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

[Granville57]

Oh, and Happy 21st, hog!

Now see what you can do about those William Bock links in my absence.

 

[Race Radio]

On this part:

Are those dates supposed to correspond with the signed affidavits that were realeased with The Reason Decision? Because I'm pretty sure the date on Frankie's is wrong (and I haven't the time to check the others).

I also haven't the time to dig up the links at the moment, but those sworn statements, as I understand it, were nothing more than a summary of PREVIOUS testimony (the dates of which I'm not sure were ever published).

USADA had collected evidence over a period of time, but it all came together very quickly once the Fed case was dropped. My interpretation of events was that once it was Go Time, they assembled their Reasoned Decision, and those signed affidavits were only part of that final push to the line, not the actual dates of confessions, etc.

More along the lines of, "OK, we're ready to go, can you sign your name to a brief summary of what you previously told us? We need this now because we're going public with the whole thing."

I'll gladly dig up the links later today. Someone with more time will have to dig up the interviews with William Bock, the General Counsel for USADA where he lays out the timeline, etc.

This is exactly what happened.

It is fun to see the extent Lance and his buddies went to twist the truth. To bad Fact for Lance is no longer up. That was comedy gold.

 

[Digger]

The source is Tim Herman. After the Reasoned Decision the smoke machine cranked out some rather comical nonsense. For entertainment purposes it is fun to see it again.

You are saying so that Frankie didn't perjure himself at the sca hearing? Just to clarify.

 

[Digger]

The source is Tim Herman. After the Reasoned Decision the smoke machine cranked out some rather comical nonsense. For entertainment purposes it is fun to see it again.

The testimony from Frankie arc the sca hearing...are you saying it's made up?

 

[frenchfry]

The source is Tim Herman. After the Reasoned Decision the smoke machine cranked out some rather comical nonsense. For entertainment purposes it is fun to see it again.

In any case, even if they all only talked after they knew Armstrong wouldn't contest, that could mean they were concerned about Armstrong and his paid thugs destroying their lives as they had already done to so many.

The big problem wasn't the doping, it was the destruction.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Seems like the choice was either to rat out Lance and get a nice deal, or to go down with the ship. Not a very hard choice is it.

Interesting to see Frankie contradict himeslf

Does not seem like he is 'contradicting' himself. Nice try..
in this 'piece of paper' from Lance's attorney the questions to which he was responding here were answered truthfully to the exact question and wording ..just as they should have been.

Your implication that he was 'contradicting' his previous testimony ..which one assumes you must mean from SCA depo..is ridiculous.
nice try..
spin

 

[frenchfry]

On this part:

Are those dates supposed to correspond with the signed affidavits that were realeased with The Reason Decision? Because I'm pretty sure the date on Frankie's is wrong (and I haven't the time to check the others).

I also haven't the time to dig up the links at the moment, but those sworn statements, as I understand it, were nothing more than a summary of PREVIOUS testimony (the dates of which I'm not sure were ever published).

USADA had collected evidence over a period of time, but it all came together very quickly once the Fed case was dropped. My interpretation of events was that once it was Go Time, they assembled their Reasoned Decision, and those signed affidavits were only part of that final push to the line, not the actual dates of confessions, etc.

More along the lines of, "OK, we're ready to go, can you sign your name to a brief summary of what you previously told us? We need this now because we're going public with the whole thing."

I'll gladly dig up the links later today. Someone with more time will have to dig up the interviews with William Bock, the General Counsel for USADA where he lays out the timeline, etc.

So you mean that Tygart and the witnesses were actually being honest by not back-dating affidavits?

 

[mewmewmew13]

So you mean that Tygart and the witnesses were actually being honest by not back-dating affidavits?

the Lance conspiracy theorists against Travis can't decide which way the wind is blowing in their desperation to sully his rep

 

[frenchfry]

Does not seem like he is 'contradicting' himself. Nice try..
in this 'piece of paper' from Lance's attorney the questions to which he was responding here were answered truthfully to the exact question and wording ..just as they should have been.

Your implication that he was 'contradicting' his previous testimony ..which one assumes you must mean from SCA depo..is ridiculous.
nice try..
spin

It's always good for a laugh when Armstrong and his paid thugs accuse others of lying when they wrote the book on the subject.

 

[ralphbert]

. To bad Fact for Lance is no longer up.

I preferred the "Farts for Lance" website. More my humor i guess.

 

[mewmewmew13]

There doesn't seem to be much traction in the Official 'getting the authorities to investigate Travis Tygart' bandwagon.
Just a few little dust clouds by disgruntled posters..

maybe it's because he followed the law and did his job as he was hired to do.

 

[Race Radio]

I preferred the "Farts for Lance" website. More my humor i guess.

Perhaps the most brilliant thing about Facts for Lance was that somebody registered @facts4lance on Twitter. At first they spewed the normal talking points, then suddenly switched and told the truth. Turned out Fabian/Herman had not thought to register it and Floyd, or somebody, had done it.

Comedy gold

 

[DirtyWorks]

..perjure..

That word does not mean what you want it to. Most are permitted to perjure themselves without sanction in arbitration despite the words and serious tone used to deliver those words before a deposition.

The same is true with dating documents and other details. It's a free for all if you have enough money.

It's time to let it go.

 

[Digger]

What's interesting here is that people are focusing on who was behind the pdf in question, and not on the testimony in question...was this text made up?

 

[thehog]

Does not seem like he is 'contradicting' himself. Nice try..
in this 'piece of paper' from Lance's attorney the questions to which he was responding here were answered truthfully to the exact question and wording ..just as they should have been.

Your implication that he was 'contradicting' his previous testimony ..which one assumes you must mean from SCA depo..is ridiculous.
nice try..
spin

Looks like he is. Vaughters certainly did. He's done a 180 on his testimony.

I've not seen the source for the document. It's on a CNN/Turner broadcasting server.

Is there a link to the source?

Besides the signed affidavit tells you everything. Doesn't matter what Herman might have said or not said. The testimony is different. Which one is the true account?

 

[mewmewmew13]

What's interesting here is that people are focusing on who was behind the pdf in question, and not on the testimony in question...was this text made up?

No plenty of us have mentioned it for sure. You are ignoring this.

Stating the point clearly instead of trying to infer vague things might let us skip over a lot of unnecessary posts.
Maybe there is no clear point here.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Looks like he is. Vaughters certainly did. He's done a 180 on his testimony.

I've not seen the source for the document. It's on a CNN/Turner broadcasting server.

Is there a link to the source?

Besides the signed affidavit tells you everything. Doesn't matter what Herman might have said or not said. The testimony is different. Which one is the true account?

Sorry hoggie
just because you say something is true doesn't make anyone else buy it.

 

[thehog]

Sorry hoggie
just because you say something is true doesn't make anyone else buy it.

Doesn't worry me if anyone buys it or not.

Here's a link to the testimony:

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Andreu+Frankie+Affidavit.pdf

Have a read & make your own mind up if it's changed.

SCA here: http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/C141.pdf

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The testimony from Frankie arc the sca hearing...are you saying it's made up?

No, he's saying you have become a mouthpiece for the Armstrong propaganda machine...pretty ironic...

Anyway, if you don't understand why the dates of the affidavits are what they are, you just don't understand. Nothing nefarious about it, but you are allowed to pretend there is.

Doping didn't end with Lance, so Lance got a raw deal...we get it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Doesn't worry me if anyone buys it or not.

Here's a link to the testimony:

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Andreu+Frankie+Affidavit.pdf

Have a read & make your own mind up if it's changed.

SCA here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/31833754/Lance-Armstrong-Testimony

You post an affidavit from Frankie, and then a link to Armstrong's deposition in the SCA case, and then ask us to see of Frankie committed perjury?

Sometimes your trolling is humorous, but this time, it's just stupid...if you can't be bothered to actually read the references you post, we can be sure you haven't actually compared the two to see if there are inconsistencies...

TrollKraft level -1

 

[thehog]

You post an affidavit from Frankie, and then a link to Armstrong's deposition in the SCA case, and then ask us to see of Frankie committed perjury?

Sometimes your trolling is humorous, but this time, it's just stupid...if you can't be bothered to actually read the references you post, we can be sure you haven't actually compared the two to see if there are inconsistencies...

Tro1

Thanks for that. Updated the link with the correct one. Looking forward to your expert opinion

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Thanks for that. Updated the link with the correct one. Looking forward to your expert opinion

If you can't be bothered to post the correct link, or do an analysis yourself, why should I? If I fall for your weak TrollKraft, that means I've been trolled, and I certainly wont let that happen. I have a reputation to uphold, and your TrollKraft is too noobish.

 

[thehog]

If you can't be bothered to post the correct link, or do an analysis yourself, why should I? If I fall for your weak TrollKraft, that means I've been trolled, and I certainly wont let that happen. I have a reputation to uphold, and your TrollKraft is too noobish.

No problems. If you prefer to attack than analyze it gives rise that there altering testimony. Thanks.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

No problems. If you prefer to attack than analyze it gives rise that there altering testimony. Thanks.

Or it means that no one cares. Doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

 

[86TDFWinner]

The link was the source.

The changing testimony between SCA and USADA is interesting. Why am I not surprised Vaughters is at it.

It's interesting and although USADA got their man I'm not sure the process to get there was 100% legit.

I'm no lawyer, so pardon me if this is a dumb question, but wouldn't this be considered perjury? and if so, what's the punishment(if any)?