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

[QuickStepper]

As far as a quick westlaw search goes the statute of limitation is only concerned with the moment the charges are brought, so the moment the indictment is issued and the first (probably preliminary) hearing is held. Also it appears that the RICO act does not have a statute of limitation in it, but that the courts do follow general guidelines, however there does not appear to be a clear and strict rule, the courts have a large discretion in this aspect.

I could be completely wrong, but this is what a quick search has learned me

I'd offer to answer this elsewhere, but since it's here let me see if this helps. First, the SOL runs from the date of the commission of the offense, and that's generally when the clock begins to run. If a prosecution isn't brought within the time limits set forth in a particular SOL applicable to a particular crime charged, it will be time-barred.

Second, there is no preliminary hearing in a federal criminal prosecution. If a person is indicted, that's the applicable time of the commencement of the prosecution for purposes of application of the SOL (just as the filing date of a civil complaint is the trigger date in a civil suit). You count from the date of the act charged to the date of the indictment. Either it's within or outside the time limit (generally speaking, and I am not addressing "tolling" of the SOL here, since that subject was previously beaten to death).

Criminal RICO has no statute of limitations. Rather, the SOL that governs for criminal RICO prosecutions is 18 U.S.C. § 3282, which is the general “catchall” federal criminal statute of limitations. RICO itself includes no express statute of limitations for either civil or criminal remedies, and the 5-year statute of limitations applies to criminal RICO prosecutions only because Congress has provided such a criminal limitations period when no other period is specified. In a criminal RICO prosecution the SOL runs from the "last predicate act", i.e., the most recent act needed to complete the offense. In this respect, criminal RICO is different from civil RICO (because the 5 year catch-all SOL applicable in criminal RICO prosecutions has been held by the U.S. Supreme Court not to apply in civil RICO cases because of the “competing equities unique to civil RICO actions or, indeed, any other federal civil remedy” ).

Lastly, federal courts in applying even the 5-year catch-all SOL in a federal criminal RICO prosecution do not have "discretion." The general rule in criminal prosecutions is that SOL's are strictly construed and applied against the government. The fact that the 5-year SOL allows the time to commence running from the last, most recent predicate act needed to complete the offense, should not be mistaken for the court's "discretion" to apply different or varying rules or to interpret the SOL in varying ways in a federal criminal RICO prosecution.

 

[BroDeal]

I bet it was Kevin Livingston!!!!

KL is toiling away teaching spin classes in the root cellar of Armstrong's bike shop. His living currently depends on Armstrong.

 

[Desperate Moments]

I think the mystery witness is CVDV. This struck me at the time it ran....

"But when asked where Vande Velde's latest crash left his career Vaughter's replied, "That's a reasonable question. At this point in time, Christian needs to go home and forget about bike racing for a while and get back to the things that he enjoys in life and then decide when he feels like he's ready to race and wants to race again. He's got to decide that he really wants to get back into it. That's going to be something that he's going to have figure out."

"You have to remember that Christian and I started being friends in 1997. He's my friend first and my employee second and so at this point in time I just want him to figure out the motivation to really race again."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-gives-vande-velde-time-to-ponder-his-future

Also, the NYT story is now number one on the list of emailed sports stories.

 

[thehog]

I have no way to verify this piece of information so take it with a grain of salt. But my understanding is deep throat might not be a US rider. Just what I heard and have no way to link so don't burn me for it. Just be open to the possibility.

 

[Deagol]

..... cycling is going to get a couple of black eyes out of all of this.

Cycling could use two black eyes right now, not to mention a kick in the nuts

 

[thehog]

Thanks for the heads up ya'll
I should have specified EXCEPT Flandis. LAs lawyer would have a field day with the whole credibility thing.
Either way, cycling is going to get a couple of black eyes out of all of this.

This I disagree with you. I actually believe the credibility question will be turned around on Armstrong if it ever reached trial.

Let me explain.

If the question ever arose to Landis he'll just reference the phone call made by Armstrong to himself telling him to "say nothing". Then he reference the subsequent calls not to admit any guilt. Lance is already on record supporting Landis's position of "I didn't dope".

So you can hardly accuse Landis of credibility issues when you harrassed him into saying as such. Armstrong won't know if Floyd recorded these conversations or not. They're stuck.

Like I said before this has been a well executed plan from January.

 

[flicker]

"Fellow citizen"?
I am European and living in Europe - but don't worry, its not the only thing that flew past you.

I checked the names you gave, must admit, I did not see any of those names on the front of the NYT, unlike Mr. Armstrongs- is one of them the unnamed rider who backs up Landis statements??

And no - they are not "rose colored" glasses - they prefer to be known as 'red Iridium'......

Well good Doctor, I want you to know that Floyds lookin for a Eurp coach to sleep on. As long as its not French. You can also have our other famous cyclists Tyler and Leipheimer.

 

[uspostal]

Where do you get that from? You conclude this based on the label that some other person posting here has tried to slap on me, because I remain a skeptic? How do you conclude that I'm a "fan of Armstrong?" Because one of my first posts here expressed the view that Greg Lemond is a buffoon? Because I expressed the opinion that Jeff Novitzky, the feared investigator, isn't as scary as some of the media have made him out to be, nor as successful in BALCO as many think? Because I don't think Doug Miller, the Asst. U.S. Atty., has enough courtroom experience or years in the service needed to reel in a big fish? Right now everyone here in this forum is on a feeding frenzy, making all sorts of interesting assumptions, ready to indict and convict someone of something. None of us knows what's really going to happen. Sure it's interesting and fun to speculate and predict what's actually being investigated; it's fun to bet on or predict who may be indicted and for what crimes. The possibilities are endless. Someone's likely going to get indicted for something, I agree. But who, and for what....those are the big unknowns. Predict and speculate all you want...but don't misread my prior postings and assume I'm something I'm not.

