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

[BillytheKid]

You can't be serious. You believe that being a witness restricts your movements, that you aren't allowed to go to places where someone you might have testified against, who might be a defendant in some legal case, might also show up? That Tyler owes LA the right to know in advance that he, Tyler, won't be someplace where LA might be, because if he were, his presence might tempt LA to do something his $1000/hour lawyers have told him over and over and over not to do? Tyler is supposed to help LA stay within the confines of the law?

Should Tyler have called Cache-Cache in advance, to find out of LA was likely to be there? Should he try to find out all the places in Aspen that LA frequents, to make sure that he never shows up at any of these places? Or not having a complete list, maybe Tyler should just avoid Aspen altogether?

You might find that it could be applicable under "witness tampering" which actually applies any legal case in the U.S. The actual intent would have to be proven however. Hard to do. Journalist can crawl behind the First Amendment (bill of rights) if pressed. Journalists have had a long list of sucessses when pressed on similar matters.

 

[BillytheKid]

Oh, hey Kid Billy, just wanted to point out that it's "whether." Of course nobody's perfect, but if one is going to constanty throw out "20 years in journalism"....

Good luck on the campaign trail to all the candidates. Looking forward to the debates.

Nice catch, but I was talking about a castrated ram.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your misstating my position. I never said it was a fact, but suspicious. Having worked in journalism for 20-years, you would think I might have a right to an informed opinion.

Aggressive reporting is nothing new. Wether Hamilton and his Outside contingent were actively seeking a desired outcome is not to be considered outside the realm of possibilities. It smacks of a Phishing expedition in my mind.

The term muckraker also comes to mind.

Here's a link if your unfamiliar with the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker

Notice that investigative reporting of today traces its roots to the early muckrakers. Investigative reporting has been known to use "sting operation" tactics. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the movement, but I still question Hamilton being at the Cache Cache. That, in my opinion, goes too far. Someone like Armstrong, who has a jet, can easily be home for dinner at a favorite restaurant having been halfway across the country that morning. Hamilton, as a potential witness, really has some burden of responsibility to avoid Mr. Armstrong all together. That would mean not going to a restaurant that he is know to frequent, especially with aquatinted journalists at hand.

Still dubious. More dubious if Outside publishes a cover story out of it.

This would be true - but there is nothing "informed" about your opinion.

 

[cat6cx]

You might find that it could be applicable under "witness tampering" which actually applies any legal case in the U.S. The actual intent would have to be proven however. Hard to do. Journalist can crawl behind the First Amendment (bill of rights) if pressed. Journalists have had a long list of sucessses when pressed on similar matters.

Simply wrong.

 

[VeloCity]

I stand by my opinion that TH showing up at the Cache Cache with his Outside friends just off stage is over the line.

Over what line?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

The key point that Billy keeps ignoring is the fact that Larner informed LA that Tyler was in the restaurant.

It's a restaurant, not Lance's house, of course Tyler (or anyone else on the planet) can go eat there.

The fact that LA was informed that Tyler was there (whether before or after LA arrived) puts the onus of responsibility on LA to keep his distance.

Billy's assertion that it was Tyler's responsibility to not go anywhere near the restaurant is ridiculous troll-babble obfuscation.

Ignore.

 

[BillytheKid]

You can't be serious. You believe that being a witness restricts your movements, that you aren't allowed to go to places where someone you might have testified against, who might be a defendant in some legal case, might also show up? That Tyler owes LA the right to know in advance that he, Tyler, won't be someplace where LA might be, because if he were, his presence might tempt LA to do something his $1000/hour lawyers have told him over and over and over not to do? Tyler is supposed to help LA stay within the confines of the law?

Should Tyler have called Cache-Cache in advance, to find out of LA was likely to be there? Should he try to find out all the places in Aspen that LA frequents, to make sure that he never shows up at any of these places? Or not having a complete list, maybe Tyler should just avoid Aspen altogether?

Journalist do make calls, snoop around and do what you seem to think unlikely. TH was in their company for part of the day. So yes, I am serious.

How else would journalists operate? Hold their fingure in the air and hope information lands in their lap. Naive.

 

[BillytheKid]

The key point that Billy keeps ignoring is the fact that Larner informed LA that Tyler was in the restaurant.

It's a restaurant, not Lance's house, of course Tyler (or anyone else on the planet) can go eat there.

The fact that LA was informed that Tyler was there (whether before or after LA arrived) puts the onus of responsibility on LA to keep his distance.

