Armstrong's international career ends in Australia
mod comment: looks like the article has been renamed: Armstrong era corrupt says ex-mechanic
mod comment: looks like the article has been renamed: Armstrong era corrupt says ex-mechanic
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
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 ....
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.
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.
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?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...
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.
Polyarmour said:All I learnt from this article is that the guy has an axe to grind. It wasn't even worth repeating.
Polyarmour said:All I learnt from this article is that the guy has an axe to grind. It wasn't even worth repeating.
Polyarmour said:All I learnt from this article is that the guy has an axe to grind. It wasn't even worth repeating.
You are being a little tough on this informed poster.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.
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
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?
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.
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.