Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Cyclist Encoders]

FFS! You don't listen.

It is not what is 'fair' from a legal standpoint.

Listen up this time: Tyler IS a witness who has given testimony to an empaneled federal Grand Jury. He IS -- read: IIIIZZZZ -- a federal witness. He IS thus protected by federal statutes prohibiting his intimidation and harassment. That will be the case until the GJ disbands. You can't just wish that away or spin some fantasy negating it.

And Armstrong is not -- is NOT -- a defendant in anything at this point. So the same rules do NOT apply. Do NOT. Apply. He is not -- read IIIZZZ NOOOOOTT! -- entitled to any protections beyond that of any other citizen.

Do you get it yet?
It doesn't matter what you wish were true about their 'fair' 'legal standpoint'. Your view on that is just crazy, unrelated to reality, and thankfully means nothing to the feds. They have their purview, and this is well within it now.

Remains to be seen what they can make stick. But don't try to reweave the narrative of the rights, responsibilities, and protections of two people with very different legal standing, into an argument for their essential equality. Federal law doesn't support that AT ALL. And the federal laws here are what matters, not the opinion of an uninformed fool. The facts of what's legal and what's not, in this incident, are known, are at hand, and you ignore them as you will, but I won't respond to you again about this. Your purpose here is obvious, but these waters won't be muddied.

Thanks, Shawn, but the law is rarely completely black and white. The federal authorities have what is known as discretion. It's been widely reported that Armstrong is one the central figures that is being targeted in this investigation - it's very hard to believe Hamilton will not have known that. Therefore it's very unwise for him to turn up at a known place where Armstrong is a regular and put himself and LA in a compromising situation where inevitably there could be a dispute over the precise nature of any verbal exchange.

Luckily from Armstrong's point of view, despite the exchange of words taking place in front of a room of people, not a single witness has come forward to verify the claim that Armstrong made any threats, so it's unlikely he will face charges. But you can see how a situation like this could lead to a debate over who heard precisely what, what form of words were used and the nuance over those words. Tyler really shouldn't have put himself in the position where that could happen. If Armstrong weren't the big nasty guy and Tyler the weak mild mannered character, it might even seem deliberate.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

So - again, where was it known that LA went there 3 times a week?

Even if it was a chance encounter Armstrong stopped Tyler - then berated him. Which is intimidating a witness.

So - again, where is it known that Armstrong berated Tyler? Show me the witness? And where is known that Armstrong does not go to this place three times a week when in town?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks, Shawn, but the law is rarely completely black and white. The federal authorities have what is known as discretion. It's been widely reported that Armstrong is one the central figures that is being targeted in this investigation - it's very hard to believe Hamilton will not have known that. Therefore it's very unwise for him to turn up at a known place where Armstrong is a regular and put himself and LA in a compromising situation where inevitably there could be a dispute over the precise nature of any verbal exchange.

Luckily from Armstrong's point of view, despite the exchange of words taking place in front of a room of people, not a single witness has come forward to verify the claim that Armstrong made any threats, so it's unlikely he will face charges. But you can see how a situation like this could lead to a debate over who heard precisely what, what form of words were used and the nuance over those words. Tyler really shouldn't have put himself in the position where that could happen. If Armstrong weren't the big nasty guy and Tyler the weak mild mannered character, it might even seem deliberate.

When you say the Law is not very black or white - is there a law for 'Intimidation of a defendant'?

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Where's his house? How good a friend?

Dave.

It's reported that his house is near to the resturant, and the user Dr Maserati has said the owner was his good friend. This matches the reports that I have seen.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So - again, where is it known that Armstrong berated Tyler? Show me the witness? And where is known that Armstrong does not go to this place three times a week when in town?

Hamilton said it - and Armstrong did not deny talking to him.

Again - it is you that claims it should be known that this restaurant is a well known haunt of Armstrongs so again can you show how he would know that and don't forget the address of LA's Aspen home that I asked for already. Thanks

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

When you say the Law is not very black or white - is there a law for 'Intimidation of a defendant'?

Are you saying there is a law that allows for a defendant to be intimidated?

