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

[DirtyWorks]

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)?

In theory, perjury is a serious crime, a felony. In the U.S. a felony conviction impairs the average person's life beyond any jail/financial penalty assessed.

The reality appears to be the threat of perjury in arbitration is almost meaningless. It certainly is with Wonderboy.

 

[86TDFWinner]

In theory, perjury is a serious crime, a felony. In the U.S. a felony conviction impairs the average person's life beyond any jail/financial penalty assessed.

The reality appears to be the threat of perjury in arbitration is almost meaningless. It certainly is with Wonderboy.

You ain't kidding there^^^^ Thanks btw.

 

[Bluenote]

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

If I remember correctly, USADA didn't have affidavits, because they thought Armstrong would go to Arbitration. In that case, witnesses would have to give their testimony under oath. When Armstrong chose not to challenge, USADA felt it best to get affidavits.

Personally, I don't see how getting affidavits after (or before) Armstrong's decision not to fight the case, is proof of anything one way or another.

It seems more like a technicality to me, the legal equivalent of arguing over semantics.

Armstrong confessed to doping (on Oprah, lol). It's not a 'witch hunt,' if you do indeed turn up a witch.

I though publicly releasing the Reasoned Decision was very smart strategy. Destroyed Armstrong's reputation, outmaneuvered Armstrong's lawyers, pushed the UCI's hand, redeemed USADA's reputation. All with one 'checkmate' move. Don't know if it was Tygart's move or what, but it was brilliant.

 

[thehog]

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)?

The police care little of lying at arbitration. Divorce hearings are full of lies.

Although here you have Armstrong lying to procure money. That's way worse than perjury. Then again you have Vaughters with full knowledge of Amrstrong's doping supporting him giving the position that that Armstrong was "clean".

How do you cut that one up criminally? The recent resit of SCA has still yet to come to a conclusion. I can only guess that both parties haven been advised to nut out a settlement.

 

[Granville57]

If I remember correctly, USADA didn't have affidavits, because they thought Armstrong would go to Arbitration. In that case, witnesses would have to give their testimony under oath. When Armstrong chose not to challenge, USADA felt it best to get affidavits.

Correct.

In an interview with The Am Law Daily, William Bock III, general counsel for USADA and a partner at Indianapolis-based Kroger, Gardis Regas, says he is particularly proud of the way in which the Armstrong investigation pierced what he calls the “omertà” that has in the past prevented many cyclists from speaking out about doping practices that had become routine when racing with Armstrong.

While USADA’s investigation began several years ago, Bock says the most intensive legal work was “compressed into the last six months,” following the February decision by the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles to abandon a criminal probe into Armstrong’s activities.

Richard Young served as outside counsel to the USADA during its Armstrong investigation. Young says he was convinced Armstrong and his attorneys would head to arbitration and attempt to bankrupt USADA in the process.

“Lance has more money than the agency,” Young says. “So I expected a contentious prehearing period, but also that we’d have a lengthy hearing and an arbitration panel would write the reasoned decision instead of us.”

That all changed when Armstrong and another legal team he assembled to fight the doping allegations—a group led by lawyers from Patton Boggs, Williams Connolly, and Austin’s Howry Breen Herman—chose not to contest the charges in an arbitration process they claimed was rigged.

Young, who has handled USADA cases against former Armstrong teammates like Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, says Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration surprised him. According to USADA general counsel Bock, the unexpected development meant the agency had to shift its focus from intensive trial preparation to putting its findings in written form.

http://www.orsingher.com/pdf/USADA15-10-12.pdf

 

[Bluenote]

Correct.


http://www.orsingher.com/pdf/USADA15-10-12.pdf

And here I thought it was a witch hunt, orchestrated by the evil megalomaniac Tygart and the minions from Andreu Strategies, all in service of The Dark Queen.

 

[Granville57]

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?

Diggs, I'm not sure what you're after here, but that linked document begins by misspelling Frankie's last name, and they got the date wrong for his affidavit. So I'm having a hard time taking much of it seriously.

As for perjury, does anyone even come CLOSE to perjuring themselves during the SCA hearings to the extent that Lance did?

If they perjured themselves due to threats and harassments, and with the very real fear of having their careers destroyed, does that make them liars, self-preservationists, both, or something else?

And at this point, does any of it really matter? We now know what the truth really is. Every one, including Lance, agree that he doped and lied, and lied and doped. We know this. These are the facts.

So what's up?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Diggs, I'm not sure what you're after here, but that linked document begins by misspelling Frankie's last name, and they got the date wrong for his affidavit. So I'm having a hard time taking much of it seriously.

As for perjury, does anyone even come CLOSE to perjuring themselves during the SCA hearings to the extent that Lance did?

If they perjured themselves due to threats and harassments, and with the very real fear of having their careers destroyed, does that make them liars, self-preservationists, both, or something else?

And at this point, does any of it really matter? We now know what the truth really is. Every one, including Lance, agree that he doped and lied, and lied and doped. We know this. These are the facts.

So what's up?

Personal axes to grind, etc, etc, etc.

Lance was the Kingpin. Kingpin's go down hard...harder than others. Happens all the time. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If I remember correctly, USADA didn't have affidavits, because they thought Armstrong would go to Arbitration. In that case, witnesses would have to give their testimony under oath. When Armstrong chose not to challenge, USADA felt it best to get affidavits.

Personally, I don't see how getting affidavits after (or before) Armstrong's decision not to fight the case, is proof of anything one way or another.

It seems more like a technicality to me, the legal equivalent of arguing over semantics.

Armstrong confessed to doping (on Oprah, lol). It's not a 'witch hunt,' if you do indeed turn up a witch.

I though publicly releasing the Reasoned Decision was very smart strategy. Destroyed Armstrong's reputation, outmaneuvered Armstrong's lawyers, pushed the UCI's hand, redeemed USADA's reputation. All with one 'checkmate' move. Don't know if it was Tygart's move or what, but it was brilliant.

It isn't. It really is that simple.

 

[Granville57]

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?

Is this true?

it is incredible because USADA claimed to have all of this evidence on June 12, 2012, when it filed its original charges against Armstrong. Yet it is now clear that none of this evidence was in hand until months later.

Because I seem to be missing the link on this particular talking point.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Some people get bored when this thread gets too quiet..
start to scan old 'docs' & random filings to see if there is one thread of anything that could be poked at to stir a little discourse.
It doesn't seem to matter if context is bowed in multiple directions and shifted to make things sound sinister.

 

[Granville57]

Some people get bored when this thread gets too quiet...

Hey mew, have you seen this one?

Lance Armstrong: A WSJ Sports Take (Co-Starring a Cat)

 

[mewmewmew13]

Hey mew, have you seen this one?

Lance Armstrong: A WSJ Sports Take (Co-Starring a Cat)

Yes I did thnx Granville

 

[Archibald]

Some people get bored when this thread gets too quiet..
start to scan old 'docs' & random filings to see if there is one thread of anything that could be poked at to stir a little discourse.
It doesn't seem to matter if context is bowed in multiple directions and shifted to make things sound sinister.

Damn, and I was thinking something might have actually happened with this sudden flurry of posts

 

[Granville57]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/26/response.pdf

Compare and contrast...

Here's the part that I compared and contrasted.
From your link:

USADA claimed to have all of this evidence on June 12, 2012, when it filed its original charges against Armstrong. Yet it is now clear that none of this evidence was in hand until months later.

With this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sports/how-armstrongs-wall-fell-one-rider-at-a-time.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Floyd Landis went to a lunch meeting in April 2010 with the director of the Tour of California cycling race.

Landis’s doping confession and claim that Armstrong and other Postal Service riders were involved in team-organized doping became public in May 2010, at the Tour of California. A federal investigation into Armstrong regarding doping-related crimes, including fraud and drug trafficking, ensued.

Less than a week after Landis had lunch with Messick, Landis found himself sitting across from Tygart in a conference room at the Los Angeles airport, telling him everything. He described the doping that occurred while he was on the Postal Service team and said other riders, including Armstrong, Hincapie, Leipheimer and Zabriskie, had doped.

This spring [of 2012], those and other riders were invited to help the antidoping agency in its investigation. Tygart and Bill Bock, the antidoping agency’s general counsel, wanted them to come clean.

Bock, Tygart and the agency’s legal affairs director, Onye Ikwuakor, visited rider after rider in May and June, gathering testimonies filled with unimaginable details.

Zabriskie talked. Vaughters, Danielson and Vande Velde talked. Even Leipheimer and Hamilton talked.

Among the final witnesses was Hincapie, one of the most respected riders in cycling. Antidoping officials met with him in June, just days before the antidoping agency notified Armstrong of his potential doping violation.

So I'm confused as to the timeline suggested in your link.

 

[Race Radio]

Is this true?

Because I seem to be missing the link on this particular talking point.

No, it is not true.

 

[Bluenote]

No, it is not true.

Seems like trying to play the semantics game. Trying to equate when the Affidavits were signed, with when the evidence was known (or given). Though they clearly are different things.

None of it goes to the meat of the matter - Armstrong's confessed career long doping.

So all that is left is an attempt to smear USADA. Does that seem worthwhile? Would the sport be better off if USADA had buried the case? Not exposed alleged corruption at the UCI? If Armstrong was still part of the sport? And Brunyeel, Ferrari, etc...?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Seems like trying to play the semantics game. Trying to equate when the Affidavits were signed, with when the evidence was known (or given). Though they clearly are different things.

None of it goes to the meat of the matter - Armstrong's confessed career long doping.

So all that is left is an attempt to smear USADA. Does that seem worthwhile? Would the sport be better off if USADA had buried the case? Not exposed alleged corruption at the UCI? If Armstrong was still part of the sport? And Brunyeel, Ferrari, etc...?

Perspective, it's all a matter of where you stand. Great questions.

 

[fatandfast]

Is Lance making money as a drummer for Lance Herbstrong? Professional musicians are allowed to be on drugs so I think its a good fit.

 

[thehog]

Any update on the SCA Case?

Perhaps not the slam dunk some may of thought. It is dragging on. My take is both sides have been told to retreat and nut out a settlement.

 

[Bluenote]

Perhaps not the slam dunk some may of thought. It is dragging on. My take is both sides have been told to retreat and nut out a settlement.

You've said that a couple of times now. Trying to get someone to bite?

 

[thehog]

You've said that a couple of times now. Trying to get someone to bite?

You were asking the question, no? I'm genuinely interested to see how it ends up. The reports said October we'd here the findings from the re-sit. Its now December. That's why I think both parties have been told to sort it out amongst themselves.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

This thread needs to be embalmed.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This thread needs to be embalmed.

Totes McGoats.

 

[Bluenote]

You were asking the question, no? I'm genuinely interested to see how it ends up. The reports said October we'd here the findings from the re-sit. Its now December. That's why I think both parties have been told to sort it out amongst themselves.

Asking if there is a new update on the case and asking for mostly speculative opinions are two different things.

Of course you (and everyone else) are entitled to their opinions. I just don't care for another re-re-re-hashing of everyone's opinions. I'd rather be buried alive with my eyes taped open, staring at the desert sun.

All I care for now is real news.