Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012) - Page 286 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2851  
Old 12-24-12, 18:20
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wirral View Post
Perjury charges in the UK are very unlikely in my opinion.

1) Prosecutions for perjury are usually not pursued.

2) Did Lance actually make false claims under oath. Remember the case was settled out of court.

3) He would not be tried in absentia.

4) UK would not bother to instigate extradition proceedings for perjury.

so I think we can forget about UK perjury charges relating to this Sunday Times case.
Suggest you refer to the high profile Jeffrey Archer case. Archer was convicted of perjury for fraud to obtain a libel settlement and served time in the slammer.

Quote:
The Daily Star demanded the return of 500,000 in damages - plus interest.

The paper said that although Ted Francis's statement was never used in court during the 1987 case, knowledge it had been fabricated could have affected the outcome.

As a result of the revelations the police began a perjury investigation.
Law enforcers select high profile cases to maximize public awareness.

Armstrong filed sworn affidavits and, obviously, in those affidavits he denied doping as the fundamental thrust of his libel action against his doping accusers.
Reply With Quote
  #2852  
Old 12-24-12, 19:58
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
Suggest you refer to the high profile Jeffrey Archer case. Archer was convicted of perjury for fraud to obtain a libel settlement and served time in the slammer.

Law enforcers select high profile cases to maximize public awareness.

Armstrong filed sworn affidavits and, obviously, in those affidavits he denied doping as the fundamental thrust of his libel action against his doping accusers.
The Archer case was a very egregious example. It involved perjury, subornation of perjury, paying witnesses to disappear, manufacture of evidence, etc. It also went to trial. On top of that, Archer had been committing various frauds, embezzlements, and such since the late 60s or early 70s. He also was a staunch ally of a political party, thus a good target for political purposes. I doubt the Brits would go through the trouble of prosecuting a foreigner who would never appear to face charges.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #2853  
Old 12-25-12, 01:07
wirral's Avatar
wirral wirral is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,864
Default

Velodude,

The Jeffrey Archer case, which I am familiar with, has nothing in common with this case for the 4 reasons I detailed and the reasons stated in Brodeal's post.

Very little chance of a perjury charge in a UK court pertaining to the Sunday Times settlement.

Please re-read my reasons. You will see why.

Last edited by wirral; 12-25-12 at 01:09.
Reply With Quote
  #2854  
Old 12-25-12, 03:57
86TDFWinner's Avatar
86TDFWinner 86TDFWinner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Love the Scenery View Post
I have zero doubt this is going on. Zero. Lance is a professional criminal (con-man/grifter) and I would be willing to bet he is frantically shipping his assets to fiscal paradises and hiding them behind shell companies. He has known right from the beginning that he was engaged in a large-scale fraud, there's never been a moment in his career when he was straightforward and honest. As a professional criminal he has in all likelihood been laundering large amounts of money since his first big contracts with USPS. It would take a major international financial investigation to find that money, if the US feds didn't do it I don't think anyone else will.
You're pretty spot on here.


Translation=Liestrong!!!! Like Bernie Madoff, Wonderboy will eventually go down too.
__________________
Check out my Facebook page devoted to the release(hopefully)of a 30th anniversary edition of American Flyers re-release on dvd. "Like" and comment on it if you will.
Reply With Quote
  #2855  
Old 12-25-12, 04:00
86TDFWinner's Avatar
86TDFWinner 86TDFWinner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
The Archer case was a very egregious example. It involved perjury, subornation of perjury, paying witnesses to disappear, manufacture of evidence, etc. It also went to trial. On top of that, Archer had been committing various frauds, embezzlements, and such since the late 60s or early 70s. He also was a staunch ally of a political party, thus a good target for political purposes. I doubt the Brits would go through the trouble of prosecuting a foreigner who would never appear to face charges.
Curious if you or others think LeMond will follow suit and try suing? I Mean, it's a well known fact that Wonderboy's "influence" w/Trek caused them to dump Greg and his co. and side with the doper. Trek looks bad now for hitching their wagon to a cheat/doper(I'll never buy another Trek product because of it). But so does Armstrong.

