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

[Race Radio]

is the any possibility of LA facing perjury charges in the UK (from the SCA case)?

Not in the UK but the London Times is exploring charges around their libel settlement. Armstrong could be exposed to not just expenses but also significant penalties.

 

[Race Radio]

My personal opinion is that Armstrong is a loathsome creature (lower than Papp or Landis or even Rasmussen). I'd like to see an indictment that requires proof that he was a doper, but I can't be a cheerleader because I have not seen anything like sufficient proof for a criminal charge. And sufficient proof just gets you to the starting gate. The Attorney General has huge discretion. Armstrong would never be charged based on mere probable cause--the feds would want good, convincing evidence--like they had for Bonds, Clemens, and Hairy Tammy.

Time is the friend of the defendant. Very rarely does a good thing happen after a continuance. Memories fade, attitudes shift, people get lost or die. This would be obvious to an experienced prosecutor.

You need PC to get a search warrant. The prosecutor would want a search warrant if he was after documents. Documents are the bread and butter of a fraud/tax prosecution. The fact that there have been no such warrants is is an indicator that no PC for a warrant exists. Subpoenas duces tecum suck compared to a warrant because you can grab the docs before the target can lose them or modify them. The subpoena depends on voluntary compliance and contempt sanctions.

I am rebelling against the unsupportable assertion that an indictment WILL be coming. Nobody talking about charges on this forum has ever talked about a concrete charge (with elements and facts and a date of offense). It is just "drumroll" in different forms, over and over again.

Such a concrete discussion would be useful. If I could come up with a plausible charge, I'd start the discussion. But I can't. And so far, neither can anybody else.

Possible charges, and evidence, have been discussed multiple times here. Sorry you missed it

It is this thread
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12137

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My personal opinion is that Armstrong is a loathsome creature (lower than Papp or Landis or even Rasmussen). I'd like to see an indictment that requires proof that he was a doper, but I can't be a cheerleader because I have not seen anything like sufficient proof for a criminal charge. And sufficient proof just gets you to the starting gate. The Attorney General has huge discretion. Armstrong would never be charged based on mere probable cause--the feds would want good, convincing evidence--like they had for Bonds, Clemens, and Hairy Tammy.

Time is the friend of the defendant. Very rarely does a good thing happen after a continuance. Memories fade, attitudes shift, people get lost or die. This would be obvious to an experienced prosecutor.

You need PC to get a search warrant. The prosecutor would want a search warrant if he was after documents. Documents are the bread and butter of a fraud/tax prosecution. The fact that there have been no such warrants is is an indicator that no PC for a warrant exists. Subpoenas duces tecum suck compared to a warrant because you can grab the docs before the target can lose them or modify them. The subpoena depends on voluntary compliance and contempt sanctions.

I am rebelling against the unsupportable assertion that an indictment WILL be coming. Nobody talking about charges on this forum has ever talked about a concrete charge (with elements and facts and a date of offense). It is just "drumroll" in different forms, over and over again.

Such a concrete discussion would be useful. If I could come up with a plausible charge, I'd start the discussion. But I can't. And so far, neither can anybody else.

That would be because there are (as yet) no concrete charges.
What people here are discussing is the potential charges that will arise from this ongoing investigation.

Before you ask why am I confident that some charges will come out of this investigation - in your very long post you didn't answer my question of whether you believed this investigation would not show any illegal activity.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

My personal opinion is that Armstrong is a loathsome creature (lower than Papp or Landis or even Rasmussen). I'd like to see an indictment that requires proof that he was a doper, but I can't be a cheerleader because I have not seen anything like sufficient proof for a criminal charge. And sufficient proof just gets you to the starting gate. The Attorney General has huge discretion. Armstrong would never be charged based on mere probable cause--the feds would want good, convincing evidence--like they had for Bonds, Clemens, and Hairy Tammy.

Time is the friend of the defendant. Very rarely does a good thing happen after a continuance. Memories fade, attitudes shift, people get lost or die. This would be obvious to an experienced prosecutor.

You need PC to get a search warrant. The prosecutor would want a search warrant if he was after documents. Documents are the bread and butter of a fraud/tax prosecution. The fact that there have been no such warrants is is an indicator that no PC for a warrant exists. Subpoenas duces tecum suck compared to a warrant because you can grab the docs before the target can lose them or modify them. The subpoena depends on voluntary compliance and contempt sanctions.

I am rebelling against the unsupportable assertion that an indictment WILL be coming. Nobody talking about charges on this forum has ever talked about a concrete charge (with elements and facts and a date of offense). It is just "drumroll" in different forms, over and over again.

Such a concrete discussion would be useful. If I could come up with a plausible charge, I'd start the discussion. But I can't. And so far, neither can anybody else.

How do you know that "no such warrants have been issued?" Has Novitsky been leaking information to you?

 

[Oldman]

How do you know this?

Reliable heresay from nervous accounting people to a friend. All near Weisel's home territory to add drama. Don't have a clue what will come of it.

 

[MarkvW]

Possible charges, and evidence, have been discussed multiple times here. Sorry you missed it

It is this thread
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12137

Nothing concrete there / here. Press ALT F4 for more information.

 

[Oldman]

Nothing concrete there / here. Press ALT F4 for more information.

It's never concrete until the mix hardens. Plenty of ingredients, though; just waiting for the added water.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nothing concrete there / here. Press ALT F4 for more information.

Which is why they used the word "possible".

If you believe that no-one should state an opinion until something "concrete" appears then I fully understand that (even if I ignore it) and will welcome you back to the discussion when charges arise.

 

[Race Radio]

Nothing concrete there / here.

 

[MacRoadie]

Respect my authoritah!

 

[MarkvW]

Which is why they used the word "possible".

If you believe that no-one should state an opinion until something "concrete" appears then I fully understand that (even if I ignore it) and will welcome you back to the discussion when charges arise.

A fluid discussion of possible charges has its utility--but that utility does not extend to prediction of the likelihood of indictment.

 

[JRTinMA]

A fluid discussion of possible charges has its utility--but that utility does not extend to prediction of the likelihood of indictment.

I have read in this forum that LA will be indicted somewhere between imminent and Christmas, no specific year was noted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A fluid discussion of possible charges has its utility--but that utility does not extend to prediction of the likelihood of indictment.

Says who?

And we can discuss possible charges, but not discuss possible indictments on those possible charges?

 

[Race Radio]

I have read in this forum that LA will be indicted somewhere between imminent and Christmas, no specific year was noted.

I also read that Lance is the worlds most tested athlete who would never dope after cancer and used Dr. Ferrari just for intervals.....oh, and something about unicorns.

The reality is since this started a year ago most have said it will take a long time, possibly years. As long as Armstrong keeps intimidating witnesses expect it to drag on.

 

[MarkvW]

Says who?

And we can discuss possible charges, but not discuss possible indictments on those possible charges?

And it devolves to that.

Because charges are POSSIBLE, therefore an indictment will come.

Good hater logic, but not good logic.

 

[MarkvW]

I also read that Lance is the worlds most tested athlete who would never dope after cancer and used Dr. Ferrari just for intervals.....oh, and something about unicorns.

The reality is since this started a year ago most have said it will take a long time, possibly years. As long as Armstrong keeps intimidating witnesses expect it to drag on.

And the flu season will be lasting longer this year too, because Lance keeps intimidating witnesses.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And it devolves to that.

Because charges are POSSIBLE, therefore an indictment will come.

Good hater logic, but not good logic.

I wouldn't go giving lessons on logic if I were you -reread my post, possible charges, possible indictments.

 

[Polish]

Possible this. possible that.
Possible charges and possible indictments.
Sure, anything is possible.

But only one thing is CERTAIN.
Verdict of NOT GUILTY on ALL charges.
Or a mistrial with ALL charges dropped.
Hippity Hoppity you can quote me on that.

 

[Velodude]

I also read that Lance is the worlds most tested athlete who would never dope after cancer and used Dr. Ferrari just for intervals.....oh, and something about unicorns.

The reality is since this started a year ago most have said it will take a long time, possibly years. As long as Armstrong keeps intimidating witnesses expect it to drag on.

Au contraire, I heard from the horse's mouth that Ferrari was solely limited to being the European data collector to relay for assessment by LA's real coach in the USA, Mr. Christopher Carmichael.

You know when L.E. Armstrong is lying - his lips are moving!

 

[Race Radio]

And it devolves to that.

Because charges are POSSIBLE, therefore an indictment will come.

Good hater logic, but not good logic.

Not exactly.

The investigation involves agents from the DEA, IRS, FBI, And FDA. It has been approved by the highest levels of the justice department. Logic would say that the continued approval of the investigation by the top of the justice department points to a high possibility of charges......but logic has never been strong point of the groupies

 

[MarkvW]

How do you know that "no such warrants have been issued?" Has Novitsky been leaking information to you?

If the warrants had been issued, they would have been served, and that would have been in the news.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

If the warrants had been issued, they would have been served, and that would have been in the news.

Wow. You are naive.

 

[MarkvW]

Not exactly.

The investigation involves agents from the DEA, IRS, FBI, And FDA. It has been approved by the highest levels of the justice department. Logic would say that the continued approval of the investigation by the top of the justice department points to a high possibility of charges......but logic has never been strong point of the groupies

You could have made a similar argument about the investigation of Martin Luther King, and the security guard at the Atlanta Olympics. Terrorists are getting the dickens investigated out of them, but as for charges . . . Not so much.

And groupies? Please. Why devolve to name calling?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You could have made a similar argument about the investigation of Martin Luther King, and the security guard at the Atlanta Olympics. Terrorists are getting the dickens investigated out of them, but as for charges . . . Not so much.

And groupies? Please. Why devolve to name calling?

Why indeed....

And it devolves to that.

Because charges are POSSIBLE, therefore an indictment will come.

Good hater logic, but not good logic.

 

[MarkvW]

Wow. You are naive.

Oh yeah, the feds did sneaks and peeks on Lance and the judge has sealed the warrant returns for months . . .

In the words of Eliza Doolittle, not . . . likely.