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

[MarkvW]

. . .Armstrong will not be a witness, he will be one of the targets - he will be the one charged with the crimes. If Armstrong lies, then it will be while being questioned about the crime, if convicted perjury charges are rarely sought, it is viewed as being part of the game.

Martha Stewart: She was investigated for insider trading and she constructed an elaborate lie to cover it up. And she went to prison for lying, not insider trading.

Would the feds call Lance before the GJ? Why not? The investigation clearly isn't just about Lance and Lance certainly was at the center of a lot of stuff. Why not call him, just to see what you'll get?

Putting Lance under oath after conducting an exhaustively thorough investigation of his highly organized doping practices would probably force Lance to exercise his right to remain silent. He couldn't possibly know what evidence the feds have on him, so he'd be navigating a minefield blind if he talked without immunity. Only a fool doesn't take the Fifth in that instance.

Would the feds offer Lance immunity? Seems like that depends on how good a case that they have against him. If they don't have a case good enough to take to a jury, why not mine Lance for the vast storage of knowledge he possesses--or (if he lies) set him up for a Barry Bonds / Tammy Thomas style perjury prosecution?

MY POINT: We can't rule out the possibility that Lance could be called to testify before the GJ and that he might end up getting charged with perjury in consequence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Martha Stewart: She was investigated for insider trading and she constructed an elaborate lie to cover it up. And she went to prison for lying, not insider trading.

Simple reason why Martha went to jail for perjury and not inside trading - the insider trading charge was dropped.

Stewart was not what the Feds were interested in - it was the company ImClone, and they jailed its CEO for 7 years.

Would the feds call Lance before the GJ? Why not? The investigation clearly isn't just about Lance and Lance certainly was at the center of a lot of stuff. Why not call him, just to see what you'll get?

Putting Lance under oath after conducting an exhaustively thorough investigation of his highly organized doping practices would probably force Lance to exercise his right to remain silent. He couldn't possibly know what evidence the feds have on him, so he'd be navigating a minefield blind if he talked without immunity. Only a fool doesn't take the Fifth in that instance.

Would the feds offer Lance immunity? Seems like that depends on how good a case that they have against him. If they don't have a case good enough to take to a jury, why not mine Lance for the vast storage of knowledge he possesses--or (if he lies) set him up for a Barry Bonds / Tammy Thomas style perjury prosecution?

MY POINT: We can't rule out the possibility that Lance could be called to testify before the GJ and that he might end up getting charged with perjury in consequence.

We pretty much can.
Why else would Stephanie McIlvain be asked to attend a GJ??

Lances problem is he is not "just a member of the team". His name are on the documents.
So when you think of Martha or Marion Jones think, George or Tyler - for Tailwind, think Balco or ImClone.

 

[Neworld]

Hincapie did not testify in front of the GJ, he volunteered to talk to investigators.

Funny, only a few years ago he was writing nasty emails to former teammates who were subpoenaed.

I remember how p1ssed GH was (2009 TdF) when Astana (Johan and Lance) where leading the chase (instead of AG2R) to pull GH's breakaway group. Maybe that was before the nasty emails, I am not sure.

NW

 

[Neworld]

Does anyone know of a link to that commentary on youtube? I watched that verbier climb the other day, but could only find it with commentary in an unidentifiable (to me!) european language. Would love to hear the P&P show in full cry!

My post was based on recall from the world cycling prod DVDs I watched a while back. Not sure if its on youtube, sorry.

NW

 

[MarkvW]

Simple reason why Martha went to jail for perjury and not inside trading - the insider trading charge was dropped.

Stewart was not what the Feds were interested in - it was the company ImClone, and they jailed its CEO for 7 years. . . .

Martha Stewart was charged with securities fraud. The securities fraud case was not "dropped" as stated; it was dismissed by the judge for insufficient evidence. The feds fully prosecuted Martha for both securities fraud and for lying about securities fraud. She just beat the rap on the securities fraud count. It is not so uncommon for a person to be charged with a crime and lying about that same crime. The link for this information is the URL in the language quoted above.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Martha Stewart was charged with securities fraud. The securities fraud case was not "dropped" as stated; it was dismissed by the judge for insufficient evidence. The feds fully prosecuted Martha for both securities fraud and for lying about securities fraud. She just beat the rap on the securities fraud count. It is not so uncommon for a person to be charged with a crime and lying about that same crime. The link for this information is the URL in the language quoted above.

Whatever - dropped, dismissed or according to this headline "tossed", it is not material to Armstrong.
It remains that the SEC were interested in the company and how they traded - Stewart was embroiled and ultimately imprisoned because she lied, not for trading.

Stewart was not the target, Armstrong will not be that fortunate.

 

[thehog]

I remember how p1ssed GH was (2009 TdF) when Astana (Johan and Lance) where leading the chase (instead of AG2R) to pull GH's breakaway group. Maybe that was before the nasty emails, I am not sure.

NW

Yes and somehow Garmin got blamed for that.... It was Astana all the way. Armstrong did reference that day some months later saying it took weeks to repair the damage with GH.

 

[MarkvW]

Whatever - dropped, dismissed or according to this headline "tossed", it is not material to Armstrong.
It remains that the SEC were interested in the company and how they traded - Stewart was embroiled and ultimately imprisoned because she lied, not for trading.

Stewart was not the target, Armstrong will not be that fortunate.

Stewart was a target. We know this because the Grand Jury indicted her for securities fraud charges. She wasn't the only target, but she was clearly a target. Her case demonstrates that it is not unusual for the feds to prosecute people for crimes while also prosecuting those same people for lying about those same crimes. Prosecution for both the underlying crime and perjury is possible with regard to Armstrong. If it can happen to someone as prominent as Martha Stewart, it could happen to Lance.

Another problem with your argument is that Sam Waksal, the Imclone boss, was also indicted on both perjury and securities fraud charges. He was also a target and he was also prosecuted for both lying and securities fraud.

MY POINT… I don't see any reason why perjury or obstruction should be ruled out at this stage.

 

[Velodude]

Stewart was a target. We know this because the Grand Jury indicted her for securities fraud charges. She wasn't the only target, but she was clearly a target. Her case demonstrates that it is not unusual for the feds to prosecute people for crimes while also prosecuting those same people for lying about those same crimes. Prosecution for both the underlying crime and perjury is possible with regard to Armstrong. If it can happen to someone as prominent as Martha Stewart, it could happen to Lance.

Another problem with your argument is that Sam Waksal, the Imclone boss, was also indicted on both perjury and securities fraud charges. He was also a target and he was also prosecuted for both lying and securities fraud.

MY POINT… I don't see any reason why perjury or obstruction should be ruled out at this stage.

Problem with your argument is that Waksal was charged with perjury for lying under oath to the SEC - not during a GJ or a trial.

As he was a target he would not have appeared and been grilled before the Grand Jury and any defense counsel worth their salt would refrain from offering their client as a witness for later cross-examination by the prosecution. The defense chooses their witnesses for their case not the prosecution.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Stewart was a target. We know this because the Grand Jury indicted her for securities fraud charges. She wasn't the only target, but she was clearly a target. Her case demonstrates that it is not unusual for the feds to prosecute people for crimes while also prosecuting those same people for lying about those same crimes. Prosecution for both the underlying crime and perjury is possible with regard to Armstrong. If it can happen to someone as prominent as Martha Stewart, it could happen to Lance.

Another problem with your argument is that Sam Waksal, the Imclone boss, was also indicted on both perjury and securities fraud charges. He was also a target and he was also prosecuted for both lying and securities fraud.

MY POINT… I don't see any reason why perjury or obstruction should be ruled out at this stage.

Well, anything is 'possible'.
While you have shown that simultaneous charges can be brought, that relates to being questioned during investigation - it does not get around the problem that Lance will not have the luxury of getting to lie to investigators before charges are filed.

Which goes back to the point I made with LarryBud last year that perjury charges are rarely pursue for lying in court if you are found guilty.

In short you still have not satisfied this earlier statement:

MY POINT: We can't rule out the possibility that Lance could be called to testify before the GJ and that he might end up getting charged with perjury in consequence.

 

[MarkvW]

Problem with your argument is that Waksal was charged with perjury for lying under oath to the SEC - not during a GJ or a trial.

As he was a target he would not have appeared and been grilled before the Grand Jury and any defense counsel worth their salt would refrain from offering their client as a witness for later cross-examination by the prosecution. The defense chooses their witnesses for their case not the prosecution.

But why does that matter? Lying under oath in an SEC investigation vs. Lying under oath in a FDA investigation?

I'm only trying to make the point that we can't rule out Armstrong getting charged with perjury.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But why does that matter? Lying under oath in an SEC investigation vs. Lying under oath in a FDA investigation?

I'm only trying to make the point that we can't rule out Armstrong getting charged with perjury.

Well then, we have quickly come full circle - because you introduced the Martha Stewart angle in response to this part of my post:

.... If Armstrong lies, then it will be while being questioned about the crime, if convicted perjury charges are rarely sought, it is viewed as being part of the game....

It was never 'ruled out' - more importantly for your point to be even valid, it is that Armstrong is either not a target, or that the Feds will question him before bringing charges.
I still not have seen anything put forward to suggest that.

 

[Velodude]

But why does that matter? Lying under oath in an SEC investigation vs. Lying under oath in a FDA investigation?

I'm only trying to make the point that we can't rule out Armstrong getting charged with perjury.

The SEC initiates investigations differently by requiring documents and persons to be subpoenaed under testimony. Obviously, Waksal committed perjury during this procedure.

Martha Stewart was not charged with perjury. She was charged with lying to Federal investigators.

The Federal agencies involved in the "Lance Armstrong Investigation" ™ do not investigate under oath but rely on the violation of Federal law 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for the imposition of sanctions for providing false information to investigators.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

And my point is that Jones was a witness who lied to Federal Officers investigating the crime. That is perjury.

The point you're completely missing is that Jones lied about events related to a crime. For you to say she went to jail solely for lying to Federal Agents without taking into account what she was lying about, is a distortion of what happened.

If there is no underlying crime that has been committed, and someone has no connection whatsoever to any criminal activity, one can lie all day to any authorities and that is not perjury, nor is there any obstruction.

If you lie to Federal Investigators because they ask you about a consensual sexual affair, it is not perjury, because having a consensual sexual affair is not a crime, nor is it necessarily related to criminal activity.

When you use controlled substances for doping you are at least indirectly related to the commission of a crime.

Armstrong will not be a witness, he will be one of the targets - he will be the one charged with the crimes. If Armstrong lies, then it will be while being questioned about the crime, if convicted perjury charges are rarely sought, it is viewed as being part of the game.


As I am not American, I guess it is not at all obvious.....



I never mentioned a jury (although what you raise could be valid) - my view is that while the prosecution will be able to prove the overall case, Armstrong through his exceedingly expensive legal team will be able to suggest that LA had accountants and lawyers to conduct his business affairs and he had no direct knowledge. It might not be enough to escape penalties, but I still don't see prison as the most likely outcome.


By in large agree - certainly in the media and public mind. But I still do not see him getting anything that will put him in prison. YMMV

A guilty verdict where the defendent has plead not guilty automatically means there is a basis for concomitant charge of perjury. As you state this is not customarily done but it theoretically could be done.

I'm sure Armstrong is hoping to suggest a lot of things through his high priced mouthpieces. So what? It's pretty clear what his intentions are as he's denied the allegations continually. I'm sure he'll plead not guilty and he's shown he's very adept at lying.

It's also clear that he's trying to poison the potential jury pool with nonsense PR and political bs moral relativism. If the case is judged on its merits he's going to get hammered which is also pretty clear to anyone who has their thinking cap screwed on tight enough. With crazy verdicts like this Casey Anthony stupidity, it's very hard to say with any certainty what these potentially dopey jurors may do though.

There is no way in hell he can insulate himself by blaming accountants and attorneys. I'm sure the prosecution will present tons of evidence that all of the fraud was conducted under his direction and to the primary benefit of Armstrong.

Unless Armstrong can show that someone else profited equally or more than he did, he's going to jail for a couple of years at least. Even if there is some huge mastermind that we somehow don't know about, LA has shown himself to be a very willing participant in a wide variety of crimes. I'm quite certain he'll get his reward unless we get a jury enraptured by the mythology of wonderboy, unicorns, miracles, etc.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Yes, she lied about the doping - it does not matter what she lied about except that she lied to the Feds, which is perjury.
Doping is not a crime, which is why she got canned for perjury.


I think the Feds will find enough evidence of racketeering, however I am not yet hopeful that they will be able to, as you say directly link Armstrong to it.

Did he know about it? Yes? Did he benefit from it? Yes. The Feds will have a tough time proving that Armstrong knew what was going on.
I would be quite happy for LA to do some prison time - but I doubt that will happen (although his tax affairs could prove interesting) - but even if he does not do a day he will be stripped of what he most craved, the adulation -as he will be viewed as the biggest fraud in sports history..

Hardly meaningless - Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping.
As Armstrong will be a target, not a witness he wont be questioned by the Feds (like Jones) but on a stand. Even if he lies there (big if) they do not usually pursue perjury charges.



No doubt Armstrong is the name and that he will be the center of any media focus.
But as for doing jail time - as I said, others will be in a more direct firing line than LA - so even though I would love to see it these types usually have enough distance from any crimes and the money to fight/reduce exposure jail time.

The bolded parts here are absolute nonsense which you keep repeating. You do realize that lying is not necessarily a crime no matter who you're lying to? At issue is whether you're lying about issues related to crimes.

Being in possession of pharmaceuticals without a valid prescription may be a crime and being in possession of and using illegally manufactured PED's is also a crime which Jones may have been in jeopardy of being charged.

So yes it mattered what she lied about and yes, it had everything to do with her doping.

You also make this silly contention that while we know that Armstrong was a direct beneficiary of criminal activities, the Feds are going to have a hard time proving it. If we know so much about it, why would the Feds have any trouble proving it? Where do you come up with this stuff?

As I've told you a couple of times, the only issue is what a credulous, moronic jury understands it means to legally prove something. That's the biggest hurdle as we've seen with other idiotic verdicts in high profile American cases.

 

[ChrisE]

As I've told you a couple of times, the only issue is what a credulous, moronic jury understands it means to legally prove something. That's the biggest hurdle as we've seen with other idiotic verdicts in high profile American cases.

Nice post.

This is the reason I think if indicted he will (a) fight and (b) get off if he does fight. Trying to piece this all together for Joe six pack is a pretty tall order IMO.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

good thing you're not on a jury. no charges, no evidence presented, no cross examination of witnesses etc., and you've convicted him. so much for fair trials..........

Armstrong is obviously guilty as sin but I don't expect him to be sent to prison on my say so, nor would I want that kind of thing to happen.

Armstrong is so full of bs I find it hard to believe anyone who even casually follows the sport could doubt his absolute guilt.

If you want to hang on to the nonexistent possibility of his being not guilty, that's a reflection of your credibility on these matters.

 

[MarkvW]

Well then, we have quickly come full circle - because you introduced the Martha Stewart angle in response to this part of my post:


It was never 'ruled out' - more importantly for your point to be even valid, it is that Armstrong is either not a target, or that the Feds will question him before bringing charges.
I still not have seen anything put forward to suggest that.

I think you are arguing that it is certain that Armstrong is a target of the GJ. You are also arguing, necessarily, that Armstrong has received the GJ target letter. You are also necessarily arguing that it is impossible for Armstrong to have been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. I differ from you in that I admit the possibility that Armstrong is not a target and the possibility that he has received a grant of immunity.

 

[Polish]

A few questions-when the charges drop, will we be privy to who testified to what?

As an example, George Hincapie has been totally silent and has made statements about "moving cycling forward" and not wanting to dwell on the past.

Will his testimony be made public even if he refuses to speak on it, or will the pressure be too much?

