NY Times: Other riders now corroborating Landis's stories about Lance
08-06-10, 09:32 AM
#151
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,104
Bikes: Too many to count
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Ahh! The Armstrong PR machine is alive and well. Claiming that the investigation of which they know not much about is a "witch" hunt. This is Armstrong's card so that he doesn't have to cooperate in the investigation. And the worshipers claim that this is a waste of taxpayers money, all the while the LAF and Livestrong make their living off of deceiving the cancer community. Nice spin job Armstrong fan club.
08-06-10, 09:42 AM
#152
Jinja
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 263
Bikes: Giant TCR
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ahh! The Armstrong PR machine is alive and well. Claiming that the investigation of which they know not much about is a "witch" hunt. This is Armstrong's card so that he doesn't have to cooperate in the investigation. And the worshipers claim that this is a waste of taxpayers money, all the while the LAF and Livestrong make their living off of deceiving the cancer community. Nice spin job Armstrong fan club.
08-06-10, 09:44 AM
#153
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 404
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
more interested in seeing how Leadville 100 turns out next weekend than this investigation myself
08-06-10, 10:00 AM
#154
Single-serving poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Exercise-induced asthma is real, and most athletes treat it with albuterol and/or salbutamol, not steriods. Usage is also monitored, at levels far below any performance-enhancing capabilities; e.g. Petacchi had a TUE for salbutamol, took too much in 2007, and got suspended and fired as a result.
We're not just talking about "steroids." We're talking about EPO, HGH, synthetic testosterone, and blood doping, as well as a variety of unknown substances. EPO was apparently involved in several deaths before the UCI started monitoring hematocrit. Blood doping is very risky, e.g. due to contamination, increased chances of clots. I doubt much research has been done on the combined effects of all these substances.
While I concur that some of the more extreme suggestions are likely incorrect (e.g. steroid use probably does not cause brain tumors), that hardly means the substances are safe. Many have well-understood side effects, ranging from reduced sperm count to increased risks of diabetes and worse. It may not be instant death on a stick, but that hardly indicates that these substances are safe.
Also, since the sources of the medications are not always legit, the athlete has no idea of, let alone the purity of, what they're actually using -- especially amateurs who, say, take a trip to Tijuana for some androgens and a little Viagra on the side.
Even if there was some miracle drug that's 100% safe, the simple fact is that the rules bar their use. A corked bat poses no risks at all to anyone on a baseball diamond, but its use is still not allowed, nor can it be excused. PED's aren't much different than using a fairing, taking a short-cut or hopping a train. If you're using a banned technique to improve your performance, no matter how safe it is or how many other athletes use it, you're still a cheat.
While I concur that some of the more extreme suggestions are likely incorrect (e.g. steroid use probably does not cause brain tumors), that hardly means the substances are safe. Many have well-understood side effects, ranging from reduced sperm count to increased risks of diabetes and worse. It may not be instant death on a stick, but that hardly indicates that these substances are safe.
Also, since the sources of the medications are not always legit, the athlete has no idea of, let alone the purity of, what they're actually using -- especially amateurs who, say, take a trip to Tijuana for some androgens and a little Viagra on the side.
Even if there was some miracle drug that's 100% safe, the simple fact is that the rules bar their use. A corked bat poses no risks at all to anyone on a baseball diamond, but its use is still not allowed, nor can it be excused. PED's aren't much different than using a fairing, taking a short-cut or hopping a train. If you're using a banned technique to improve your performance, no matter how safe it is or how many other athletes use it, you're still a cheat.
08-06-10, 10:06 AM
#155
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,104
Bikes: Too many to count
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
And let us know when you get back from copy and pasting Armstrong press releases on the forums. Nice astroturfing job.
08-06-10, 10:17 AM
#156
Jinja
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 263
Bikes: Giant TCR
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
08-06-10, 11:14 AM
#157
out walking the earth
Let me educate you to a few things...this is an internet forum. By definition the rules you cite are made up and enforceable only in your own head. No one here has any obligation to anything other than following the forum rules. The proof or lack thereof will happen in official proceedings. This is merely a place to discuss what's in the news and personal opinions. okkkkkkkkk Go!
