Another U.S. Postal Rider confirms systematic doping within team - N.Y. Times

[QuickStepper]

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting for me. Care to feed me some grapes while I lounge?

You have an agenda just like everyone else. Looking at the arguments you present, one can discern from which point of view you are proceeding. You might not like that, but irrespective, feigning detachment seems to be the new black here, and you can't kid a kidder.

Didn't I read somewhere that you're going to be entering law school in the fall? Ah....to be so young and so arrogant again. I remember what that was like. Perhaps in another decade or two you'll discover that you really don't know all there is to know, and that there's more to life than trying to impress your friends on a message board with a quick turn of a phrase.

Good luck to you sir in your future legal endeavors. You (and your clients) will surely need all that may come your way.

 

[Anonymous]

Didn't I read somewhere that you're going to be entering law school in the fall? Ah....to be so young and so arrogant again. I remember what that was like. Perhaps in another decade or two you'll discover that you really don't know all there is to know, and that there's more to life than trying to impress your friends on a message board with a quick turn of a phrase.

Good luck to you sir in your future legal endeavors. You (and your clients) will surely need all that may come your way.

Funny, I am 42 (the irony of you writing "you really don't know all there is to know" is not lost on me) and this is a second career, and the sharpness of your tone tells me everything I need to know. Someone very wise told me something once that I have found to be as true as anything I have ever heard. He said "people don't get angry about lies told about them, it is when you pin them with the truth that they will get shrill. Throw the truth out there and sit back and watch." Thanks for once again proving he was a genius. If I'd called you a doorknob, you would have not bothered responding. Seems you keep coming back to this topic.

 

[Apolitical]

That fence used to be a crowded place, but that is a tumbleweed bouncing by, that is a dog barking somewhere off in the distance, and you are going to need a cellphone to call the next guy up the line because he is too far away go hear you even if you yell.

I Agree with Quickstepper here. I'm no lawyer but people know that in law nothing is guaranteed. Call me a LA fan if you want but until he's convicted of a PED crime, he's innocent of using PED. Reading the statue about perjury is another matter all together but I found this little bit in information about the statics on perjury convictions. " A US Sentencing Commission statistics indicated that in federal cases, only 86 of the 42,436 convicted criminal defendants were found guilty of perjury, encouraging perjury or bribing a witness." I'm not sure what the odds are on that but its its not big by any stretch of the imagination. So we may all be looking for something that won't come about anyway. I'm under no Illusion that LA is a god of sorts, but I'm willing to sit on the fence until a jury of his peers has convicted him of a crime.

Chuck

While I do believe LA will probably just get a slap on the wrist, in the US that's what usually happens with celebrities and people with money (a certain daughter today in NY or Lohan's 10 -pampered- days in jail). The question is always what evidence is good enough? Do we need to see him on film doing it? Even then...? Or do we need his confession? Of course, the growing list of people who have seen, heard, or delivered, post tested, etc. are all bad people and science against LA. Do we need the Pope as a credible witness?

Valverde, has never tested positive, and nobody has come out and pointed any fingers at him (yet). Does that mean he's innocent of using PEDs in competition? The key point is: using in competition (e.g. for gain). Even if the DNA show a blood bag to be his, that in of itself is not using PEDs for gain. Just because I have a sports car that doesn't mean I speed! At this point, if the DNA is a match, all we know is he contemplated doping like I may contemplate speeding. What is a reasonable doubt? Where do we draw the line?

 

[Maxiton]

I don't think it can get any worse unless Oedipus-Tex makes it worse.

+1
Excuse me while I lol. I don't know if it can get any worse, but it definitely can't get any wittier. Hilarious.

 

[cyclestationgiuseppe]

While I do believe LA will probably just get a slap on the wrist, in the US that's what usually happens with celebrities and people with money (a certain daughter today in NY or Lohan's 10 -pampered- days in jail). The question is always what evidence is good enough? Do we need to see him on film doing it? Even then...? Or do we need his confession? Of course, the growing list of people who have seen, heard, or delivered, post tested, etc. are all bad people and science against LA. Do we need the Pope as a credible witness?

