Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[gooner]

Saddle's too low.

A backdated prescription might be on the way, I say.

 

[darwin553]

So you don't believe it's true that Pharmstrong was engaged in drug smuggling, unlawful possession of pharmaceuticals, distributing pharmaceuticals without a prescription, practicing medicine without a license, or conspiring to commit all the above? Kinda hard -- as in IMPOSSIBLE -- to run a decade-long successful international PEDs program without any one of those.

He may have done some or all of those things but how many of those actually occurred on US soil? Not many if any at all which brings into question whether US has jurisdiction to bring any charges regarding these alleged illegal acts.

The firmer argument for Lance to be sent to jail would be Federal fraud charges regarding a conspiracy to defraud a US government associated entity in US postal but of course to prove it prosecutors would have to get into the detail of the drug possession, trafficking etc (which would require more sleuthing on their part over and above what is contained in the USADA reasoned decision). However, the testimonies of Lance's teammates would help prosecutors as well as Lance's own confessions.

 

[thehog]

Saddle's too low.

Who's he T-Mobile guy number 11 meant to be?

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

I think that if all those things are true (and seems they are) it is not something (being athletes using PEDS and the behavior surrounding them) that will land him in jail.

I'm not arguing guilt. Maybe he committed USA felonies - but a trial and conviction is needed first.

Suggesting it will land Lance in JAIL is a stretch that colours Lemond more than Lance (already coloured)....

Now you're mincing words. Your original question was, "What crime can he be convicted of." (emphasis added) Can is not Will.


In the Anderson Cooper interview, Lemond never suggested IT WILL land Pharmstrong in jail. He stated what Pharmstrong did was not a sports infraction, it was criminal. Cooper asked "[Do] you think he should go to jail?", to which Lemond answered, "Yeah, I do."

Your are mischaracterising Lemond's statements and putting words in his mouth.

He may have done some or all of those things but how many of those actually occurred on US soil? Not many if any at all which brings into question whether US has jurisdiction to bring any charges regarding these alleged illegal acts....

Disagree.

Most if not all of the sworn testimonies from which the perjury allegations stem took place on USA soil.

Off the top of my head, I know Pharmstrong contested at least three stage races in the USA, post-cancer; one Tour de Georgia (which he won) and two Tours of California. I am hard-pressed to believe neither he nor any of his minions were doped during any of those attempts. And if there was any doping transpiring on that bus, it is a certainty it was under Pharmstrong's control.

And the incident with Tyler Hamilton at Cache-Cache in Aspen, Colo., was investigated by the FBI as a possible case of witness intimidation. Last I looked, Colorado still is a United State.

The embezzlement and money laundering both would have involved USPS funds.

And Jeff Novitzky certainly believed Pharmstrong had committed criminal offences on USA soil, because he compiled the evidence.


EDIT:
It also is reasonable to presume that Phamrstrong was conducting planning and coordination for his European criminal enterprises from his home(s) in the USA in the off-season, which further exposes him to USA law and, potentially, RICO.

 

[D-Queued]

Saddle's too low.

Keen eye.

Jumped out at me too.

Ullrich is about to sprint away. Somebody better tell him to stick to the script.

Pretty sure that is a line from the movie. Or, was that Basso?

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I wonder which 300 pound actor is playing Graham Watson?

I bet this guy is free:

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Keen eye.

Jumped out at me too.

Ullrich is about to sprint away. Somebody better tell him to stick to the script.

Pretty sure that is a line from the movie. Or, was that Basso?

Dave.

Its 2004 so I wonder is it the stage where Simeoni was ahead and got chased down.

I will give the actor his props - while he looks the odd man out, even if it is only for short bursts, it is not easy for a newbie to hang in with a group and maintain his position and composure.

 

[42x16ss]

Most actors, especially in comic book films are on a heavy steroid cycle and/or growth hormone, it takes more than just a personal trainer to achieve the kind of body transformations that are common in Hollywood these days.

He's playing LA, not Thor/Wolverine/Capt. America! Just needs to cut up a little and look fit, not totally transform like Chris Hemsworth for example, did for Thor. BTW - Hemsworth did use a personal trainer (amongst other things) to prepare for that role. Just because guys like Arnie, Stallone and Statham know what they are doing in the gym doesn't mean all actors do.