08-06-10, 11:17 AM
#158
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Tell you what man. You're obviously new at this whole "argumentative discussion" thing so I'll try to help you out and teach you some of the rules. When you make a claim (a.e. "I have proof that Armstrong doped!" or "Marcos copies and pastes Armstrong press releases!") then you are under obligation to show proof of your statements. This means that you have to back up your claims with actual facts. Making statements and then not being able to back them up is the opposite of proof and is generally considered bad in an argument. So, now that you're savvy to the way these things work I leave the door open to you. We'd like to see your proof of Armstrongs doping (then you can turn it into the prosecutor) and I'd personally like to see proof of my copy and pasting. Sound good? Okkkkkkkkkkkk Go!
08-06-10, 11:25 AM
#159
I'm fine.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,263
Bikes: Specialized Allez Sport, IRO Rob Roy
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If Armstrong is found guilty, what happens? He goes to jail, maybe.
Anything else? Not really. Because America doesn't care about Armstrong the cyclist. America cares about Armstrong the brand (not quite the right word, maybe), and that's much more powerful than his cycling legacy.
Yes, sportswriters will wring their hands and wag their fingers, because that’s what sportswriters like to do. There will be shock! and dismay! and I told you so! in the comment sections of wsjonline and espn. Vaughters will become even more full of himself. We’ll all freak out about what it means for cycling.
Lance then goes on the Today Show and The View and Oprah and All Things Considered and admits that he lied, apologizes, says that he had to lie because duh, and he had to dope because his biggest rivals were all doping. Besides, he gave himself a 3-year suspension. He put himself in the naughty corner! In other words, he does a David Millar, just on a much bigger scale.
Livestrong goes on to do their work with cancer survivors. His new foundation Racestrong works to clean up the sport. Bikestrong promotes bikes as transportation. And he does Leadville and the Ironman, and promotes racing here in the US.
Maybe Nike backs off a bit, maybe he loses some other sponsors initially, maybe the governor of Colorado doesn’t return his calls on the same day, but his brand still has value. Ben Stiller would still hang out with him. So would Robin Williams. And Matthew McConaughey, shirtless of course.
And everyone goes along with it – corporations, politicians, fans, most of his former teammates, bike companies, cancer survivors, because who else is there? Who still looks like an angry, lying, weasel idiot? Flandis.
Anything else? Not really. Because America doesn't care about Armstrong the cyclist. America cares about Armstrong the brand (not quite the right word, maybe), and that's much more powerful than his cycling legacy.
Yes, sportswriters will wring their hands and wag their fingers, because that’s what sportswriters like to do. There will be shock! and dismay! and I told you so! in the comment sections of wsjonline and espn. Vaughters will become even more full of himself. We’ll all freak out about what it means for cycling.
Lance then goes on the Today Show and The View and Oprah and All Things Considered and admits that he lied, apologizes, says that he had to lie because duh, and he had to dope because his biggest rivals were all doping. Besides, he gave himself a 3-year suspension. He put himself in the naughty corner! In other words, he does a David Millar, just on a much bigger scale.
Livestrong goes on to do their work with cancer survivors. His new foundation Racestrong works to clean up the sport. Bikestrong promotes bikes as transportation. And he does Leadville and the Ironman, and promotes racing here in the US.
Maybe Nike backs off a bit, maybe he loses some other sponsors initially, maybe the governor of Colorado doesn’t return his calls on the same day, but his brand still has value. Ben Stiller would still hang out with him. So would Robin Williams. And Matthew McConaughey, shirtless of course.
And everyone goes along with it – corporations, politicians, fans, most of his former teammates, bike companies, cancer survivors, because who else is there? Who still looks like an angry, lying, weasel idiot? Flandis.
08-06-10, 11:33 AM
#160
Jinja
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 263
Bikes: Giant TCR
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Let me educate you to a few things...this is an internet forum. By definition the rules you cite are made up and enforceable only in your own head. No one here has any obligation to anything other than following the forum rules. The proof or lack thereof will happen in official proceedings. This is merely a place to discuss what's in the news and personal opinions. okkkkkkkkk Go!
08-06-10, 11:36 AM
#161
out walking the earth
Well I'll say I think you can make all the justifications you want as to why he doped or that it was ok he doped, but say you don't believe he did at this point is a head in the sand moment. Again, no one has to prove anything. I can say it again and again. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped.
This is BF, not a congressional grand jury. The burden of proof is where it matters. This is merely a court of (public) opinion.
This is BF, not a congressional grand jury. The burden of proof is where it matters. This is merely a court of (public) opinion.
08-06-10, 11:41 AM
#162
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well I'll say I think you can make all the justifications you want as to why he doped or that it was ok he doped, but say you don't believe he did at this point is a head in the sand moment. Again, no one has to prove anything. I can say it again and again. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped. He doped.
This is BF, not a congressional grand jury. The burden of proof is where it matters. This is merely a court of (public) opinion.
This is BF, not a congressional grand jury. The burden of proof is where it matters. This is merely a court of (public) opinion.
08-06-10, 11:43 AM
#163
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
Believing that Armstrong doped is similar to believing that OJ did it. You might not be able to prove it but it is certainly not irrational, based on the evidence, to believe it.
08-06-10, 11:48 AM
#164
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
08-06-10, 11:54 AM
#165
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Did Lance dope? Amazing that we are still even discussing it (people who really believe this is a genuine question might as well hold up a giant sign above their heads that reads: "I know absolutely nothing, nada, rien du tout about pro-cycling!").
Remind me of the name of the female athlete who also claimed she was the "most-tested-athlete-in-the-world" and always tested negative? Oh, yes: "I went to jail because I lied to the Feds about doping."
Lack of proof means nothing when it is the UCI in charge of issuing a ruling in re. Armstrong. The guy has given them tens of thousands of dollars for crissakes...
The Feds will be a little less easy to fool, bribe or bully and that's why everyone in the Lance camp is so worried....
Remind me of the name of the female athlete who also claimed she was the "most-tested-athlete-in-the-world" and always tested negative? Oh, yes: "I went to jail because I lied to the Feds about doping."
Lack of proof means nothing when it is the UCI in charge of issuing a ruling in re. Armstrong. The guy has given them tens of thousands of dollars for crissakes...
The Feds will be a little less easy to fool, bribe or bully and that's why everyone in the Lance camp is so worried....
08-06-10, 12:04 PM
#166
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
6 Posts
Without taking the time to research it, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the physician patient privilege has to have exceptions for criminal misconduct.
Doctors are prosecuted everyday for dispensing controlled substances to patients inappropriately. If you couldn't work around the physican/ patient privilege, any Doctor with a DEA number could deal drugs to his "patients" with impugnity.
Thus, while the Physcian patinet privilege may keep statements made to a physician for the purpose of seeking medical treatment out of evidence, they are not going to keep out evidence that a Doctor gave a drug to a cyclist for a non theraputic purpose.
Otherwise you could never prosecute anyone with a medical license for illegally distributing drugs.
Doctors are prosecuted everyday for dispensing controlled substances to patients inappropriately. If you couldn't work around the physican/ patient privilege, any Doctor with a DEA number could deal drugs to his "patients" with impugnity.
Thus, while the Physcian patinet privilege may keep statements made to a physician for the purpose of seeking medical treatment out of evidence, they are not going to keep out evidence that a Doctor gave a drug to a cyclist for a non theraputic purpose.
Otherwise you could never prosecute anyone with a medical license for illegally distributing drugs.
What I would really like to know is this. You remember Betsy Andreu saying she overheard LA telling his doctors in his Indianapolis hospital room all the PEDS he had ever taken in his life, when he was asked by those docs.
Well, could Lemond or SCA Promotions have called those docs as witnesses, put them under oath and depose them re the Betsy Andreu allegation and other questions re PEDS?
Last edited by Jed19; 08-06-10 at 12:21 PM.
08-06-10, 12:11 PM
#167
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I suppose because that was a civil matter, not criminal.
08-06-10, 12:59 PM
#168
Senior Member
Okay Merlin. I get your point re the doc/patient privilege not being absolute.
What I would really like to know is this. You remember Betsy Andreu saying she overheard LA telling his doctors in his Indianapolis hospital room all the PEDS he had ever taken in his life, when he was asked by those docs.
Well, could Lemond or SCA Promotions have called those docs as witnesses, put them under oath and depose them re the Betsy Andreu allegation and other questions re PEDS?
What I would really like to know is this. You remember Betsy Andreu saying she overheard LA telling his doctors in his Indianapolis hospital room all the PEDS he had ever taken in his life, when he was asked by those docs.
