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

[MarkvW]

So you want specifics...

Ok, how about selling bikes on Ebay to International Communists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3h7yk4Hcg

John reminds me of so many posters here lol.
.
.
.

Yes. That charge will be presented to the Court of the Spanish Inquisition! No one will expect it! Bwahahahaaaaa!

 

[HL2037]

Thanks so much for the post!! I needed the laugh!

There is no such US crime as "organized crime on an international level." That is why I could confidently make my prediction. I was being sarcastic.

I hope you are not suggesting that organized crime is legal in the US as long as the organization extends to other countries. You are making no sense, and I should know better than to answer you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks so much for the post!! I needed the laugh!

There is no such US crime as "organized crime on an international level." That is why I could confidently make my prediction. I was being sarcastic.

What I'd like to see is a detailed discussion of specific charges--not vague stuff like "he's bad and he's being seriously investigated, therefore there is a high probability he will be charged." The reason I'd like to see it is because people are asserting that Armstrong WILL be indicted, when that outcome is by no means certain.

I don't think I was derailing the discussion. It was seriously moribund when I started venting.

If you want a detailed discussion on specific charges then start reading through the "All things Legal - The Law for non Lawyers" thread- that should contain lots of information.


And yes - telling others on a forum that it is "not reasonable" to say there will be indictments unless they can bring up specifics charges is an attempt to derail discussion.

 

[MarkvW]

I hope you are not suggesting that organized crime is legal in the US as long as the organization extends to other countries. You are making no sense, and I should know better than to answer you.

You're missing my point. A crime is not a tag. It is a combination of elements. Something like:

On June 14-15,

Joe Defendant,

Did

Without lawful excuse

Exercise dominion and control

Over the property of another

With the intent to deprive that person

Of that property

In the State of Texas.

Each of the above lines represents an element of a made up theft crime. Every single line must individually be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor who can't prove every element cannot prove the crime.

Organized crime (RICO) has more elements than the crime I describe, but nobody wants to talk about the elements. They just use their emotional understanding of what organized crime is to inform their analysis rather than a careful consideration of the actual elements that make up a RICO offense. That is why statements that Armstrong will be indicted are unsupportable--such statements just represent the emotional point of view of the speaker. If you don't address precisely what the feds have to prove, how can you address precisely the probability that the feds will undertake the burden of proof?

I don't assert that Armstrong won't, or can't, be indicted. I'm asserting that we have no basis at this time to conclude that it WILL happen.

 

[MarkvW]

If you want a detailed discussion on specific charges then start reading through the "All things Legal - The Law for non Lawyers" thread- that should contain lots of information.


And yes - telling others on a forum that it is "not reasonable" to say there will be indictments unless they can bring up specifics charges is an attempt to derail discussion.

What was the subject of the discussion in the first place?

And people are free to say unreasonable things. They just shouldn't cry "troll" or "fanboy" when they get called on it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're missing my point. A crime is not a tag. It is a combination of elements. Something like:

On June 14-15,

Joe Defendant,

Did

Without lawful excuse

Exercise dominion and control

Over the property of another

With the intent to deprive that person

Of that property

In the State of Texas.

Each of the above lines represents an element of a made up theft crime. Every single line must individually be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor who can't prove every element cannot prove the crime.

Organized crime (RICO) has more elements than the crime I describe, but nobody wants to talk about the elements. They just use their emotional understanding of what organized crime is to inform their analysis rather than a careful consideration of the actual elements that make up a RICO offense. That is why statements that Armstrong will be indicted are unsupportable--such statements just represent the emotional point of view of the speaker. If you don't address precisely what the feds have to prove, how can you address precisely the probability that the feds will undertake the burden of proof?

I don't assert that Armstrong won't, or can't, be indicted. I'm asserting that we have no basis at this time to conclude that it WILL happen.

Who cares what you are asserting. This is not a court, this is a forum - where things (all things) get discussed. You don't even have anything to do with this forum except be a member - you can object, rebut or argue the information, but you have no right to suggest what is or is not for discussion.

 

[Velodude]

MarkVW's authoritative reference source:

 

[MarkvW]

Who cares what you are asserting. This is not a court, this is a forum - where things (all things) get discussed. You don't even have anything to do with this forum except be a member - you can object, rebut or argue the information, but you have no right to suggest what is or is not for discussion.

Wow! That's a wonderfully directory argument.

 

[MarkvW]

MarkVW's authoritative reference source:

Yup. Makes for a groovy double entendre.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wow! That's a wonderfully authoritarian argument.

No, it is not - it is the opposite.
You are the one who continues to "assert" what can or cannot be used for discussion.

I am quite happy to discuss all subjects - and this forum allows and even encourages all that (as long as it is not personal or insulting) as long as it is done in the appropriate thread or area - it stops people from derailing thread

If you wish to discuss this further, than open a thread in the appropriate area.

 

[Polish]

Who cares what you are asserting. This is not a court, this is a forum - where things (all things) get discussed. You don't even have anything to do with this forum except be a member - you can object, rebut or argue the information, but you have no right to suggest what is or is not for discussion.

I care.
I care what he asserts.
Not that it matters too much.
This is a "catch-all" thread on a forum - where all things "Lance" get discussed.
No rails, no derails.

Lance was "cleanish" btw.
Many others were much "dirtier".
Many of his mates were "dirtier".

 

[MarkvW]

No, it is not - it is the opposite.
You are the one who continues to "assert" what can or cannot be used for discussion.

I am quite happy to discuss all subjects - and this forum allows and even encourages all that (as long as it is not personal or insulting) as long as it is done in the appropriate thread or area - it stops people from derailing thread

If you wish to discuss this further, than open a thread in the appropriate area.

As far as I can figure out, this thread is about all things Armstrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As far as I can figure out, this thread is about all things Armstrong.

Good - so you will stop telling people what they can or cannot post about him.

 

[aphronesis]

Good - so you will stop telling people what they can or cannot post about him.

i shouldn't care about this in the least. but after two years of reading this forum (all of it, thanks), it's astonishing to see this post from a (perhaps the) member whose posts have most consistently ground speculative discussion to a halt: precisely through their insistence on links, verifiability, consistency etc.

 

[MarkvW]

Good - so you will stop telling people what they can or cannot post about him.

You can't resist telling me what to do!

 

[fatandfast]

I agree, Armstrong is talented in separating rubes from their cash....a modern day soapy smith. I would not agree that this is something to be praised as little of this cash goes to a good cause.

The vast majority of Armstrong public appearances are an effort to raise fund for the Lance Armstrong legal defense fund. He recently rode this event http://www.pelotonia.org/ it was billed as a "Landmark event" for Livestrong.....but it really was a $100,000 in cash and $100,000 in NetJets vouchers for Lance.

are you as hard on the Red Cross and United Way? Salvation Army? what about Lifeboat.com? I love Oliver, I also like the views he has as an ex pro. people who have suffered as much as pro bike racers make excellent fund raisers just the way it is..don't look too deep or this thing is going to come unraveled. Bike clubs are non profits? wait a minute. Look up Lance's a-s with a microscope and ooh how foul, but the rest of this business is really going to get you thinking

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i shouldn't care about this in the least. but after two years of reading this forum (all of it, thanks), it's astonishing to see this post from a (perhaps the) member whose posts have most consistently ground speculative discussion to a halt: precisely through their insistence on links, verifiability, consistency etc.

I have no problem with speculation.
I request links when someone asserts or claims something (rider X did this, rider y said the other) - it should not be hard to back up that if it is true. That grounds lies and mis-information to a halt, not speculation.

 

[thehog]

i shouldn't care about this in the least. but after two years of reading this forum (all of it, thanks), it's astonishing to see this post from a (perhaps the) member whose posts have most consistently ground speculative discussion to a halt: precisely through their insistence on links, verifiability, consistency etc.

Thank-you at last. Someone agrees.M drives debate into the ground. Bring back the glory days. Fark the links. When you saw it with your own eyes does that count? Thanks again. Let people open up. Stir, debate and communicate.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I hope you are not suggesting that organized crime is legal in the US as long as the organization extends to other countries. You are making no sense, and I should know better than to answer you.

The correct phrase under RICO is "criminal enterprise."

 

[Cimacoppi49]

You're missing my point. A crime is not a tag. It is a combination of elements. Something like:

On June 14-15,

Joe Defendant,

Did

Without lawful excuse

Exercise dominion and control

Over the property of another

With the intent to deprive that person

Of that property

In the State of Texas.

Each of the above lines represents an element of a made up theft crime. Every single line must individually be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor who can't prove every element cannot prove the crime.

Organized crime (RICO) has more elements than the crime I describe, but nobody wants to talk about the elements. They just use their emotional understanding of what organized crime is to inform their analysis rather than a careful consideration of the actual elements that make up a RICO offense. That is why statements that Armstrong will be indicted are unsupportable--such statements just represent the emotional point of view of the speaker. If you don't address precisely what the feds have to prove, how can you address precisely the probability that the feds will undertake the burden of proof?

I don't assert that Armstrong won't, or can't, be indicted. I'm asserting that we have no basis at this time to conclude that it WILL happen.

We have discussed here at length the likely predicate felonies to a RICO indictment of Armstrong, Johan, Thom and others. We have discussed the "elements." You must have been somewhere else, perhaps in the inner recesses of Fabiani's Pit learning the party line.

We have discussed here on multiple occasions the "elements" of various predicate felonies that the feds will have to prove regarding a RICO indictment. If you want to know precisely what the Feds will have to prove, go to the US Code and look at what is required to prove mail fraud, wire fraud, insurance fraud, fraud against the US government, conspiracy, money laundering, tax fraud, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, witness tampering and suborning perjury, to name a few off the top of my head. I'm beginning to suspect a shill. Tell us who you are and where you practice law.

 

[yourwelcome]

mail fraud, wire fraud, insurance fraud, fraud against the US government, conspiracy, money laundering, tax fraud, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, witness tampering and suborning perjury, to name a few

Regarding this incredible list of crime, are we likely to see anything happen before Lance's estate is wrapped up after his death aged 96?

 

[Race Radio]

We have discussed here at length the likely predicate felonies to a RICO indictment of Armstrong, Johan, Thom and others. We have discussed the "elements." You must have been somewhere else, perhaps in the inner recesses of Fabiani's Pit learning the party line.

We have discussed here on multiple occasions the "elements" of various predicate felonies that the feds will have to prove regarding a RICO indictment. If you want to know precisely what the Feds will have to prove, go to the US Code and look at what is required to prove mail fraud, wire fraud, insurance fraud, fraud against the US government, conspiracy, money laundering, tax fraud, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, witness tampering and suborning perjury, to name a few off the top of my head. I'm beginning to suspect a shill. Tell us who you are and where you practice law.

Next we will have our resident lawyer tell us that none of these things are against the law in the US, besides there is no evidence, and it's been a long time blah, blah, blah hater, blah

 

[Cal_Joe]

I have no problem with speculation.
I request links when someone asserts or claims something (rider X did this, rider y said the other) - it should not be hard to back up that if it is true. That grounds lies and mis-information to a halt, not speculation.

Bolded part is one of the funniest things ever. Anyone who wants a good chuckle, look at Dr. Maserati's (aka Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) posting history. I love it when there is a good laugh here.

 

[Velodude]

Next we will have our resident lawyer tell us that none of these things are against the law in the US, besides there is no evidence, and it's been a long time blah, blah, blah hater, blah

You have to give him some latitude through his inexperience. It is difficult to provide accurate and wise legal advice when you are commencing a legal "practice" by providing pro bono legal advice on the internet to an icon who has retained an army of top flight lawyers.

 

[Race Radio]

Bolded part is one of the funniest things ever. Anyone who wants a good chuckle, look at Dr. Maserati's (aka Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) posting history. I love it when there is a good laugh here.

If you like comedy check this out

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/search.php?searchid=1757351

347 versions of "You guys suck" and "Leave my man alone"