You see, we can go around and around with the semantics. The central point is it was not wise for Tyler to be there and also wrong for Armstrong to use any threats, although no threats have been witnessed. The feds should use their discrection to warn both to stay away from each other and leave it at that.

I know we're all very keen here for bad things to happen to Mr Armstrong, but if the authorities are fair that is how they should deal with this incident.

 

[MarkvW]

Thanks, Shawn, but the law is rarely completely black and white. The federal authorities have what is known as discretion. It's been widely reported that Armstrong is one the central figures that is being targeted in this investigation - it's very hard to believe Hamilton will not have known that. Therefore it's very unwise for him to turn up at a known place where Armstrong is a regular and put himself and LA in a compromising situation where inevitably there could be a dispute over the precise nature of any verbal exchange.

Luckily from Armstrong's point of view, despite the exchange of words taking place in front of a room of people, not a single witness has come forward to verify the claim that Armstrong made any threats, so it's unlikely he will face charges. But you can see how a situation like this could lead to a debate over who heard precisely what, what form of words were used and the nuance over those words. Tyler really shouldn't have put himself in the position where that could happen. If Armstrong weren't the big nasty guy and Tyler the weak mild mannered character, it might even seem deliberate.

Of course you're right. If prosecutors could control their witnesses they would keep them as far away from other suspects and witnesses as possible. But humans are humans and crazy stuff happens.

Lance berating Tyler for talking on TV is not the same thing as Lance berating Tyler for his GJ testimony. That's a nuance that complicates things.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you saying there is a law that allows for a defendant to be intimidated?

You see, we can go around and around with the semantics. The central point is it was not wise for Tyler to be there and also wrong for Armstrong to use any threats, although no threats have been witnessed. The feds should use their discrection to warn both to stay away from each other and leave it at that.

I know we're all very keen here for bad things to happen to Mr Armstrong, but if the authorities are fair that is how they should deal with this incident.

Why should the "Feds use their discretion"? You do know what the I in FBI stands for, right?

 

[mewmewmew13]

aaargh...
I wish someone would just shoot this thread already and put it out of its misery

 

[MarkvW]

When you say the Law is not very black or white - is there a law for 'Intimidation of a defendant'?

Don't be silly. Of course there is. A defendant is always a potential witness and is entitled to the same protections as any other witness.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Hamilton said it - and Armstrong did not deny talking to him.

...but did deny what Hamilton said, and the witnesses back him.

Again - it is you that claims it should be known that this restaurant is a well known haunt of Armstrongs so again can you show how he would know that and don't forget the address of LA's Aspen home that I asked for already. Thanks

It's reported that Tyler believed Armstrong to be out of town, so yes it would strongly appear he did know this was Armstrong's local hangout. It's also somewhere that dates back many years from when he knew Armstrong.

It's also reported that the restaurant is in Armstrong's neighbourhood and I haven't seen Tyler's people or anyone else deny this. Do you have evidence that it's not the case?

 

[D-Queued]

It's reported that his house is near to the resturant, and the user Dr Maserati has said the owner was his good friend. This matches the reports that I have seen.

All the reports that I have seen suggest you are a paid shill.

I can provide links and references. Can you?

Dave.

 

[Maxiton]

Good call, Dr Maserati. BPC, by now you must have at least seven yellow jerseys in forum trolling. Gotta hand it to you there.

In any event, what we say here is of little consequence in this situation. Subject A is under investigation for various alleged federal crimes. Subject B has testified and will testify against him. The FBI is investigating whether the suspect, Subject A, approached the witness, Subject B, for the purpose of retaliation, intimidation, or other interference, which is a federal crime all on its own. The investigators will turn their findings over to a prosecutor, who will decide whether to issue an indictment. If the suspect, Subject A, had accomplices, they will likely also be indicted.

It bears repeating. You might wish it were different but there it is.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Why should the "Feds use their discretion"? You do know what the I in FBI stands for, right?

Yes and they have discretion over how to investigate matters depending on circumstances.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...but did deny what Hamilton said, and the witnesses back him.

I thought the 'witnesses' said (to the press) that they did not hear the conversation. Can you link to this new development.

