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

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

I know you differ, that is not in question - however you still have not shown why, I even highlighted that the post you quoted:

Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati

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.

Why do you believe Armstrong is not a target?
Why is it when i mention that Stephanie McIlvain was in front of a GJ you go silent - why would she be called in to this investigation?
Would you like me to upload the Tailwind document with Armstrongs name on it again?

i will repeat again - "I still not have seen anything put forward to suggest that Armstrong is not one of the targets.

 

[MarkvW]

I know you differ, that is not in question - however you still have not shown why, I even highlighted that the post you quoted:


Why do you believe Armstrong is not a target?
Why is it when i mention that Stephanie McIlvain was in front of a GJ you go silent - why would she be called in to this investigation?
Would you like me to upload the Tailwind document with Armstrongs name on it again?

i will repeat again - "I still not have seen anything put forward to suggest that Armstrong is not one of the targets.

I said that there is the possibility that Armstrong is not a target and that there is a possibility that Armstrong has been granted immunity. I did NOT say that I believe that Armstrong is not a target.

 

[Velodude]

I said that there is the possibility that Armstrong is not a target and that there is a possibility that Armstrong has been granted immunity. I did NOT say that I believe that Armstrong is not a target.

So, for the nth time, if you believe there is a possibility that Lance Edward Armstrong (nee Gunderson) is not a target you must have other possible targets in substitution. Who are they?

The Grand Jury operates in secret so the targets are not known outside the GJ room. But they must be considering evidence in relation to an individual or individuals not blank spaces for names of defendants in proposed indictments.

That is the fundamental protective purpose of a Grand Jury - to ensure there exists sufficient evidence to independent layperson peers to indict those target person(s) for each of the counts listed in the indictments.

Before the advent of grand juries, corrupt practices by persons of power and influence could cause kangaroo court decisions against innocent citizens.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

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

Nothing I say is giving him a pass - I expect him to be convicted of some of the 'crimes' that are quoted. However high paid lawyers often get deals for their clients so that their penalties avoid jail time, whether thats financial or the Papp home sentence. So, LA, guilty yes - prison time, I am not yet convinced.

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

Please don't sue me

Seriously though - going through each of RRs points:
trafficked in drugs - could be wrong, but for charges to stick it would have to originate in the US, as well as directly tying LA to it.
laundered money, The accountants, lawyers - LAs role would be small.
transported drugs, Again, does outside US count? If not reliant on witnesses and directly to LA
hired others to transport drugs, Aga, can it be directly tied to LA?
intimidated witnesses, Cache Cache? Sure,jailtime, doubtful.
impeded an investigation, etc. How?

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

Quite the opposite - and indeed could explain our difference of interpretation.

If LA does not do prison time I can see a lot of LA apologists claiming that it exonerates or shows LA was not really that guilty.
The length (or lack of) of any sentence is not what should be viewed to deduce his guilt.

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?

Ok- Knaggs & Stapleton are knee deep, I believe these guys are facing serious problems - often people in these positions decide to fight it, as any immunity offered usually requires a certain amount of jail time. Basically, they go all in.

If you are looking for someone to wobble, that was close to it - my bet would be Higgins.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I said that there is the possibility that Armstrong is not a target and that there is a possibility that Armstrong has been granted immunity. I did NOT say that I believe that Armstrong is not a target.

Fine - a "possibility" that he is not a target.

It does not change the fundamental question that I asked and you did not answer:
Why do you believe Armstrong is not a target? You can include possible or whatever, for you to hold that opinion you must have an alternative theory, what is it?

Because my point remains that - "I still not have seen anything put forward to suggest that Armstrong is not one of the targets".

 

[thehog]

Nothing I say is giving him a pass - I expect him to be convicted of some of the 'crimes' that are quoted. However high paid lawyers often get deals for their clients so that their penalties avoid jail time, whether thats financial or the Papp home sentence. So, LA, guilty yes - prison time, I am not yet convinced.


intimidated witnesses, Cache Cache? Sure,jailtime, doubtful.
.

I think SCA will turn up some interesting details on intimidating/pressuring/bribing witnesses front.

I am with you. Jail time is stretch. He will do everything in his power not to go to jail and that includes making deals and dropping others into the stink. I also not so sure the crimes are serious enough to warrant prison sentence but we will see.

