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

[MarkvW]

Yes, obstruction.

But what realistic scenario would support that? Armstrong's going to take the Fifth in response to all intimidation questions. Where is the evidence to support an obstruction scenario going to come from?

 

[Hemassist]

One of the elements of both the SCA case and the Qui Tam case is the involvement of various groups in power in enabling multiple aspect of lance's fraud. Expect more on this. The result? Not sure

It was a shocker to see Wade Exum on list...not looking good for USAC.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It was a shocker to see Wade Exum on list...not looking good for USAC.

Very good news.

For the casual reader, Wade was a USOC regular on the bio-medical side until he got tired of the federations enabling the doping, and launched a lawsuit that went nowhere.

He knows where the bodies are buried and will have **intimate** knowledge prior to USPS of the lower-visibility doping.


http://sportsillustrated.ca/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/2/index.htm

Exum's allegations appear to be supported by minutes of USOC anti-doping committee meetings from 1999 and 2000, recently reviewed by SI. In the minutes, officials discuss how to informally test athletes for marijuana and performance-enhancing drugs—not to sanction them but to help them to avoid testing positive at the Olympics. In 2000, according to the minutes, a debate arose within the committee over whether to use Catlin's testosterone testing method (CIR) before the Sydney Games. Baaron Pittenger, the committee chair, said, "We can handle CIR in the same way we're handling marijuana in terms of notifying the athletes." In reply, Catlin said, "Just don't connect the CIR result to the athlete. Do it as a research experience." (Catlin says he doesn't recall that discussion and adds, "I was always fighting to expose the USOC and all its diddling around with everything.")

A little further down is the 9:1 T/E ratio positive that, surprise!!!, never sanctioned.

9:1 T/E ratio in a world where 2:1 is lottery odds of appearing naturally.

Never tested positive.

Thom Wiesel, Steve Johnson, what say you?

 

[Benotti69]

Don Cailtin not looking good...........

 

[D-Queued]

Don Cailtin not looking good...........

Yes, interesting.

Of course, he could have said something like that albeit in a rhetorical, back-handed or sarcastic manner. Alternately, he could have been quoted out of context.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, interesting.

Of course, he could have said something like that albeit in a rhetorical, back-handed or sarcastic manner. Alternately, he could have been quoted out of context.

Dave.

When I think how he agreed to come on board for comeback2.0, he was either incredibly stupid or took the money and ran. I think the latter.

 

[Race Radio]

But what realistic scenario would support that? Armstrong's going to take the Fifth in response to all intimidation questions. Where is the evidence to support an obstruction scenario going to come from?

So if one of the witnesses changes their testimony and talks about how lance pressured them to lie and obstruct a Federal investigation the Feds will be cool with that?

Ok

 

[D-Queued]

When I think how he agreed to come on board for comeback2.0, he was either incredibly stupid or took the money and ran. I think the latter.

As disappointed and surprised as I was back then, I hope you are right and that he did take Prance's money and run. There would be some justice in that.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

So if one of the witnesses changes their testimony and talks about how lance pressured them to lie and obstruct a Federal investigation the Feds will be cool with that?

Ok

You posit a one on one swearing contest between Lance and an admitted liar? A person who turned on Lance because Lance did him wrong?

Yeah. The feds (who didn't charge the Tyler Hamilton incident) are going to take THAT in front of a jury? And try to prove obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt?

You be crazy.

 

[D-Queued]

You posit a one on one swearing contest between Lance and an admitted liar? A person who turned on Lance because Lance did him wrong?

Yeah. The feds (who didn't charge the Tyler Hamilton incident) are going to take THAT in front of a jury? And try to prove obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt?

You be crazy.

He be crazy?

Witnesses of low repute are never, ever asked to provide testimony?

Strange.

Wouldn't fellow criminals potentially offer knowledgeable accounts?

Wouldn't a defense team be allowed to cross-examine, and provide other witnesses that would potentially expose any lying?

I guess I watch too much TV.

Dave.

 

[Berzin]

You posit a one on one swearing contest between Lance and an admitted liar?

Between Lance and an admitted liar?

And just what is Lance if not an admitted liar himself?

 

[MarkvW]

Between Lance and an admitted liar?

And just what is Lance if not an admitted liar himself?

Of course.

 

[MarkvW]

He be crazy?

Witnesses of low repute are never, ever asked to provide testimony?

Strange.

Wouldn't fellow criminals potentially offer knowledgeable accounts?

Wouldn't a defense team be allowed to cross-examine, and provide other witnesses that would potentially expose any lying?

I guess I watch too much TV.

Dave.

Simply one crook's word vs. another's is a waste of the jury's time. If the feds don't have corroboration, they're not going to charge obstructing.

The idea that Lance is at risk for criminal prosecution at this time is just airy speculation. Tuesday stuff.

 

[Race Radio]

If the feds don't have corroboration, they're not going to charge obstructing.

Sure.....nothing to see here. No pressure from employers, sponsors, to change the story. I am sure Stapleton will say nothing and it will just slowly disappear.

Yeah, I am the crazy one.

 

[D-Queued]

Of course.

Seeking an image... this should do.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Sure.....nothing to see here. No pressure from employers, sponsors, to change the story. I am sure Stapleton will say nothing and it will just slowly disappear.

