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

[Hugh Januss]

Most tested professional cyclist from Texas, of all time.

 

[Anonymous]

Posting totals for this thread...It seems to be a pretty big deal to some, but it is a great big ****ing humongous gargantuan deal to Poish lol. Keep hoeing the row because you care 57.00636942675179% more than I do lol, ssdd.
Polish 314
Cimacoppi49 281
Dr. Maserati 277
thehog 259
Race Radio 258
MarkvW 239
D-Queued 222
MacRoadie 202
Benotti69 185
JRTinMA 168
mewmewmew13 164
Oldman 160
ChrisE 159
Velodude 149
Thoughtforfood 135

 

[Anonymous]

Most tested professional cyclist from Texas, of all time.

Not to mention most tested athlete with a mom named Linda who, whenever she stands next to one of Lance's ex's or future ex's, looks eerily similar lol ssdd.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Oh I'm still in the fray. Yes! Not much activity lately but happy to see I'm still around. I was pleased to see RR's post today.
Heartwarming lol.

 

[Cloxxki]

I just can't get enough of the concept that Lance just might not even be the most tested professional cyclist from the USA, by the name of Armstrong.

 

[Spider1964]

Posting totals for this thread...It seems to be a pretty big deal to some, but it is a great big ****ing humongous gargantuan deal to Poish lol. Keep hoeing the row because you care 57.00636942675179% more than I do lol, ssdd.
Polish 314
Cimacoppi49 281
Dr. Maserati 277
thehog 259
Race Radio 258
MarkvW 239
D-Queued 222
MacRoadie 202
Benotti69 185
JRTinMA 168
mewmewmew13 164
Oldman 160
ChrisE 159
Velodude 149
Thoughtforfood 135

She cares 132.5925925% more... Grrr. Lazer like focus TFF. lol.

 

[Anonymous]

She cares 132.5925925% more... Grrr. Lazer like focus TFF. lol.

Spiderman, you've discovered why I went to law school and not medical school!!!

And it took me about 5 minutes to figure out how you got there. I understood the concept, but the computation method...well, I never took math past HS Trig.

 

[9000ft]

That didn't take long - as I said on the previous page -
"yes he doped, but....."

OMG, stop the presses, someone thinks a pro athlete doped!!!

Dirty cheater. Mumble mumble.

(why doesn't this forum have a :lol: ? )

 

[nevada]

In the last few years, Peeler has seen a sharp escalation in jail time for bribery charges. "Courts are taking this seriously, and the U.S. government is, as well," he says. "There are a lot of people out there—and more so each today—who didn't understand the FCPA and are ending up in jail," he says.

 

[HL2037]

The earth is not flat. ... Big deal.

Think about it this way, Polish: If nobody had ever questioned the earth being flat, nobody would have ever thought about reaching India from the other side. Then we would have never discovered the American continent. That would have meant that Lance would have been born in Europe, and thus he would have had absolutely no chance of a career as a GT rider. Do you understand now how important it is to question the myth?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

In the last few years, Peeler has seen a sharp escalation in jail time for bribery charges. "Courts are taking this seriously, and the U.S. government is, as well," he says. "There are a lot of people out there—and more so each today—who didn't understand the FCPA and are ending up in jail," he says.

FCPA is indeed the big one lurking in Lance & Co.'s future. Should be fun to watch this particular piece of sh*t hit the fan.

 

[MarkvW]

If we're talking about the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, Lance, per McQuaid, delivered the money in 2005 pursuant to a 2001 agreement. The statute of limitations is five years.

There is an exception that suspends the SOL for up to three years for the purpose of obtaining foreign evidence. The law relating to suspension of the SOL is clear as mud in the Ninth Circuit (where Lance's case is). In probably any other Circuit, the feds would have had to take the appropriate steps to trigger the suspension of the SOL before the 5 year period expired. In the 9th Circuit, maybe they can extend the SOL even after the 5 year period expired. (Big maybe: see 9th Cir. cases of US v Bischel, US v Brody, and US v. Daniels and compare them with 2d Cir. case US v. Kozeny).

Digesting all this, it seems to me that if the feds didn't initiate the process of suspending the SOL before the 5 year anniversary of the payment of the sysmex & unaccounted-for money, then they have a substantial problem with the SOL.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

So your contention is that they're SOL because of the SOL?

 

[MarkvW]

So your contention is that they're SOL because of the SOL?

The law is quite unclear. The 9th Circuit Bischel case didn't address the issue of whether the feds could "restart" the SOL, but its reasoning leads to that conclusion. The Brody and Daniels district court cases (in the 9th Circuit) did address that issue, and came to opposite results. The 2d Cir. case rejected the "restarting" argument entirely.

IMO, the 2d Cir. opinion is far better reasoned, but I wouldn't try to predict how the 9th Circuit (or the Supremes if it got that far) would deal with the issue.

Lots of negotiating room for Lance's lawyers if an indictment is ever returned.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If we're talking about the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, Lance, per McQuaid, delivered the money in 2005 pursuant to a 2001 agreement. The statute of limitations is five years.