I Agree with Quickstepper here. I'm no lawyer but people know that in law nothing is guarenteed. 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 streach 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

 

[buckwheat]

I Agree with Quickstepper here. I'm no lawyer but people know that in law nothing is guarenteed. 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 streach 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

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I Agree with Quickstepper here. I'm no lawyer but people know that in law nothing is guarenteed. 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 streach 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

You highlight 86 of 42,436 CONVICTED criminal defendents - do you see the problem there?

 

[ManInFull]

I Agree with Quickstepper here. I'm no lawyer but people know that in law nothing is guarenteed. 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 streach 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

Again, who cares about a perjury conviction? Has Bonds, Clemons, or most of the other baseball players that the general public now believes doped convicted of anything? No. The damage is done and it will get worse. As long as the general public comes to the conclusion that LA was a doper, he's cooked.

 

[Beech Mtn]

This I disagree with you. I actually believe the credibility question will be turned around on Armstrong if it ever reached trial.

Let me explain.

If the question ever arose to Landis he'll just reference the phone call made by Armstrong to himself telling him to "say nothing". Then he reference the subsequent calls not to admit any guilt. Lance is already on record supporting Landis's position of "I didn't dope".

So you can hardly accuse Landis of credibility issues when you harrassed him into saying as such. Armstrong won't know if Floyd recorded these conversations or not. They're stuck.

Like I said before this has been a well executed plan from January.

Hog - glad you're back!

I think this is a good point about the phone calls, especially if Lemond has any tapes of interesting calls from LA.

 

[ChrisE]

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.

Are you serious?

 

[Anonymous]

Where do you get that from? You conclude this based on the label that some other person posting here has tried to slap on me, because I remain a skeptic? How do you conclude that I'm a "fan of Armstrong?" Because one of my first posts here expressed the view that Greg Lemond is a buffoon? Because I expressed the opinion that Jeff Novitzky, the feared investigator, isn't as scary as some of the media have made him out to be, nor as successful in BALCO as many think? Because I don't think Doug Miller, the Asst. U.S. Atty., has enough courtroom experience or years in the service needed to reel in a big fish? Right now everyone here in this forum is on a feeding frenzy, making all sorts of interesting assumptions, ready to indict and convict someone of something. None of us knows what's really going to happen. Sure it's interesting and fun to speculate and predict what's actually being investigated; it's fun to bet on or predict who may be indicted and for what crimes. The possibilities are endless. Someone's likely going to get indicted for something, I agree. But who, and for what....those are the big unknowns. Predict and speculate all you want...but don't misread my prior postings and assume I'm something I'm not.

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Buckwheat,

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


However, any time that Lance Armstrong is found guilty of a crime that he has plead "not guilty" to, he is, by definition, innocent -of everything, as it is some French, American, Global plot - please remember this in all future correspondence.

 

[buckwheat]

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, but you can't kid a kidder.

Great phrase!

 

[buckwheat]

Are you serious?

Serious as cancer!

If you ever get the chance to serve on a jury and the defendent is brought into the courtroom in shackles and you're instructed about the presumption of innocence, ask the judge, "wth is the defendent in shackles for then."

That will quickly get you thrown off the jury.

 

[Anonymous]

I Agree with Quickstepper here. I'm no lawyer but people know that in law nothing is guarenteed. 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 streach 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

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.

 

[ChrisE]

Serious as cancer!

That statement is so profoundly out of whack that I can't even get my head around it to argue with you.

Congrats, you've finally succeeded.

 

[buckwheat]

That statement is so profoundly out of whack that I can't even get my head around it to argue with you.

Congrats, you've finally succeeded.

Read this.

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

I'll accept an insanity defense from you anytime.

Seriously, you're providing conclusive proof about how profoundly out of whack you are.

 

[sub240]

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.

Minor details are not something that should get you all caught up.
I am surprised no one has labeled chuck a fanboy troll.

 

[buckwheat]

Minor details are not something that should get you all caught up.
I am surprised no one has labeled chuck a fanboy troll.

Hi, ChrisE has gotten all caught up in a very simple concept so I lured him into the spiders web.

Hey, is your handle your marathon time, your weight, what? It's all good btw, just curious.

 

[Anonymous]

Minor details are not something that should get you all caught up.
I am surprised no one has labeled chuck a fanboy troll.

...well, he sort of smells like BPC, but I am holding out hope that he is just some other clueless fanboy who happens to have just scored a computer and decided the best time to post would be after Armstrong has retired and is under investigation...

 

[sub240]

Buckwheat,

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


However, any time that Lance Armstrong is found guilty of a crime that he has plead "not guilty" to, he is, by definition, innocent -of everything, as it is some French, American, Global plot - please remember this in all future correspondence.

Not to be picky but “perjury” is an all together separate charge that has to be brought up against someone before they are guilty of perjury.

If you plead not guilty to something the DA will not charge you with perjury if your found guilty.

The stuff about the French while it maybe ok for people to bash the French, I have no idea how they figure into the investigation against Armstrong, USPS, Discovery and so on. (By the way I do realize you was joking)

 

[buckwheat]

Not to be picky but “perjury” is an all together separate charge that has to be brought up against someone before they are guilty of perjury.

If you plead not guilty to something the DA will not charge you with perjury if your found guilty.

The stuff about the French while it maybe ok for people to bash the French, I have no idea how the figure into the investigation against Armstrong, USPS, Discovery and so on.

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.