Floyds dates and
recollections about who was where and so on will be all messed up. In
the end, unless the feds can get someone to turn, with evidence, don't
expect much. I bring up Bonds, because it is pretty obvious he is
guilty (he admits to taking the clear and cream just thought they were
flaxseed oil) and the feds case is getting weaker by the day. No
evidence, no case, wasted $ and some supervisor will cut this pretty
quick if it goes nowhere.
You have way to much time on your hands. Don't wet your self
expecting this to go anywhere. If no one turns, it dies and Floyd may
be the feds scapegoat. I have no dog to hunt in this one, just not
too worked up over an investigation starting that the feds have no
alternative but to do.
Given your random ramblings I suggest you should take up drinking if
you haven't already.
Rick
DA74
Big Cat,
Thanks for the advice. Now here's some for you:
http://www.towson.edu/ows/exercisethen.htm
http://www.towson.edu/ows/exerciseaffect.htm
http://www.towson.edu/ows/exercisetwo.htm
http://www.towson.edu/ows/exerciseapos.htm
Good Luck,
DA74
PS - Sierra Nevada? That's cliche my friend - you're trying too hard.
It's Full Sail for bros in the know.
B. Lafferty
to understand is that to obtain a criminal search warrant the US
Attorney has to make a sworn application to a US Federal judge or
magistrate. While grand juries may indict ham sandwiches, federal judges
do not issue criminal search warrants absent a probable cause showing.
They do take the privacy rights of suspects rather seriously when
considering warrant applications.
That said, there was enough of a showing of FACTS here on which to issue
a warrant. That is significant. That the warrant is under seal means
that the entire doping community will be wondering who has talked and
what the feds know. The pressure on them is being ramped up
exponentially.
What I'm interested to know is what communication, if any, there has
been between the feds and their counterparts in France. Stay tuned.
rickhopkins
>
> Good Luck,
> DA74
>
> PS - Sierra Nevada? That's cliche my friend - you're trying too hard.
> It's Full Sail for bros in the know.
No, my colleagues in Fort Collins note that even brewers at New
Belgium admit SN is still the standard. Brewers know, those peons
such as your self are simply try and be cool. Go to Chico sometime
and try the beers on tap, the ones you cannot find in the stores.
Check it out.
rickhopkins
Ummm, who raced for Rock Racing, yeah Tyler Hamilton who was caught
and busted (at least twice) maybe even some others on the team have a
shady past, i don't remember. Did Tyler race with Lance - yeah, will
in implicate Lance, he could but I doubt it. Wake me when they get to
somebody of interest (Hincapie, Lepiheimer, Armstrong, etc.). And I
mean more than simply questioning them, they have to and have no real
choice not to at the moment. And talking to counterparts in France
and other counteries- that is a no brainer, since 95% of the race
season occurs in Europe, if they didn't it would be much of an
investigation would it. Again you state the obvious and make it seem
extraordinaire. It ain't yet, I give it a 20 to 35% prob it will get
problematic for the big names. I will wait awhile.
Rick
--D-y
So, I wonder if the judge who issued said warrant(s) this time is
another holy-roller anti-doper who is ignoring Novitsky's loose-cannon
behavior IRT BALCO.
Someone other than Judge Susan Illston, IOW:
<http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-arodlegal020909>
Damn, jail time for everybody!
In that case, I'd probably want to be an athlete or maybe even a
manufacturer/distributor than, say, a (former) government employee.
> That said, there was enough of a showing of FACTS here on which to issue
> a warrant. That is significant. That the warrant is under seal means
> that the entire doping community will be wondering who has talked and
> what the feds know. The pressure on them is being ramped up
> exponentially.
>
> What I'm interested to know is what communication, if any, there has
> been between the feds and their counterparts in France. Stay tuned.
It's almost here. Don't spoil your taste for brandy and cigars-- or
was it champagne this time?-- in anticipation. <g>
--D--y
B. Lafferty
Hamilton, Botero, Sevilla. Hamilton will hopefully think twice before
lying to federal investigators or in front of a Grand Jury if subpoenaed
to testify. If he's granted immunity to testify, as I expect he would
be, that could lead to some significant information corroborating or
expanding on what Landis has revealed. There are a plethora of riders
and staff the feds will be interviewing and/or subpoenaing to testify.
Frankly, this has to be Lance, Johan and Thom's worst nightmare come to
life. Armstrong has been rather quiet lately on the slam Landis front.
Can't imagine why.
I wonder whether interviewing Lance and Johan will be outsourced to
French law enforcement this July. I can think of reasons for and
against doing so. Now that criminal search warrants have started to be
issued, I'm inclined to believe Armstrong and friends will not be
interrogated during the Tour, at least not at the behest of the feds.