There is an exception that suspends the SOL for up to three years for the purpose of obtaining foreign evidence. The law relating to suspension of the SOL is clear as mud in the Ninth Circuit (where Lance's case is). In probably any other Circuit, the feds would have had to take the appropriate steps to trigger the suspension of the SOL before the 5 year period expired. In the 9th Circuit, maybe they can extend the SOL even after the 5 year period expired. (Big maybe: see 9th Cir. cases of US v Bischel, US v Brody, and US v. Daniels and compare them with 2d Cir. case US v. Kozeny).

Digesting all this, it seems to me that if the feds didn't initiate the process of suspending the SOL before the 5 year anniversary of the payment of the sysmex & unaccounted-for money, then they have a substantial problem with the SOL.

Even taking what you say verbatim, 2005 would not be outside SOL as the investigation was started by at least May 2010.

OMG, stop the presses, someone thinks a pro athlete doped!!!

Dirty cheater. Mumble mumble.

(why doesn't this forum have a :lol: ? )

I actually covered your response in an earlier post

"Creative" - you mean make stuff up? Why?
There is no need - as there is plenty from Armstrong's career to demonstrate that he is a fraud.

The only banality is in the responses.

 

[MarkvW]

Even taking what you say verbatim, 2005 would not be outside SOL as the investigation was started by at least May 2010.

And how did starting the investigation impact the SOL? Is there a "starting the investigation" exception that I am unaware of?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And how did starting the investigation impact the SOL? Is there a "starting the investigation" exception that I am unaware of?

I am not the one claiming to be the lawyer.

Is the SOL for investigation or indictment.

 

[MarkvW]

I am not the one claiming to be the lawyer.

Is the SOL for investigation or indictment.

Have I ever claimed to be a lawyer? You've got to show me the link because I don't think I have. Are you, to quote yourself, "making stuff up?"

SOL is for the indictment.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Have I ever claimed to be a lawyer? You've got to show me the link because I don't think I have. Are you, to quote yourself, "making stuff up?"

SOL is for the indictment.

My apologies if you are not a lawyer - which begs the question as to why most of your posts bring up legal argument and you claim to know what you are talking about.

I guess I should apologies for giving you too much credit too.

 

[MarkvW]

My apologies if you are not a lawyer - which begs the question as to why most of your posts bring up legal argument and you claim to know what you are talking about.

I guess I should apologies for giving you too much credit too.

Usually, I don't even claim to know what I'm talking about.

 

[Race Radio]

I would not get too caught up in SOL. It is fairly common to extend it if there is evidence of an effort to cover up the crime.

Wondeboy has a long record of pressuring witness. SOL will not be a problem

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Usually, I don't even claim to know what I'm talking about.

Really?
Because here is just one recent example where you appear quite sure of yourself.

A prima facie case has nothing to do with any of this. Only three related concepts are involved: 1) suspicion; 2) probable cause; and 3) a viable case.

Suspicion gets the GJ process started. You don't need a viable case at this point. If you have a viable case and you don't want to use the GJ process to gather more evidence, you ask the GJ for an indictment. If you have suspicion, but no probable cause, or if you do have probable cause, but you need more evidence for a viable case, (so that you come to trial loaded for bear), then you use the GJ gather evidence. GJs can also seek evidence on their own initiative. The US Attorney is their legal advisor.

Probable cause is the bare minimum of evidence you need to get the jury to determine your case (i.e., what you need to get a good indictment). Prosecutors always want more if they can reasonably get it. The quoted language implies that probable cause exists--without any basis in fact. We just don't know what the GJ knows.

All we know now is that the GJ has the case. There are no inferences that can be drawn from that, except that the feds have suspicions. Anything that argues for more is ridiculous.

Or were you just making things up?

 

[MarkvW]

Really?
Because here is just one recent example where you appear quite sure of yourself.


Or were you just making things up?

What did I make up in the post you quote? Let's turn your lazer like focus back on topic. But then, what is the topic?

P.S. The post you quote is a pretty fair rough approximation of the charging dynamic. Run it by some lawyers and see what they have to add!

 

[python]

i can't recall ever addressing mark's posts but his latest concerns about the statute of limitation seem misplaced or, at best, misinformed...which is surprising considering the amount of time he spent in the thread

firstly, and it was discussed to a triple death on the forums, the most recent alleged witness intimidation of Hamilton would automatically extend the sol...

secondly, again it was killed over and over, there were enough references to the rico type charges which carry an almost limitless set of sol rules all together

thirdly, texas raced as far back as 2010 and the allegations of international drug trafficking involving him and his teammates (popovyc for ex.) are as fresh as a morning mist.

there were other reasons for the sol extension...

the very fact that we know the investigation hasn't been stopped and yet mark has chosen a remote/isolated/unrepresentative example tells me a lot about his position and motivation or perhaps ignorance.

then i agree with the doc

 

[MarkvW]

I would not get too caught up in SOL. It is fairly common to extend it if there is evidence of an effort to cover up the crime.

Wondeboy has a long record of pressuring witness. SOL will not be a problem

That is simply not true in criminal cases. I defy you to bring forward one example of a criminal prosecution that was extended because of "effort to cover up the crime" or "pressuring witnesses."


In civil cases, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment can be available.