Yeah, I am the crazy one.

Look at the potential pool of available witnesses that Lance might want to tamper with. It is a vanishing small pool.

Lance kept an explosive secret for a very long time. A tabloid would have paid mega for a LA doping expose. It doesn't make sense at all that Lance would share doping info with employees. Lance was never going to make himself that vulnerable to an employee. Look at his ruthless termination of TexPat when he got near the doping secret.

Stephanie McIlvain isn't forming the basis of an obstruction prosecution. Not even worth discussing.

The idea that obstructing would be based on sponsors' testimony is ridiculous. They settled out with Lance early just to avoid more negative publicity. They're not going to turn on Lance now by claiming that they knowingly promoted a doper.

Weasel will always claim he didn't know squat. Stapleton too. Those boys have money. They don't want the Feds to get it. Admitting to being in on the doping is the same thing as handing a blank check to the feds.

Of course there's always RICO, conspiracy, and influence.

 

[MarkvW]

Seeking an image... this should do.

Dave.

That works for the qui tam, that's for sure.

 

[Oldman]

Look at the potential pool of available witnesses that Lance might want to tamper with. It is a vanishing small pool.

Lance kept an explosive secret for a very long time. A tabloid would have paid mega for a LA doping expose. It doesn't make sense at all that Lance would share doping info with employees. Lance was never going to make himself that vulnerable to an employee. Look at his ruthless termination of TexPat when he got near the doping secret.

Stephanie McIlvain isn't forming the basis of an obstruction prosecution. Not even worth discussing.

The idea that obstructing would be based on sponsors' testimony is ridiculous. They settled out with Lance early just to avoid more negative publicity. They're not going to turn on Lance now by claiming that they knowingly promoted a doper.

Weasel will always claim he didn't know squat. Stapleton too. Those boys have money. They don't want the Feds to get it. Admitting to being in on the doping is the same thing as handing a blank check to the feds.

Of course there's always RICO, conspiracy, and influence.

He shared the Mutual Assured Destruction option with his employees. Many knew/know but had much to lose, including being sued. Obstruction and tampering aplenty.

 

[Race Radio]

Look at the potential pool of available witnesses that Lance might want to tamper with. It is a vanishing small pool.

Lance kept an explosive secret for a very long time. A tabloid would have paid mega for a LA doping expose. It doesn't make sense at all that Lance would share doping info with employees. Lance was never going to make himself that vulnerable to an employee. Look at his ruthless termination of TexPat when he got near the doping secret.

Stephanie McIlvain isn't forming the basis of an obstruction prosecution. Not even worth discussing.

The idea that obstructing would be based on sponsors' testimony is ridiculous. They settled out with Lance early just to avoid more negative publicity. They're not going to turn on Lance now by claiming that they knowingly promoted a doper.

Weasel will always claim he didn't know squat. Stapleton too. Those boys have money. They don't want the Feds to get it. Admitting to being in on the doping is the same thing as handing a blank check to the feds.

Of course there's always RICO, conspiracy, and influence.

So the Feds will be cool with Lance pressuring folks to lie to the Grand Jury? Avoid going under oath?

I always knew Holder was a slacker

 

[MarkvW]

So the Feds will be cool with Lance pressuring folks to lie to the Grand Jury? Avoid going under oath?

I always knew Holder was a slacker

Feds only take very strong stuff to trial. You're positing weak (and ultra speculative) stuff.

 

[Race Radio]

Feds only take very strong stuff to trial. You're positing weak (and ultra speculative) stuff.

Strong stuff......like the Qui Tam case they joined

 

[MarkvW]

Strong stuff......like the Qui Tam case they joined

Criminal cases have a MUCH higher standard of proof than civil cases (like the qui tam). Criminal cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The qui tam case looks very strong to me, besides.

Perhaps, even more importantly, the criminal fraud case was hampered by the statute of limitations, but the government could toll the statute of limitations in the civil case.

You've yet to provide any kind of plausible scenario for an obstruction prosecution. I don't think you can.

 

[Berzin]

Enough with the trolling, MARK.

As for the others-some of you constantly complain about trolling, yet you continue to feed into it.

STOP IT ALREADY.

 

[blackcat]

When I think how he agreed to come on board for comeback2.0, he was either incredibly stupid or took the money and ran. I think the latter.

As disappointed and surprised as I was back then, I hope you are right and that he did take Prance's money and run. There would be some justice in that.

Dave.

it can be both


la pussie noir

or, (c) he was incredibly stupid plus he decided to take the money and put in motoman's pannier and save his legs.

i reckon (c).

go with (c), la pussie noir's version. it is a shameless plug of motoman. he might have swapped out the ampoules of edgar allan for the brown bag of abrahams

 

[gooner]

The game is nearly up for Lance.

A federal judge has denied Lance Armstrong's request to dismiss a $100 million fraud lawsuit filed against him last year by the U.S. government.

In an 81-page ruling issued Thursday, Judge Robert Wilkins allowed the government's case to proceed, setting the stage for a long and expensive court fight against the disgraced cyclist, who stands to lose a fortune if the government prevails.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...trong-lawsuit-us-government-doping/10999179/?