>Did Tyler race with Lance - yeah, will
> in implicate Lance, he could but I doubt it. Wake me when they get to
> somebody of interest (Hincapie, Lepiheimer, Armstrong, etc.).
I wonder how much Odessa knows. That would be a fun interrogation in
France. Levi could ask Rumsas how to handle that one.
Amit Ghosh
> Frankly, this has to be Lance, Johan and Thom's worst nightmare come to
> life. Armstrong has been rather quiet lately on the slam Landis front.
> Can't imagine why.
dumbass,
what does mr. diesel jeans have to do with lance armstrong ?
this isn't going to be about armstrong.
http://eightplustwo.com/2010/02/18/papp-pleads-guilty-to-ditributing-drugs/
B. Lafferty
I sure Lance and his legal team will welcome this news from your all
knowing lips. ROTFLMAO!!!
Steve Freides
You know, typing Novitsky into Google brings up the basketball player
before the bike-investigation-related guy, but neither of them are even
top three. I get Novitsky Trucking and a whole bunch of others.
Fascinating.
-S-
Fred Flintstein
> I sure Lance and his legal team will welcome this news from your all
> knowing lips. ROTFLMAO!!!
Aren't you the guy that thought the Feds were going to
come after Floyd for hacking the French lab's computer?
Fred Flintstein
Michael Press
<cabe6a81-a150-4fbd...@k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
Dang, that is some mealy-mouthed bloviating.
He trades on doping hate-hysteria,
than pretends to an Olympian view.
--
Michael Press
B. Lafferty
Aren't you the guy who is boringly repetitive? But, to answer your
question--no.
K. Fred Gauss
From this story, Brad has deduced that the investigation is going
nowhere and you've concluded that all hell is breaking loose.
You're both dumbasses. They got a search warrant to look for PEDs at
Rock Racing. That's all we know. Learn to recognize your own
assumptions, you'll be a better person for it.
K. Fred Gauss
Thanks for the memories.
Michael Press
<279e7142-d3c8-4463...@k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
--D-y <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
Incomplete date in the article header.
Appears to be 2009 from the URL.
Does this sentence say that SI was even then accusing Rodriguez
of using anabolic steroids?
___________________________________________________________________________
On Saturday, Sports Illustrated cited "two sources
familiar with the evidence that the government has
gathered" in the BALCO investigation and "two other
sources with knowledge of the testing results" in
reporting that Rodriguez tested positive for the
steroid Primobolan and testosterone.
___________________________________________________________________________
--
Michael Press
B. Lafferty
this forum haven't a clue as to how Federal criminal investigations
progress. But, that's OK. Carry on. :-)
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:V_-dnXSd1p3IYbjR...@giganews.com...
What does Tyler, or anyone else for that matter, have to gain from saying
anything whatsoever? The "crime" being avoided here is nebulous and outdated
at best, and what exactly would the penalty be for saying "I don't recall"?
And you talk about a showing of "FACTS" but what is new? What has been said
that is in any way more relevant to the Feds than whatever accusations there
have been surrounding the supposed 1999 blood sample?
The best shot Novitzky would have had would have been before, not after,
Landis went off with his rambling accusations. Landis is simply not
credible; all he adds is a bit of faux star-power (Landis?) that draws media
attention to it. Perhaps a rallying point. But choosing Landis as the
centerpiece for an investigation makes about as much sense as seeing Sarah
Palin as the hope of the republican party.
Oh. I see your point. :-(
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Fred Gringioni
: What is quite clear here is that most of the child dumbasses inhabiting
: this forum haven't a clue as to how Federal criminal investigations
: progress.
Dumbass -
Wow, you finally had some insight into yourself. About time.
Fred Gringioni
"rickhopkins" <rick_3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5228fa52-0607-4be7...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> Ummm, who raced for Rock Racing, yeah Tyler Hamilton who was caught
> and busted (at least twice) maybe even some others on the team have a
> shady past, i don't remember. Did Tyler race with Lance - yeah, will
> in implicate Lance, he could but I doubt it.
Dumbass -
Statute of Limitations.
rickhopkins
You know Brian, for 7 or 8 years you have written now just you wait
until this blah, blah, blah starts and Lance will be peeing his
pants. Maybe so, likely not. As time goes on and any physical
evidence fades away to nothing, the interrogations you run through
your head, turn out to be not much. I will wait to see if this is any
different. Hamilton, and others know, without physical evidence, there
will not be much for anyone to do. Someone may be lying in the end,
but who. As any good attorney knows, time (and a few thousand miles
different jurisdictions, etc.) does not help the prosecution of cases
such as these. The burden is really on the investigation - odds are
they will find some interesting nuggets and the big boys will skate
again.
I would take the over on this one.