Billy's assertion that it was Tyler's responsibility to not go anywhere near the restaurant is ridiculous troll-babble obfuscation.

Ignore.

At what point did Larner inform LA?

 

[thirteen]

If the Feds thought there was anything to the claims they would investigate first but not necessarily need to charge anyone straight away. That LA has been silent on the matter is very interesting. Not so much as one glib tweet? I wonder why.

The fact that there were no pro-TH witnesses coupled with the penalties for falsely accusing someone of this act suggests to me that it was not staged and that LA probably did accost him in the way he claims. That the restaurant owner has adjusted her story regarding LA's presence and her part in warning him add weight to this, IMO.

It also doesn't help that LA has a history of confronting his critics in a head-on manner. Simeoni, Bassons & Lemond are only the ones we've heard of.

but there was a pro-TH witness (he went over to the bar because he saw a friend). whether she heard the conversation, i don't know. but i'm sure she at least saw the body language.

and, yes, the lack of a glib tweet from the prince of arrogance does make one wonder...

 

[BillytheKid]

This would be true - but there is nothing "informed" about your opinion.

So real working experience in a trade gives one no insight? Informed is used as being synonymous with insight.

 

[BillytheKid]

Simply wrong.

Be specific. How so?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So real working experience in a trade gives one no insight? Informed is used as being synonymous with insight.

Informed means informed.
Insight means insight.

You claim to have insight of the trade - but the information does back up your opinion.

 

[BillytheKid]

Informed means informed.
Insight means insight.

You claim to have insight of the trade - but the information does back up your opinion.

All right, if you quibble on word choice, then insight it is.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

At what point did Larner inform LA?

Larner stated that she informed LA that TH was at the restaurant. Someone with the quick-draw link fingers will back me up I'm sure...

At what point - I'm assuming you mean whether it was before LA was actually at the restaurant, or as he showed up at the door - is inconsequential. The fact is that LA was informed of TH's presence, and decided to not only continue into the restaurant, but proceeded to approach TH. Not surprising, considering his MO, but not good.

 

[BillytheKid]

Larner stated that she informed LA that TH was at the restaurant. Someone with the quick-draw link fingers will back me up I'm sure...

At what point - I'm assuming you mean whether it was before LA was actually at the restaurant, or as he showed up at the door - is inconsequential. The fact is that LA was informed of TH's presence, and decided to not only continue into the restaurant, but proceeded to approach TH. Not surprising, considering his MO, but not good.

Not inconsequential at all. If say, LA was already seated at the bar, then informed, that would make a difference. As to the fact of who approach who remains circumstantial.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Not inconsequential at all. If say, LA was already seated at the bar, then informed, that would make a difference. As to the fact of who approach who remains circumstantial.

Why would that make a difference? It doesn't change the fact that it was LA who was made privy to TH's presence in the restaurant. That fact puts the onus on LA.

 

[MacRoadie]

Larner stated that she informed LA that TH was at the restaurant. Someone with the quick-draw link fingers will back me up I'm sure...

At what point - I'm assuming you mean whether it was before LA was actually at the restaurant, or as he showed up at the door - is inconsequential. The fact is that LA was informed of TH's presence, and decided to not only continue into the restaurant, but proceeded to approach TH. Not surprising, considering his MO, but not good.

Aspen Daily News

Larner said she knew Armstrong would be coming into the restaurant that night and gave him a heads up that Hamilton was eating dinner on the patio with a group. As a restaurant owner in a small town, she said she extends the same courtesy to divorcees when one is coming in and the other is already there.

She says she "knew Armstrong would be coming into the restaurant that night". She doesn't say she saw him walking in, or saw him sitting in the bar. She further indicated to the reporter that she extends the same couresy to divorcees when "one is coming in", not "when one arrives" or "when one is there".

"Would be coming in" is the affirmative conditional progressive tense in English, placing the emphasis on a course of action which might take place (yet hasn't). As opposed to "had come in", or "was in" indicating an action that has already occurred (past perfect tense).

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Thanks, Mac. The grammatical investigation will help some posters as well, no doubt. Maybe even some journalists with years of experience...

 

[MacRoadie]

A staged media event? So carefully planned they forgot to have anyone there to record it?

This is the point I can't get my arms around. Outside goes to the effort and expense to make a reservation on a day Armstrong is out of town, has "all" these reporters and editors attend the dinner, then has them all sit outside (pardon the pun) while Tyler ventures off alone into the lions den that is the men's room at cache Cache? Not one of thise cadre of reporters within ear shot of the conversation?