Will the list of people testifying be made public, or will it depend on if they individually do interviews?

George's "testimony" and him "testifying" are just rumours started by people misinterpreting and embellishing as they pass info on. Happens all the time when spreading info/rumours.

Maybe Lance told mates he paid the UCI in Switzerland for dope testing.
That ended up as "Lance bribed the UCI $500,000 to cover up dope testing in Switzerland" by the time that story was retold and retold and retold and made into the CN Clinic.

Or maybe Lance left a turd in the RV toilet as a practical joke because he knew Johann was using the biffy next. That became "Johan flushed the toilet out of spite" lol. Not sure how Floyd's blood bag snuck into that rumour but it did and people believed it. Some still do.

Some people will believe anything yikes.

 

[MarkvW]

George's "testimony" and him "testifying" are just rumours started by people misinterpreting and embellishing as they pass info on. Happens all the time when spreading info/rumours.

Maybe Lance told mates he paid the UCI in Switzerland for dope testing.
That ended up as "Lance bribed the UCI $500,000 to cover up dope testing in Switzerland" by the time that story was retold and retold and retold and made into the CN Clinic.

Or maybe Lance left a turd in the RV toilet as a practical joke because he knew Johann was using the biffy next. That became "Johan flushed the toilet out of spite" lol. Not sure how Floyd's blood bag snuck into that rumour but it did and people believed it. Some still do.

Some people will believe anything yikes.

Your statement regarding Hincapie completely discounts the 60 Minutes story, doesn't it?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The point you're completely missing is that Jones lied about events related to a crime. For you to say she went to jail solely for lying to Federal Agents without taking into account what she was lying about, is a distortion of what happened.

If there is no underlying crime that has been committed, and someone has no connection whatsoever to any criminal activity, one can lie all day to any authorities and that is not perjury, nor is there any obstruction.

If you lie to Federal Investigators because they ask you about a consensual sexual affair, it is not perjury, because having a consensual sexual affair is not a crime, nor is it necessarily related to criminal activity.

When you use controlled substances for doping you are at least indirectly related to the commission of a crime.

Firstly - can you calm down a bit, we are actually in agreement of a lot of things, the only difference is for me is that he does not end up in prison.

I didn't distort things - in fact it was even in the piece you quoted.

Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
And my point is that Jones was a witness who lied to Federal Officers investigating the crime. That is perjury.

A guilty verdict where the defendent has plead not guilty automatically means there is a basis for concomitant charge of perjury. As you state this is not customarily done but it theoretically could be done.

I'm sure Armstrong is hoping to suggest a lot of things through his high priced mouthpieces. So what? It's pretty clear what his intentions are as he's denied the allegations continually. I'm sure he'll plead not guilty and he's shown he's very adept at lying.

It's also clear that he's trying to poison the potential jury pool with nonsense PR and political bs moral relativism. If the case is judged on its merits he's going to get hammered which is also pretty clear to anyone who has their thinking cap screwed on tight enough. With crazy verdicts like this Casey Anthony stupidity, it's very hard to say with any certainty what these potentially dopey jurors may do though.

There is no way in hell he can insulate himself by blaming accountants and attorneys. I'm sure the prosecution will present tons of evidence that all of the fraud was conducted under his direction and to the primary benefit of Armstrong.

Unless Armstrong can show that someone else profited equally or more than he did, he's going to jail for a couple of years at least. Even if there is some huge mastermind that we somehow don't know about, LA has shown himself to be a very willing participant in a wide variety of crimes. I'm quite certain he'll get his reward unless we get a jury enraptured by the mythology of wonderboy, unicorns, miracles, etc.

This appears to be the basis for you believing he will end up in jail.

What 'tons of evidence' do you believe the prosecution can show? That LA was the leader of the team? An ass? The biggest benefactor? Sure, but what evidence ties him to crimes? (And indeed what crimes?)

 

[Polish]

Your statement regarding Hincapie completely discounts the 60 Minutes story, doesn't it?

I guess it does
Although I am not really sure if Big George testified or not.
RaceRadio said upthread that he didn't. So it must be true.

