Federal Investigation widened...
Keith
Looks like the feds will be asking some questions to LA and company,
probably won't be a good idea to lie...
Brad Anders
> ...http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/scope-of-us-doping-inquiry-may-be-wid...
>
> Looks like the feds will be asking some questions to LA and company,
> probably won't be a good idea to lie...
It will be more interesting to see it any new hard evidence emerges as
a result of these investigations. I'm not talking about "he said, she
said" evidence (i.e. Betsy Andreu, Stephanie McIlvain, Floyd Landis),
I'm talking about receipts, bank account transfers, physical evidence,
etc. (btw, I don't think a Landis shot of motorcycle panniers is going
to cut it). We already know that in hundreds (thousands?) of drug
tests on Lance over the past 10+ years that nobody's been able to pin
the tail on the donkey yet, so I don't think testing results are going
to help much.
I suspect such evidence will be hard to find, and without such
evidence, I doubt any kind of remorseful confession is going to
happen. This isn't the series finale of "24", and Lance isn't
President Taylor.
Brad Anders
B. Lafferty
criminal subpoenas. This is especially so when you have witnesses
providing leads that can be followed to physical records.
Anton Berlin
It's more and more becoming a 'he said, they said' thing
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
We'll have to see. I'm especially interested in how effective this
investigation will be, considering that most of the alleged doping
took place outside of the USA.
Brad Anders
B. Lafferty
RicodJour
Yet we'll still have to listen to you pontificate ad nauseum in the
meantime.
R
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:c5ea0129-6bf8-4f73...@z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
==========
It's more and more becoming a 'he said, they said' thing
==========
There was a time it wasn't? Seriously?
Until someone finds a money trail, that's all this is, and all this has
ever been.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
B. Lafferty
question for you and all the other asswipes here. Do you think Tom
Weisel will take the fall for Lance or will he cut a deal and throw
Lance and Johan under the bus?
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:r-
>>
>> We'll have to see. I'm especially interested in how effective this
>> investigation will be, considering that most of the alleged doping
>> took place outside of the USA.
>>
>> Brad Anders
> Time will tell.
Dumbass -
They've got to find some sort of paper trail. Otherwise, it's a
he-said/she-said situation.
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
Really??!! You are a brilliant asshole, Fred.
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message >
> ==========
> It's more and more becoming a 'he said, they said' thing
> ==========
>
> There was a time it wasn't? Seriously?
>
> Until someone finds a money trail, that's all this is, and all this has
> ever been.
Dumbass -
There are people on this group who are trying to assert that it is more than
that. One of those idiots (Laff@me) tried to liken it to BALCO, but BALCO
started off with a syringe and blood (DNA evidence). It continued because
BALCO was a drug manufacturing enterprise with a facility in Burlingame,
California, employees, client lists full of professional athletes from a
whole range of North American professional sports (even cycling w/ Tammy
Thomas), lab technicians, etc.
Lotsa hard evidence.
In the LANCE/Flandis situation, without the paper trail, there's not even
anything to show (outside of he-said/she-said) that a crime has occurred,
except Flandis' positive dope test at the TdF, but that test 1) happened
outside the US and 2) points at Flandis, not LANCE.
B. Lafferty
between BALCO and Armstrong is the involvement of Novitsky.
As to proving cases in court, time will tell what is developed. It's
amazing the kinds of tracks even the most careful people leave. Try to
get it though your head into that pea sized brain of yours that the
interest the Feds have centers on fraudulent use of US government monies
and fraud in the procurement of an insurance policy from SCA Promotions
worth $5million+.
I wonder if any of Lance's teammates took photos to share down the road.
Maybe they saved txt messages, voicemails, emails. It's early on in
the investigations. I will tell you that the US Attorney in the
Northern District of California has the reputation for publicizing
arrests of high profile individuals. Check out his web site.
IIRC, Thom Weisel has dealt with this US Attorney's office before. It
could be something of a reunion.
Amit Ghosh
> I don't speak excathedra, so you'll never hear me pontificate. I have a
> question for you and all the other asswipes here. Do you think Tom
> Weisel will take the fall for Lance or will he cut a deal and throw
> Lance and Johan under the bus?
dumbass,
Weisel will never even be involved.
B. Lafferty
Mike Jacoubowsky
> amazing the kinds of tracks even the most careful people leave. Try to
> get it though your head into that pea sized brain of yours that the
> interest the Feds have centers on fraudulent use of US government monies
> and fraud in the procurement of an insurance policy from SCA Promotions
> worth $5million+.