Floyd always seemed convinced that jail time would result – he sent a text as such. I think there are things we don’t know much about. The UBS accounts that Och and Armstrong set up are worrying but it’s not unusual for sport stars to have such arrangements – it depends on how they avoiding paying tax with these accounts and if the money was channeled into the US.

The Ferrari arrangement is also interesting. I doubt whether this was an normal consultative agreement. If Armstrong was paying the sums that have been claimed then a good portion would not be on official record. Was the money channeled from other sources? Selling bikes etc. may pay for small doping but if it’s in the 100s of 1000s then I doubt he used clean money. But we shall see.

I am with Race Radio – he’ll take a plea. Crazy to take this to court. Procycling is as filthy sport normally and Armstrong has claimed to be virtuously clean all his life. When Joe Public get an idea of what’s really involved in preparing for the Tour I think they’ll be shocked. This is not a few injections in the locker room before a game – this is major league doping.

Alas Armstrong is a funny character. I honestly believe he feels he has to win and be vindicated. Thus he may want to take it to court to prove this his way was the only way.

 

[Cloxxki]

I think SCA will turn up some interesting details on intimidating/pressuring/bribing witnesses front.

It's a long list of crimes and unpleasantries.
But reducing it all to one: lieing in the SCA case to gain millions that weren't his.
Isn't that suffient for jail time, even if he were a friendly person, cooks cakes on tv and saves kittens from burning houses?

How does one settle a case where just one claim of dozens is already enough for jail time?
Even if the current GJ path doesn't result in a sentencing, the highly expected appeal in the SCA case based on new proof can only result in big settlement, AND jail? How does one get away with such a thing, if even the universally beloved mother of the USA goes to jail for a little bit of foreknowledge trading?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Nothing I say is giving him a pass - I expect him to be convicted of some of the 'crimes' that are quoted. However high paid lawyers often get deals for their clients so that their penalties avoid jail time, whether thats financial or the Papp home sentence. So, LA, guilty yes - prison time, I am not yet convinced.


Please don't sue me

Seriously though - going through each of RRs points:
trafficked in drugs - could be wrong, but for charges to stick it would have to originate in the US, as well as directly tying LA to it.
laundered money, The accountants, lawyers - LAs role would be small.
transported drugs, Again, does outside US count? If not reliant on witnesses and directly to LA
hired others to transport drugs, Aga, can it be directly tied to LA?
intimidated witnesses, Cache Cache? Sure,jailtime, doubtful.
impeded an investigation, etc. How?


Quite the opposite - and indeed could explain our difference of interpretation.

If LA does not do prison time I can see a lot of LA apologists claiming that it exonerates or shows LA was not really that guilty.
The length (or lack of) of any sentence is not what should be viewed to deduce his guilt.


Ok- Knaggs & Stapleton are knee deep, I believe these guys are facing serious problems - often people in these positions decide to fight it, as any immunity offered usually requires a certain amount of jail time. Basically, they go all in.

If you are looking for someone to wobble, that was close to it - my bet would be Higgins.

The major link which makes these all U.S. offenses is the USPS link.

What bothers me most is that you are "conceding" how hard it is for the Fed's to prove this stuff.

It falls in line with the people who believe legally proving something beyond a reasonable doubt necessitates the proverbial "smoking gun."

Even if Armstrong conducted his crimes in Texas Stadium in front of 110 thousand witnesses and projected them upon the Jumbotron, you'd have his defenders claiming it was Siegfried and Roy type sleight of hand and there's no real evidence.

Your posts admitting this supposed difficulty of prosecution lend credence to the irrational beliefs of what is required to prove guilt.

Very few accused criminals will face the avalanche of evidence Armstrong has going against him. That is why his minions are engaged in this idiotic reality distorting public relations nonsense. He is unable to legitimately fight the charges because he's guilty beyond all doubt.....well except for space aliens and other et's intervening.

 

[thehog]

It's a long list of crimes and unpleasantries.
But reducing it all to one: lieing in the SCA case to gain millions that weren't his.
Isn't that suffient for jail time, even if he were a friendly person, cooks cakes on tv and saves kittens from burning houses?

