Showing posts with label Lance Armstrong Investigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lance Armstrong Investigation. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 18, 2021

Top Honesty Researcher, Dan Ariely, Has Paper Retracted Due to Fraudulent Data


Today, truth is on my mind after I read the following quote:

"(T)ruth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie."–Miyamoto Musashi

This reminded me of this, my favorite, quote about truth: 

“When truth is buried underground it grows, it chokes, it gathers such an explosive force that on the day it bursts out, it blows up everything with it.”–Emile Zola

Over the years, I've found the latter quote to be very descriptive of the events that follow after the initial revelations that a fraud has taken place. For example, the explosion of truth that happened after Lance Armstrong was first accused by his former teammate, Floyd Landis, of doping. A few years later and Lance had been stripped of all his yellow jerseys and all sorts of revelations came out that exposed truth that was buried deep in the ground in hopes that it would never be revealed (this link chronicles about 150 blog posts about Lance's fraud coming to light).

Similarly, in accounting research, we had a researcher who, by many accounts, was considered accounting's most prolific academic, Jim Hunton, have a paper (ironically on auditor's detection of fraud) retracted in November 2012. Many of Professor Hunton's papers contained what he claimed was proprietary data that was obtained from confidential sources. A few years later, 37 of Jim Hunton's papers had been retracted (technically, 36.5 since one paper was partially retracted). He is currently listed as #14 on the RetractionWatch leaderboard (see this link for more information).

Over the past few days, a 2012 paper coauthored by someone who is arguably the most prolific psychology researcher on (ironically) honesty, Dan Ariely, was identified as containing fraudulent data and is being retracted (see this link for details on the investigation that led to the retraction; see this Twitter thread saying it is being retracted and giving other interesting context from one of the coauthors). Unfortunately, like Jim Hunton, Professor Ariely was in charge of the data and claims to have obtained it from a proprietary source. While it is too early to tell, this begs the question of what the future holds. Is this the early rumblings of the truth trying to free itself from its casket buried deep in the earth?

Sadly, I have had some suspicions about some experiments that Professor Ariely ran using a shredder that was modified so it looked like it was shredding but really wasn't (see this link for more details). After purchasing several shredders in an attempt to modify them so we could do what he claimed he did and even getting a BYU engineering student who was the lead TA in the Mechanical Engineering lab involved in the effort, we emailed Professor Ariely to ask him how he did it. He provided a voicemail response that was not satisfactory. He claimed it was "quite simple" to convert a shredder by breaking the teeth in the middle with a screwdriver but that he doesn't use that method any longer. (My TA found the file with Dr. Ariely's explanation; click this link if you want to hear it.)

(The photo on the left is one of the shredders we tried to modify. I'm confident that those teeth could not be broken with a screwdriver.) 

We were unable to break any teeth on the shredders we purchased but ended up finding a way to remove some of the teeth in the center by taking the shredder apart. Unfortunately, when we did this the papers would no longer go through the shredder without getting turned to one side or another and they inevitably got stuck because the shredder no longer had enough teeth to pull them through. We concluded that it was impossible to modify any of the shredders we bought and I filed the entire experience in my mind by putting an asterisk next to Dan Ariely's name as someone who made a claim regarding his research that seems potentially suspicious.

Time will tell whether this retraction is the rumblings of a massive explosion or not. If there are other implications, I hope the truth comes out because, I believe, the world is always a better place when fraud has been exposed.

Friday, August 14, 2015

The Hospital Room Incident: Did Lance Armstrong Pay Off Doctors to Remain Silent?


While it has been several months since we posted about the Lance Armstrong investigation (see this link for previous posts), the case against Armstrong continues to grow. A recent article in the Daily Camera discusses what is known as “The Hospital Room Incident.” This article discusses why the U.S. Government subpoenaed his medical records from the Indiana University School of Medicine. Allegations are that Armstrong paid off his doctor to remain silent through a donation to his medical school.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Lance Armstrong Investigation: Can A Tiger Change Its Stripes?

It has been about a year and a half since Lance Armstrong publicly admitted to doping.  In this article, Armstrong tells his side of the story and in the second installment, victims of Armstrong's lies tell their stories.