Is this just busy work for someone (at the Fed) needing something to do?
In the "real" world, it would depend entirely upon how the SCA contract was
worded. There may not be an after-the-finding recourse; it may be very
specifically spelled out that there is a timeframe in which any evidence
must be brought forth before a finding can be made in favor of SCA. Even a
typical insurance policy allows for payment in the event of fraud after a
period of time (typically two years, in the case of my own life insurance
policy, meaning that I could lie about my medical condition and only during
the first two years can they cancel or modify the policy).
If the Feds have nothing better to do than to go after an $8 million/year
expenditure that ended many years ago, while people wrote up and made tons
of $$$ from fraudulent mortgages backed by the government every single day
for years (fraudulent because they were based on false information regarding
ability to pay)... and those people haven't been touched... something's
seriously wrong with this picture.
The government has a legitimate role in looking at potential tax fraud, but
this other stuff is just way too far out there, and with too-little possible
recovery of significant revenue, for me to be happy that they're spending
tax dollars on it.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
DA74
Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
those years.
-DA74
B. Lafferty
>> As to proving cases in court, time will tell what is developed. It's
>> amazing the kinds of tracks even the most careful people leave. Try to
>> get it though your head into that pea sized brain of yours that the
>> interest the Feds have centers on fraudulent use of US government
>> monies and fraud in the procurement of an insurance policy from SCA
>> Promotions worth $5million+.
>
> Is this just busy work for someone (at the Fed) needing something to do?
I think not.
>
> In the "real" world, it would depend entirely upon how the SCA contract
> was worded. There may not be an after-the-finding recourse; it may be
> very specifically spelled out that there is a timeframe in which any
> evidence must be brought forth before a finding can be made in favor of
> SCA. Even a typical insurance policy allows for payment in the event of
> fraud after a period of time (typically two years, in the case of my own
> life insurance policy, meaning that I could lie about my medical
> condition and only during the first two years can they cancel or modify
> the policy).
Civil issues regarding the policy are one thing. Here the Feds are
apparently looking into criminal fraud, mail/wire fraud, conspiracy.
>
> If the Feds have nothing better to do than to go after an $8
> million/year expenditure that ended many years ago, while people wrote
> up and made tons of $$$ from fraudulent mortgages backed by the
> government every single day for years (fraudulent because they were
> based on false information regarding ability to pay)... and those people
> haven't been touched... something's seriously wrong with this picture.
You'd be amazed how interested the Feds can be in fraud schemes that
involve $5 million and the mis-use of US government funds. The Feds are
usually very interested. Apparently that is the situation here.
>
> The government has a legitimate role in looking at potential tax fraud,
> but this other stuff is just way too far out there, and with too-little
> possible recovery of significant revenue, for me to be happy that
> they're spending tax dollars on it.
Tax fraud is one small area of Federal criminal prosecutions. I noticed
that Armstrong isn't returning calls from the press. Smart. I have to
think his attorneys have advised him to shut up. It will be interesting
to see if the matter reaches the point where counsel for Radio Shack
advises RS to start putting distance between it and Lance.
Are the bookies in the UK giving odds yet on whether or not Lance goes
to France for the Tour?
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass, two questions:
- Did you come as you typed that?
- Aren't you the guy that said the feds would be coming
after flandis for hacking the French lab's computer?
Fred Flintstein
B. Lafferty
Well Flintstone, I recall a discussion about the French authorities and
their issuance of an arrest warrant for Landis. There was some question
as to whether or not it was an international arrest warrant--I recall it
was not. I don't recall the French government seeking the enforcement of
their warrant here in the US, do you?
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
My kid would do that when she was a toddler. If I asked her
a question she didn't want to answer, she'd answer a
different, easier question.
Fred Flintstein
PS The feds are coming after flandis for hacking the French
lab's computer.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/50ce37b869dc2703
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/0e1daaa8334b698a
B. Lafferty
Flintstone, you ask your kid if she comes all over the keyboard when
typing and you're surprised you don't get an answer??!!
Try reading what I posted that you pulled up from Google. I didn't say
the Fed were going to go after Landis or Baker on their own. I said they
might if USADA filed a complaint that Landis and Baker used false
evidence under oath in an arbitration proceeding. They still might,
although I suspect they'll all cut deals of one sort or another.
Such a putz you are. Go find Wilma and take a break, Fred.
z, fred
You are making the assumption that this is an either/or situation.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> > Weisel will never even be involved.
>
> Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
> owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
> what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
> for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
> those years.
Dumbass -
Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
Anton Berlin
wrote:
It's not about the money Mike - they're are bigger tax cheats than
Wesley Snipes and bigger frauds than Lance Armstrong.
It's about the headlines and free publicity has a power all its own -
whether getting taxpayers to pay, dopers to stop doping or warriors to
go to war.
Lance is a worthy target and they're are many people licking their
paws at the chance to tear him apart
B. Lafferty
join you in a criminal conspiracy. Carry on, Fred.
Amit Ghosh
> > dumbass,
>
> > Weisel will never even be involved.
>
> Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
> owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
> what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
> for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
> those years.
>
dumbass,
you're right. when the team car needs an oil change bruyneel drives it
over to pepboys and is sure to mail weisel the receipt so that he can
tell his accounting guy to mail him a cheque.
DA74
Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
(transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
somewhere.
This whole thing is going to come down to is a question of whether or
not the feds can get access to
Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
-DA74
B. Lafferty
books are cooked.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
The great thing about a conspiracy charge is that you
can bring it even if you might not be able to win a case
on the underlying crime (of course, the underlying crime
doesn't generally even have to be committed, just
intended). It's actually probably harder to find someone
who hasn't technically engaged in such behavior at some
point in their life, but most of such law-breaking is minor
and never draws the attention of investigators with
subpoena power, which is why we're not all in jail for
lying to insurance agents about whether or not we use
our cars for daily commuting. (Actually, I don't, but I think
my agent once put down that I used my car for
"pleasure driving," which must be a lie given today's traffic.)
Anyway, I have a different question, Lafferty. Once upon
a time, you were interested in doping prosecutions as
a way to clean up the sport - I remember proclamations
that now the dopers were on the run and this year we would
see some real suffering in the mountains.
Have you given up on that shit? I mean, it's understandable
if you think the entire sport of pro cycling is irredeemably
dirty and you couldn't care about rescuing it anymore, let
it die. That's a defensible position. But then, why give
a damn about nailing LANCE? I don't think one can make a
case that nailing LANCE is going to help clean up the sport.
Is it anything other than personal animus?
Honestly I think you've accidentally won a Pyrrhic victory.
RBR is not like it was 10 years ago. Few people are willing
to fight to prove LANCE is clean. The reason the victory
is Pyrrhic is that it turns out at the same time as belief
in clean cyclists has dissipated, moral outrage has also
dissipated, so few RBR dumbasses are interested in crusading
to clean up cycling anymore. It seems like you aren't either.
Fredmaster Ben
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
Either they're idiots and they're not cooked (unlikely).
Or they're not idiots and they're cooked.
Weisel is an investment banker. If there's one thing those types know
it's how to cook the books.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d456baa8-6206-11df-998c-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> somewhere.
Dumbass -
True, but that expense could be listed under any one of a slew of
legitimate expense categories.
If I was thinking about running a dirty cycling team, I'd have the
doping budget buried inside all the legit stuff.
Willie Nelson got audited by the IRS and had to pay a small fortune in
back taxes. I'd bet that they didn't manage to find his marijuana
expense account (word is he smokes *a lot*) in the touring budget.
Amit Ghosh
>
> Asshole. Read the following:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d456baa8-6206-11df-998c-00144feab49a.html?f...
dumbass,
it not unlikely that a banker might get charge with securities fraud.
though in this case it is an employee of his company (and by proxy the
company) - not the man himself.
he isn't going to be held responsible for the behavior of some
athletes. why would he even have any relevant information ?
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
<snip>
Dumbass -
That's true.
However, Mike has a good point. The mortgage crisis almost brought
down the entire financial system.
There's also other sorts of crime which are infinitely more likely to
affect even cycling fans. The crisis in Mexico is a direct result of
US citizen's drug consumption. There's this little oil spill off the
coast of Louisiana that needs some attention in the civil (and maybe
criminal) courts. There's the execution of innocents we discussed in
another thread. And so on.
I'm gonna go dope up on some caffeine along with a very large majority
of my fellow citizens who also dope (though not necessarily on
caffeine).
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
Doesn't that story support my point?
B. Lafferty
day. Thom was quite involved with them and USACycling.
B. Lafferty
>>
>> It's not about the money Mike - they're are bigger tax cheats than
>> Wesley Snipes and bigger frauds than Lance Armstrong.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> That's true.