 

[sittingbison]

...For Lance:
-"under oath" - divorce is breaking an oath. Prison is not likely for lying under oath outside in a criminal trial (and he would plead the 5th I would guess), and may not be then.
...
...
If the person is a criminal, try them in court and if guilty, put them in jail.

Lance lied under oath in a deposition, which is for all intents and purposes was giving false sworn testimony to court proceedings ergo et demonstratum criminal.

which brings us to...

 

[Clausfarre]

A backdated prescription might be on the way, I say.

Ha! I wonder what title the movie will have since Der Untergang is already taken.

 

[MarkvW]

Lance lied under oath in a deposition, which is for all intents and purposes was giving false sworn testimony to court proceedings ergo et demonstratum criminal.

which brings us to...

Your conclusion is correct, but your reasoning is wrong.
Lying in court proceedings is not, by itself, a crime. The lie must be material to the proceedings.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

He's playing LA, not Thor/Wolverine/Capt. America! Just needs to cut up a little and look fit, not totally transform like Chris Hemsworth for example, did for Thor. BTW - Hemsworth did use a personal trainer (amongst other things) to prepare for that role. Just because guys like Arnie, Stallone and Statham know what they are doing in the gym doesn't mean all actors do.

I agree, it was difficult to tell from your post but the way it was phrased almost made it sound like using a personal trainer was the answer to most actors problems even 120 - 240 pound christian Bale.

 

[webbie146]

The guy that play's Lance is to fat. Give him some aicar already lol

 

[Benotti69]

He may have done some or all of those things but how many of those actually occurred on US soil? Not many if any at all which brings into question whether US has jurisdiction to bring any charges regarding these alleged illegal acts.

The yanks dont take into account borders when it suits them

Just ask all those in Guantanamo.

The firmer argument for Lance to be sent to jail would be Federal fraud charges regarding a conspiracy to defraud a US government associated entity in US postal but of course to prove it prosecutors would have to get into the detail of the drug possession, trafficking etc (which would require more sleuthing on their part over and above what is contained in the USADA reasoned decision). However, the testimonies of Lance's teammates would help prosecutors as well as Lance's own confessions.

If the will is there he will be convicted. They did it to Marion Jones, they can do it to Armstrong.

 

[darwin553]

The yanks dont take into account borders when it suits them

Just ask all those in Guantanamo.



If the will is there he will be convicted. They did it to Marion Jones, they can do it to Armstrong.

In the US?

If there was ever a judicial system and set of laws brought about by a liberal constitution that had the effect of protecting Armstrong, it is the US.

 

[Benotti69]

In the US?

If there was ever a judicial system and set of laws brought about by a liberal constitution that had the effect of protecting Armstrong, it is the US.

The US federal government has been pretty good at bending the rules when it suits them.

I guess they have enough to put Armstrong in jail if they wish to. IF they wish to.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Your conclusion is correct, but your reasoning is wrong.
Lying in court proceedings is not, by itself, a crime. The lie must be material to the proceedings.

Uh...okay, why not also provide the definition of "material" as it relates to perjury in your splitting of hairs (for some unknown reason): "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed." Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988)

Then provide a basic definition of testimony (which is what Lance was giving): "Oral evidence offered by a competent witness under oath, which is used to establish some fact or set of facts."

The "or is capable of influencing" is pretty loose on the requirements, don't you think? I am guessing that the perjury everyone is referring to isn't when they asked him to state his name, or his answers to any of the foundational questions.

In all honesty, I'm not sure why you even posted this post. I think you just like to remind people of your less than keen legal mind, though I'm not sure why you insist on that kind of self-flagellation, but whack away dude.

 

[MarkvW]

Uh...okay, why not also provide the definition of "material" as it relates to perjury in your splitting of hairs (for some unknown reason): "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed." Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988)

Then provide a basic definition of testimony (which is what Lance was giving): "Oral evidence offered by a competent witness under oath, which is used to establish some fact or set of facts."

The "or is capable of influencing" is pretty loose on the requirements, don't you think? I am guessing that the perjury everyone is referring to isn't when they asked him to state his name, or his answers to any of the foundational questions.

In all honesty, I'm not sure why you even posted this post. I think you just like to remind people of your less than keen legal mind, though I'm not sure why you insist on that kind of self-flagellation, but whack away dude.

I think you're agreeing with me, in your own way.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Vincent Barteau. Teammates on Renault in early 80s but riding for System U with Fignon by 89, so it's hard to see how poor Vincent Could have seen anything.

Typical LA MO: find someone in a compromised position (Vincent hit tough times and needed money) and get him to do some dirtywork. Also used by the Mafia.

It also sums up LA and his friends collective IQ's, like Bartheau would be ratting out a friend
Then again, like you stated clearly, how should Vincent know of LeMond doing EPO while he was no teammate at that time?

LA should go out and search 'the George Hincapie' of LeMonds era, the dumb nutter.

He - LA - should be thinking otherwise though; ''How come this omertabreaker - LeMond in casus - has not been called out for being a doper as well? We hate omerta breakers!''

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I think you're agreeing with me, in your own way.

I'm just not sure it is material to point out the definition of "material" to someone, and then suggest their "reasoning" was wrong when it is highly doubtful they were referring to any part of Armstrong's testimony that was immaterial. You know, considering that after the attorney asks you who you are, and certain other personal information, everything else pretty easily fits under "material" as it is defined for the purposes of perjury charges...

So in my own way, I guess I'm not agreeing with you.

 

[MarkvW]

I'm just not sure it is material to point out the definition of "material" to someone, and then suggest their "reasoning" was wrong when it is highly doubtful they were referring to any part of Armstrong's testimony that was immaterial. You know, considering that after the attorney asks you who you are, and certain other personal information, everything else pretty easily fits under "material" as it is defined for the purposes of perjury charges...

So in my own way, I guess I'm not agreeing with you.

I didn't point out the definition of "material." You did. And you've mucked it up pretty bad. Maybe read US V. Gaudin, 515 US 506.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I didn't point out the definition of "material." You did. And you've mucked it up pretty bad. Maybe read US V. Gaudin, 515 US 506.

No, no I haven't when it relates to perjury. I guess you disagree with the criminal resource manual for US Attorneys: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01748.htm

Gaudin addresses allowing juries to address the question of whether something was "material." But that doesn't change the definition supplied by Kungys...

Why do you even bother to talk about things you don't understand?

Here, I'll help you understand Gaudin better: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3227&context=flr

 

[MarkvW]

No, no I haven't when it relates to perjury. I guess you disagree with the criminal resource manual for US Attorneys: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01748.htm

Gaudin addresses allowing juries to address the question of whether something was "material." But that doesn't change the definition supplied by Kungys...

Why do you even bother to talk about things you don't understand?

Here, I'll help you understand Gaudin better: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3227&context=flr

Did you even pass the bar?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Did you even pass the bar?

Did you? I haven't taken it yet.

Must suck that you understand less than a student.

BTW, I eagerly await your dissection of how Gaudin overturned the definition of "material" in Kungys...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Here is the issue dear Mark: You came in with a specific legally defined term and told someone they were wrong (without supplying them with the definition you were relying on). Well, there is always an argument, but wouldn't (based on the case you cited: Gaudin) a jury (or judge if no jury was chosen) be the one to make that determination?

All that poster did was refer to the fact that the testimony Lance (your hero) gave was likely perjury because of the proceeding. Have you listened to the testimony in question? Do you know the current cases that testimony might "materially" affect? Are the obviously dishonest responses Lance gave related to the issues in question in those other cases? If they are, it is likely that the testimony Lance gave would fall under the definition of "material" supplied by Kungys? Is there anything in Gaudin that would suggest that, because a jury can determine the mixed question of law and fact related to whether the testimony is material, a jury would not apply the meaning given by Kungys? I realize these are leading questions, but that's because so many times here, you've made legal arguments that were...what't the word I'm looking for?...Wrong, yea, they were wrong. I'm just trying to do you a solid.

BTW, when are Lance's attorneys going to make a motion for Summary Judgment in the SCA case?... Even when you think you're right, you aren't.

BTW#2: Did you ever find the proof that Frankie "helped Lance dope?" Still waiting on that.