How does one settle a case where just one claim of dozens is already enough for jail time?
Even if the current GJ path doesn't result in a sentencing, the highly expected appeal in the SCA case based on new proof can only result in big settlement, AND jail? How does one get away with such a thing, if even the universally beloved mother of the USA goes to jail for a little bit of foreknowledge trading?

If SCA appealed it would be a civil trial rather than criminal. They have several grounds one being as you rightly point out that they were “set up”. If they had any idea that witnesses were paid and pressured then I don’t think they would have settled. They would have instructed that the matter go to court. It should be noted that Armstrong took proceedings against SCA and not the other way around. With that in mind that would give SCA additional grounds for compensation. There’s a monumental amount of fraud in that case alone. When it comes to insurance “hedging” SCA didn’t just lose the 7.5m they lost a whole more betting on the original 5m with other parties. Of course compensation will come into play along with reputational loss, time and interest. Of course Armstrong can attempt to suggest doping wasn’t a part of the original contract but “fair play” was and they’ll get him on this – he’ll plea this one out for around 15-20m.

 

[Berzin]

I said that there is the possibility that Armstrong is not a target and that there is a possibility that Armstrong has been granted immunity. I did NOT say that I believe that Armstrong is not a target.

Armstrong has already spent a few million dollars on Fabiani and other assorted lawyer fees. He knows he's a target and so do you.

 

[MarkvW]

Fine - a "possibility" that he is not a target.

It does not change the fundamental question that I asked and you did not answer:
Why do you believe Armstrong is not a target? You can include possible or whatever, for you to hold that opinion you must have an alternative theory, what is it?

Because my point remains that - "I still not have seen anything put forward to suggest that Armstrong is not one of the targets".

You are asking me to support a belief that I do not have. I do not believe that Armstrong is not a target. Armstrong could be a target, for all anyone knows. Then, again, there is a possibility that he isn't a target. Believing that there is a possibility that Armstrong is not a target is not the same thing as believing that Armstrong is not a target.

I haven't seen anything put forward to suggest that the majority of people in Austin, TX are not targets of the investigation, either. That doesn't make those people tarrgets. That kind of reasoning is unpersuasive.

I can't conclude that Armstrong must certainly remain a target of the GJ investigation. Nor can I conclude that it is impossible that Armstrong could have been granted immunity. The best support for this is the far-reaching nature of the investigation and the secrecy of the investigation. There's a lot of potential "targets" out there, any one of which might assume priority over Lance for a wide variety of reasons, like proof issues or relative culpability.

 

[peterst6906]

You are asking me to support a belief that I do not have. I do not believe that Armstrong is not a target. Armstrong could be a target, for all anyone knows. Then, again, there is a possibility that he isn't a target. Believing that there is a possibility that Armstrong is not a target is not the same thing as believing that Armstrong is not a target.

I haven't seen anything put forward to suggest that the majority of people in Austin, TX are not targets of the investigation, either. That doesn't make those people tarrgets. That kind of reasoning is unpersuasive.

I can't conclude that Armstrong must certainly remain a target of the GJ investigation. Nor can I conclude that it is impossible that Armstrong could have been granted immunity. The best support for this is the far-reaching nature of the investigation and the secrecy of the investigation. There's a lot of potential "targets" out there, any one of which might assume priority over Lance for a wide variety of reasons, like proof issues or relative culpability.

Umm. Hang on... what?

I normally follow your arguments with no problem and see the underlying message you are getting at, but seriously, I can only conclude that it is possibie that you have unbeliefs about your own beliefs. Though it's certainly possible that you have beliefs about your beliefs, but that you agree there is a possibility that your beliefs are not correct.

Umm. Hang on... what?

PS. Not trying to go off topic or direct a post at a poster rather than the topic. I just can't see how the logic of that post is even possible.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The major link which makes these all U.S. offenses is the USPS link.

This is exactly why I am not convinced that Armstrong will end up in jail - when you start examining the specifics it is difficult to tie LA to criminal activity that leads to prison.

USPS? They merely sponsored the team.
Perhaps you mean Tailwind, who received the USPS sponsorship. While I agree that is where a lot of the financial crimes started through, do you expect other Tailwind corporate officers like Lee or Bucksbaum to end up in prison??

What bothers me most is that you are "conceding" how hard it is for the Fed's to prove this stuff.

But it is hard.
Thats not conceding - that (IMO) is an accurate analysis.

It falls in line with the people who believe legally proving something beyond a reasonable doubt necessitates the proverbial "smoking gun."

Even if Armstrong conducted his crimes in Texas Stadium in front of 110 thousand witnesses and projected them upon the Jumbotron, you'd have his defenders claiming it was Siegfried and Roy type sleight of hand and there's no real evidence.

Your posts admitting this supposed difficulty of prosecution lend credence to the irrational beliefs of what is required to prove guilt.

Very few accused criminals will face the avalanche of evidence Armstrong has going against him. That is why his minions are engaged in this idiotic reality distorting public relations nonsense. He is unable to legitimately fight the charges because he's guilty beyond all doubt.....well except for space aliens and other et's intervening.

But it is difficult to "prove" and secure convictions in a Court of Law (which is the only way he may end up going to prison).

I am not going to craft my opinion just because a few "irrational" posters might seize on it to suggest LA is somehow not guilty.

This goes back to to Martha Stewart or Marion Jones mentioned earlier - as an ordinary person what they were jailed for and most would assume it was for "illegal dealings" and "drugs" respectively. While that is what got them in trouble they were jailed for perjury/obstruction.

 

[MarkvW]

Umm. Hang on... what?

I normally follow your arguments with no problem and see the underlying message you are getting at, but seriously, I can only conclude that it is possibie that you have unbeliefs about your own beliefs. Though it's certainly possible that you have beliefs about your beliefs, but that you agree there is a possibility that your beliefs are not correct.

Umm. Hang on... what?

Sorry. All I'm trying to say is that it is that a perjury/obstructing case could be possible.

 

[thehog]

If SCA appealed it would be a civil trial rather than criminal. They have several grounds one being as you rightly point out that they were “set up”. If they had any idea that witnesses were paid and pressured then I don’t think they would have settled. They would have instructed that the matter go to court. It should be noted that Armstrong took proceedings against SCA and not the other way around. With that in mind that would give SCA additional grounds for compensation. There’s a monumental amount of fraud in that case alone. When it comes to insurance “hedging” SCA didn’t just lose the 7.5m they lost a whole more betting on the original 5m with other parties. Of course compensation will come into play along with reputational loss, time and interest. Of course Armstrong can attempt to suggest doping wasn’t a part of the original contract but “fair play” was and they’ll get him on this – he’ll plea this one out for around 15-20m.

I would add SCA would wait for a judgment in the federal case before proceeding. That way they don’t have do any leg work themselves. They’d use the judgment as a point of reference. As would the Sunday Times as so on. The Federal case itself may use the SCA arbitration hearing as the basis for fraud etc. that may result in jail time.

 

[peterst6906]

Sorry. All I'm trying to say is that it is that a perjury/obstructing case could be possible.

OK thanks. That's clearer, though I agree at this point, we can't know that.

 

[Polish]

Armstrong has already spent a few million dollars on Fabiani and other assorted lawyer fees. He knows he's a target and so do you.

You are just using the "we don't know how the investigation is going, so anything is possible" angle to justify a ridiculous premise that has no basis in reality.

Being the Target of a Witch Hunt Smear Job is very different from being the Target of a GJ.

Fabiani is useful in the former not the latter.
BTW, no "target letters" in a Witch Hunt

So just because Lance did not receive a target letter, does not mean he will not need to spend a few mill on PR/Lawyers.

 

[Berzin]

Being the Target of a Witch Hunt Smear Job is very different from being the Target of a GJ.

Fabiani is useful in the former not the latter.
BTW, no "target letters" in a Witch Hunt

So just because Lance did not receive a target letter, does not mean he will not need to spend a few mill on PR/Lawyers.

Do me a favor, Polish. Don't quote me and don't attempt to answer any questions I have.

You bring absolutely no knowledge of this subject to the table, so don't use anything I say to continue your useless and obnoxious trolling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK thanks. That's clearer, though I agree at this point, we can't know that.