>
> However, Mike has a good point. The mortgage crisis almost brought
> down the entire financial system.
>
> There's also other sorts of crime which are infinitely more likely to
> affect even cycling fans. The crisis in Mexico is a direct result of
> US citizen's drug consumption. There's this little oil spill off the
> coast of Louisiana that needs some attention in the civil (and maybe
> criminal) courts. There's the execution of innocents we discussed in
> another thread. And so on.
>
> I'm gonna go dope up on some caffeine along with a very large majority
> of my fellow citizens who also dope (though not necessarily on
> caffeine).
>
> thanks,
>
> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
K. Fred Gauss
> ...http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/scope-of-us-doping-inquiry-may-be-widened?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=news_headlines
>
> Looks like the feds will be asking some questions to LA and company,
> probably won't be a good idea to lie...
Telling the truth is a pretty unpleasant option, too.
B. Lafferty
K. Fred Gauss
> Anyway, I have a different question, Lafferty. Once upon
> a time, you were interested in doping prosecutions as
> a way to clean up the sport - I remember proclamations
> that now the dopers were on the run and this year we would
> see some real suffering in the mountains.
This is precisely how Lafferty knew Landis was clean during the 2006
TdF. Landis was in pain, he had bad days, HE WASN'T A ROBOT. Landis'
suffering was PROOF of Lance's doping. Lafferty wouldn't shut up about
that shit back in July of '06.
DA74
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is a correct analysis. With Thom in the mix I'd be shocked if the
feds were able to get anywhere. In the end I think that this will be
little more than an inconvenience for LA and Co.
-DA74
Amit Ghosh
> ROTFL!! Look at the news coverage of Thom and the Posties back in the
> day. Thom was quite involved with them and USACycling.
dumbass,
get our of your fantasyland.
where were george steinbrenner and joe torre and the other managers
and owners during the doping investigations in baseball ?
andreu already confessed to doping in 1999, why wasn't weisel charged
then ? what you are imagining just doesn't happen.
unless weisel actually handled drugs in some way (very unlikely), he
will not be involved.
Amit Ghosh
> On May 26, 5:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
> This is a correct analysis. With Thom in the mix I'd be shocked if the
> feds were able to get anywhere. In the end I think that this will be
> little more than an inconvenience for LA and Co.
>
dumbass,
armstrong already had ferrari as a trainer and presumably was paying
him.
do you think he got an itemized invoice listing all the dope ?
for all you know he paid $40,000 / yr for VAM calculations and
lactate tests.
B. Lafferty
criminal liability as one of the owners of the team.
DA74
Fucktard,
According to the most recent articles the feds are working on a fraud
angle. It appears they don't care about individual doping cases. Their
interest is in a question like, 'Did Tailwind take USPS dollars and
divert them towards funding a teamwide doping program?.' He was
"involved" because he owned Tailwind.
B. Lafferty
Time will tell. Hey, do you think SCA has made it's files available yet
to the Feds?
B. Lafferty
For some of them it's approaching Montey time--Let's make a deal.
DA74
I don't get your snip but I doubt LA's $ to Ferrari covered
transfusions for the whole team on the bus during the tour. "This
round's on me boys!" I think that's the kind of thing the feds are
interested in. I don't think they're going to find anything.
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
there might be more circumstantial evidence - that's all that will
happen.
armstrong has already had bad hits to his credibility which have not
"brought him down".
i know you want to see him jailed or something - but it just won't
happen.
Amit Ghosh
> I don't get your snip but I doubt LA's $ to Ferrari covered
> transfusions for the whole team on the bus during the tour. "This
> round's on me boys!" I think that's the kind of thing the feds are
> interested in. I don't think they're going to find anything.
dumbass,
landis claims lim did transfusions for him - he was also on the team
payroll. but really, do you think the paper trail is where the
evidence will come from.
in the balco case and mitchell report there were people who were
charged and they cooperated for leniency. unless there is proof of a
crime and that person has useful information i can't see this going
very far.
the only person who might have tangible evidence is landis.
DA74
I'm only talking about a paper trail because it leads down roads that
lets the feds get people under oath. As we all know that's when people
go to jail - when they get caught lying to the feds. No one is going
to go to jail for sticking a needle in their arm.
Paper trails are the red blood cells of investigations.
-DA74
z, fred
I'd bet that as long as he paid his taxes on his marijuana expense
account, the IRS really didn't care.