Well, could Lemond or SCA Promotions have called those docs as witnesses, put them under oath and depose them re the Betsy Andreu allegation and other questions re PEDS?
The concept of "doctor-patient confidentiality" derives from English COMMON LAW and is codified in many states' statutes. It is based on ethics, not law, and goes at least as far back as the Roman Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians. It is different from "doctor-patient privilege," which is a legal concept. Both, however, are called upon in legal matters to establish the extent by which ethical duties of confidentiality apply to legal privilege. Legal privilege involves the right to withhold EVIDENCE from DISCOVERY and/or the right to refrain from disclosing or divulging information gained within the context of a "special relationship." Special relationships include those between doctors and patients, attorneys and clients, priests and confessors or confiders, guardians and their wards, etc.
The Oath of Hippocrates, traditionally sworn to by newly licensed physicians, includes the promise that "Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret." The laws of Hippocrates further provide, "Those things which are sacred, are to be imparted only to sacred persons; and it is not lawful to impart them to the profane until they have been initiated into the mysteries of the science."
Doctor-patient confidentiality stems from the special relationship created when a prospective patient seeks the advice, care, and/or treatment of a physician. It is based upon the general principle that individuals seeking medical help or advice should not be hindered or inhibited by fear that their medical concerns or conditions will be disclosed to others. Patients entrust personal knowledge of themselves to their physicians, which creates an uneven relationship in that the vulnerability is one-sided. There is generally an expectation that physicians will hold that special knowledge in confidence and use it exclusively for the benefit of the patient.
The professional duty of confidentiality covers not only what patients may reveal to doctors, but also what doctors may independently conclude or form an opinion about, based on their EXAMINATION or ASSESSMENT of patients. Confidentiality covers all medical records (including x-rays, lab-reports, etc.) as well as communications between patient and doctor, and it generally includes communications between the patient and other professional staff working with the doctor.
The duty of confidentiality continues even after patients stop seeing or being treated by their doctors. Once doctors are under a duty of confidentiality, they cannot divulge any medical information about their patients to third persons without patient consent. There are, however, exceptions to this rule.
The Oath of Hippocrates, traditionally sworn to by newly licensed physicians, includes the promise that "Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret." The laws of Hippocrates further provide, "Those things which are sacred, are to be imparted only to sacred persons; and it is not lawful to impart them to the profane until they have been initiated into the mysteries of the science."
Doctor-patient confidentiality stems from the special relationship created when a prospective patient seeks the advice, care, and/or treatment of a physician. It is based upon the general principle that individuals seeking medical help or advice should not be hindered or inhibited by fear that their medical concerns or conditions will be disclosed to others. Patients entrust personal knowledge of themselves to their physicians, which creates an uneven relationship in that the vulnerability is one-sided. There is generally an expectation that physicians will hold that special knowledge in confidence and use it exclusively for the benefit of the patient.
The professional duty of confidentiality covers not only what patients may reveal to doctors, but also what doctors may independently conclude or form an opinion about, based on their EXAMINATION or ASSESSMENT of patients. Confidentiality covers all medical records (including x-rays, lab-reports, etc.) as well as communications between patient and doctor, and it generally includes communications between the patient and other professional staff working with the doctor.
The duty of confidentiality continues even after patients stop seeing or being treated by their doctors. Once doctors are under a duty of confidentiality, they cannot divulge any medical information about their patients to third persons without patient consent. There are, however, exceptions to this rule.
08-06-10, 01:41 PM
#169
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
6 Posts
^ I guess the non-absoluteness of the doc/patient privilege is kinda emphasized in the last sentence of the quote above re "exceptions to the rule".
08-06-10, 01:44 PM
#170
Token Canadian
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Gagetown, New Brunswick
Posts: 1,555
Bikes: Cervelo S1, Norco Faze 1 SL, Surly Big Dummy, Moose Fatbike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 200 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Tell you what man. You're obviously new at this whole "argumentative discussion" thing
And let us know when you get back from copy and pasting Armstrong press releases on the forums. Nice astroturfing job.
It is, I think, unquestionable that there are people who are out to get LA and who do not take lack of evidence (or counter-indicating evidence) as proof that their position may be somewhat weak. It is clear to me that there are people who are CONVINCED that he doped, and who are willing to do ANYTHING to hang the title "convicted doper" on him - and that these people are as untroubled by ethics as the dopers themselves.