Amit Ghosh
wrote:
> What does Tyler, or anyone else for that matter, have to gain from saying
> anything whatsoever? The "crime" being avoided here is nebulous and outdated
> at best, and what exactly would the penalty be for saying "I don't recall"?
dumbass,
lafferty cannot get over his dream to see armstrong and weisel do the
perp walk, but it will not happen (has anyone even mentioned weisel
here in the last 5 yrs besides lafferty ?).
papp was convicted of distributing drugs, and ball (if you look at his
various shady activities) is a good candidate to be involved in
illegal activity.
the riders involved will be sloppy dirty domestic pros like papp and
clinger, maybe some disgraced ex-europros, but not guys with deep
resources like armstrong.
B. Lafferty
Such a cutting wit you have. LOL!!!
B. Lafferty
Sounds like you're channeling Lance and Thom. Keep hoping boys.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:7784e9e1-6c78-4159...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 2:06 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> What does Tyler, or anyone else for that matter, have to gain from saying
> anything whatsoever? The "crime" being avoided here is nebulous and
> outdated
> at best, and what exactly would the penalty be for saying "I don't
> recall"?
=========
dumbass,
lafferty cannot get over his dream to see armstrong and weisel do the
perp walk, but it will not happen (has anyone even mentioned weisel
here in the last 5 yrs besides lafferty ?).
papp was convicted of distributing drugs, and ball (if you look at his
various shady activities) is a good candidate to be involved in
illegal activity.
the riders involved will be sloppy dirty domestic pros like papp and
clinger, maybe some disgraced ex-europros, but not guys with deep
resources like armstrong.
==========
Anyone else wondering if Ball is actually the center of (the fed's)
attention? His wouldn't be the first empire that ran into trouble and
started to do some shady stuff behind the scenes, stuff that has very little
to do with bike racing. An expanded import business, shall we say.
B. Lafferty
When this is all over, with or without criminal indictments, Mr. Lance's
reputation as an honest sportsman will be severely tarnished, if not
destroyed. In fact, it's already showing the wear. The cover of the
upcoming Outside Magazine is just the beginning. Sports Illustrated
writers have, in the past year or so, pointing out the smoke all around
the "clean" Lance asking out loud if there isn't fire there as well. The
questioning is only going to get d more detailed.
All the children here who love Lance's ass will enjoy one more Tour with
their false God. Savor it while you still can. :-)
Mike Jacoubowsky
But what is the downside to Tyler or whomever simply not recollecting in
front of the Grand Jury? You know something about this stuff. What are the
pros and cons?
B. Lafferty
Actions taken to lull others in furtherance of the fraud and concealment
of same, effectively toll the statute of limitations.
But, I'm certain you knew that already.
B. Lafferty
Mike, having no recollection looks good at Congressional hearings. It
looks much less good in front of Grand Juries, especially where there is
other evidence showing knowing/intentional prior involvement in the
matter being investigated.
K. Fred Gauss
You've been telling us for years that that Armstrong's getting busted
any day now. You might be right this year, but you've been wrong for so
long that skepticism is justified.
K. Fred Gauss
John DeLorean
Amit Ghosh
wrote:
> But what is the downside to Tyler or whomever simply not recollecting in
> front of the Grand Jury? You know something about this stuff. What are the
> pros and cons?
dumbass,
that's not how it works. almost no one has an interest to cooperate
with an investigation.
the system is based on making deals and the laws are what facilitate
the deal breaking. if novitzky can find someone who committed a crime
he will use that to pressure them to testify against bigger fish.
the chance that a guy like clinger is involved is very high, the
chance that a rider currently on a euro team will emerge is very low.
if they are doping they are not getting it in the US.
B. Lafferty
No. I haven't been telling you for years that Armstrong is "getting
busted any day now." I've been saying that Armstrong is more than
likely a doper who could not do what he's done in multiple Tours without
preparation. And, IMO, I'm right on that one despite the bleating of the
rbr children to the contrary. You'll just have to learn to live with
Lance's preparation reality.
Carry on. :-)
--D-y
> When this is all over, with or without criminal indictments, Mr. Lance's
> reputation as an honest sportsman will be severely tarnished, if not
> destroyed. In ...
>
> read more »
The reason it says "read more" is because you didn't trim like you're
supposed to, Brian.
No worries.
--D-y
DA74
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Big Jabowsky,
You've got to get off this Floyd credibility trip you keep repeating.
If what he was saying wasn't credible or they couldn't corroborate his
story on the simplest of facts the
--D-y
Salivating while typing "he's gonna get it".
> I've been saying that Armstrong is more than
> likely a doper who could not do what he's done in multiple Tours without
> preparation. And, IMO, I'm right on that one despite the bleating of the
> rbr children to the contrary. You'll just have to learn to live with
> Lance's preparation reality.
(Relatively) long ago "learned". Thanks for your help and advice <g>.
Again, I think the best thing that could come out of this mess is
indeed a revelation of protocols. 100%, all the way. Ain't gonna
happen but again, there's a lot of good research and development being
kept under wraps here, due to bad rules and bad enforcement.
--D-y
Amit Ghosh
> When this is all over, with or without criminal indictments, Mr. Lance's
> reputation as an honest sportsman will be severely tarnished, if not
> destroyed. In fact, it's already showing the wear. The cover of the
> upcoming Outside Magazine is just the beginning. Sports Illustrated
> writers have, in the past year or so, pointing out the smoke all around
> the "clean" Lance asking out loud if there isn't fire there as well. The
> questioning is only going to get d more detailed.
>
> All the children here who love Lance's ass will enjoy one more Tour with
> their false God. Savor it while you still can. :-)
dumbass,
there's enough public information for people to make up their minds:
the '99 LNDD stuff, the bestsey andreu stuff, the mcilvain tape, the
admitted involvement with ferrari
the owner or a bankrupt jeans comapny in california is not going to
yield critical new information about lance armstrong.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Anyway, I digress. Now as far as the matter at hand, of course the
>case is about drugs. Novitsky works for the FDA for fucksake and we
>sure as shit know this ain't about food unless we're looking in the
>pantry to see if Jan is still stuffing his face full of Svenhards
>butter horns.
As long as it is coming from the FDA, it is probably focused on
methods used to circumvent controls on purchasing controlled drugs.
The use of drugs (once it parts ways from purchasing and/or obtaining
the drugs) and criminal conspiracy to illegally use federal funds are
not part of the mandate of the FDA in any way, so some of the broad
stroke conspiracy theories given here aren't likely in the offing
until either the FBI or the Secret Service get involved, depending on
how they are chasing the conspiracy. Even the criminal conspiracy
convictions of the FDA tend to be technical and result in fines, not
jail sentences.
As long as it remains an FDA matter (if it has), I don't see how it
can be a deep indictment of a single rider or team. The FDA is
concerned with processes and methodologies that circumvent their
regulations and this will look to the provider, not the user. LA is
not a circumventor or provider at the level the FDA is looking for.
Their convictions look to labs, distributors, criminal providers.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Mike Jacoubowsky
+1
Amit Ghosh
wrote:
> Anyone else wondering if Ball is actually the center of (the fed's)
> attention? His wouldn't be the first empire that ran into trouble and
> started to do some shady stuff behind the scenes, stuff that has very little
> to do with bike racing. An expanded import business, shall we say.
dumbass,
i don't think he's the center of attantion, but mr. lambos and models
runs a bankrupt jeans company and a cycling team who's riders have to
sell their kit on ebay to pay themselves.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>What does Tyler, or anyone else for that matter, have to gain from saying
>anything whatsoever? The "crime" being avoided here is nebulous and outdated
>at best, and what exactly would the penalty be for saying "I don't recall"?
>
>And you talk about a showing of "FACTS" but what is new? What has been said
>that is in any way more relevant to the Feds than whatever accusations there
>have been surrounding the supposed 1999 blood sample?
The FDA is not about drug use, but obtaining controlled drugs while
circumventing the controls. BALCO was a USADA investigation that led
to a Federal grand jury and the raid was primarily by FBI agents,
mostly due to the most trivial part of the case, the money laundering
from the business account to the personal account (probably how
Special Agent of the IRS Novitsky got pulled into it). With all that,
a pitiful level of results.
The FDA investigations are all about moving up the chain, not down. In
local cases, they have handed off investigations to Medicare/Medicaid
guys (prescription fraud), the FBI and local prosecutors. They don't
do users in general and probably not at all.
I'm guessing personally that good legal advice would be to stick
closely to answering the relevant questions accurately and dumb down
on the rest. If it remains an FDA case, they won't care if LA had a
refrigerator in his motel room or what was in it, if they have already
established where the supply lines lay and where to go next. If
Hamilton remember who delivered the drugs, he better get it right. A
memory lapse on whether or not he saw LA do drugs, not so much if at
all.
Mike Jacoubowsky
Can you give examples where a Grand Jury focused on something that had
happened such a long time ago?
Also, from the last paragraph of this page-
http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html - it's obvious that, unless
something dark & nasty was staring you right in the face, you're better off
not testifying. Is there an assumption that cyclists are so stupid & poor
that they're not going to "lawyer up" and stay silent? And yes, I know you
can't have a lawyer with you, but at the same time, you are allowed to
interrupt the testimony and leave the room to consult with one.
========
What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand
jury, or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence?
None. The target's only redress is to challenge the evidence at trial. One
of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he or she
does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have lied. The
witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses, for fear of
being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not believe his or her
testimony.
========
I don't see how this plays out in a way that threatens anyone "big" anytime
soon.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>Anyone else wondering if Ball is actually the center of (the fed's)
>attention? His wouldn't be the first empire that ran into trouble and
>started to do some shady stuff behind the scenes, stuff that has very little
>to do with bike racing. An expanded import business, shall we say.
He's probably in a good position to launder funds from his suppliers,
including drugs. Not uncommon. A logical progression for that would be
for the preliminary investigation to develop enough info to call a
grand jury and then the FBI pulled in to use the money laundering to
pry other stones loose. And it will have little to do with the bike
teams or members at that point.
B. Lafferty
Off the top of my head I know of two examples. Because I was
peripherally involved in them as an attorney, I can't give you any details.
Tailwind ceased being funded by USPS at the end of the 2004 season,
IIRC. The continued denials, and legal actions commenced against those
who questioned the team and Armstrong's doping would amount to lulling
that would keep the statute of limitations running. Events from 6-8
years ago are not really that long ago in the sense of criminal
conspiracies that occur over many years.
>
> Also, from the last paragraph of this page-
> http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html - it's obvious that, unless
> something dark & nasty was staring you right in the face, you're better
> off not testifying. Is there an assumption that cyclists are so stupid &
> poor that they're not going to "lawyer up" and stay silent? And yes, I
> know you can't have a lawyer with you, but at the same time, you are
> allowed to interrupt the testimony and leave the room to consult with one.
Not testifying is not an option when subpoenaed to appear before a Grand
Jury. You can't stay silent when questioned unless you are asserting a
privilege against testifying--e.g. 5th Amendment self-incrimination. If
you are granted some form of immunity, use or transactional, you have to
answer the questions or face a contempt hearing and possible jailing.
>
> ========
> What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand
> jury, or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence?
Lying, probable none other than being able to prove the witness is
lying. Evidence improperly obtained can be subject to a pre-trial
suppression motion.
>
> None. The target's only redress is to challenge the evidence at trial.
> One of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he
> or she does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have
> lied.
I think not. Asserting the privilege is not related to the testimony of
others. It is a privilege as to the witness' testimony that from
his/her lips will incriminate the witness.
> The witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses,
> for fear of being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not
> believe his or her testimony.
The witness is required to tell the truth even if others are lying. It
isn't enough for a prosecutor to believe that someone has committed
perjury. The prosecutor must be able to prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt. That's one reason why there aren't many perjury prosecutions.
> ========
>
> I don't see how this plays out in a way that threatens anyone "big"
> anytime soon.
Time will tell, but unless you're on the inside of the investigation,
it's difficult to know how much the feds know.
B. Lafferty
Maybe yes; maybe no. Maybe they'll turn up something that will lead
them to others closer to Armstrong. It's all about developing leads and
following them wherever they go. There are enough former associates of
Armstrong's connected to Ball that there might be something of interest
there. Without seeing the affidavits in support of obtaining the search
warrant, you can't really say anything about the substance of the
investigation.
I was surprised to read about Ball being the subject of the search.
We'll all just have to be patient. This investigation could go on for a
year or more.
K. Fred Gauss
>
> No. I haven't been telling you for years that Armstrong is "getting
> busted any day now."
Your denials are kind of like Lance's denials except that
groups.google.com isn't full of material evidence against Lance.
B. Lafferty
Ha! I've been saying for years that Armstrong can't do what he's done
with his natural ability. You'll just have to live with the fact that
the Lance tifosi are poor, deluded wretches. :-)
K. Fred Gauss
> On 6/26/2010 6:28 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
> Ha! I've been saying for years that Armstrong can't do what he's done
> with his natural ability.
I've been saying for years the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, and
you've arguing with me, you poor, deluded, fool.
You've been saying for years that Armstrong's going to Club Fed. That's
where you've been consistently wrong. Stick to the point.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> On 6/26/2010 2:17 PM, Fred Gringioni wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:5228fa52-0607-4be7...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Ummm, who raced for Rock Racing, yeah Tyler Hamilton who was caught
> >> and busted (at least twice) maybe even some others on the team have a
> >> shady past, i don't remember. Did Tyler race with Lance - yeah, will
> >> in implicate Lance, he could but I doubt it.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Statute of Limitations.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Actions taken to lull others in furtherance of the fraud and concealment
> of same, effectively toll the statute of limitations.
Dumbass -
From:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/michael_mccann/05/25/lance.armstrong/
authorities would not pursue charges if the relevant statutes of
limitations have expired. Under federal law, the statute of
limitations for charges related to the illegal possession and
distribution of steroids, human growth hormone and related performance-
enhancers is five years. Federal charges for conspiracy and
racketeering also carry a five-year statute of limitations. Given that
Landis rode with Armstrong between 2002 and 2004, charges for whatever
wrongdoing Armstrong may have committed could therefore be barred by
time. That said, the statute of limitations for a charge can be tolled
(extended) under certain conditions.
<snip><end>
I'm guessing that the reason they're going after Rock Racing instead
of what used to be USPS is because the "conditions" don't warrant
extending the statute of limitations. Under the assumption that the
allegations are true, they're still not exactly crimes against
humanity. Floyd raced for USPS 6 years ago (outside the limit). He
raced for Rock Racing last year.
sorry for Wet Dream Interruption,
Logic. presented by Gringioni.
Fred Flintstein
He won't admit that he's wrong. That's not a bug, it's a feature.
Fred Flintstein
PS Armstrong will be finished when Walsh's book comes out in
English, remember that?
B. Lafferty
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> On 6/26/2010 6:28 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Ha! I've been saying for years that Armstrong can't do what he's done
>> with his natural ability.
>
> I've been saying for years the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, and
> you've arguing with me, you poor, deluded, fool.
The sun rises in the East??!! Really??!! Who would have thought that?
>
> You've been saying for years that Armstrong's going to Club Fed. That's
> where you've been consistently wrong. Stick to the point.
I have no recollection of saying that Armstrong was going to Federal
prison. Now that the feds are interested in where US money went, that
may be in some Tailwind partners' future, but that still remains to be
seen.
My heart really goes out to you, poor fool that you are. It's sad that
you can't accept that I've been right about Armstrong for years. In time
you'll get over it, Freddy. :-)
B. Lafferty
It might be beyond your ability to comprehend, but the concept of a
criminal lulling others into the belief that a fraud or conspiracy to
commit fraud extends the statute of limitations, is not a new one at
law. The idea is that the cover up continues the perpetration of the
fraud.
Now try to follow this, it may well be that the statute of limitations
will not run until 2015. Plenty of time to dig for evidence and obtain
indictments.
"In order to prove its wire fraud case against McGowan, the government
was obliged to prove McGowan's participation in a scheme to defraud, his
intent to defraud, and his use of the wires in furtherance of the
fraudulent scheme. United States v. Roberts, 534 F.3d 560, 569 (7th Cir.
2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1028 (2009). Wire communications that
lull a victim into a false sense of security after the victim's money
had already been obtained, or that assist the defendant in avoiding
detection may be sufficient to further a scheme. United States v.
O'Connor, 874 F.2d 483, 486-87 (7th Cir. 1989).
Both the Supreme Court and this circuit have recognized "that calls made
after the time that goods have been fraudulently obtained can
nevertheless further the fraudulent scheme by making detection or
apprehension less likely." O'Connor, 874 F.2d at 486 (citing United
States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 451-52 (1986); United States v. Sampson,
371 U.S. 75, 81 (1962); United States v. Eckhardt, 843 F.2d 989, 994
(7th Cir. 1988)). The Supreme Court has also rejected the contention
that a mailing that actually contributes to uncovering the fraudulent
scheme cannot supply the mailing element of the mail fraud offense.
Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 715 (1989)."
United States v. McGowan, No. 08-1384 (7th Cir. 2010)
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
<snip>
Dumbass -
Floyd didn't make his allegation until six years after the alleged
crimes. So how could there be a cover up in the interim?
This is why they're going after the small fish that is Rock Racing. If
they could go after USPS, they would.
Fred
Fred Flintstein <bob.sc...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
>He won't admit that he's wrong. That's not a bug, it's a feature.
>
>Fred Flintstein
>
>PS Armstrong will be finished when Walsh's book comes out in
>English, remember that?
If I'm not mistaken, LA Confidentiel has not been released in English.
B. Lafferty
commenced legal actions to silence anyone who would dare to assert he's
a doper. He entire pr campaign can be viewed as part of a lulling cover
up. It's not what Landis has now done. It's about the course of
conduct from Armstrong and his publicity machine.
B. Lafferty
H. Fred Kveck
> Fred Flintstein wrote:
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> I sure Lance and his legal team will welcome this news from your all
> >> knowing lips. ROTFLMAO!!!
> >
> > Aren't you the guy that thought the Feds were going to
> > come after Floyd for hacking the French lab's computer?
>
> Thanks for the memories.
Hey, he didn't mention Liz H - oh wait. You said mEmories. Never mind...
Fred Gringioni
: >
: > Dumbass -
: >
: > Floyd didn't make his allegation until six years after the alleged
: > crimes. So how could there be a cover up in the interim?
: >
: > This is why they're going after the small fish that is Rock Racing. If
: > they could go after USPS, they would.
: >
: > thanks,
: >
: > Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
: Man, you are thick as a brick. Armstrong has issued denials and
: commenced legal actions to silence anyone who would dare to assert he's
: a doper. He entire pr campaign can be viewed as part of a lulling cover
: up. It's not what Landis has now done. It's about the course of
: conduct from Armstrong and his publicity machine.
Dumbass -
If the legal system really worked the way you imagine, there'd be no reason
to have a statute of limitations.
NoDannyNo
> And now it begins. Ball gets served with a warrant regarding doping on Rock
> Racing:
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/06/24/2010-06-24_f...
This is what is known as Pissing Up A Rope.
Fred Flintstein
Dude,
Stop talking to yourself.
http://www.scribd.com/search?cat=redesign&q=L.A+Confidentiel+&x=0&y=0
Fred Flintstein
Fred
I wouldn't exactly call that link evidence
of this book's "release in English" as it more
resembles a pirated translation typeset on toilet
paper and then ocr scanned into a pdf.
Got anything else?
Fred Flintstein
> Got anything else?
Were you talking to me? Or to yourself? It isn't
obvious sometimes.
Fred Flintstein
DA74
wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > I sure Lance and his legal team will welcome this news from your all
> > knowing lips. ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> Aren't you the guy that thought the Feds were going to
> come after Floyd for hacking the French lab's computer?
>
And aren't you the guy who made up the story that pros dope in
training by using stimulants paired with "shit that enhances
recovery"?
DA74
K. Fred Gauss
> Under the assumption that the
> allegations are true, they're still not exactly crimes against
> humanity.
That's the fundamental disagreement you have with Laff. He thinks LA's
doping violations are a far bigger deal than many of us.
K. Fred Gauss
It's "The Return of the Sock Puppets!"
Betty
>> Thanks for the memories.
H. Fred Kveck wrote:
> Hey, he didn't mention Liz H - oh wait. You said mEmories. Never mind...
Now you've jogged Berlins memEries.
Andy Coggan
> what does mr. diesel jeans have to do with lance armstrong ?
That's what I've been wondering all along.
Andy Coggan
Betty
> That's the fundamental disagreement you have with Laff. He thinks LA's
> doping violations are a far bigger deal than many of us.
Perhaps when he sees LANCE his vision algorithm translates it into a
inviting windmill.
Betty
> My heart really goes out to you, poor fool that you are. It's sad that
> you can't accept that I've been right about Armstrong for years. In time
> you'll get over it, Freddy. :-)
You and Durex 94 don't seem to get that just about everybody here (apart
perhaps from Papai back in the day) accepted and accepts that LANCE (and
Ullrich and everyone else who won anything) doped. It just doesn't
bother us like it seems to bother you.
Brad Anders
That's the way it seems to me, too. Since it's obvious that cycling
cannot and will not ever be "clean" because of the availability of
effective, undetectable doping methods, the limitations of dope
testing, and human nature regarding cheating, the only thing I can see
coming out of the continued doping witch hunts is the eventual demise
of pro cycling. People who believe that it will arise new and
unspoiled from the ashes need to quit reading Harry Potter novels.
Brad Anders
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>It's "The Return of the Sock Puppets!"
Suck Puppets. Think 'wet socks'.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
B. Lafferty
B. Lafferty
Wrong. I anything comes out of this, it will have to do with misuse of
government money and insurance fraud. This criminal investigation is
*not* primarily about doping although you folks would like to dismiss it
as such. It's about mail and wire fraud.
H. Fred Kveck
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Brian, you dismissively write K. Fred's comments about your LA obsession off as
those of a LANCE fanboy, as someone who was too dumb to recognize what you and you
alone could see, that the peloton was not pure as the driven snow. Betty and Brad
responded that that was not the case. Your response here changes the subject. You
have made it plenty clear that you're seriously obsessed with LA - now you're trying
to tell us that it's all about the "misuse of government money and insurance fraud?"
Are you kidding me? Whether the investigation is about "misuse of government money
and insurance fraud" or not, you come here to gloat over the idea that LA "might go
down." Fact.
B. Lafferty
Learn to read for comprehension. I am, and have been for years,
concerned with drug use in the cycling from a sporting perspective. My
comment above relates to the investigation opened by the feds--different
issue related to drug use.
As for Betty Boop, Brad and the other rbr kids, they have not taken a
particularly skeptical position regarding drugs in professional cycling
and drug use by Postal/Discovery/Lance in particular. I've been posting
here since 1994 and can tell you that what you claim is false; the
history of rbr has been to deny that drug use was/is a problem of
massive proportions in pro cycling. The overwhelming majority of posters
here have been in denial on that issue for years. Your revisionist
history of rbr doesn't fly.
You might want to dig up the comments here directed at Andy Hampsten
back in the mid-1990s when he was interviewed in Cycling Weekly about
how his career was more circumscribed than it would have been absent
doping in pro cycling. He and Max Testa discussed going down the doping
road and rejected that direction of Hampsten. Hampsten's position was
ridiculed by many here at rbr at the time. As I recall, it was one of
the things that drove Bruce Hildenbrand away from rbr.
DA74
wrote:
> Fred wrote:
Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
>B. Lafferty wrote:
>> On 6/26/2010 9:12 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>> He won't admit that he's wrong. That's not a bug, it's a feature.
>>>>> Fred Flintstein
>>>>> PS Armstrong will be finished when Walsh's book comes out in
>>>>> English, remember that?
>>>> If I'm not mistaken, LA Confidentiel has not been released in English.
>>> Correct.
>>Dude,
>>Stop talking to yourself.
>>http://www.scribd.com/search?cat=redesign&q=L.A+Confidentiel+&x=0&y=0
>>Fred Flintstein
>I wouldn't exactly call that link evidence
>of this book's "release in English" as it more
>resembles a pirated translation typeset on toilet
>paper and then ocr scanned into a pdf.
>
>Got anything else?
> > Got anything else?
Fred (not of the Flintsteins),
,
He won't admit that he's wrong. That's not a bug, it's a feature.
Watch out though, if you call him on his inconsistencies he might
accuse you of having a man-crush but don't worry it's just his rbr wet
dream. Move along. Nothing to see here.
But hey, if you get a chance, ask him about the fascinating doping
phenomenon he uncovered where pros use stimulants in training and then
take "shit to enhance recovery" so they can train harder. I'm trying
to get ahold of Novitzsky to tell him to be on the watch out for this
one.
You're Welcome,
DA74
ronaldo_jeremiah
> The reason it says "read more" is because you didn't trim like you're
> supposed to
Are you sure? "Read more" could be educational advice for the
dumbasses around here.
-rj
K. Fred Gauss
Absolutely. It's the second half of the "LA dopes and he's bigger vermin
than Adolf Hitler" combination that gets people to argue with Laff.
K. Fred Gauss
> As for Betty Boop, Brad and the other rbr kids, they have not taken a
> particularly skeptical position regarding drugs in professional cycling
> and drug use by Postal/Discovery/Lance in particular.
Bullshit. You've been doing the same schtick for years.
You say "LA is doping and that's the cause of all the world's problems"
People respond by saying that's not the cause of all the world's
problems. You accuse them of denying that Armstrong dopes. Repeat.
B. Lafferty
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> As for Betty Boop, Brad and the other rbr kids, they have not taken a
>> particularly skeptical position regarding drugs in professional
>> cycling and drug use by Postal/Discovery/Lance in particular.
>
> Bullshit. You've been doing the same schtick for years.
Yes, I have been talking about doping in pro cycling since 1994, before
Lance ever became a Tour contender for anything but flat to rolling
stage wins.
>
> You say "LA is doping and that's the cause of all the world's problems"
Is that a direct quote from me? Maybe you'd better check Google groups,
ASAP, Fred.
> People respond by saying that's not the cause of all the world's
> problems. You accuse them of denying that Armstrong dopes. Repeat.
Your straw man just hit the rubbish pile. I feel your pain, Fred.
B. Lafferty
Do you ever get tired of masturbating with the kids, Fred.
DA74
> On 6/27/2010 10:15 AM, H. Fred Kveck wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
This is a correct assessment.
Durex94
Fred Flintstein
> Watch out though, if you call him on his inconsistencies he might
> accuse you of having a man-crush but don't worry it's just his rbr wet
> dream. Move along. Nothing to see here.
The whole man-crush thing really seems to have hurt you. Bro.
Just an interesting observation. Not that there's anything
wrong with that.
Fred Flintstein
DA74
wrote:
You should read this bro, seriously:
http://diary-of-a-repressed-gay-guy.blogspot.com/
You're Welcome,
DA74
K. Fred Gauss
> On 6/27/2010 11:33 AM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>> As for Betty Boop, Brad and the other rbr kids, they have not taken a
>>> particularly skeptical position regarding drugs in professional
>>> cycling and drug use by Postal/Discovery/Lance in particular.
>>
>> Bullshit. You've been doing the same schtick for years.
>
> Yes, I have been talking about doping in pro cycling since 1994, before
> Lance ever became a Tour contender for anything but flat to rolling
> stage wins.
>>
>> You say "LA is doping and that's the cause of all the world's problems"
>
> Is that a direct quote from me? Maybe you'd better check Google groups,
> ASAP, Fred.
>
No, you change the "cause of all the world's problems" bit every year.
Feel free to insert whatever histrionics you choose, google is full of them.
K. Fred Gauss
I did not expect you to deal with your consistently faulty conclusions
about Lance's doping. I knew ahead of time that this was the best you'd
be able to manage.
Frederick the Great
<94208d1e-9b36-47de...@d12g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
DA74 <davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Drugs in the professional peloton is not a problem.
I have been saying that for years. Professional
cyclists have always taken, and currently take
drugs for performance. I have been saying that for years.
--
Old Fritz
K. Fred Gauss
Yeah, you have to break it down this way. Laff will say 20 things at
once, 18 of them will be bullshit and he'll pretend like you argued with
the other 2.
I'm pretty sure DA knows this, but just enjoys egging Brian on.