Lance Armstrong Holds Press Conference to Discuss Investigation

This one is hot off the press on the Lance Armstrong investigation. The ONN is reporting that Lance held a press conference today and said: "that it would probably be best if everyone sat down for this."  According to ONN, Armstrong began the press conference by saying:

"Look, I'm not going to sugarcoat this. It's bad," Armstrong said during the nationally televised press conference. "But you have to swear to God that you won't get mad when I tell you, because if you get upset and yell about how you're really disappointed I'm just going to walk out of here."

Since the article is fairly short and hard to summarize, I am including the remainder verbatim from OSN:

My experience with Asea

After my first post on Asea (see this link), my friend asked me to try four bottles with a money-back guarantee if I didn't see significant gains in my cycling performance. She asked me to try all four bottles and keep track of my wattage and performance to see if it made any difference. I could then decide if I saw any improvement and pay her cost of $30 per bottle if I did.

Lance Armstrong Investigation Update

The news on the Lance Armstrong fraud investigation has been non-existent lately. However, some news came out today that Lance has hired a big gun to help him with public relations and legal defense. His new special counsel and media expert is Mark Fabiani. Apparently, Fabiani worked for Bill Clinton during the Whitewater investigation and more recently helped Goldman Sachs keep their image intact while they were being investigated for fraud by the SEC. This guy must be pricey! I take it Lance is nervous about this investigation.

Also, the same article said that George Hincapie also hired a big NY law firm. This news broke about the same time that George crashed out of the Tour of Utah and needed 18 stitches. It seems to me that Lance and George have had more accidents since Floyd Landis alleged they cheated for years. Sorry to hear about it George.

As for improving Lance's image, Fabiani got right to work and continued the same old story: Floyd has no credibility (see this link for more on that) and investigating athletes for doping is a waste of taxpayer money. Nothing new here. I hope Lance gets his money's worth from this guy.

As for a waste of money, I personally think paying a media expert to make you look better is money that could have been better used. Image is everything to fraudsters. Con men build confidence in themselves. Smooth talkers with little or no character...

In the end, I doubt the government will get a verdict against Lance and I doubt Fabiani will keep the majority of the public from believing Lance is a fraud. It reminds me of the OJ Simpson case. He was never convicted criminally for murder but if you think he's innocent then I'm sure there is a nice Ponzi scheme waiting to get your money.

Madoff Net Winners Want More from Net Losers

Today's WSJ is reporting that the 'net winners' in the Madoff scam (i.e. those who withdrew more than they invested) are suing in an effort to collect more money. I find this amazing. First, these people got assets from the net losers already and now they want more. To get more, they will need to take it from someone else: either more from the net losers or from taxpayers. I personally hope they are required to give back through clawbacks any excess that they got above their investment so the losers have more to make them whole. If so, this group would break even which is better than all the others who are net losers. Maybe everyone should end up getting an equal percentage so everyone is an equal net loser. Then, in addition they could recover up to $500k from the government. That sounds fair to me...

In any case, the real losers are taxpayers. They didn't put in anything and have to give up some of their money.

Lance Armstrong's 8 Podium Finishers Includes 7 Dopers

(Thanks to Reed Dempsey for emailing me the figure above. Reed saw a link to Fraudbytes on Greg LeMond's facebook page where Greg said: "Very interesting blog." We are honored to have Greg as a fan of our Fraudbytes' Facebook page.)

This analysis shows the eight riders who finished on the podium next to Lance during Armstrong's seven yellow jersey years. These eight riders include three very gifted riders who finished more than once next to Lance including Jan Ullrich (on the podium four times), Joseba Beloki (on the podium three times), and Ivan Basso (on the podium twice) along with five other riders who finished one time on the podium including Zulle and Escartin (1999), Rumsas (2002),  Vinokourov (2003), and Kloden (2004).

Interestingly, seven of these eight individuals have been shown to have doped and five served suspensions. The only one who was never associated with doping was Escartin. Reed also mentioned in his email that the power data over the past 25 years shows a "bubble" over the last 15 years as:

More on Levi Leipheimer's doping allegations

Yesterdays news revealed that Levi Leipheimer's former team manager said that Levi was almost pulled from the Tour de France because his blood off-score coefficient was 132.8 and at 133 you are considered doping. Since I wasn't familiar with this "blood off-score coefficient" I looked in Wikipedia under "Blood Doping" and found the following:

Levi Leipheimer accused of doping

When Floyd Landis accused Lance Armstrong and his US Postal team of widespread doping, he also named other Americans as cheaters including Levi Leipheimer. Apparently, Floyd Landis isn't the only one claiming that Levi Leipheimer also doped. Now Leipheimer's former team manager is saying that Leipheimer was doping after he was on the US Postal team with Lance Armstrong. Here are some key quotes from an article on CyclingNews:

More Smoke from the Lance Armstrong Investigation: Fire or Conspiracy?

The NY Times is reporting that they interviewed one of Lance Armstrong's former teammates who corroborated the story that Floyd Landis is telling about rampant doping on the U.S. Postal team under Lance's encouragement. Here is the key quote from the article:

How to Lose 95% of $9.1 Billion (i.e. that's $8.7 Billion with a B)

Leave it to the Department of Defense (DoD)! That's right. A new audit was released today shows that "the Pentagon cannot account for over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraq reconstruction money, spotlighting Iraqi complaints that there is little to show for the massive funds pumped into their cash-strapped, war-ravaged nation" according to this article. The report states that the "breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss."

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the DoD has been shown to be fertile ground for fraud and abuse. In fact, the DoD has never received a clean audit opinion. Never!!! Basically, the DoD has so many holes in their internal controls that you could fly a fleet of B-1 bombers through their financial safety nets.

Clawback Lawsuits For Madoff Victims Who Were "Net Winners"

Trying to clean up after a fraud is a messy affair.  Trying to clean up after the world's biggest ponzi scheme collapses is just downright nasty.  The WSJ reports that Madoff trustee Irving Picard is preparing to sue many of the Madoff victims who ended up in the black when all was said and done:

Dodd-Frank and Whistle-blowing to the SEC

I just read an interesting post in the NY Times about how the new Dodd-Frank financial regulations bill will provide an incentive for whistle-blowers to give information about various frauds to the SEC. Apparently, deep in the bowels of the 2,500 page Dodd-Frank bill that overhauls our financial regulatory system is a provision that requires the SEC to award whistle-blowers 10-30% of monetary sanctions collected by the SEC that exceed $1 million.

 The NY Times post also said that while the amount of the award must range from 10-30% of the sanctions, the exact amount awarded is up to the discretion of the SEC. Also, the whistle-blower must meet certain conditions in order to collect under Dodd-Frank.  Here is what the post said about the requirements:

Is Floyd Landis credible?

We've probably all heard Lance Armstrong point out the fact that Floyd Landis took millions and wrote a book under the guise that he did not use performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Here is a quote from May when Lance first pointed this out:

"I'd remind everybody that this is a man that's been under oath several times and had a very different version,'' Mr. Armstrong said. "This is a man that wrote a book for profit that had a completely different version. This is somebody that took, some would say, close to $1 million from innocent people for his defense under a different premise. Now when it's all run out the story changes.''

Lance is challenging Floyd's credibility by pointing out that Landis's story has now changed dramatically. This week, as Landis was interviewed on Nightline, the reporter told him that he has zero credibility because he has admitted to lying about his own use of PEDs. While that is what Lance and his attorney are saying, I personally think Landis's history gives him more credibility. Let me explain.

Lance, Santa Claus, and Livestrong

“Look. At some point, people have to tell their kids that Santa Claus isn’t real. I hate to be the guy to do it, but it’s just not real.”
-Floyd Landis, talking about doping in cycling.

Yup, Landis is still talking about Lance and about doping in cycling as a whole, this quote came from an interview on Nightline (via VeloNews).

I've been thinking about reasons why people might be hesitant to accept that Lance might have doped. While I agree that Landis lacks credibility, the body of evidence is pretty overwhelming against Lance. Aside from how inspiring Lance has been in his victories, I think we also tend to want to give Lance the benefit of the doubt because of his charitable work. Truly, Lance has done some great things through Livestrong, however, at times I wonder if his motivation may be (at least in small part) an attempt to ease his conscience.

Looks like the Tour de France racers may not be doping this year...

I just read an interesting analysis of Thursday's race up the Tourmalet that suggests that the riders are slower this year and the power outputs of Schleck and Contador are more reasonable than they have been in the recent past. For example, an analysis last year suggested that Contador had an unbelievable VO2 max approaching 100! If the analysis was correct, this is strong evidence of doping. On the contrary, this year they are estimating VO2 max values in the high 80's. While also high, these numbers are more reasonable and suggest that the level of doping is significantly lower than in prior years. The author also said that when Lance Armstrong was winning around the turn of the millennium the values looked significantly higher than they do this year.  Check out this year's analysis here.