Former mechanic Anderson predicts trouble ahead for Armstrong

Aug 4, 2009
1,056
0
0
Dose anyone know what the statute of limitations is in USA US postal that they are investigating and I beleive the statute is six years so they better get a move on with any charges.

How long is it since US postal wound up? time goes by quickly.
 
kiwirider said:
Here's the original article about what Mike thinks, in case anyone would rather read it first hand:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/4571355/Lance-Armstrong-faces-tough-ride-ex-mechanic

There are a number of good lines in there that CN didn't pick up on in their extract of the article ....

Nice comments Mike, thanks for that.

Good to see some decent reporting of information across the ditch there, as opposed to the vehement defense of the myth we get from Jonker, Guinness, Tomolaris etc.

No wonder Lance didn't want to compete in the Tri over there.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
brianf7 said:
Dose anyone know what the statute of limitations is in USA US postal that they are investigating and I beleive the statute is six years so they better get a move on with any charges.

How long is it since US postal wound up? time goes by quickly.
SOL is not as set in stone as you would think. If the crooks made an effort to conceal the fraud for an extended period the SOL can be extended or waived.
 
Jun 16, 2009
346
0
0
Race Radio said:
SOL is not as set in stone as you would think. If the crooks made an effort to conceal the fraud for an extended period the SOL can be extended or waived.
Can't comment on US system - but in most Commonwealth jusrisdictions, the limitations period runs from the time that the cause of action comes to light. So, for example, if you've had a dodgy builder working on your house and it falls apart after 6 years, then your limitation period starts from when it fell apart, not from the date that the house was built.

Same sort of idea works with criminal cases - which is why authorities can do all that "DNA evidence enabled a cold case to be reopened" sort of thing - but with a few extra protections in place that don't apply in civil cases ... (eg., what you guys call "double jeopardy" - I think, as I say, not an American so not completely up on the US system ...)
 
"To be honest when I finally realised what was going on it was very troubling to me because Lance was my friend. When I had my hand forced and had to say `I know what's going on' it was like telling a bunch of kids there's no such thing as Santa Claus; it popped the bubble for a lot of people who had deified Lance and it still troubles me."

The above quote by Anderson sums the whole matter up in a very eloquent and humble fashion. Nothing more really needs to be said at this point until the indictments are made public.
 
Jun 21, 2010
308
0
0
Novitski has spent 1 year investigating Armstrong. He knows circumstantial evidence will not suffice to obtain an indictment, let alone a conviction. My money is on Contador being banned for 2 years before any Armstrong indictments are handed down. Should indictments materialize, I expect Armstrong's legal team will beat the rap.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
0
0
kiwirider said:
Can't comment on US system - but in most Commonwealth jusrisdictions, the limitations period runs from the time that the cause of action comes to light...
I have no knowledge of the US system but in Canada most offences can be handled by way of indictment and thus there is no 'limitation of action' deadline. Where there is a limitation though, it dates from the time of the offence. Being that these are US federal crimes, what if anything is the limitation period?
 
May 22, 2010
440
0
0
my understanding is that SoL means prosecutors must act on available evidence within a period of time. if new evidence turns up about a crime that was committed 60 years ago, there's nothing stopping it being prosecuted.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Federal charges for conspiracy and racketeering also carry a five-year statute of limitations. Given that Landis rode with Armstrong between 2002 and 2004, charges for whatever wrongdoing Armstrong may have committed could therefore be barred by time. That said, the statute of limitations for a charge can be tolled (extended) under certain conditions.
Depending on the kinds of factual allegations ultimately levied against Armstrong, he could also be exposed to federal racketeering charges under The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO is federal statute that applies to many forms of illegal activity, including drug cases. If Armstrong and others engaged in a continuous and controlled pattern of organizing riders to use or distribute steroids and other illegal substances, RICO would become a more plausible charge. In addition, if Armstrong pressured riders into using drugs without their consent, those riders could in theory use RICO to recover monetary damages. RICO provides for civil recovery and in some cases treble damages.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/michael_mccann/05/25/lance.armstrong/index.html
 
Nov 24, 2010
263
1
0
The Feds have talked to Greg, Betsy, Frankie, Tyler, Popo etc, etc and looked at SCA and Greg's cases. Now Novitzky has phoned Mike. All these entities are linked
to miracle boy. It has been noted the Feds have a 90% conviction rate. The target appears headed for major trouble. To me, Mike's phone call also confirms
the whistle blower case is definitely in the pipeline. Floyd could be heading towards a major payday!

cheers
 
Polyarmour said:
All I learnt from this article is that the guy has an axe to grind. It wasn't even worth repeating.
This has been said about many, many people involved who made statements against Armstrong.

After a while it becomes obvious that the problem isn't with everyone else.

It's true that success has many enemies, but maybe you should consider how Armstrong's success was garnered that is the cause of all this vitriol.
 
Jan 20, 2011
352
0
0
What the world needs to see is Sheryl Crowe and the Olsen twin admit that they saw Lance dope. People always believe celebrities.
 
Jun 16, 2009
346
0
0
Polyarmour said:
All I learnt from this article is that the guy has an axe to grind. It wasn't even worth repeating.
Really?? You mean, in spite of Mike saying he has no axe to grind, that he felt like he was breaking the news that Santa isn't real and that his view of the FDA investigation is that whatever will be will be??

I think that you misjudge Mike. I knew him as the guy who worked at my local bike shop for almost a year before I found out about the links to Armstrong - and only then through another American friend who had managed to put two and two together and had asked him directly.

I also at times (before I left NZ) all but asked him directly about the current allegations, and he has never come back with a comment. Jeez, I even baited him by asking how he could sell Trek bikes in his shop given the links to Armstrong, and he simply responded by saying that he considers them to be damn good bikes.

So, I'd suggest that your - and anyone else's - attempts to paint his comments as axe grinding and "same old lies" are way off beam.
 
kiwirider said:
Really?? You mean, in spite of Mike saying he has no axe to grind, that he felt like he was breaking the news that Santa isn't real and that his view of the FDA investigation is that whatever will be will be??

I think that you misjudge Mike. I knew him as the guy who worked at my local bike shop for almost a year before I found out about the links to Armstrong - and only then through another American friend who had managed to put two and two together and had asked him directly.

I also at times (before I left NZ) all but asked him directly about the current allegations, and he has never come back with a comment. Jeez, I even baited him by asking how he could sell Trek bikes in his shop given the links to Armstrong, and he simply responded by saying that he considers them to be damn good bikes.

So, I'd suggest that your - and anyone else's - attempts to paint his comments as axe grinding and "same old lies" are way off beam.
You are being a little tough on this informed poster.

After all, he is only sticking to the approved talking points like a good soldier.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
TeamSkyFans said:
CN take a quote from another media source and turn it into an entire article that offers nothing new or nothing particularly interesting.

There may be trouble ahead..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnfKmNRfLYU

+1. They did a crappy job of hijacking that story. You'd think they might have bothered to call or email him themselves being that he's active on their forums each and every day. Also notice that no one put their name to the story.

Susan W, who wrote this?
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
BotanyBay said:
+1. They did a crappy job of hijacking that story. You'd think they might have bothered to call or email him themselves being that he's active on their forums each and every day. Also notice that no one put their name to the story.

Susan W, who wrote this?
+2

I'd be curious why such an incredible source was completely ignored as well. It's a classic "Hey guys, I'm standing right here!" moment.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Nonsense

Race Radio said:
SOL is not as set in stone as you would think. If the crooks made an effort to conceal the fraud for an extended period the SOL can be extended or waived.
SOL is a vital issue. A court cannot try a case barred by the SOL.

Lance won't waive the SOL, and only the legislature can extend the SOL.

The point you make relates to tolling the SOL. Fraudulent concealment might toll the SOL in a civil case, but I'm not sure it would apply in a criminal one.
 
Apr 10, 2010
23
0
0
+1. Anyone who knew Mike knew he had no axe to grind, and rarely speaks about any of this because he truly has moved on. He was not some star struck hanger-on, just a good mechanic and solid guy who got an opportunity to travel a bit more and get some good experience.

kiwirider said:
Really?? You mean, in spite of Mike saying he has no axe to grind, that he felt like he was breaking the news that Santa isn't real and that his view of the FDA investigation is that whatever will be will be??

I think that you misjudge Mike. I knew him as the guy who worked at my local bike shop for almost a year before I found out about the links to Armstrong - and only then through another American friend who had managed to put two and two together and had asked him directly.

I also at times (before I left NZ) all but asked him directly about the current allegations, and he has never come back with a comment. Jeez, I even baited him by asking how he could sell Trek bikes in his shop given the links to Armstrong, and he simply responded by saying that he considers them to be damn good bikes.

So, I'd suggest that your - and anyone else's - attempts to paint his comments as axe grinding and "same old lies" are way off beam.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts