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

[mewmewmew13]

Grand Jury terms can be extended or the matter can be held over for a new Grand Jury. Tell Fabio his client is not out of danger by a long-shot.

Wonderful and intelligent news!

 

[Velodude]

Grand Jury terms can be extended or the matter can be held over for a new Grand Jury. Tell Fabio his client is not out of danger by a long-shot.

Here is a succinct quote that will cause chagrin to Polish et al

Federal grand juries are of two types--regular and special. Regular grand juries sit for a basic term of 18 months, but that term can be extended up to another 6 months, which means their total possible term is 24 months. Special grand juries sit for 18 months, but their term can be extended for up to another 18 months; a court can extend a special grand jury's term for 6 months, and can enter up to three such extensions, totaling 18 months.

 

[Neworld]

Grand Jury terms can be extended or the matter can be held over for a new Grand Jury. Tell Fabio his client is not out of danger by a long-shot.

Oh no, that is tragic news. That might explain why we have yet to hear from LA and his multimillion dollar charging team of lawyers that the GJ deadline has expired. Polish I don't follow your statements.. you said the investigation was over as the GJ deadline expired. I asked you for a reference, a fact or even something scribbled down on the back of Bazooka Joe bubble gum wrapper...something. But you didn't answer...cricket, cricket.

Polish, Polish... are you there Polish? You didn't drink the purple slurpie did you? I was just joking mate. Swallow a yellow wrist band quick and make yourself puke!

I guess Polish will be back to arguing LA never tested positive and his left baby toe is immune to lactate...

NW

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Can't wait to pull this post out after all the Federal sworn testimony is made public and The Sunday times and SCA find new lawyers to suck the last bit of blood out of LA's one stone. Oh and don't forget about Landis' Whistleblower suit (federal whistle-blower lawsuit against his former team — the United States Postal Service squad that included the seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong — claiming that the team defrauded the government).

Kinda reminds me of Bush and WMD, 'cause at one point in time some dummies in the Western world believed the information presented to them by the Bush admin. Except for that silly Swedish Diplomat (Hans Blix), Hans looks really silly now doesn't he? Maybe its possible that at the instance in time the SCA tried to question LA and Tailwind there was 'misinformation' or worse, leading to an inappropriate settlement. That settlement may be readdressed in the future with the unearthing of new facts. Or, you and Polish are right and there is in fact a secret cache of weapons still buried in the dunes of Iraq that the rest of the world still cannot find.

NW

WOW a WMD reference. That seems so ....2000 and late. How about a fast and furious reference?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Grand Jury terms can be extended or the matter can be held over for a new Grand Jury. Tell Fabio his client is not out of danger by a long-shot.

You are making some folks climax with this post!

 

[thehog]

But you're not getting it. You've gone from "SCA never should have tried to sue Lance" to me pointing out that in fact Armstrong filed against them to "Yeah Lance had to show how to pay what's due". Not in any of your posts have you demonstrated a degree of understanding of the process let alone the facts.

You're dealing with with this on an emotional level not factual.

Take off the jawbones and work with me.

You do realize Armstrong lied through his teeth at the hearing don't you?

If you were the owner of SCA you'd be ok with LA shaming you out of 7.5m? That's ok? To present misinformation to win a case - thats the behavior we want to prosper in our legal system?

Surely not.

I get it now.

Tailwind/LA wasn't playing nice in helping SCA understand they had to pay up, so when SCA got sued they decided to prolong the process even longer, finally resulting in an "encouraging" abitration where they ended up not only paying the $5 million, but another 2.5 for their trouble. Again, what a deal and what a great result "encouragement" can achieve.

Do you know how stupid this sounds with your pretzel logic trying to spin this however you can to paint this other than an azz beatdown of SCA? You must be in vertigo right now....I was in San Antonio over the weekend and I went to the Ripley's museum. They had this tunnel with mirrors and lights spinning around, like you are walking into a spinning tube. It would make you dizzy and want to fall over. That must be how you feel with these recent posts. Like Eminem says "I smoke a fat pound of grass, and fall down like a fat ***** that sat down to fast". That is you right about now.

Here's what really happened:

Tailwind/LA: We won, so pay up.
SCA: uh, blah, hospital, uh, walsh, uh, duh
Tailwind/LA: Pay up before I ***** slap you with lawsuit
SCA: uh, uh yeah go ahead....slobber, hiccup
Tailwind/LA: OK, if we arbitrate get your little crony appointee off the panel, pud (judge agrees).
SCA: blah blah, hospital room, blah blah. OK we settle. Here you go and some lawyer fees to match.
Tailwind/LA: Scoreboard *****.

 

[Yeahright]

having watched this thread on and of for over a year I have to wonder whether anyone really cares beyond those posting here. You have to wonder if it takes this long to pull a case together then what sort of case to they have? Last year at this time the Hog was dropping bits of 'inside info' that charges were going to be laid by Christmas...or was it January...2011 that is!

The world and even cycling has moved on...I know I have, yawn

 

[Race Radio]

having watched this thread on and of for over a year I have to wonder whether anyone really cares beyond those posting here. You have to wonder if it takes this long to pull a case together then what sort of case to they have? Last year at this time the Hog was dropping bits of 'inside info' that charges were going to be laid by Christmas...or was it January...2011 that is!

The world and even cycling has moved on...I know I have, yawn

Yet you cared enough to post........

 

[LarryBudMelman]

having watched this thread on and of for over a year I have to wonder whether anyone really cares beyond those posting here.

Why are you watching? What do you think is going to happen when the indictments come? Yawns?

You have to wonder if it takes this long to pull a case together then what sort of case to they have?

Maybe you have to wonder!

Last year at this time the Hog was dropping bits of 'inside info' that charges were going to be laid by Christmas...or was it January...2011 that is!

The world and even cycling has moved on...I know I have, yawn

I believe 60 Minutes did a piece on Armstrong when he was fraudulently impersonating Hope. You have seen that there is renewed interest in his career lately? I think you're going to find the the world outside of cycling is going to be more interested in Armstrong's fall compared to his rise.

What will rouse you from your slumber?

 

[Yeahright]

Why are you watching? What do you think is going to happen when the indictments come? Yawns?



Maybe you have to wonder!



I believe 60 Minutes did a piece on Armstrong when he was fraudulently impersonating Hope. You have seen that there is renewed interest in his career lately? I think you're going to find the the world outside of cycling is going to be more interested in Armstrong's fall compared to his rise.

What will rouse you from your slumber?

Actually outside these forums I have seen zero interest in his career because as a cyclist he no longer has one. The guy has retired and the world has moved on and there is too much real news happening on a daily basis. I really don't think that the public will particularly care whether a guy who retired 3 years or more (by the time it gets to court, if it ever does) was a doper. Most people have made up their minds anyway, they are either in the doper camp or the fanboy camp and nothing will sway either side one way or the other. Then there is the third and by far the largest group, to which it is just all old news. I am in that group and so are most of the guys I ride and race with. I asked my 18 year old son the other day whether he thought Armstrong doped. He shrugged his shoulders and said; 'yeah probably but they all doped back then anyway so I guess the best doper won'. He and his mates have new heroes now and things have moved on, they just don't care about it, its all just 'back in the day' for them.

When the indictments come? Which year is that? What I think will happen is that there will be long drawn out legal wrangling at the end of which it will all fizzle out or he will get a slap on the wrist. I think anyone on here who is still dreaming of a public stoning is deluding themselves.

 

[Race Radio]

Actually outside these forums I have seen zero interest in his career because as a cyclist he no longer has one. The guy has retired and the world has moved on and there is too much real news happening on a daily basis. I really don't think that the public will particularly care whether a guy who retired 3 years or more (by the time it gets to court, if it ever does) was a doper. Most people have made up their minds anyway, they are either in the doper camp or the fanboy camp and nothing will sway either side one way or the other. Then there is the third and by far the largest group, to which it is just all old news. I am in that group and so are most of the guys I ride and race with. I asked my 18 year old son the other day whether he thought Armstrong doped. He shrugged his shoulders and said; 'yeah probably but they all doped back then anyway so I guess the best doper won'. He and his mates have new heroes now and things have moved on, they just don't care about it, its all just 'back in the day' for them.

When the indictments come? Which year is that? What I think will happen is that there will be long drawn out legal wrangling at the end of which it will all fizzle out or he will get a slap on the wrist. I think anyone on here who is still dreaming of a public stoning is deluding themselves.

I was unaware that public stoning was punishment option. Must be a witchunt talking point.

I agree that the cycling world has moved on, but there will millions of groupies who will struggle with the reality of lance and his buddies going to prison.....especially when the story of the foundation is known

 

[ChrisE]

Can't wait to pull this post out after all the Federal sworn testimony is made public and The Sunday times and SCA find new lawyers to suck the last bit of blood out of LA's one stone. Oh and don't forget about Landis' Whistleblower suit (federal whistle-blower lawsuit against his former team — the United States Postal Service squad that included the seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong — claiming that the team defrauded the government).

Kinda reminds me of Bush and WMD, 'cause at one point in time some dummies in the Western world believed the information presented to them by the Bush admin. Except for that silly Swedish Diplomat (Hans Blix), Hans looks really silly now doesn't he? Maybe its possible that at the instance in time the SCA tried to question LA and Tailwind there was 'misinformation' or worse, leading to an inappropriate settlement. That settlement may be readdressed in the future with the unearthing of new facts. Or, you and Polish are right and there is in fact a secret cache of weapons still buried in the dunes of Iraq that the rest of the world still cannot find.

NW

Good, then you go ahead and pull it out and look foolish.

I am talking about what happened....past tense. If something in the future results in SCA being revisited my post has nothing to do with that. Next.

 

[Yeahright]

I was unaware that public stoning was punishment option. Must be a witchunt talking point.

I agree that the cycling world has moved on, but there will millions of groupies who will struggle with the reality of lance and his buddies going to prison.....especially when the story of the foundation is known

Hmm, can't see it myself but time will tell

 

[Neworld]

I am talking about what happened....past tense. If something in the future results in SCA being revisited my post has nothing to do with that. Next.

OK, in the past LA lied his *** off to win 7.5 Mil off SCA.

In the future, SCA will want that 7.5 Mil, plus interest, back. What would that make it today?

NW

 

[ChrisE]

But you're not getting it. You've gone from "SCA never should have tried to sue Lance" to me pointing out that in fact Armstrong filed against them to "Yeah Lance had to show how to pay what's due". Not in any of your posts have you demonstrated a degree of understanding of the process let alone the facts.

You're dealing with with this on an emotional level not factual.

Take off the jawbones and work with me.

You do realize Armstrong lied through his teeth at the hearing don't you?

If you were the owner of SCA you'd be ok with LA shaming you out of 7.5m? That's ok? To present misinformation to win a case - thats the behavior we want to prosper in our legal system?

Surely not.

SCA was in a no win situation under that contract. LA won 6, didn't get popped for PEDs. End of story. It is no more complex than that. All their "high level of understanding" of the situation cost them 2.5 more than the 5 they owed.

Whether LA lied or not is not the issue at all because it couldn't be proven at that time. Having a he said/she said arbitration hearing resulted in zero for SCA. Besides, LA shamed them out of 5 million....their dumbasses shamed themselves out of the other 2.5.

Also when you look at it from clinic POV, they should have known LA was doped up and would win vs the other poor victim cyclists. It is their own fault for not reading DPF and doing their homework, and for taking that "bet" he wouldn't win in the first place. You and race radio should have contacted SCA and warned them off of such a wager lol.

Your hatred has made your reasoning skills take a vacation. If something in the future happens then we can revisit this issue real time, along with your buddy neworld who seems to have the same issues with timeframes that you do with facts. Until then, the score after the "process" is LA $7.5 million, SCA zero.

 

[ChrisE]

OK, in the past LA lied his *** off to win 7.5 Mil off SCA.

In the future, SCA will want that 7.5 Mil, plus interest, back. What would that make it today?

NW

Whether he lied or not was irrelevant. It could not be proven at the time. Didn't you watch "A Few Good Men"? It's not what the facts are, it is what can be proven.

Well RR seems to think LA will forfeit his wins in a plea deal and thus SCA will be reopened. That is certainly a clever way of looking at it, but I am still unclear if that can legally happen regardless of the links doc posted and RR's opinion. I admit I do not know and am too lazy to spend alot of time convincing myself one way or the other.

I do think if that is true, then that is more reason LA will not plea. I have said all along on these boards that he will fight this if he is indicted, and if he does I think he will win. Then this will all make no difference. I am willing to be proven wrong, but apparently this is so complex it will take almost 2 years to figure it out by the smart guys in the govt. I am sure it will all be so simple for Joe six-pack on a jury.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually outside these forums I have seen zero interest in his career because as a cyclist he no longer has one. The guy has retired and the world has moved on and there is too much real news happening on a daily basis. I really don't think that the public will particularly care whether a guy who retired 3 years or more (by the time it gets to court, if it ever does) was a doper. Most people have made up their minds anyway, they are either in the doper camp or the fanboy camp and nothing will sway either side one way or the other. Then there is the third and by far the largest group, to which it is just all old news. I am in that group and so are most of the guys I ride and race with. I asked my 18 year old son the other day whether he thought Armstrong doped. He shrugged his shoulders and said; 'yeah probably but they all doped back then anyway so I guess the best doper won'. He and his mates have new heroes now and things have moved on, they just don't care about it, its all just 'back in the day' for them.

When the indictments come? Which year is that? What I think will happen is that there will be long drawn out legal wrangling at the end of which it will all fizzle out or he will get a slap on the wrist. I think anyone on here who is still dreaming of a public stoning is deluding themselves.

So, there is zero interest, yet you felt compelled to ask your son, just the other day? Sounds like someone is still interested.

Of course there is little interest outside of "these forums" or cycling in general, as there is little new in the last number of months.

If you think that people won't care about a rider who retired 3 years ago (?!) check out this guy bringing up LeMond over 15 years after he retired...... it seems some people really do care....

22 May 2011

Not saying I agree with Mr E but your post is typical of others that you have written about posters who disagree with your view on a topic; i.e. anyone who has a different opinion is talking BS and should be edited or deleted.

Not a great premise for a forum for supposedly a free exchange of opinions.

If he is not convinced that GL didn't take PED's thats his opinion and he is entitled to express it. If you want to believe that GL raced clean and was still able to beat the likes of Fignon who doped and the whole Russian team who would almost have definitely doped, then good for you but wearing your insecurities on your sleeve is not a good look.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Whether he lied or not was irrelevant. It could not be proven at the time. Didn't you watch "A Few Good Men"? It's not what the facts are, it is what can be proven.

Well RR seems to think LA will forfeit his wins in a plea deal and thus SCA will be reopened. That is certainly a clever way of looking at it, but I am still unclear if that can legally happen regardless of the links doc posted and RR's opinion. I admit I do not know and am too lazy to spend alot of time convincing myself one way or the other.

I do think if that is true, then that is more reason LA will not plea. I have said all along on these boards that he will fight this if he is indicted, and if he does I think he will win. Then this will all make no difference. I am willing to be proven wrong, but apparently this is so complex it will take almost 2 years to figure it out by the smart guys in the govt. I am sure it will all be so simple for Joe six-pack on a jury.

I agree with much of what you say, as in if LA is indicted he will fight it all the way (which is why the Govt are taking their time to put as airtight a case against LA & his mob).

But you wrongly assume 'Joe the Juror' has anything to do with having his results taken away.
Even if LA escapes a Fed case with a relative slap on the wrist, it will then be USADA who brings a case against him for doping. The only question that remains is how much information they have within the SOL (2002).
The UCI and TdF would be obliged to uphold any decision from USADA - and if he has any of the Tours taken off then I would expect SCA to make a claim.

 

[Berzin]

Anyone who is counting on the "Statute of Limitations" so Armstrong can attempt to salvage any of his Tour wins is beyond help.

Regardless of this technicality, he's still a doper and a fraud and will be considered by cycling fans to have cheated throughout all seven of his wins. It's not like the evidence will be in his favor, after all.

It's not like he could get one of two Tours stripped and hold his head up high about the other ones that managed to slip through the grasp of the officials in question.

Besides, he can still have them all stripped if cycling decided on it. Armstrong doesn't own the Tour, and how would the UCI fight against any such decision without looking like bigger protectors of the Armstrong legacy than they already are?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Anyone who is counting on the "Statute of Limitations" so Armstrong can attempt to salvage any of his Tour wins is beyond help.

Regardless of this technicality, he's still a doper and a fraud and will be considered by cycling fans to have cheated throughout all seven of his wins. It's not like the evidence will be in his favor, after all.

It's not like he could get one of two Tours stripped and hold his head up high about the other ones that managed to slip through the grasp of the officials in question.

Besides, he can still have them all stripped if cycling decided on it. Armstrong doesn't own the Tour, and how would the UCI fight against any such decision without looking like bigger protectors of the Armstrong legacy than they already are?

It is not a technicality - it is a rule, a WADA rule - the UCI can only operate within those rules.

 

[Digger]

I love when Dr rips people a new one, without ever insulting. Just using facts and their own words against them. Impressive.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was unaware that public stoning was punishment option. Must be a witchunt talking point.

I agree that the cycling world has moved on, but there will millions of groupies who will struggle with the reality of lance and his buddies going to prison.....especially when the story of the foundation is known

There will also be "quite a few" peeps from the other side of this ("the haters") who will be devastated if this does not work out the way they have invisioned. For example....perp walks etc.

NO I AM not talking about you Race.

 

[Berzin]

It is not a technicality - it is a rule, a WADA rule - the UCI can only operate within those rules.

Semantics, my good doctor. I was speaking of the spirit of the law protecting a number of fraudulent Tour wins.

It's not like these rules were sent down from a Higher Power and set in stone to the point where it's more important to protect Armstrong's fraudulent wins than correcting a historical wrong.

I guess it all depends on whose legacy people are willing to protect, Armstrong's or the Tour's.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I love when Dr rips people a new one, without ever insulting. Just using facts and their own words against them. Impressive.

Well he is a Dr you know.....

I guess that put's you in the Dr's fanboy club.

 

[ChrisE]

I agree with much of what you say, as in if LA is indicted he will fight it all the way (which is why the Govt are taking their time to put as airtight a case against LA & his mob).

But you wrongly assume 'Joe the Juror' has anything to do with having his results taken away.Even if LA escapes a Fed case with a relative slap on the wrist, it will then be USADA who brings a case against him for doping. The only question that remains is how much information they have within the SOL (2002).
The UCI and TdF would be obliged to uphold any decision from USADA - and if he has any of the Tours taken off then I would expect SCA to make a claim.

Who said I assume that? I never wrote anything of the sort. I basically said Joe the juror may have a hard time understanding this case and that could possibly result in aquittal.

We are talking about SCA, and RR's contention that it could be reopened if part of an LA plea deal was him giving up his wins.