Valverde, has never tested positive, and nobody has come out and pointed any fingers at him (yet). Does that mean he's innocent of using PEDs in competition? The key point is: using in competition (e.g. for gain). Even if the DNA show a blood bag to be his, that in of itself is not using PEDs for gain. Just because I have a sports car that doesn't mean I speed! At this point, if the DNA is a match, all we know is he contemplated doping like I may contemplate speeding. What is a reasonable doubt? Where do we draw the line?

again...this case will not be about doping, it is about FRAUD, TAX EVASION, ETC...
any person with a brain knows LA doped. The feds did not throw Marion Jones in Jail for doping, but, for perjury. Gonna be the same for LA. (if proven) The doping just adds to the lies told by Mr. Armstrong AKA perjury. No slap on the wrist for either of those offenses.
He lies to everyone and himself on a daily basis. Living a lie starts to take its' toll on a person, unless they are delusional, which is probably the case here.
If you convince yourself it is true, then it becomes real (to you).

 

[CPAvelo]

sorry, got the wrong quote and didn't preview before posting. ouch.

 

[CPAvelo]

Chuck,

Any time that someone is found guilty of a crime that they have plead "not guilty" to, they are, by definition, guilty of perjury.

Those stats you present just reflect that they are usually not subsequently charged with perjury.

Except when someone is erroneously convicted of a crime not committed. Perhaps, this will be the last refuge for LA fans. But if it happens, LA will be among like minded souls, who are also innocent.

 

[QuickStepper]

. . . the sharpness of your tone tells me everything I need to know. . .shrill.

I don't really care what you call me, but "shrill"?

Shrill: being sharply insistent on being heard; "strident demands"; "shrill criticism", strident imperative - requiring attention or action; e.g., "as nuclear weapons proliferate, preventing war becomes imperative".

Do you not read what you write about others? It also seems that no matter what I have posted, you've jumped on it and accused me of trying to foment some sort of nefarious intent. I will admit I've not been around this board very long, and thus don't have the history of someone who has posted as much as you, but you do seem rather quick to condemn anyone who even injects a hint of a slightly different or more detached and less passionate view of this current investigation, whatever it may really be about. I simply maintain that no one outside of those on the inside of the investigation really and truly know what's being investigated or what the scope of the investigation is. Guessing and speculating are fun and provide a great diversion, but no one here can say with any real certainty who is going to be indicted or for what crimes an indictment will issue. I'm not criticizing the guessing game itself as it seems to be providing everyone with endless entertainment and diversion, but when someone comes here and expresses a view which is even slightly on a different tangent than what appears to be the party line, why is it necessary to call them an "Armstrong fan"? You can try to imply all kinds of hidden meanings (e.g., "feigned detachment" "agenda", etc.), but really, who has the agenda here? Please re-read your own messages. It seems to me that there is a strong contingent, perhaps a majority of regulars who have already indicted, tried and convicted not only Armstrong, but several others. Me, I don't know. I'm willing to listen and learn from all of you, but evidently you all have your minds made up (about a lot of things).

Look, if someone commits a crime and there is evidence, let an indictment issue and let that person stand trial and if they are guilty, let the full measure of the law come down on them. And if there's not sufficient evidence for an indictment, or if the person is acquitted, then so be it. That's my only agenda, seeing the process work. That and perhaps trying to inject just a bit of realism based on some years of experience about what actually takes place in the federal criminal justice system for those unfamiliar with it (see the legal thread). If you are already familiar with the process or believe you know all you need to know, or feel you can't learn anything new or just think I'm full of it (as Spectacle clearly does), then just put me on your "ignore" list.

Good day.

 

[sub240]

Read the link

http://books.google.com/books?id=1-...page&q=concomitant finding of perjury&f=false

BTW, you really can't charge someone with a crime before they perpetrate that crime. In Minority Report they did that, but it was depicting a nightmare future.

I feel sorry for you Wheat.

 

[Apolitical]

again...this case will not be about doping, it is about FRAUD, TAX EVASION, ETC...
any person with a brain knows LA doped. The feds did not throw Marion Jones in Jail for doping, but, for perjury. Gonna be the same for LA. (if proven) The doping just adds to the lies told by Mr. Armstrong AKA perjury. No slap on the wrist for either of those offenses.
He lies to everyone and himself on a daily basis. Living a lie starts to take its' toll on a person, unless they are delusional, which is probably the case here.
If you convince yourself it is true, then it becomes real (to you).

No kidding? Tax evasion would be icing, but....

MJ got six months after a plea bargain. I don't know all the details, but she could have stuck to the never tested positive and conte hated her instead of confessing. Will LA confess? I doubt it.

At this point, however, I'm still not convinced there's someone, or group, who they are really after. Though, LA may be a board member on the group...

