cooker

I don't think the real issue is that the team "stole millions of dollars from the government". USPS probably got their money's worth. The issue is that the team and possibly some USPS staff were involved in defrauding the public and the organizers of the tour and other teams of their money and trust (not that the tour and the other teams are any more innocent). So by dragging USPS into an overall fraudulent scheme the team contributed to the corruption of the US government. At least that is what I see as the most egregious offense if/when proven.

BengeBoy 

*If* Lance is found guilty of doping, and *if* he is found to have put pressure on people to change their testimony, I think the biggest fraud would involve the testimony in the civil lawsuit that he filed to collect his $5 million bonus from SCA Promotions.

That's real money; it was a real legal case; and I am assuming that the depositions in that case were all made under oath. Lying -- or persuading others to lie -- so that you can collect a $5 million payment is a significant crime.

I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm just trying to address the issue of "why would the government go after Lance 10 years after he won...everybody does it....etc. etc."

Sure, maybe everybody was a doper in that era. But not every one actually hired lawyers to collect a $5 million bonus based on being a "clean" rider.

If you don't know about the SCA case, look it up.

Jed19

The SCA affair was a civil affair. Sure, SCA can, and will probably sue to recover their $5Mil if LA was proven to have doped. The real big issue is taking USPS money, using some of it in illegal activities (kinda fraudulent), and probably the biggest s**t of all, the lies that are about to come.

In most of these kind of cases, (watergate, irangate, whitewater etc) the crime usually pales in comparison to the cover-up effort.

The after-lies are usually what bites you in the b**t the most.

collegeskier

Yeah, my point was how are you really defrauding your sponsor if they got exactly what they wanted whether or not you lied.

Also I think that if you think that the most egregious thing that happen was that they helped corrupt the US government by about 10 million dollars, that maybe we should be focusing more attention on the 9 billion that they just don't know where it went.

Cat4Lifer

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me to learn that LA, or any other pro cyclist, used PEDs. If I were to bet on this, I'd bet that Lance did indeed take PEDs--at least pre-cancer. But I think it reasonable to take a wait-and-see attitude before I take the Andreus' testimony as the gospel. Now, if someone myopically takes that to mean I'm a "Lance supporter," I don't agree, but so be it. I haven't yet read an reasonable opinion supporting a charge of fraud. If the team did partake in a systematic doping program, of what did the team illegally deprive USPS?

Mr Zippy

I am happy to accept that LAs performance is because he has survived cancer. Based on what is in his first book, the likelyhood of him surviving it was extremely remote. Remember that he had testicular cancer, which, according to wikipedia, if it hasn't metastasized, has a survival rate near 100%. His had metastasized to his lungs and his brain. I think if you survive such a case, your perspective on your life would be likely be very different - because you've just barely clung to it.

This is how serious it was. Here is the press conference where he announced it -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWBTNPTAJTc

He'd already had surgery to remove his cancerous testicle at that point. He had brain surgery to remove two tumours a week later, and then started chemotherapy immediately.

You're never cured of cancer - you're just in remission. If you know it could come back, wouldn't you want to make the best of the possibly short time you've got left? If you're a professional cyclist, wouldn't you want to win the best known race in the world? Would you want to cheat on that goal, when you'd know you're ultimately cheating yourself and the people who helped you survive?

My mother is a cancer survivor.
My childhood friend was a cancer victim. He would be Lance's age if he'd survived. He has a son that is never going to have known him.
My cousin is a cancer patient.

I'm going to believe LA is innocent until proven guilty, because I think if you've gone through an exceptional experience, like surviving the cancer he had, then it is quite conceivable to me that you can produce exceptional performance - because you can say to yourself, "this isn't going to kill me, like cancer almost did".

Jed19

Well, yours is a new and interesting take on the issue. I also lost my mother to cancer, and it was, and still is, the most frightening thing I ever witnessed in my life. From diagnosis to death took two years. My super, energetic, indefatigable mom was a shell of herself in about three months after diagnosis.

What was most frightening about the whole experience was the almost sudden deterioration and pain. So I respect what LA is doing re his Foundation. I even donated a small amount to his Livestrong Foundation, and I also have a yellow Livestrong band on my bike.

From my perspective though, his cancer research funding is a different issue from the allegation that he doped his way to his Tour wins. I am willing to forget about doping allegations, if he were to admit the doping (if it's true) and apologize for it. If the allegations are true, then he has sullied the reputation of some good people by calling them liars (The Andreus, for example). Landis was a liar at least once, so I don't give a bleep about him.

I also think LA coming clean will thoroughly discredit the UCI and Pat McQuaid, which in my opinion is necessary, before pro cycling can be rid of dopers.

Finally, it will send a message to young athletes that doping can only lead to, and end in disgrace, even if you had some success doing it.

Also, I really don't like being suckered!

YMMV.

pcfxer

You will have the old school tour de france. Citizens of France and Belgium supported the old tour and they do and continue to support today's tour.

What you will not have is a bunch of garbage floating around the tour; pamphlets booths with overpriced garbage and an overall cleaner tour that will support local bike shops and the local economy rather than trucked in corporate BULL crap.

Oh no, corporate sponsorship! It helps for charity but isn't necessary for real tours or events; it just isn't.

collegeskier

Supporting the premise is the first mistake here. Big time corporate sponsorship is going to stay as long as the fans stay so will the sponsors. They are there to advertise. Yeah some American companies might lose interest but really how much more then Lance retiring. I feel like most sponsors are sponsoring for the Euro market figuring a little bit of exposure in the US can only help. Are people going to boycott a sponsor if they sponsor a team that turns out to be dirty, I doubt it.

Biggest concern is that Versus would lose viewership and then sponsorship then stop broadcasting.

Keep in mind there have been controversies this big in cycling before and some of those sponsors are still around, ie Festina.

slcbob

You're kidding, right? Le Tour is the poster child of corporate sponsorship. The "old tour" sold papers. Now is sells a lot more. But without some bottled water, cars, papers, etc. providing the oil for the machine behind it, nothing runs. Do you think two retirees with a love for cycling can make this juggernaut go when they're not playing boules in Provence? This is a Grand Tour, not a Turkey Trot.

Staarkhand

I think negative publicity is a real threat. I have only one association with the brand "Festina".

Remember advertising doesn't target the rational part of your mind.

However I don't think the Tour is in any real danger. Its future on North American television may be.

Monte Zoncolan

pcfxer- How are they going to pay to have the race with no sponsors? How are the teams going to get riders and equipment with no money?

Staarkhand- Festina had their sales go through the roof after 1998.

BengeBoy 

You will find this unfair or humorous, depending on your point of view, I guess --

colombo357

I just find it amusing that Americans, which have a global reputation for obesity, are getting ready to take down its poster boy for endurance sports.

We have nothing to gain from any of this. I couldn't care less if he doped.

Jed19

What does having a global "reputation for obesity" have to do with allegations of FRAUD?

Staarkhand

Fascinating information, thanks. Do you know where you learned this, no offense but I like to follow up sources.

Love the bingo card.

Mr Zippy

And I appreciate the luck I have, with my mother surviving (as much as I don't get along with her).

I'm afraid I just don't understand that perspective. You're assuming he has cheated. Yet you also contrast that with the strength you mother had before she was diagnosed. What would her strength have been if she survived? As I said, LA is in remission. LA is on borrowed time. When you know it could come back, and you don't know when or even if, why wouldn't you want to maximise the value of what time you've might have left?

"Learn as if you were going to live forever, live as if you were going to die tomorrow." - Mahatma Gandhi

It seems to me that if you're in remission, you'll probably "live as if you were going to die tomorrow." What ever your stature is in life, you will set goals that are not about beating other people, but are about beating yourself. I don't think LA's fundamental goal was to beat other worthy competitors in the TDF. Beating the other worthy competitors was merely a milesone on the path to beating himself. They set the benchmark, albeit a high one. It's about how good you think you are, how good you think you can be, and, are right you are about how good you think you are and can be.

My opinion is that LA has realised how lucky he is to have survived cancer. Sure he has individually excelled since he had it. However I think the primary motivation that he has had is "try your damnedest to overcome it; do not let it beat you. You are capable of achieving the equivalent of what I have achieved (in the area or thing that is important to you)."

mustachiod

because baseball and football are almost non-existent these days after numerous scandals

bellweatherman

We have everything to gain from the truth. A cleaner sport, rid of dopers. Would cycling be damaged if this investigation continues? No. It only would in the minds of those that don't care if the sport is rife with dopers. Armstrong should not get a free pass and he should rot in prison for many years, if and when he is convicted. The man makes millions off of the cancer community.

The UCI must be dissolved and restructured without Pat McQuaid. It's a farce. Damage the UCI. Cycling will, in fact, prosper.

buddy

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/0...roger-clemens/

Federal Authorities Seek to Indict Roger Clemens
Rogers Clemens is going to be indicted not for taking steroid use but rather for lying and making untrue statements. Most of the allegations against Lance Armstrong happened in the past and is covered under the statue of limitations. If he is interviewed by the fed or has to go before a grand jury he needs to plead the fifth. Every question that is asked to him he needs to say, "Based on the advice of my attorney I respectfully plead the 5th amendment to protect my rights against self incrimination."

What would be interested is if the feds grant Lance Armstrong immunity and force him to testify. I have always felt that Johan Bruyneel would end up being the fall guy. The feds could say that JB is the target and grant LA immunity. LA would be force to answer all their questions and if LA testifies falsely he could be indicted.

telebianchi

Darn, you beat me to it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Jed19

Except Bruyneel, to the best of my recollection, is not an American citizen. Sure, he could be indicted, but all he has to do is stay away from the US. The only caveat is if Belgium has an extradition pact with the US. If that is the case, and Bruyneel is indicted, the he's SOL.

The Clemens case proves again that the crime is not what gets you, but the cover-up efforts.

collegeskier

I am pretty sure most of Europe are extradition treaties. He could fight extradition or of course go to a non extradition country and stay there.

BengeBoy 

Interesting new argument from Lance's new attorney, Mark Fabiani:


"With salmonella causing the recall of 380 million eggs, I'm probably not the only one wondering right now why the FDA is spending its resources looking into international bicycle races that occurred years ago," Fabiani said in an e-mail to Bloomberg.


I guess that should be a new square in the Lance Armstrong Bingo game, "Don't investigate me, investigate the eggs."

Mr_Christopher

It's not the eggs, it';s the cans. He hates the cans!