In the article, Armstrong tells about the slippery slope that he found himself on.  All of the fraud and issues that have come to light were spawned from one lie: the refusal to tell the truth about doping.  Regarding his adamant denials of ever doping, Armstrong reportedly said:

"I was good at playing the part," he admits now. "After the 850th time, it's not like I'm going to say, 'Matt, you seem like a nice guy, I'm going to be honest with you.' Once you say 'no' you have to keep saying 'no.'

"If this stuff hadn't taken place with the federal investigation, I'd probably still be saying 'no' with the same conviction and tone as before. But that gig is up."

Friday, May 2, 2014

CBS Segment on Livestrong

Here's the video of a CBS segment where Mark was interviewed about Livestrong. The segment aired a little while ago, but this is the first time we've seen it available to view online. Mark's portion is less than half a minute starting around 6:15. Back up another 30 seconds before that to get the context of his comments.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Lance Armstrong Investigation: I can't believe it's come to this....

Here we are, nearly three and a half years after Floyd Landis's first confession came out and I posted that I was 99.9% confident that pro cyclists had been doping for the past 15-20 years. I ended that first post by saying "Sadly, what would be surprising to me is if someone who is dominating pro cycling such as Alberto Contador was actually not doping!" Of course, soon after that, Alberto failed a doping test in the Tour de France and was suspended from racing.

Since that first post, there have been many posts to follow (this makes number 150 with the label of Lance Armstrong Investigation) and

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Lance Armstrong Investigation: Betsy Andreu & Bill Bock Interviews

http://bit.ly/13f0ROw
This short video discusses some aspects of the fraud in pro cycling that was perpetuated by Lance Armstrong. Betsy Andreu and Bill Bock (USADA General Counsel) spoke at UT Austin recently and this video was produced. They speak of omertà, truth, and how one person with moral courage can make a difference. Check it out, it's worth the four minutes...


Friday, March 1, 2013

The Real Winners in the Lance Armstrong Investigation: His Attorneys

Photo taken from Forbes.com
In most fraud cases, the real winners are the attorneys. This is definitely looking to be the case  with Lance Armstrong since he is getting sued left and right these days. Not only has the US Justice Department joined in Floyd Landis's suit claiming Lance defrauded the US Postal Service but numerous other lawsuits and legal actions are being filed daily. While the suit by the US Postal Service could, in theory, add up to over $100 million, these other suits could also add up to real money too, especially when you consider all the legal fees his attorneys must be charging him. For example, I learned about the following two new lawsuits today...

Friday, February 22, 2013

Lance Armstrong Investigation: Fed to Join Landis in Suing Lance, Weisel and Stapleton

This is hot off the press and, from what I can tell, was first published by the Wall Street Journal. Amidst speculation in the past few days that the Department of Justice was not going to join in the whistleblower lawsuit filed by Floyd Landis, the WSJ is saying they are going to join in. This is bad news for Lance, Thom Weisel and Bill Stapleton since Lance has now stated publicly that he was doping. On the other hand, this is good news for Floyd Landis who could end up a multi-millionaire as a result of this lawsuit. Here are some key fraudbytes from the WSJ article:

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Lance Armstrong Investigation: Criminal Charges May Be in the Works


According to CBS News, federal investigators are considering criminal charges against Lance Armstrong. The main charges being considered are obstruction of justice, intimidation and witness tampering. I'd say intimidation is his specialty but the others are right up his alley too.

This investigation comes after the original criminal investigation was suddenly dropped a year ago by the now, infamous, Andre Birotte. Birotte had a few words about his investigation saying that he basically stands by his decision to drop it.

Here are some excerpts from CBS News:

Friday, January 18, 2013

My Analysis of the Lance Armstrong-Oprah Winfrey Interview

Photo taken from WSJ.com
I was traveling last night and was unable to watch the interview last night but I read some articles on what happened in Lance Armstrong's interview by Oprah Winfrey including one that gives all his responses on the Wall Street Journal. It's interesting reading for sure. Here are some thoughts:

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Feds Joining Suit Against Lance Armstrong

CBS News reported yesterday that the federal government is considering joining in Floyd Landis's lawsuit against Lance Armstrong which alleges that he defrauded the government due to his doping while receiving $30 million in sponsorship funds from the US Postal Service. My understanding is that the government could receive treble damages for this lawsuit which would amount to $90 million. Lance would not be the only one to be hurt by this.

A tweet this afternoon by CBS News says that they have learned that Lance offered to settle with the government for $5 million and that he offered to be a cooperating witness in a federal investigation. The tweet claims that the Department of Justice turned down both offers.

If this is true, it suggests that the federal government will be joining in the lawsuit against Lance and they expect to go for significantly more than $5 million. The saga continues...

WADA Says Lance is not in Charge!

Just when Lance Armstrong probably was hoping he could show he is cooperating with USADA and WADA to get them to cut him some slack, WADA let's him know that he isn't in charge! Check it out at SportsIllustrated.com. Here is the heart of it:

Will Lance's Confession be Anticlimactic?

I've been thinking that saying Lance's confession will be anticlimactic will be a major understatement. I had decided that I won't even try to watch it come out live because it seems like a waste of time. However, yesterday, the NY Times published an article suggesting that Lance Armstrong's confession may be interesting in that it could involve testifying against many top-level officials in cycling such as Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid of the UCI and Lance's former partner at Tailwind Sports, Thom Weisel. Here are some key excerpts from the Times article:

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Questions for Oprah to Ask Lance


We've all been hearing that Lance Armstrong is set to finally admit to doping and he has picked Oprah Winfrey to interview him when he admits it. NY Daily News published an article with questions that Betsy Andreu would like Oprah Winfrey to ask Lance Armstrong when Oprah interviews him at his Austin mansion on Monday. Betsy has some doozies that Oprah is sure to never ask. You can bet that if there was even a chance that Oprah would ask some of these questions, Lance would never agree to be interviewed by her. Here are Betsy's questions followed by two of my own...

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Lance Armstrong Allegedly Bribed USADA

60 Minutes is going to air a segment on Lance Armstrong on Wednesday, January 9th, at 10 pm Eastern. The CBS News website states that they will report that someone representing Lance offered USADA a $250,000 "donation" in 2004. Travis Tygart, USADA CEO, is quoted as saying "We had no hesitation in rejecting that offer."

I suppose the truth about Lance will trickle out for years to come...It definitely makes a good case study for anyone out there teaching about fraud, corruption and organized crime. It makes me wonder if Lance's real name ends in Gambino or Bonanno...Maybe Armstrongo...

Friday, January 4, 2013

Lance May Admit He Doped

If this report is accurate, I will have to eat my words. I never thought Lance Armstrong would be able to do a complete 180 and admit to doping.  I even predicted he would go to his grave denying. However, according to the NY Times, he is considering confessing. Why would he do this now you ask? Here is what a Sports Illustrated blog has to say...

Monday, December 10, 2012

Lance Armstrong Investigation: Lance and Landis Competing Again

The competition between Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis isn't in the French Alps but, instead, may be in a U.S. federal court room. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Lance's troubles with Landis and the Department of Justice are still ongoing. Floyd was astute enough to file a whistleblower lawsuit against Lance under the Federal False Claims Act which allows whistleblowers to collect up to 30% of any recovery by the Federal Government if the government sues an individual for defrauding them. When Lance was sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service he was prohibited from doping by his contract with the USPS. Unfortunately for him, just when Lance probably would like to pay his last legal bill, it sounds like he may be supporting his all-star legal team for some years to come. Here's what the Wall Street Journal has to say about it...

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Lance Armstrong Investigation: Anti-Sportsman of the Year

Today, Sports Illustrated published something that makes me conclude that the world has clearly come to grips with the corruption and cheating in pro cycling that existed for the past several decades. If you haven't seen it yet, you should check out this Sports Illustrated link where they awarded Lance as the "Anti-Sportsman of the Year." To my knowledge, this award has been created just for Lance. Well, I guess Lance can add that to his list of accomplishments. (If I'm wrong about this, please let me know but I don't think SI has ever given such an award before.)

Monday, October 22, 2012

Lance, Livestrong and the UCI

Numerous reports are flooding the internet that the UCI has sustained USADA's decision to strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles making Greg LeMond the only American to ever win the Tour de France. Of course, this comes as no surprise to those who were aware of the plethora of evidence showing Lance to be the biggest sporting fraud in history; the Bernie Madoff of sport.

Last week we read of Livestrong donors asking for their money back. My wife says that given today's news we should be reading soon about Lance wanting his donations to the UCI back too...

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Lance Armstrong Investigation: Was LiveStrong Built on the Back of a Fraud?

As I mentioned in the last post, I've been contacted by some LiveStrong donors who want their money back because they believe they donated under false pretenses. You can read about two of these donors on CNN. Here are a few bytes: