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

[DirtyWorks]

We can't expect Lance to say anything juicy until after SCA & USPS conclude.

But I am waiting for his book to come out! I can't wait to read about how he used his "influence" to get the Department of Justice to terminate his criminal investigation!

A tell-all book from such a nefarious mastermind would be really insightful. Lance could call it: "It's not about the Rules."

If only he knew what the truth was. It would clean up his reputation as a champion. Of course, the volume of facts would rival Snowden's dump and probably trigger a couple of white collar felonies.

But, no doubt, it would rehabilitate his image. No doubt.

He could strategically turn on just Thom and Hein, but again, he'd need to know what the truth actually is.

 

[mewmewmew13]

No one can beat him at being a huge tool.

He'll always have that.

 

[thehook]

When you gain great wealth. The first thing you do is "bullet proof" it. If LA did that. He will live comfortably for the rest of his life. Whatever the outcome.

 

[D-Queued]

When you gain great wealth. The first thing you should do is "bullet proof" it. If LA did that. He will live comfortably for the rest of his life. Whatever the outcome.

Fixed that for you.

On that point, there was a great story about a recording artist manager that would require his clients to sign a 'I am stupid and I am doing this against the advice of my manager' letter as part of the 'sign-on' package.

The manager then had the right to record receipt of that letter if and when the client decided to something incredibly stupid, like give away a Rolls to all of their new friends, or buy more jewelry than they had places to wear it, etc..

Now that is a bit hashed up from memory, and the more factually correct version may be on the web somewhere, but it was a great insight into the problem of attaining great wealth quickly.

Dave.

 

[Bluenote]

Fixed that for you.

On that point, there was a great story about a recording artist manager that would require his clients to sign a 'I am stupid and I am doing this against the advice of my manager' letter as part of the 'sign-on' package.

The manager then had the right to record receipt of that letter if and when the client decided to something incredibly stupid, like give away a Rolls to all of their new friends, or buy more jewelry than they had places to wear it, etc..

Now that is a bit hashed up from memory, and the more factually correct version may be on the web somewhere, but it was a great insight into the problem of attaining great wealth quickly.

Dave.

Armstrong doesn't have the mentality of a guy who thinks bad things will happen to him. He's gone headlong into so many risky situations- doping, doping post cancer, lying under oath at SCA I, his comeback, refusing a deal with USADA, talking to Oprah.

I can't imagine him sheltering his assets thinking 'oh, SCA is going to win.' Though I could see him sheltering assets if it brought some other benefit - reduced his taxes, etc...

 

[Scott SoCal]

We can't expect Lance to say anything juicy until after SCA & USPS conclude.

But I am waiting for his book to come out! I can't wait to read about how he used his "influence" to get the Department of Justice to terminate his criminal investigation!

A tell-all book from such a nefarious mastermind would be really insightful. Lance could call it: "It's not about the Rules."

If you can't add 1 + 1 then I can't help you.

 

[MarkvW]

If you can't add 1 + 1 then I can't help you.

Clinic dogma in action.

 

[peloton]

We can't expect Lance to say anything juicy until after SCA & USPS conclude.

But I am waiting for his book to come out! I can't wait to read about how he used his "influence" to get the Department of Justice to terminate his criminal investigation!

A tell-all book from such a nefarious mastermind would be really insightful. Lance could call it: "It's not about the Rules."

How else was the criminal investigation abruptly terminated?

Not really looking forward to another fiction book, but maybe that's just me.

 

[D-Queued]

How else was the criminal investigation abruptly terminated?

Not really looking forward to another fiction book, but maybe that's just me.

Perhaps it is simply the magnitude of the whole thing and it just wasn't big enough.

Quoting the Lancester:

"I viewed this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot of times."

Of course, that assessment requires a smirk on your face and an Oprah interview when you state it.

Now that line does bear considerable resemblance to a statement from Bernie Madoff:

"it's all just one big lie"

But, we are talking tens of billions versus tens of millions.

Bernie wins that contest, and goes to jail.

Lance's case gets dropped, because maybe his big lie wasn't all that big even if he did repeat it many times.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

How else was the criminal investigation abruptly terminated?

Not really looking forward to another fiction book, but maybe that's just me.

The criminal statute of limitations is a problem that the Clinic faithful are unwilling to recognize.

 

[D-Queued]

The criminal statute of limitations is a problem that the Clinic faithful are unwilling to recognize.

Perjury =/= crime?
False Claims Act <> criminal penalties?

Who knew?

Dave.

P.S. You might want to consult 18 U.S.C. ? 287. Allegedly this allows up to 5 years imprisonment for a False Claims violation. Just saying.

 

[MarkvW]

Perjury =/= crime?
False Claims Act <> criminal penalties?

Who knew?

Dave.

P.S. You might want to consult 18 U.S.C. ? 287. Allegedly this allows up to 5 years imprisonment for a False Claims violation. Just saying.

What was the YEAR of the perjury? Where did it happen? And, most importantly, what is the statute of limitations for perjury?

Same old stuff. You cite crap and you don't bother to think it through. Your post is fundamentally a lie. It is no better than the crap hoggie got banned for (and you baited him into).

 

[Scott SoCal]

What was the YEAR of the perjury? Where did it happen? And, most importantly, what is the statute of limitations for perjury?

Same old stuff. You cite crap and you don't bother to think it through. Your post is fundamentally a lie. It is no better than the crap hoggie got banned for (and you baited him into).

How funny. You call Dave a liar and then turn around and tell a lie.

Never mind how many times you've been flat out wrong with your legalese, called out for it while never missing a beat. I'm too effing lazy to look but I can almost guarantee you to be wrong on whatever legal point you are arguing as your track record betrays you.

Nobody baited hog. Hes been trolling his *** off since he got here.

 

[Hugh Januss]

How funny. You call Dave a liar and then turn around and tell a lie.

Never mind how many times you've been flat out wrong with your legalese, called out for it while never missing a beat. I'm too effing lazy to look but I can almost guarantee you to be wrong on whatever legal point you are arguing as your track record betrays you.

Nobody baited hog. Hes been trolling his *** off since he got here.

Hoggie should not have been banned for trolling, if big Dan B. wanted to pick someone to make an example of he could have done worse than our own Mark VW Yugo Saturn whatever.

 

[sittingbison]

come on guys,
lets not let this thread go down the toilet (again).

If you want to discuss thehog do so in the members thread, not here. And stop venting on each other

cheers
bison

 

[Hugh Januss]

http://youtu.be/KDM26fy9z_M

 

[D-Queued]

What was the YEAR of the perjury? Where did it happen? And, most importantly, what is the statute of limitations for perjury?

Same old stuff. You cite crap and you don't bother to think it through. Your post is fundamentally a lie. It is no better than the crap hoggie got banned for (and you baited him into).

I cite crap?

First, did you even bother to google: "False claims act criminal penalties".

The Six Most Significant Recent Amendments to the False Claims Act

I am not claiming to be any sort of genius, but before you made your post, or even the post with all of the personal accusations and ad hominem stuff, one would think that you might have done the most simple of fact checking.

Second, how about googling "Armstrong arbitration perjury" for a real recent, fully up-to-date 2015 reference.

16 Feb 2015 ... An arbitration panel ordered Lance Armstrong and Tailwind Sports Corp. to pay $10 million in a fraud dispute with a promotions company for what it called an "unparalleled pageant of international perjury, fraud and conspiracy"

What year?

2015.

Please advise us when the statute run out on that, okay?

As for the statute of limitations on the False Claims Act, apparently that is more complicated. At least that is what this Google search yielded: "False Claims Act Statute of Limitations".
The statute of limitations for a qui tam action is found in Section 3731(b) of the FCA: "A civil action under section 3730 may not be brought- (1) more than 6 years after the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed, or (2) more than 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed, whichever occurs last."

So, let's just stick with the whichever occurs last part.

So, no, the criminal statute of limitations is not something the Clinic faithful have forgotten about. We know damn well that the perjury is ongoing, because learned people are telling us this in their decisions. And we know damn well that we didn't need an Oprah confession to know that the Feds case was dropped prematurely.

Now, seriously. Is it really that hard to fact check your own stuff before you post?

Or, have you lost the story here? This is an honest, non-inflammatory, question.

Because we don't need to worry at all about anything in the past when there are at least two significant legal actions that have been ongoing in 2015. Like, right now.

Well, ok, the Arbitration decision was so, like, ten days ago.

And, Lance wasn't able to get either of these legal actions thrown out. Not for any reason, including statute of limitations issues. N'est-ce pas? And not for lack of trying.

Before replying to your post, I took the time and care to do the above searches. You know, to make sure I was focusing on the post in order to add to the dialog and not focusing on the person.

And, the "just saying" part in my reply was provided so that I wasn't rubbing it in your face, but merely correcting you.

I guess you missed that.

All of it.

Dave.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I cite crap?


Please advise us when the statute run out on that, okay?

Dave, the basic problem when lay people try to interpret the law is they don't have the legal training to understand it. The statute of limitations starts to run on the date the perjured testimony was given and not when it is reported some years later in an arbitration decision.

The testimony in which Armstrong clearly perjured himself was November 30, 2005, now some 9 plus years ago. In most jurisdictions in the US the Statute of Limitations for prosecution for perjury is 6 years. In LA's case unless a prosecution was brought before Nov. 30, 2011, then it is too late.

The mere confirmation by an arbitrator in a written decision that LA perjured himself does not resurrect the perjury to allow for a prosecution.

I am not aware if when the SCA case was re-opened LA was again deposed. If he was then Tollotson could have revisited the perjury and asked him again. And if LA admitted the perjury it may in some jurisdictions resurrect the original perjury and the time starts running again. However as I say I am not sure if this occurred. I doubt that it did because to prove their case the SCA did not need to resurrect Armstrong's original perjury.

I have no axe to grind in your debate, but you should be aware of how the law works in this area.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave, the basic problem when lay people try to interpret the law is they don't have the legal training to understand it. The statute of limitations starts to run on the date the perjured testimony was given and not when it is reported some years later in an arbitration decision.

The testimony in which Armstrong clearly perjured himself was November 30, 2005, now some 9 plus years ago. In most jurisdictions in the US the Statute of Limitations for prosecution for perjury is 6 years. In LA's case unless a prosecution was brought before Nov. 30, 2011, then it is too late.

The mere confirmation by an arbitrator in a written decision that LA perjured himself does not resurrect the perjury to allow for a prosecution.

I am not aware if when the SCA case was re-opened LA was again deposed. If he was then Tollotson could have revisited the perjury and asked him again. And if LA admitted the perjury it may in some jurisdictions resurrect the original perjury and the time starts running again. However as I say I am not sure if this occurred. I doubt that it did because to prove their case the SCA did not need to resurrect Armstrong's original perjury.

I have no axe to grind in your debate, but you should be aware of how the law works in this area.

Thanks Robbie,

I am not trying to interpret the law, at all.

But we do have a lot of facts at our fingertips, and MarkvW's post was a broad smear against "the clinic faithful".

In Lance's case, he has demonstrated that he is a recidivist liar. So, it is a reasonably safe bet that any time he goes under oath that he will probably be crossing his fingers and toes as he weaves another yarn.

Setting that probability aside, there are still two cases open against Lance that presumably could lead to criminal charges - the Qui Tam and the SCA lawsuit.

If your date of 30 Nov 2011 is correct, then the Feds should have dropped the case prior to that. But, they didn't drop the case until February 2012 and FDA spokeswoman Sarah Clark-Lynn stated that, "This is still an ongoing matter for the FDA."

Why would the FDA state that if they had already hit a roadblock on limitations?

As noted, I do not have the credentials or insight to interpret the law.

But, there remain many things that do not add up about the dropped Federal case and Statute of Limitations issues do not appear to have been a rationale. Birotte said that it was his decision, and his decision alone and that he wouldn't reveal anything.

Too many secrets and conflicting statements here if it was something as straightforward as expired statute of limitations.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Lance is back in the news (not that he left...)

Let Lance Race: A case for lifting Armstrong's lifetime ban

(unfortunately access to the story requires subscribing. But, if that is the quality of their journalism it is hard to justify the subscription)

Don't you just love this guy?

Dave.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Lance is back in the news (not that he left...)

Let Lance Race: A case for lifting Armstrong's lifetime ban

(unfortunately access to the story requires subscribing. But, if that is the quality of their journalism it is hard to justify the subscription)

Don't you just love this guy?

Dave.

I just read a bunch of his stuff on The Twitter. His argument seems to be along the lines of "everyone had to dope because organizers/associations were turning a blind eye to/encouraging"; "there's no way Lance Armstrong could have been leading the most systematic doping program in sporting history because East Germany"; "some people think he has sincerely apologized"; and "bans are not applied consistently."

Edit: all the logic emanating from a triathlete, so take it fwiw

 

[D-Queued]

I just read a bunch of his stuff on The Twitter. His argument seems to be along the lines of "everyone had to dope because organizers/associations were turning a blind eye to/encouraging"; "there's no way Lance Armstrong could have been leading the most systematic doping program in sporting history because East Germany"; "some people think he has sincerely apologized"; and "bans are not applied consistently."

Edit: all the logic emanating from a triathlete, so take it fwiw

The sport must be in really rough shape.

Dave.

 

[skippythepinhead]

The sport must be in really rough shape.

Dave.

Yeah. Back when triathlon was a thing I used to think it was silly but the required synapse doesn't even have the energy to fire anymore.

 

[D-Queued]

Lance is back in the news (not that he left...)

Let Lance Race: A case for lifting Armstrong's lifetime ban

(unfortunately access to the story requires subscribing. But, if that is the quality of their journalism it is hard to justify the subscription)

Don't you just love this guy?

Dave.

New article on the Lava Magazine site discussing this article by its author T.J. Murphy:

Crime & Punishment: Lifetime Bans For Doping Convictions?

T.J. makes some good points, that are often discussed here.

"evidence suggests ... that the governing bodies and the overall business structure of cycling collectively turned a blind eye to doping (if not encouraging it)"

and

"One of the inconsistencies I?ve mentioned has been the breadth and depth of penalties issued to cyclists of that era that have been busted. From nothing to six months to two years to Armstrong?s lifetime ban"

But, then he likens drafting in tri to doping and seems to have a narrow set of references:

My observation in scanning the various comments of ire and hatred made against him in mainstream media forums was that at least some (if not many) of the commenters were under the impression that he was the only one in cycling using PEDs, and weren?t aware that use of PEDS was rampant and part of the price of admission

Perhaps this and other forums, which are arguably at least as popular as Lava Magazine, don't count as mainstream media for T.J.

However, even if that is the case, T.J. appears completely unaware of the orchestrated deception by Lance and the employment of Public Strategies among others to flood forums and article comments with spin doctoring, along with the cancer shield, to conduct a massive deception.

Dave.

 

[mewmewmew13]

New article on the Lava Magazine site discussing this article by its author T.J. Murphy:

Crime & Punishment: Lifetime Bans For Doping Convictions?

T.J. makes some good points, that are often discussed here.

http://lavamagazine.com/crime-punishment-lifetime-bans-for-doping-convictions/

and

http://lavamagazine.com/crime-punishment-lifetime-bans-for-doping-convictions/

But, then he likens drafting in tri to doping and seems to have a narrow set of references:

http://lavamagazine.com/crime-punishment-lifetime-bans-for-doping-convictions/

Perhaps this and other forums, which are arguably at least as popular as Lava Magazine, don't count as mainstream media for T.J.

However, even if that is the case, T.J. appears completely unaware of the orchestrated deception by Lance and the employment of Public Strategies among others to flood forums and article comments with spin doctoring, along with the cancer shield, to conduct a massive deception.

Dave.

no surprise and fan of Lance..