OK, we'll give LA 6 months on a plea bargain and giving SCA the 7.5 million back plus interest. The sentenced will get reduced because of his charitable work....

I'm not a LA fan, my posts are sparse but clear on that. But I am a realist I doubt he'll serve an hard time.

 

[cyclestationgiuseppe]

No kidding? Tax evasion would be icing, but....

MJ got six months after a plea bargain. I don't know all the details, but she could have stuck to the never tested positive and conte hated her instead of confessing. Will LA confess? I doubt it.

At this point, however, I'm still not convinced there's someone, or group, who they are really after. Though, LA may be a board member on the group...

OK, we'll give LA 6 months on a plea bargain and giving SCA the 7.5 million back plus interest. The sentenced will get reduced because of his charitable work....

I'm not a LA fan, my posts are sparse but clear on that. But I am a realist I doubt he'll serve an hard time.

6 months would be pretty hard on LA as well as tarnish him for life...that was my point.

 

[Apolitical]

6 months would be pretty hard on LA as well as tarnish him for life...that was my point.

He's pretty much tarnished goods now. Even the die hards on the group rides are saying he doped, but it was the culture... Which is a big step for them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't really care what you call me, but "shrill"?

Shrill: being sharply insistent on being heard; "strident demands"; "shrill criticism", strident imperative - requiring attention or action; e.g., "as nuclear weapons proliferate, preventing war becomes imperative".

Do you not read what you write about others? It also seems that no matter what I have posted, you've jumped on it and accused me of trying to foment some sort of nefarious intent. I will admit I've not been around this board very long, and thus don't have the history of someone who has posted as much as you, but you do seem rather quick to condemn anyone who even injects a hint of a slightly different or more detached and less passionate view of this current investigation, whatever it may really be about. I simply maintain that no one outside of those on the inside of the investigation really and truly know what's being investigated or what the scope of the investigation is. Guessing and speculating are fun and provide a great diversion, but no one here can say with any real certainty who is going to be indicted or for what crimes an indictment will issue. I'm not criticizing the guessing game itself as it seems to be providing everyone with endless entertainment and diversion, but when someone comes here and expresses a view which is even slightly on a different tangent than what appears to be the party line, why is it necessary to call them an "Armstrong fan"? You can try to imply all kinds of hidden meanings (e.g., "feigned detachment" "agenda", etc.), but really, who has the agenda here? Please re-read your own messages. It seems to me that there is a strong contingent, perhaps a majority of regulars who have already indicted, tried and convicted not only Armstrong, but several others. Me, I don't know. I'm willing to listen and learn from all of you, but evidently you all have your minds made up (about a lot of things).

Look, if someone commits a crime and there is evidence, let an indictment issue and let that person stand trial and if they are guilty, let the full measure of the law come down on them. And if there's not sufficient evidence for an indictment, or if the person is acquitted, then so be it. That's my only agenda, seeing the process work. That and perhaps trying to inject just a bit of realism based on some years of experience about what actually takes place in the federal criminal justice system for those unfamiliar with it (see the legal thread). If you are already familiar with the process or believe you know all you need to know, or feel you can't learn anything new or just think I'm full of it (as Spectacle clearly does), then just put me on your "ignore" list.

Good day.

There are 2 points here:

But firstly I do appreciate your offerings in the legal thread - I will read all offerings and decide accordingly, so I hope your input continues.

1 - your argument with TFF never addressed what he accused you of (ie being shrill)
Your argument was based primarily on a)his apparent hypocrisy b)post count c)"perhaps a majority of regulars who have already indicted, tried and convicted not only Armstrong, but several others"....


2 - You're right, "guessing and speculating" is "fun" -........and as much as you may use the law as your ultimate barometer, very few people do.
A legal case brought against Armstrong (and anyone else) will decide on the penalties and sanctions that are viewed as appropriate -if found legally guilty, public opinion will have reached its verdict long before.

In case you have missed it this a forum -indeed on the legal threads you have introduced law on the very speculation of the forum members.

As much as it may be against your view - this will be decided by ordinary people, reading the news, watching ABC, Discovery, Versus -the same media that Lance targeted to build his image with exaggeration, spin and marketing dollars to be complicit - and it will be their verdict that will be the hardest for an egocentric person like Armstrong to bare.

 

[buckwheat]

I feel sorry for you Wheat.

Send me some money then.