It's reported that Tyler believed Armstrong to be out of town, so yes it would strongly appear he did know this was Armstrong's local hangout. It's also somewhere that dates back many years from when he knew Armstrong.

It's also reported that the restaurant is in Armstrong's neighbourhood and I haven't seen Tyler's people or anyone else deny this. Do you have evidence that it's not the case?

You can link that as well.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Good call, Dr Maserati. BPC, by now you must have at least seven yellow jerseys in forum trolling. Gotta hand it to you there.

I did think I was being baited by a pro troll. He would ask silly questions like "do you have Armstrong's address" and "how do you know he attends there three times a week?", as if I cannot rely on the owners comments that nobody has deputed but he CAN rely on the disputed comments of Tyler for his argument.

No wonder this guy has seven yellow jerseys for trolling. I feel like a bit of a mug.

 

[MacRoadie]

As I understand it Tyler is not yet a witness in an investigation..

Aaide from that little fact that he was subpoenaed and testified before a federal grand jury. A grand jury assembled to review evidence and hear testimony gathered by federal investigators. Aside from that you're right, there is no investigation.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

I thought the 'witnesses' said (to the press) that they did not hear the conversation. Can you link to this new development.

Tyler said the conversation took place in the bar area in front of a room of people, which is why he asked to go outside where they could not hear. He said Armstrong did not care. The person who did not hear the words was the person behind the bar.

You can link that as well.

So you're now disputing that it has been reported that this restaurant is local to Armstrong? I don't know what you get out of trolling me. If you don't care for the subject then don't talk about it - you don't have to spoil a thread with nonsense requests and silly questions.

 

[MarkvW]

All the reports that I have seen suggest you are a paid shill.

I can provide links and references. Can you?

Dave.

Ah, the familiar "paid shill" attack!

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Aaide from that little fact that he was subpoenaed and testified before a federal grand jury. A grand jury assembled to review evidence and hear testimony gathered by federal investigators. Aside from that you're right, there is no investigation.

Fair play for actually catching me out on something genuine. Dr Maserati tried his best with niggly nonsense but couldn't.

I of course meant trial rather than investigation.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Ah, the familiar "paid shill" attack!

It's funny that they use the same tactics against me as they accuse Armstrong. Smear him as being paid off, use threatening language, get someone in authority to take him out of the game.

It's interesting. Maybe we're all more like the people we hate in life than we like to think.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Tyler said the conversation took place in the bar area in front of a room of people, which is why he asked to go outside where they could not hear. He said Armstrong did not care. The person who did not hear the words was the person behind the bar.



So you're now disputing that it has been reported that this restaurant is local to Armstrong? I don't know what you get out of trolling me. If you don't care for the subject then don't talk about it - you don't have to spoil a thread with nonsense requests and silly questions.

I'll remind you that you wrote this:

Do you have any evidence it's not the case? It's right near his house and as you point out the owner is a good friend.

.... so you made that up, right?

So it is not nonsense to request you to back up what you say.

 

[MarkvW]

It's funny that they use the same tactics against me as they accuse Armstrong. Smear him as being paid off, use threatening language, get someone in authority to take him out of the game.

It's interesting. Maybe we're all more like the people we hate in life than we like to think.

They've also thrown the sockpuppet accusation out there. Heck, were not just a lot like each other, we're also a lot like chimpanzees!

 

[MacRoadie]

Yes and they have discretion over how to investigate matters depending on circumstances.

Which is why the FBI immediately contacted Cache Cache and instructed them to preserve any video evidence that may exist. They could have used their discretion and simply brushed it off as an innocent run-in but they didn't. They used their discretion and judgement to determine that extra investigation was needed, up to and including a subpoena if necessary.

 

[BYOP88]

I did think I was being baited by a pro troll. He would ask silly questions like "do you have Armstrong's address" and "how do you know he attends there three times a week?", as if I cannot rely on the owners comments that nobody has deputed but he CAN rely on the disputed comments of Tyler for his argument.

No wonder this guy has seven yellow jerseys for trolling. I feel like a bit of a mug.

When ship Armstrong goes down, do you have a place on it too?