Random, third-rate domestique the target of conspiracy? Not likely. But Lance? Hell yeah, I can believe that.
It is right and proper to hold any so-called "evidence" against LA to the highest possible standard because it really is clear that there are people who would make use of substandard evidence to attempt to convict him.
I don't think he doped. I grant that it is possible, even plausible, but all the evidence I have seen/read to this point is tainted by sloppy handling, rumour, and blatant agenda. Until such time as real, hard, admissible-in-court evidence arises (and I'm not at all sure that such evidence even exists) then in my book it is "innocent until proven guilty".
DG
08-06-10, 01:51 PM
#172
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tulsa OK
Posts: 2,076
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
08-06-10, 02:00 PM
#173
Throw the stick!!!!
Anyone else getting a headache?
__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.
08-06-10, 02:06 PM
#174
Token Canadian
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Gagetown, New Brunswick
Posts: 1,555
Bikes: Cervelo S1, Norco Faze 1 SL, Surly Big Dummy, Moose Fatbike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 200 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Anyone else getting a headache?
DG
08-06-10, 02:21 PM
#175
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Earlier in this thread I was accused of being a jerk (well, actually worse than that, but I don't want to repeat it) for posting every negative piece of news about Lance off the Internet.
Honestly, I don't.
However, *here* is a development reported just this morning by the Milwaukee Sentinel: Trek has confirmed that it is being subpoenaed as well. In my opinion, this story is:
- not negative (it's just a fact)
- not about Armstrong (it's about Trek)
- not even new (I think this was reported by the NY Daily News ? a couple of weeks ago).
I believe the connection here is that Trek was asked to provide documentation around the disposition of the bikes that it gave/sold to US Postal, which Floyd Landis claims were sold to pay for doping.
We all know Floyd is a liar, a cheat, a rate, etc. etc. But looks like the Feds are following the lead anyway.
Sorry to be a jerk.
Trek cooperating in federal investigation of Armstrong
By Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel
Aug. 6, 2010 10:48 a.m. |(28) Comments
Officials with Trek Bicycle Corp. have provided information to federal investigators in connection with a criminal investigation involving Lance Armstrong, the company's most prominent endorser and cycling's greatest athlete.
Bill Mashek, a Trek spokesman, confirmed Friday that company officials had been contacted by federal investigators this summer, just before the Tour de France, cycling's greatest event, began.
"We have been contacted, and we have provided information," Mashek said. "We are cooperating fully in the investigation."
Asked what information was provided, Mashek said documents.
Mashek said the investigators asked the company not to provide details of the inquiry, and "we are respecting that."
(Interestingly, the first comment at the newspaper's website was to protest that Eddy Mercyx was cycling's greatest athlete).
Honestly, I don't.
However, *here* is a development reported just this morning by the Milwaukee Sentinel: Trek has confirmed that it is being subpoenaed as well. In my opinion, this story is:
- not negative (it's just a fact)
- not about Armstrong (it's about Trek)
- not even new (I think this was reported by the NY Daily News ? a couple of weeks ago).
I believe the connection here is that Trek was asked to provide documentation around the disposition of the bikes that it gave/sold to US Postal, which Floyd Landis claims were sold to pay for doping.
We all know Floyd is a liar, a cheat, a rate, etc. etc. But looks like the Feds are following the lead anyway.
Sorry to be a jerk.
Trek cooperating in federal investigation of Armstrong
By Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel
Aug. 6, 2010 10:48 a.m. |(28) Comments
Officials with Trek Bicycle Corp. have provided information to federal investigators in connection with a criminal investigation involving Lance Armstrong, the company's most prominent endorser and cycling's greatest athlete.
Bill Mashek, a Trek spokesman, confirmed Friday that company officials had been contacted by federal investigators this summer, just before the Tour de France, cycling's greatest event, began.
"We have been contacted, and we have provided information," Mashek said. "We are cooperating fully in the investigation."
Asked what information was provided, Mashek said documents.
Mashek said the investigators asked the company not to provide details of the inquiry, and "we are respecting that."
(Interestingly, the first comment at the newspaper's website was to protest that Eddy Mercyx was cycling's greatest athlete).