 

[Marva32]

Chuck,

Any time that someone is found guilty of a crime that they have plead "not guilty" to, they are, by definition, guilty of perjury.

Those stats you present just reflect that they are usually not subsequently charged with perjury.

I'm not sure where you got this from, when somebody enters a plea of 'not guilty' in US District Court (Federal, trial-level court) they do so not under oath, therefore it is not perjury.

 

[MacRoadie]

I'm not sure where you got this from, when somebody enters a plea of 'not guilty' in US District Court (Federal, trial-level court) they do so not under oath, therefore it is not perjury.

I would think it goes more towards what is presented by the defendant in court, through a signed statement or sworn testimony, that represents to the trier of fact that the defendant is not guilty of the crime alleged.

 

[ChrisE]

I would think it goes more towards what is presented by the defendant in court, through a signed statement or sworn testimony, that represents to the trier of fact that the defendant is not guilty of the crime alleged.

"Not guilty" means the govt. cannot prove something to within a reasonable doubt. To say somebody uses their constitutional rights to force the govt. to prove something = perjury seems ludicrous to me.

Buckwheat is saying a defense by the accused is perjury if they are guilty. That is absurd.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I would think it goes more towards what is presented by the defendant in court, through a signed statement or sworn testimony, that represents to the trier of fact that the defendant is not guilty of the crime alleged.

If someone under oath says "I did not have sex with that woman" and are later found guilty of same, then clearly they lied under oath. Generally the prosecutor will take the bigger victory and not get greedy.

Edit: Would you please not use your mom's picture for your avatar anymore, it is upsetting.

 

[MacRoadie]

Buckwheat is saying a defense by the accused is perjury if they are guilty. That is absurd.

And you are saying that a person accused of a crime, who under oath testifies that he did not commit the crime, but is subsequently found guilty of said crime, did not under oath commit perjury.

Equally absurd.

ETA: For something you dismiss as absurd, it still managed to earn a name in legal circles: self-defense perjury.

 

[QuickStepper]

There are 2 points here:

But firstly I do appreciate your offerings in the legal thread - I will read all offerings and decide accordingly, so I hope your input continues.

1 - your argument with TFF never addressed what he accused you of (ie being shrill)
Your argument was based primarily on a)his apparent hypocrisy b)post count c)"perhaps a majority of regulars who have already indicted, tried and convicted not only Armstrong, but several others"....


2 - You're right, "guessing and speculating" is "fun" -........and as much as you may use the law as your ultimate barometer, very few people do.
A legal case brought against Armstrong (and anyone else) will decide on the penalties and sanctions that are viewed as appropriate -if found legally guilty, public opinion will have reached its verdict long before.

In case you have missed it this a forum -indeed on the legal threads you have introduced law on the very speculation of the forum members.

As much as it may be against your view - this will be decided by ordinary people, reading the news, watching ABC, Discovery, Versus -the same media that Lance targeted to build his image with exaggeration, spin and marketing dollars to be complicit - and it will be their verdict that will be the hardest for an egocentric person like Armstrong to bare.

Those are all interesting points, and I don't agree with your take on my posts, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. My feelings about Armstrong aren't as strong as your's --one way or the other-- and I'm definitely not as passionate about this as you and many others are. That said, I'm sure you're right, whatever judgments will be meted out will take place not only in a courtroom but in the court of public opinion.

 

[ChrisE]

And you are saying that a person accused of a crime, who under oath testifies that he did not commit the crime, but is subsequently found guilty of said crime, did not under oath commit perjury.

Equally absurd.

Of course lying under oath is perjury. But here is what he wrote:

Any time that someone is found guilty of a crime that they have plead "not guilty" to, they are, by definition, guilty of perjury.

There is nothing in that statement about lying under oath.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Lying under oath= perjury?
Buckwheat just left out the step where the defendant testifies.

 

[ChrisE]

Lying under oath= perjury?
Buckwheat just left out the step where the defendant testifies.

Perjury: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing.

Ummm, yeah I think lying under oath is perjury.

OK, then if he "left" that part out then that is a pretty big omission.

 

[MacRoadie]

Of course lying under oath is perjury. But here is what he wrote:
There is nothing in that statement about lying under oath.

I don't disagree, but you took exception to my post, which suffered from no such omission.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Ummm, yeah I think lying under oath is perjury.

OK, then if he "left" that part out then that is a pretty big omission.

It was inferred. Now about that pic of your mom.