DA74
> account, the IRS really didn't care.- Hide quoted text -
>
Fucktard,
You don't pay taxes on an expense account. Expense accounts reduce
your taxable income provided they are legitimate expenses. The IRS
would definitely care if Willie was writing off his weed as a business
expense, and in his case I bet they did find it and that's why he had
to pay the small fortune to the IRS;-)
Weed and music go hand in hand. Weed and accounting, not so much.
-DA74
Anton Berlin
> On May 26, 3:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>
>
>
>
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 26, 12:11 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Weisel will never even be involved.
>
> > > Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
> > > owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
> > > what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
> > > for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
> > > those years.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
> > doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
> > doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
> > it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
>
> > I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
>
>
> > Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>
> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> somewhere.
>
> not the feds can get access to
> Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
> stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
>
> - Show quoted text -
That jackass down in Dallas stole several hundred thousand from EDS
http://velonews.competitor.com/2001/12/news/fear-and-loathing-in-plano_1680
It's possible as long as Lance was winning no one wanted to look as
close as EDS looked at Chenowith
z, fred
If it happened, I'd bet more than Landis has tangible evidence. Why
should he be the only one?
z, fred
Show us where he tried to write off his pot purchases as business expenses.
Amit Ghosh
> If it happened, I'd bet more than Landis has tangible evidence. Why
> should he be the only one?
dumbass,
other people might but why would they share ?
but landis could conceivably get charged with a crime - fraud ?
(fairness fund), money laundering maybe ?
in both the balco and mitchell cases the critical witnesses were
facing charges, some of which didn't directly relate to doping.
DA74
My sarcastometer is on the fritz. Are you being serious?
Amit Ghosh
>
> That jackass down in Dallas stole several hundred thousand from EDS
>
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2001/12/news/fear-and-loathing-in-plan...
>
> It's possible as long as Lance was winning no one wanted to look as
> close as EDS looked at Chenowith
dumbass,
get real. do you think the bosses at EDS actually think it's worth
paying a track cyclist six figures a year ?
what chenowth did was commit outright fraud, he might even beat out
brent kay for the guy who shafts himself the most for a cyclist.
the only person committing fraud in this case is landis.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
Sounds kinda nebulous to me. A successful doping program would
increase USPS's publicity return on the dollar.
Results = publicity, right?
DA74
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right. But in this case I think the feds question is: USPS Sponsorship
$=Team Sponsored Doping=Results?
I don't think the investigation is a question of whether or not USPS
got return on it's sponsorship dollar. But why a constitutionally
mandated monopoly like USPS needed to advertise in the first place is
whole other question I've pondered for years...
Thanks,
DA74
z, fred
Dumbass,
The basis (or pretense) of the sponsorship was to promote USPS in
international markets where the constitutionally mandated monopoly
doesn't mean beans.
B. Lafferty
Andy Coggan
> On May 26, 9:05 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't get your snip but I doubt LA's $ to Ferrari covered
> > transfusions for the whole team on the bus during the tour. "This
> > round's on me boys!" I think that's the kind of thing the feds are
> > interested in. I don't think they're going to find anything.
>
> dumbass,
>
> landis claims lim did transfusions for him - he was also on the team
> payroll.
Lim never worked for/with US Postal or even Armstrong himself until
this year.
Andy Coggan
cur...@the-md-russells.org
Gringioni." <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
>doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
>doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
>it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
Let's further assume that a company selling prescription drugs was
providing them without the prescription part, but with an accurate
receipt. I may be a CPA, but that would strike me as a company where
the accountants had far too much influence...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This whole thing is going to come down to is a question of whether or
>not the feds can get access to
>Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
>stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
Why do you think that the expenses necessarily came through the
Tailwind books? There are ways to do it off the books (starting by
paying the rider more than he actually makes, then taking cash back to
fund the drug activities). And, no, generally speaking, people are not
required to keep personal records in that kind of detail - young men
between the ages 21 and 33 spend cash money on all sorts of things, or
can say they did.
Payola was often a difficult thing to catch for exactly that reason -
offsets that weren't on the books of either party that turned a
legitimate expense into a return payment which could then be used in
any area that takes cash. Something tells me that once you had the
cash, you could find someone that would take the payment for an
illegal, prescription-only medicine.
There may be a trail, but there are also professionals that know how
to make finding it difficult. I don't really think LA would use them,
but Tailwind? Don't know. Do know I ran into a couple of Chinese
restaurants that were experts in how they really paid for stuff off
the back of the truck.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Right. But in this case I think the feds question is: USPS Sponsorship
>$=Team Sponsored Doping=Results?
I think you have the elements correct, but in the wrong order. The
fraud would be achieving fraudulent results that then resulted in
commerce. I don't know to what degree - and we don't have a reliable
legal source on rbr that I know of - that the recent judgments that
have decoupled actions of a team with the results in
games/competitions would impact the ability to bring a successful
fraud case. I'm guessing it leaves precedents that a judge may decide
are close enough to follow - or not. The whole New England Patriot
cheating thing comes to mind.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
>the only person who might have tangible evidence is landis.
Except he is already on record as saying that he doesn't have much in
this area. Unless he lied. Do you think he lied?
cur...@the-md-russells.org
Gringioni." <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Willie Nelson got audited by the IRS and had to pay a small fortune in
>back taxes. I'd bet that they didn't manage to find his marijuana
>expense account (word is he smokes *a lot*) in the touring budget.
From all reports, he could hide a mountain of weed in the Bourbon
account. Which apparently is somewhat how he consumed it as well.
Love the song about him and his manager being drunk at one of the
early concerts. Can't remember the title now. Great road travel song.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That jackass down in Dallas stole several hundred thousand from EDS
>
>http://velonews.competitor.com/2001/12/news/fear-and-loathing-in-plano_1680
>
>It's possible as long as Lance was winning no one wanted to look as
>close as EDS looked at Chenowith
Different relationship.He was running the program for EDS and was the
same as any employee that falsifies an expense account, just he was
way too greedy.
If the U.S.Post Office negotiates a contract for publicity and then
pays that amount to whoever, it isn't the same relationship.
The circles that run here are that, if Landis is correct from what I
have read, there is no employee>company fraud as the entire thing was
sanctioned by the team. If it is entirely at the team level, the
non-team corporate links and employee fraud goes away. It becomes an
issue of the team running a drug program that got it fraudulent
results that then created a commercial fraud when the team and/or the
primary non-team sponsor 'sold' those results to third party sponsors,
such as the U.S. Postal Service.
I think it will require very specific evidence to prove this enough to
get a conviction. It will only work for the top two or three as they
are the ones that both would be aware of the drug regimens and also be
involved in the sale of services to the third party sponsors. If all
else fails, I think the LA and company can sidestep the charges to
some extent by showing that there was a pattern of all serious teams
having drug regimens, making the fraud probably contingent on that
'racing clean' issue. Slim and none comes to mind.
I personally see the primary federal interest being to make a point
and pull more of sports under their sway or at least under their
guidance, so that they have a threat if the feds feel future actions
of the sport don't meet their expectations. They are probably not
interested in trashing LA as it serves little purpose and only
threatens to bring in some heavy hitters outside of cycling. My bet,
on the record, is that LA gets a heavy ding in some report, but
doesn't even get a chance to defend himself because that won't be the
intent anyway. Some report will make a heavily circumstantial case
that all of cycling was shot through with drug use, the whole sport
was a fraud, and there will be guidelines to be met in the future. The
fraud thing is a way to ask questions of the broadest group of people.
Everyone will agree, LA's managers will tell him his best response is
to let it go and let it disappear under the umbrella that everyone was
doing it and the U.S. public hear that the feds have solved the
problem for them...
Amit Ghosh
> Lim never worked for/with US Postal or even Armstrong himself until
> this year.
>
dumbass,
okay. but landis alleges the lim gave him and leipheimer blood
transfusions.
Andy Coggan
Indeed, he has made that (somewhat illogical, at least with respect to
Leipheimer*) allegation. You, however, are the one who asserted that
Lim was on US Postal's payroll.
*Lim worked for Landis when Landis rode for Phonak, but I am not aware
of any such connection between Lim and Leipheimer (other than the fact
that their last names start with L).
Andy Coggan
DA74
Why would you be aware of Levi being in a hotel room with Floyd while
Lim illegally performs blood transfusions on them?
B. Lafferty
DA74
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:55:39 -0700 (PDT), DA74
>
I'm not saying the doping program was paid for by Tailwind. But I am
suggesting that ALL the USPS money went through them initially. If
they are investigated it is simply a matter of auditors checking to
see if numbers add up and or match.
If their books show that they paid rider x a salary of y dollars in a
given year they might just go and check to see that rider x declared
all of the y dollars in salary. If as you suggest that they overpaid
atheletes so those athletes would then kick back money to a doping
program those athletes better have paid taxes on all that money.
-DA74
Frederick the Great
<c103969b-1649-4e81...@t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
"Kurgan. presented by Gringioni." <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 3:59 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On 5/26/2010 6:55 PM, DA74 wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 26, 3:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
> > > <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 26, 12:11 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Weisel will never even be involved.
> >
> > >>> Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
> > >>> owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
> > >>> what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
> > >>> for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
> > >>> those years.
> >
> > >> Dumbass -
> >
> > >> Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
> > >> doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
> > >> doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
> > >> it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
> >
> > >> I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
> >
> > >> thanks,
> >
> > >> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
> >
> > > Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
> > > apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> > > and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> > > stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> > > doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> > > (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> > > somewhere.
> >
> > > This whole thing is going to come down to is a question of whether or
> > > not the feds can get access to
> > > Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
> > > stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
> > > -DA74
> >
> > The Feds will get Tailwind's books. The question is whether or not the
> > books are cooked.
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Either they're idiots and they're not cooked (unlikely).
>
> Or they're not idiots and they're cooked.
>
> Weisel is an investment banker. If there's one thing those types know
> it's how to cook the books.
How long are they required to keep those books?
I need to keep my tax records for five years.
--
Old Fritz
Andy Coggan
As I parenthetically commented, **somewhat** illogical. That is,
absent any professional/team/coaching relationship connection, you'd
have to believe that Lim was performing transfusions on the side as a
favor and/or for money. Moreover, you'd have to believe that he did so
even though he worked for Landis/Phonak, whereas Leipheimer was riding
for Discovery Channel. None of that is impossible, obviously, but it
does seem a bit far-fetched.
Andy Coggan
K. Fred Gauss
From http://tinyurl.com/3acmyua
B. Lafferty wrote:
Here it is, Chump. No current or former employees/teammates of Landis have
indicated him to be riding anything but clean. Can't say the same for
Armstrong. No blood or urine samples of Landis have come up with EPO in
them. Can't say that for Armstrong. Landis' climbing wattages (and those
of the other Tour riders this year in the absence of Armstrong, Basso and
Ullrich) are at levels not consistent with EPO usage/blood doping.
Fred on a stick
K. Fred shoots, scores.
B. Lafferty
Yeah, I don't see where I said "Landis is riding clean." He did not
have the markers of doping that Armstrong had. I do think if both rode
clean, Landis would come out on top. I think the most you can say is
that based on the indicators, I assumed that Landis was riding clean.
Condemn me for giving him the benefit of the doubt in a moment of tifosi
fever.
As for the wattage, my recollection is that it was not until later that
we had the complete wattage output for Landis. I recall that at one
rather "interesting" point during a crucial state. Lim claimed that he
lost real time transmissions of power output for Landis.
B. Lafferty
DA74
>
> - Show quoted text -
It appears you are under the assumption that the riders have some sort
of allegiance to their team that transcends their personal
relationships. Furthermore you appear to assume that a prepatore
wouldn't work with riders for more than one team. Man, either you are
cynically playing naive or you are unbelievably fucking ignorant wrt
doping practices.
Read up on Lim, because he's got the cynically naive thing down pat:
http://nyvelocity.com/node/3996
-DA74
Anton Berlin
> On 5/27/2010 5:42 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 05/27/2010 03:15 AM, B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> On 5/26/2010 8:43 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> >>> Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> >>>> Anyway, I have a different question, Lafferty. Once upon
> >>>> a time, you were interested in doping prosecutions as
> >>>> a way to clean up the sport - I remember proclamations
> >>>> that now the dopers were on the run and this year we would
> >>>> see some real suffering in the mountains.
>
> >>> This is precisely how Lafferty knew Landis was clean during the 2006
> >>> TdF. Landis was in pain, he had bad days, HE WASN'T A ROBOT. Landis'
> >>> suffering was PROOF of Lance's doping. Lafferty wouldn't shut up about
> >>> that shit back in July of '06.
> >> Wrong. Show me where I said that I knew Landis was clean.
>
>
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> > Here it is, Chump. No current or former employees/teammates of Landis have
> > indicated him to be riding anything but clean. Can't say the same for
> > Armstrong. No blood or urine samples of Landis have come up with EPO in
> > them. Can't say that for Armstrong. Landis' climbing wattages (and those
> > of the other Tour riders this year in the absence of Armstrong, Basso and
> > Ullrich) are at levels not consistent with EPO usage/blood doping.