I appreciated your question to Markvw - although I do not understand how their answer satisfied your request. In the piece you quoted they were talking about 'targets', nothing to do with perjury/obstruction.

For the perjury/obstruction answer it falls back to a theory LA is not a target!!
What he bases the theory that Armstrong is not (even possibly) a target is the appropriate question, as it flies in the face of the information that is available.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I'm saying it's difficult

This is exactly why I am not convinced that Armstrong will end up in jail - when you start examining the specifics it is difficult to tie LA to criminal activity that leads to prison.

USPS? They merely sponsored the team.
Perhaps you mean Tailwind, who received the USPS sponsorship. While I agree that is where a lot of the financial crimes started through, do you expect other Tailwind corporate officers like Lee or Bucksbaum to end up in prison??


But it is hard.
Thats not conceding - that (IMO) is an accurate analysis.


But it is difficult to "prove" and secure convictions in a Court of Law (which is the only way he may end up going to prison).

I am not going to craft my opinion just because a few "irrational" posters might seize on it to suggest LA is somehow not guilty.

This goes back to to Martha Stewart or Marion Jones mentioned earlier - as an ordinary person what they were jailed for and most would assume it was for "illegal dealings" and "drugs" respectively. While that is what got them in trouble they were jailed for perjury/obstruction.

because you keep insisting it's difficult based on your belief that it is, and there aren't just a few irrational posters, they're legion.

The whole fact that there is now accuate publically available information about Armstrong's guilt is damning. The actual evidence and supporting documentation is probably a multiple of 20x what we've seen.

The standard of guilt is now guilt beyond all possibility including space alien intervention. By that standard, I would agree that "proving" Armstrong's guilt is a huge challenge.

 

[virandociclista]

What will happen first: AC verdict or LA trial? =/

 

[peterst6906]

I appreciated your question to Markvw - although I do not understand how their answer satisfied your request. In the piece you quoted they were talking about 'targets', nothing to do with perjury/obstruction.

For the perjury/obstruction answer it falls back to a theory LA is not a target!!
What he bases the theory that Armstrong is not (even possibly) a target is the appropriate question, as it flies in the face of the information that is available.

I was just happy to get a concise summary of the original statement.

All of the evidence available publicly indicates that LA is a target of the investigation, whether or not he has received a letter to say so. Since the start of the investigation, Lance's name has been linked to it in everything that has come out.

It's not possible that he's not a target.

So if he can only have perjured himself or obstructed on the basis of not being a target, then I can't see how that could apply. I haven't paid much attention to that aspect of it, so wasn't up on the prerequisite for the the possibility of perjury/obstruction.

Regards,

Peter

 

[peterst6906]

What will happen first: AC verdict or LA trial? =/

Hell freezing over it seems, or this thread topping 100,000 posts. That's also possible.

Unfortunate on both accounts (ie. AC or LA first), or any other possibilities that could eventuate.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

because you keep insisting it's difficult based on your belief that it is, and there aren't just a few irrational posters, they're legion.

Correct - and I base that on previous cases and sentences and that quite often those who can afford avoid jail time for some alternative punishment.

The whole fact that there is now accuate publically available information about Armstrong's guilt is damning. The actual evidence and supporting documentation is probably a multiple of 20x what we've seen.

The standard of guilt is now guilt beyond all possibility including space alien intervention. By that standard, I would agree that "proving" Armstrong's guilt is a huge challenge.

Oh please - you appear to be the one hung-up that all this evidence and that it must result in prison to show his guilt, which is what you accuse LA fans of clinging to.

Quite simply for LA to end up in prison he must be found guilty of specific crimes through the judicial system - they ain't my rules.

To the blue - that will be different, that will be "damning" in the court of public opinion.
If you have specific charges (when I say specific, I am not a lawyer so no need to quote statutes, just the various types tax, distribution, financial etc) that you think will lead to jail terms for Armstrong, then I would be happy to examine it.

 

[Velodude]

Sorry. All I'm trying to say is that it is that a perjury/obstructing case could be possible.

If he is a target, which is the ONLY possibility in this real world, then his lawyers will insist on his not appearing before the GJ or being interviewed by investigators, which is a target's right.

So how can he have counts of perjury, obstructing justice and lying to investigators in the indictments?