Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

Page 45 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
In today's la Gazzetta dello Sport it is reported that, just to have Lance, the organizers of the San Diego Superfrog triathlon snobbed USADA. Lance won the event. It's incredible how the man's ego won't let him move on with his life. I mean racing to beat that competition after his career is rather pathetic.

On a closing note the Italian sports daily also reported that Kristin Richards, Lance's ex-wife, could be in trouble for having supposedly assisted LA's doping regime. She, so it is claimed, personally supervised the conservation of his EPO files in their home’s fridge, which Lance referred to as "butter" (because they were in the fridge's butter compartment) and distributed them to his teammates before the 98 worlds.

That’s funny, because an ex-teammate of mine stored EPO the exact same way.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Race Radio said:
Lance on the recent revelations about his ex-wife

Looks like that relationship is nice and civil.:rolleyes:

Bet that gets messy soon. How about a book by Ms K Richards, How i helped my my ex husband dope to win the TdF:D
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
1
0
Benotti69 said:
Looks like that relationship is nice and civil.:rolleyes:

Bet that gets messy soon. How about a book by Ms K Richards, How i helped my my ex husband dope to win the TdF:D

Just to be clear, that was a joke......but I am looking forward to Ms. Richards book.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Race Radio said:
Just to be clear, that was a joke......but I am looking forward to Ms. Richards book.

Many a true word said in jest.

When the liestrong cheques dry up no doubt it will be hitting bookshelves in all big stores near you.
 
Benotti69 said:
Race Radio said:
Just to be clear, that was a joke......but I am looking forward to Ms. Richards book.

Many a true word said in jest.

When the liestrong cheques dry up no doubt it will be hitting bookshelves in all big stores near you.

Points well taken by both here.

Had concerns on Ms Richards financial recourse should the checks stop flowing (almost certainly threatened... multiple times), but that definitely works.

Dave.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Since I don't know where the legal thread is, I am going to pop my question here...hopefully I hear something meaningfully before it will have buried.


We know that gj witnesses gave their evidence under the threat of perjury. That investigation was closed. We also know that the same witness were later interviewed by usada in the presence of a justice ministry official.

Question: were the witnesses still subject to perjury despite the grand jury being closed and USADA not having the power of the federal agency?
 
Jul 13, 2012
59
0
0
python said:
Since I don't know where the legal thread is, I am going to pop my question here...hopefully I hear something meaningfully before it will have buried.


We know that gj witnesses gave their evidence under the threat of perjury. That investigation was closed. We also know that the same witness were later interviewed by usada in the presence of a justice ministry official.

Question: were the witnesses still subject to perjury despite the grand jury being closed and USADA not having the power of the federal agency?

Dunno what the statute of limitations is on perjury, but the act of perjury is its own offense, regardless of whether the case in which the perjury was committed is opened or closed, until that statute of limitations runs out (the time period would run from date of false testimony to present). I'm sure there was plenty of time left on the clock by the time the USADA interviews took place that, if they conflicted with the grand jury testimony, feds could have pursued perjury claim.
 
python said:
Question: were the witnesses still subject to perjury despite the grand jury being closed and USADA not having the power of the federal agency?

Of the limited authority granted to USADA, witnesses are subject to perjury. It's the only way they could actually get anything done. I believe at this point athletes have been tried for it and this issue tested in higher court too.

All that said, I'm no lawyer and one thing is for sure about American law, if there's an exclusion, special case, any novel way to clear charges even in arbitration, someone somewhere will find it and try to use it.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Race Radio said:
A4IWkwfCMAAI45h.jpg

Just another fat, ugly, jealous, bitter......

Oh, wait... ;)
 
rhubroma said:
In today's la Gazzetta dello Sport it is reported that, just to have Lance, the organizers of the San Diego Superfrog triathlon snobbed USADA. Lance won the event. It's incredible how the man's ego won't let him move on with his life. I mean racing to beat that competition after his career is rather pathetic.

On a closing note the Italian sports daily also reported that Kristin Richards, Lance's ex-wife, could be in trouble for having supposedly assisted LA's doping regime. She, so it is claimed, personally supervised the conservation of his EPO files in their home’s fridge, which Lance referred to as "butter" (because they were in the fridge's butter compartment) and distributed them to his teammates before the 98 worlds.

That’s funny, because an ex-teammate of mine stored EPO the exact same way.

I get the sense that Lance is being "handled" by his media people in an attempt to preserve what is left of his "brand." Lance is probably feeling rather demeaned himself, right now. It has got to be a big come down, don't you think?
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
Deagol said:
Just another fat, ugly, jealous, bitter......

Oh, wait... ;)

It's true to say that a list in pictures of Lance's exes would make Johnny Depp look like an awkward geek by comparison, doping proved successful for him on that front for a long time.
 
python said:
Since I don't know where the legal thread is, I am going to pop my question here...hopefully I hear something meaningfully before it will have buried.


We know that gj witnesses gave their evidence under the threat of perjury. That investigation was closed. We also know that the same witness were later interviewed by usada in the presence of a justice ministry official.

Question: were the witnesses still subject to perjury despite the grand jury being closed and USADA not having the power of the federal agency?

If the witnesses before USADA were duly sworn, then the witnesses would be liable for perjury (in a US court having jurisdiction) if they lied about something relevant to the USADA proceeding.

There are (at least) two kinds of perjury:
(1) The Tammy Thomas kind where you prove that the person is lying by establishing an alternate set of facts that is really the truth.
(2) The "X" and "Not X" kind of perjury where the witness says two diametrically different things under oath at two different times. No need to prove the truth in that kind of case.

Both kinds of perjury concerns are definitely operative here. The perjuring witness is vulnerable to the "overwhelming evidence," just like everybody else. The witness is also vulnerable if he makes two contradictory statements under oath if each is relevant to the proceeding he is testifying in.

Termination of a fed investigation is irrelevant in either case.

Hope that answers it.
 
Nov 11, 2011
85
0
0
Apparently Lance (or more probably LAF/Livestrong) sent out an email blast today. A friend on Facebook posted the following:

"Got this in my inbox today.
From: Lance Armstrong
Subject: Let's blow up the internet!
- Dear [REDACTED], When I was diagnosed with cancer—fifteen years ago today—the Internet was a brand new..."

Just curious if anybody here has received this - I, thankfully, have not - and what the rest of the content is?
 
Jul 6, 2012
133
0
0
caryopsis said:
Apparently Lance (or more probably LAF/Livestrong) sent out an email blast today. A friend on Facebook posted the following:

"Got this in my inbox today.
From: Lance Armstrong
Subject: Let's blow up the internet!
- Dear [REDACTED], When I was diagnosed with cancer—fifteen years ago today—the Internet was a brand new..."

Just curious if anybody here has received this - I, thankfully, have not - and what the rest of the content is?

I got that email this morning. I still get spammed to this day by Livestrong because I bought some wristbands in 2005. I was young and ignorant!

It basically says today is Livestrong day, blah blah tweet about it. More self promotion.
 
Nov 11, 2011
85
0
0
Racelap said:
I got that email this morning. I still get spammed to this day by Livestrong because I bought some wristbands in 2005. I was young and ignorant!

It basically says today is Livestrong day, blah blah tweet about it. More self promotion.

Thanks, Racelap. That's basically what I figured. (Barf.)