>
> Yeah, I don't see where I said "Landis is riding clean." He did not
> have the markers of doping that Armstrong had. I do think if both rode
> clean, Landis would come out on top. I think the most you can say is
> that based on the indicators, I assumed that Landis was riding clean.
> Condemn me for giving him the benefit of the doubt in a moment of tifosi
> fever.
>
> As for the wattage, my recollection is that it was not until later that
> we had the complete wattage output for Landis. I recall that at one
> rather "interesting" point during a crucial state. Lim claimed that he
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lafferty - that's nuts. Landis rides like shit when he's clean.
Armstrong - we don't have a single example of him riding clean so it's
all theory.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Yeah, I don't see where I said "Landis is riding clean." He did not
> have the markers of doping that Armstrong had.
Dumbass -
Which would tell you, if you were objective, that one cannot come to
definitive conclusions about doping from afar.
B. Lafferty
year as a pro?
Andy Coggan
Keep in mind that we are talking abou two riders with TdF GC
ambitions, meaning that their strongest allegiance is to themselves.
As for Lim, he's hardly a "pretatore" of the typical European
persuasion...and having been around him a little, I wouldn't describe
him as either cynical or naive.
In any case, as I said Landis's accusation isn't necessarily
*impossible*...it just strikes me as *unlikely* (much as it strikes me
as unlikely that not only the UCI but also the IOC covered up
Armstrong's alleged positive doping test for a mere $100k).
I will also say (without naming names, since I have no reason to
believe that any accusation against them would be true) that I can
think of more logical people for Landis to have targetted with his
claims...
Andy Coggan
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have no doubts he was doping as early as 1990-91. He just wasn't
effective in his doping protocol that early on.
Anton Berlin
UCI gets a cut of Lance Inc - he brought money to the sport in
hundreds of ways and the boys at UCI like going to the bank also.
Lim isn't naive - he's good at playing naive - just as any decent
poker player is.
DA74
Alright fair enough. So let's say you're right and Landis is making up
the whole thing about Lim (and Leipheimer for that matter). Do you
think Landis is making up the fact that he was doped in the two years
up to and during his TdF win to add credibility to his lies?
-DA74
K. Fred Gauss
> A bunch of lame, candy-assed excuses.
Amit Ghosh
> *Lim worked for Landis when Landis rode for Phonak, but I am not aware
> of any such connection between Lim and Leipheimer (other than the fact
> that their last names start with L).
>
dumbass,
i was wrong about when lim started with armstrong's team, but as far
as the transfusion story - i am just repeating what landis says.
Amit Ghosh
> Keep in mind that we are talking abou two riders with TdF GC
> ambitions, meaning that their strongest allegiance is to themselves.
>
dumbass,
fuentes was working with several TdF GC riders at the same time.
A. Dumas Fred
> On May 27, 7:07 pm, DA74 wrote:
>> prepatore
>
> "pretatore"
Preparatore.
> as unlikely that not only the UCI but also the IOC covered up
> Armstrong's alleged positive doping test for a mere $100k).
Depends on where the results are sent. As I understand it, everything
goes through the UCI first, so they would be able to act as gatekeeper.
Andy Coggan
As I said, *if* Lim did in fact provide transfusions to both Landis
and Leipheimer, he didn't do it because he was paid to do so by Landis/
Phonak.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
I really don't know, but that explanation seems more plausible to me
than some of things he has claimed.
Alternatively, it could be that he was doping, but is lying when he
says he has first-hand knowledge that others were as well.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
Not according to the IOC.
Andy Coggan
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>How long are they required to keep those books?
>I need to keep my tax records for five years.
>
>--
>Old Fritz
You should keep them a minimum of seven years, as it isn't just the
tax years in question, but any transactions or occurences in prior
years that may impact the year in question. Seven years is the minimum
advised period to keep tax returns and support info.
For corporations, it is advised that you simply do not get rid of tax
info or the preparation that went into the tax returns. OTOH, that is
built on the supposition that your return is in your opinion correct
and you are keeping all that to support your return as filed.
As to investment bankers and such, the record keeping is statuatory
and depends on the states they do business in as well. Seven is still
the number I see crop up the most for trust accounts and client
accounting.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If their books show that they paid rider x a salary of y dollars in a
>given year they might just go and check to see that rider x declared
>all of the y dollars in salary. If as you suggest that they overpaid
>atheletes so those athletes would then kick back money to a doping
>program those athletes better have paid taxes on all that money.
Well, if they are independent contractors, pay taxes on the total net
of appropriate expenses. Just saying. And it can go on and on and
on...