Jail time for Lance? Thoughts peeps?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The Hitch said:
. Being Lances lawyer is the easiest thing in the world. You dismiss all the evidence as conjecture, all witnesses as liars and all accusers as out with a grudge.

No matter how obsurd it gets, just shut off your brain and follow those rules.
And keep sucking your exorbitant legal fees from LA's Bank Account.

The Lawyers are no doubt loving this whole saga, guaranteed income for years to come.
 
May 25, 2009
332
0
0
Threatening people? Riders' wives?

Yes, what about threatening Levi's wife via text? Isn't that illegal? Plus How the hell did they know he testified? Meets the "is it illegal?" test:

"Years later, after learning that another former Postal rider, Levi Leipheimer, had testified for a federal grand jury, Armstrong sent a text message to Leipheimer's wife, Odessa Gunn, telling her to "run don't walk," according to her husband's affidavit. Leipheimer said he found the message "threatening."

WSJ article is here: http://goo.gl/h1SgI


So Yes--he should go to jail.
 
Jul 19, 2010
741
0
0
oldschoolnik said:
Yes, what about threatening Levi's wife via text? Isn't that illegal? Plus How the hell did they know he testified? Meets the "is it illegal?" test:

"Years later, after learning that another former Postal rider, Levi Leipheimer, had testified for a federal grand jury, Armstrong sent a text message to Leipheimer's wife, Odessa Gunn, telling her to "run don't walk," according to her husband's affidavit. Leipheimer said he found the message "threatening."

WSJ article is here: http://goo.gl/h1SgI


So Yes--he should go to jail.
I guess it depends on what kind of threat. I doubt he would be stupid enough to utter death threats or physical harm. I think at most he's bullying them to try scare them into keeping their mouths shut. I don't think that's illegal.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,020
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
In a word, no.

Shown to be a liar and cheat, and have to return all his prize money, and deal with potential sponsor lawsuits, yes. Having the media truthfully report on him being a drug kingpin and fraud, and press him every time they see him, yes. But jail, no. I see no reason for it. None. The only person in this mess I potentially see going to jail is Del Moral.
and the hog. he's in it up to his neck also
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
cineteq said:
SCA Promotions waiting for UCI response before deciding about legal action.
Here we go. I wonder if Lance will be on the phone to Hein & Pat to leverage something in a future sports promotion deal in return for not bringing the house down. The money has to come from somewhere...
 
Yingge said:
And keep sucking your exorbitant legal fees from LA's Bank Account.

The Lawyers are no doubt loving this whole saga, guaranteed income for years to come.
Yeah. I wonder if Lance attorneys have auto withdrawal on his bank account.

Cha-Ching
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
0
0
TheEnoculator said:
I guess it depends on what kind of threat. I doubt he would be stupid enough to utter death threats or physical harm. I think at most he's bullying them to try scare them into keeping their mouths shut. I don't think that's illegal.

Witness intimidation. Lance basically told Tyler that he was gonna f--- him up if he took the stand. He told Greg that he was going to destroy his business and get like 30 guys to point to his doping. He threatened Frankie and Betsy. I am sure there are others too.
 
Can somebody confirm this: The Sunday Times is apparently considering legal action against Lance to recover over $600,000 paid to him after he sued them for publishing allegations of doping?
 
Aug 5, 2012
2,290
0
0
cineteq said:
Can somebody confirm this: The Sunday Times is apparently considering legal action against Lance to recover over $600,000 paid to him after he sued them for publishing allegations of doping?
I saw some articles when the USADA verdict first came down that they were considering it, haven't heard much since then.

Not sure how much that really helps or answers your question though!
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
trailrunner said:
If that were something that could land you in jail, then we'd have to put half the big-church evangelist in jail for preaching against sin yet are caught sleeping with mistresses or gay lovers.
Your analogy is of hypocrisy, my point was fraud.


[/QUOTE]That has nothing to do with his doping, and a lot of charities operate this way. Surely if there is direct evidence of accounting crimes, they can be prosecuted, but the authorities are not necessarily going to launch an investigation of his charities just because USADA convicts him of doping.[/QUOTE]

This may have something to do with doping if LA was being paid by the charity and buying dope to perpetuate the myth.

I'm neither a lawyer or privy to the governments agenda regarding LA, but Novitsky and Tygart didn't spend all that time just punching a clock for government health care. Fraud, perjury, etc., etc. He's starting to look like a medium sized, international drug lord funded in part by government $. I believe they are going to try to send him to jail and take away all of his worldly possessions with the RICO Act.
 
Sunday Times is owned by News Corporation.
News Corporation is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Rupert Murdoch owns Sky.
Sky sponsors Team Sky.

So I don't think The Sunday Times will press a legal case against Lance but hey, this is a very tangled web so I will just sit back and watch with interest. Who knows what will happen.
 
Jun 18, 2012
90
0
0
The Hitch said:
. Being Lances lawyer is the easiest thing in the world. You dismiss all the evidence as conjecture, all witnesses as liars and all accusers as out with a grudge.

No matter how obsurd it gets, just shut off your brain and follow those rules.
I did laugh when his legal goons criticised the document as being one sided. As if a prosection case ought to be seeing it from different sides ! No doubt if things progress to various courts, they'll present an even sided defence.
 
I say no jail time for Lance. Enough taxpayer dollars have been spent to uncover the truth about his doping practices. The best way to hit him now is the wallet. How many endorsements does anyone think he can get now? NIKE beware. I will boycott Nike products if I ever see another Nike ad ft. LA.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,811
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
I say no jail time for Lance. Enough taxpayer dollars have been spent to uncover the truth about his doping practices. The best way to hit him now is the wallet. How many endorsements does anyone think he can get now? NIKE beware. I will boycott Nike products if I ever see another Nike ad ft. LA.
So I can commit a complicated high-profile petty theft, have tax dollars be wasted on the eventually succesful investigation, and then my bigger crimes are left uninvestigated or punished, as I've used up my allocation of investigation tax dollars? I'll take that deal.
 
Oct 12, 2012
169
0
0
oldschoolnik said:
Yes, what about threatening Levi's wife via text? Isn't that illegal? Plus How the hell did they know he testified? Meets the "is it illegal?" test:

"Years later, after learning that another former Postal rider, Levi Leipheimer, had testified for a federal grand jury, Armstrong sent a text message to Leipheimer's wife, Odessa Gunn, telling her to "run don't walk," according to her husband's affidavit. Leipheimer said he found the message "threatening."

WSJ article is here: http://goo.gl/h1SgI


So Yes--he should go to jail.
I'm not sure that he should go to jail for that. Such a sick stunt has Loonie Bin written all over it. I can't imagine that anyone would exhibit such a psychopathic behaviour without suffering from some sort of personality disorder.
I think what he needs most is a psychiatrical checkup as he doesn't seem to be firing on all thrusters.
 
Don't know if this LA Times article has been posted. A brief but interesting discussion of whether LA can be criminally charged.

Fabiani makes this astounding statement:

The federal government spent a considerable amount of hours and manpower on its case, and if one-tenth of what USADA is saying was true, the federal government would've brought charges against Lance a long time ago."
Think about that. Fabiani is conceding that if even a small fraction of these statements, many of them the same as what the riders said under oath in the GJ, are true, that LA should be charged.

I have long felt that LA's lawyers are far too smart to really believe that USADA's case is not genuine. They're as capable as everyone else of seeing that this massive testimony can't be all wrong. Are they really not pointing this out to LA in private? Or does LA refuse to listen to them?

USADA published bank statements showing that Armstrong made more than $1 million in payments to Dr. Michele Ferrari for allegedly administering performance-enhancing drugs and providing instruction for use. Those payments could be a tax crime.

•Armstrong's agent was said to have told sponsor Coca-Cola the rider did not engage in performance-enhancing activity before being awarded a contract. That could be cause for a charge of fraud based on the statements of 11 of Armstrong's teammates who alleged a culture of doping.

•Hincapie, Armstrong's former friend and teammate, provided an affidavit saying Armstrong gave Hincapie the banned energy-boosting substance EPO in California and encouraged its use. It is illegal to distribute banned or prescribed drugs without a license.

•And, Armstrong also made recent efforts, according to Hincapie and the wife of former teammate Leipheimer, to discourage and intimidate their cooperation with prosecutors. (Leipheimer was also suspended by the Omega Pharma-Quick-Step cycling team Thursday.)

If true, any one of these could have been brought forward by the grand jury as possible crimes.
Matthew Orwig, a former U.S. attorney, said "conspiracy charges can extend to the last overt act," such as Armstrong's text messages to Leipheimer's wife in the last year, and encompass acts that may have otherwise been subject to the statute of limitations.
 
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
Of course it would be a lot easier to put Armstrong in jail if it were not for the fact that doping is, in itself, effectively legal in the US...
 
Aug 3, 2009
176
0
0
Lance can beat all this and win the hearts of Americans back by giving a schmaltzy Richard Nixon type speech.
The one his advisors said would be political suicide.
He talked about his dog and wife and boring family life.
Americans ate it up and elected him.:eek:
 
May 6, 2010
158
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
I say no jail time for Lance. Enough taxpayer dollars have been spent to uncover the truth about his doping practices. The best way to hit him now is the wallet. How many endorsements does anyone think he can get now? NIKE beware. I will boycott Nike products if I ever see another Nike ad ft. LA.
Has anybody calculated how much taxpayer $$$$ Lance took to the bank, both personally and in general for his "cycling" team? He was sponsored by US Postal Service for what, 8 years? And US Postal Service sponsored Lance for roughly, what, 10 million a year, so 80 million to the team? Let's say about half of that is taxpayer subsidies (just guessing here), that would mean he took the US taxpayer for 40 million dollars?

Does anybody have more exact numbers?

As for the notion that we've spent too much taxpayer $$$ on the investigation, I would say that when someone defrauds the US taxpayer of 40 million dollars, it's worthwhile to spend 2 or 3 to catch them, because it deters other similar fraudsters from doing so, and thus in the long term saves us money.
 
Oct 12, 2012
169
0
0
broken chain said:
Lance can beat all this and win the hearts of Americans back by giving a schmaltzy Richard Nixon type speech.
The one his advisors said would be political suicide.
He talked about his dog and wife and boring family life.
Americans ate it up and elected him.:eek:
Well, they also selected Bush jr., so I wouldn't put too much importance to that :rolleyes:
 
May 6, 2010
158
0
0
Hmmm ...

I was mistaken. US Postal Service is a government agency, but it gets its budget from its own revenue streams; according to Wikipedia it has not received taxpayer subsidies since the 1980s, so technically speaking Armstrong did not steal directly from the taxpayer.

Confirmed by a 2010 budget from the US Postal Service, see page 4, "0 tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service."

http://web.archive.org/web/20100728023839/http://www.usps.com/strategicplanning/_pdf/PostalFacts_03_17_2010.pdf

Thus, Armstrong is off the hook for stealing from the taxpayer, though he did defraud the US Postal Service, which is a government agency, and did so in an amount over $40 million. Now if only we knew what the US Postal subsidy level was for 1998-2000, we'd have complete numbers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY