- Mar 25, 2013
ChewbaccaD said:Saddle's too low.
A backdated prescription might be on the way, I say.
StyrbjornSterki said: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.
Now you're mincing words. Your original question was, "What crime can he be convicted of." (emphasis added) Can is not Will.DanielsDad said: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)....
Disagree.darwin553 said: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....
Its 2004 so I wonder is it the stage where Simeoni was ahead and got chased down.D-Queued said: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?
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.Briant_Gumble said: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.
DanielsDad said:...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.
gooner said:A backdated prescription might be on the way, I say.
sittingbison said: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...
42x16ss said: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.
darwin553 said: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.
darwin553 said: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.
Benotti69 said: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.
darwin553 said: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.
MarkvW said: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.
ChewbaccaD said: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.
It also sums up LA and his friends collective IQ's, like Bartheau would be ratting out a friendStingray34 said: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.
MarkvW said:I think you're agreeing with me, in your own way.
ChewbaccaD said: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 said: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 said: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 said:Did you even pass the bar?