Does Greg sue to seek some sort of retribution, or no?
__________________
Check out my Facebook page devoted to the release(hopefully)of a 30th anniversary edition of American Flyers re-release on dvd. "Like" and comment on it if you will.
Reply With Quote
  #2856  
Old 12-25-12, 05:02
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wirral View Post
Velodude,

The Jeffrey Archer case, which I am familiar with, has nothing in common with this case for the 4 reasons I detailed and the reasons stated in Brodeal's post.

Very little chance of a perjury charge in a UK court pertaining to the Sunday Times settlement.

Please re-read my reasons. You will see why.
Your claims and my comments:

Quote:
1) Prosecutions for perjury are usually not pursued.
Usually? But in numerous cases they are pursued. For instance, suggest you acquaint yourself with the case of Jonathon Aitken (former MP) who sued the Guardian for libel (a la Armstrong). His case collapsed when he swore false evidence concerning the payment of a hotel bill in Paris. He was convicted for perjury and sentenced.

The truth caught Aitken out during proceedings. The truth now has caught up with Armstrong in his fraudulently obtaining a substantial monetary settlement (considered at law in England & Wales to be a court judgment) by perjuring himself.


Quote:
2) Did Lance actually make false claims under oath. Remember the case was settled out of court.
It was a civil action so evidence in support of his summons or claim was by way of sworn affidavit. It may have been "settled out of court" but it was stamped by the court and is deemed at law a judgment of the court.

Quote:
3) He would not be tried in absentia.
He can be criminally tried in absentia.

It would be a slam dunk conviction as the Times would be receiving a refund of the settlement and costs either voluntarily by Armstrong, an admission, or by court order. It is up to Armstrong to attempt to defend the indefensible at this level to avoid any later criminal conviction.

It would not be a lack of natural justice or due process if Armstrong was aware of the criminal proceedings and voluntarily elected not to make an appearance.


Quote:
4) UK would not bother to instigate extradition proceedings for perjury.
Hardly likely the UK would pursue extradition. Armstrong would suffer in future as a persona no grata to travel to UK and Europe. Did the French pursue Landis after his in absentia conviction and issue of an arrest warrant by a French judge in 2010?
Reply With Quote
  #2857  
Old 12-25-12, 06:03
Bicycle tramp Bicycle tramp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 61
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
Your claims and my comments:

It was a civil action so evidence in support of his summons or claim was by way of sworn affidavit. It may have been "settled out of court" but it was stamped by the court and is deemed at law a judgment of the court.
That very much depends upon what was sworn. There was obviously some brinksmanship going on at the time; did the LA side go as far as swearing false statements?
Reply With Quote
  #2858  
Old 12-25-12, 06:37
wirral's Avatar
wirral wirral is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,864
Default

Velodude.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I am confident that there will be NO perjury charges against Armstrong in the UK relating to the Sunday Times settlement. The CPS would not pursue it even if a police file were ever created.
Reply With Quote
  #2859  
Old 12-25-12, 06:52
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicycle tramp View Post
That very much depends upon what was sworn. There was obviously some brinksmanship going on at the time; did the LA side go as far as swearing false statements?
You obviously have not read the linked BBC article that raised this issue a couple of pages back:

Quote:
Its letter to Armstrong's lawyers read: "It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent. Your representations that you had never taken performance-enhancing drugs were deliberately false."
Each side in UK civil cases are required to present their evidence by way of affidavit. As Mr Armstrong was the Claimant he would have been required to produce an affidavit in support of his claim for monetary damages against the Times and others.

I would say that if Mr. Armstrong made a "representation" it was by way of sworn affidavit as he did not appear at any of the interlocutory hearings held before the case was settled.
Reply With Quote
  #2860  
Old 12-25-12, 06:57
MarkvW's Avatar
MarkvW MarkvW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86TDFWinner View Post
Curious if you or others think LeMond will follow suit and try suing? I Mean, it's a well known fact that Wonderboy's "influence" w/Trek caused them to dump Greg and his co. and side with the doper. Trek looks bad now for hitching their wagon to a cheat/doper(I'll never buy another Trek product because of it). But so does Armstrong.

Does Greg sue to seek some sort of retribution, or no?
It's a "tortious interference with contract" kind of idea. The interference was known to Mr. LeMond quite awhile ago, so there are probably statute of limitations problems with any lawsuit like that.
__________________
May 20, 2010: Floyd tells truth.
June 10, 2010: Floyd files qui tam.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.