 

[MarkvW]

I guess it does
Although I am not really sure if Big George testified or not.
RaceRadio said upthread that he didn't. So it must be true.

RR said GH gave a statement to federal investigators. That could be considered testimony in addition to testimony made directly to the GJ.

 

[Velodude]

I think you are arguing that it is certain that Armstrong is a target of the GJ. You are also arguing, necessarily, that Armstrong has received the GJ target letter. You are also necessarily arguing that it is impossible for Armstrong to have been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. I differ from you in that I admit the possibility that Armstrong is not a target and the possibility that he has received a grant of immunity.

So are you speculating that at the end of 18+ months of GJ sitting the Feds have not established a target or targets for the proposed indictments?

The GJ must be made aware from the outset of the proposed indictments so they can understand the prosecution's case and consider calling their own witnesses

The prosecutor's grand jury presentation ordinarily begins with an explanation of a proposed indictment and a summary of the evidence that will be offered to support it. The evidence is then presented through the testimony of witnesses or the introduction of documents.

How can you have the proposed indictments without a target or targets?

If you believe that Armstrong has been or will be offered immunity against prosecution then Armstrong must not be a target. Which is totally nonsensical.

Immunity is not offered to a person who the Feds have the intention of prosecuting.

As the alternative target(s) to Armstrong you have avoided responding when specifically asked on this forum. As alternatives they do not exist.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

If they show that Armstrong trafficked in drugs, laundered money, transported drugs, hired others to transport drugs, intimidated witnesses, impeded an investigation, etc. then he is in serious trouble. If he is stupid enough to fight this in court he will go to prison.

There is plenty in the public domain that shows Armstrong is facing multiple, serious, expensive, legal entanglements that will take years and millions of $$$. Coupled with a shrinking income this will result in a high likelihood of serious financial issues

There is plenty in the public domain to support that this could happen. You do not have to be a "hater", or sleeping with a prosecutor, to understand this......but it is much easier to toss out insults and bait then to discuss the actual topic

Firstly - can you calm down a bit, we are actually in agreement of a lot of things, the only difference is for me is that he does not end up in prison.

I didn't distort things - in fact it was even in the piece you quoted.





This appears to be the basis for you believing he will end up in jail.

What 'tons of evidence' do you believe the prosecution can show? That LA was the leader of the team? An ass? The biggest benefactor? Sure, but what evidence ties him to crimes? (And indeed what crimes?)

I count 6 areas that Race Radio has delineated and I'll bet the actual counts of those charges will bemultiples of that number.

Yes, she lied about the doping - it does not matter what she lied about except that she lied to the Feds, which is perjury.
Doping is not a crime, which is why she got canned for perjury.


I think the Feds will find enough evidence of racketeering, however I am not yet hopeful that they will be able to, as you say directly link Armstrong to it.

Did he know about it? Yes? Did he benefit from it? Yes. The Feds will have a tough time proving that Armstrong knew what was going on.
I would be quite happy for LA to do some prison time - but I doubt that will happen (although his tax affairs could prove interesting) - but even if he does not do a day he will be stripped of what he most craved, the adulation -as he will be viewed as the biggest fraud in sports history..

Hardly meaningless - Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping.
As Armstrong will be a target, not a witness he wont be questioned by the Feds (like Jones) but on a stand. Even if he lies there (big if) they do not usually pursue perjury charges.



No doubt Armstrong is the name and that he will be the center of any media focus.
But as for doing jail time - as I said, others will be in a more direct firing line than LA - so even though I would love to see it these types usually have enough distance from any crimes and the money to fight/reduce exposure jail time.

I am calm, it's just that you keep repeating stuff that is not true and which gives Armstrong somewhat of a pass.

I know you and I agree about 99% which makes your interpretation of the evidence even more annoying.

Whatever it is that makes Armstrong seemingly unassailable to you, serves to exonerate him in the eyes of the idolaters.

A lot of the evidence will be in the form of eyewitness testimony from those who've made deals. Armstrong is isolated now. Who's going to take the fall, Knaggs or Stapleton?