Then, to top it all off in a final devious stroke, Outside publishes an article that by ANY defintion is at the very least Armstrong-neutral, and to many could even be read as somewhat sympathetic to Armstrong and highly critical of Landis.

 

[BillytheKid]

Aspen Daily News



She says she "knew Armstrong would be coming into the restaurant that night". She doesn't say she saw him walking in, or saw him sitting in the bar. She further indicated to the reporter that she extends the same couresy to divorcees when "one is coming in", not "when one arrives" or "when one is there".

"Would be coming in" is the affirmative conditional progressive tense in English, placing the emphasis on a course of action which might take place (yet hasn't). As opposed to "had come in", or "was in" indicating an action that has already occurred (past perfect tense).

A good lesson in grammar, but the statement still does not make clear at what point she gave LA the "heads up." Say she could not reach him by phone, missed him coming in the Cache Cache? Interesting that she knew he was coming in. So by her account it was not unexpected at all. A reservation perhaps? Interesting.

 

[thirteen]

question for Billy who thinks this was all a set-up.

how were the journalists to know that A)LA went there frequently -- only reference to that that i've seen is from the owner (read publicity) and that is after the fact and B) that he would be there that night?

if you google LA and Cache Cache, it is mostly endless pages of this event -- not much of any other mention. whereas there were numerous stories (and tweets) of LA enjoying the sushi at Matsuhisa.

 

[cat6cx]

Be specific. How so?

Wrong , in that it is an incorrect conclusion.

You are stating that TH entering a public place where LA is known to frequent could be considered witness tampering on the part of TH.

Are you really going to stand by that argument? Remember your assertion that TH could have used a police scanner to find out when LA’s plane would arrive?

I don’t know you Billy, so I won’t try to pass judgment on your intelligence. However, your conclusions in the context of this argument seem ill formed and improbable at best.

Also (and from me this really is the pot calling the kettle black), your grammatical errors are striking for a “journalist” of 20years. Combined with your outlandish arguments, your credibility is taking a beating.

 

[MacRoadie]

A good lesson in grammar, but the statement still does not make clear at what point she gave LA the "heads up." Say she could not reach him by phone, missed him coming in the Cache Cache? Interesting that she knew he was coming in. So by her account it was not unexpected at all. A reservation perhaps? Interesting.

As to your first point of speculation, there are myriad scenarios that you can dream up regarding how and when Armstrong was notified of Hamiltons presence, but Ms. Larner has never elaborated (although the opportunity certainly existed) on the how and when of the notification.

Apparently the grammar lesson didn't sink in.

As to your second point of speculation, she makes no reference to a reservation, a very simple and clarifying statement that would remove a great deal of doubt surrounding the encounter.

This is a smalltown restaurant, one (allegedly) frequented by Armstrong, and owned by a restauranteur who considers Armstrong a friend. It is doubtful he needs a reservation. Also, given her self-proclaimed sensitivity towards guest privacy, it's unlikely there was a book left open on the maitre d's podium with "Armstrong, party of 4" written on the page. Nor is it likely that someone can simply ring up the restaurant and ask "Hey, is Lance Armstrong eating there tonight"?

 

[MacRoadie]

Say she could not reach him by phone, missed him coming in the Cache Cache?

So, then she says "I saw Lance in the bar/restaurant/patio and let him know Hamilton was here". All the babble about knowing Armstrong would be coming in, and going out of her way to explain giving him forewarning like she does for divorcees, becomes moot. It's too late to forewarn, because he's already there

This is growing tiresome.

 

[BillytheKid]

Wrong , in that it is an incorrect conclusion.

You are stating that TH entering a public place where LA is known to frequent could be considered witness tampering on the part of TH.

Are you really going to stand by that argument? Remember your assertion that TH could have used a police scanner to find out when LA’s plane would arrive?

I don’t know you Billy, so I won’t try to pass judgment on your intelligence. However, your conclusions in the context of this argument seem ill formed and improbable at best.

Also, (and from me this really is the pot calling the kettle black), your grammatical errors are striking for a “journalist” of 20years. Combined with your outlandish arguments, your credibility is taking a beating.

Don't put words in my mouth! That's not what I wrote. As journalist, I used a police scanner daily. They are not limited to police channels only. Air traffic can be monitored. I never said TH used one. I was citing means by witch journalists gather information. Usually you monitor for flight with problems or problem passengers. It would then be possible to know if LA had returned to Aspen IF using one and IF you knew the aircraft call letters. I was merely stating means by which you could know about an incoming flight and his whereabouts. It's what is possible, not what is fact.