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

[Velodude]

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?

SCA case was always going to fail because it was not a condition of the contract between Tailwind & SCA that Armstrong did not dope.

If Armstrong had been caught doping he would have had an AAF anyway for the particular year in question and no liability for SCA to pay.

SCA will recover their funds and costs if the outcome of the trial or the plea deal determine or by admission he doped while competing during the UCI SOL years.

Commentary suggests this to be within the period of 8 years prior to commencement of the Federal investigation in 2010

 

[Velodude]

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.


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.

From what little we know from the crumbs that investigative journalists pick up the alleged criminal acts committed by LA as an individual and as being part of the Tailwind criminal enterprize would produce truck loads of documentary evidence and first hand witness accounts.

Compared with other felons I cannot see LA avoiding an incarceration term.

 

[MarkvW]

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?

Immunity is one possibility that can't be excluded. If the feds have proof problems, they might figure that getting something from Lance in the way of testimony might outweigh getting nothing at all. Or, if the investigation leads to a bigger fish, they might elect to give Lance immunity. If Lance gets immunity, and lies, perjury charges could result.

This isn't that farfetched. If they can't discover enough evidence to make a case, and they are at the end of their inquiry, why wouldn't they haul Lance in front of the GJ with an immunity grant? After all, we're going on 21 months since Floyd disclosed incidents occurring seven to ten years ago. It's not unreasonable to think that the feds might have proof problems when it comes to Lance.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

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.


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.

If Armstrong doesn't end up in prison and/or the crimes he's guilty of don't merit it, I would have to agree with the LA defenders. WTF are taxpayers spending all this money for? To make Armstrong look bad?

All of his crimes will add up to RICO charges which carry a very heavy penalty.

To me, you seem to be making defense arguments. That's what I object so strenuously to. You seem to be creating some artificial, observer dependent standard of guilt that you, me, and basically all of the rational thinkers of the thread subscribe to, while at the same time saying there is some other standard that Armstrong is going to be judged by in court.

The only standard that exists is whether the accused is guilty or not.

Contrary to what most people think, reasonable doubt accrues to the benefit of the prosecution, not the defense. It's not a burden, it's a gift. The prosecution isn't burdened with debunking every single ridiculous "possible" theory of the crime or wild goose chase the defense concocts.

Unfortunately people don't realize that every single piece of evidence which has ever been introduced in court and which will ever be introduced in court is equivocal.

People seem to buy into the defense stance that each piece of evidence be considered individually rather than in the aggregate. If any doubt can be cast about a piece of evidence, according to the hoi polloi, the evidence has no value. People who argue this way don't realize that even DNA evidence is not 100% certain.

The most accurate physical law known to man, Quantum Electrodynamics, equal to the accuracy of a hair's breadth in the distance from NY to Los Angeles is not absolutely certain.

You seem to be creating a silly defense argument about what it means to prove something, in this case, guilt.

 

[Polish]

From what little we know from the crumbs that investigative journalists pick up the alleged criminal acts committed by LA as an individual and as being part of the Tailwind criminal enterprize would produce truck loads of documentary evidence and first hand witness accounts.

Compared with other felons I cannot see LA avoiding an incarceration term.

Yes, producing "truckloads" out of "crumbs"
Like making "mountains" out of "molehills".

I think thats sums up the Clinic "investigation" quite nicely.
Bunch of Sir Edmunds in here.
Climbing to the top of Mt SSDD.

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

Yes, producing "truckloads" out of "crumbs"
Like making "mountains" out of "molehills".

You guys really need a lol emoticon. Hilarious.

 

[Velodude]

Immunity is one possibility that can't be excluded. If the feds have proof problems, they might figure that getting something from Lance in the way of testimony might outweigh getting nothing at all. Or, if the investigation leads to a bigger fish, they might elect to give Lance immunity. If Lance gets immunity, and lies, perjury charges could result.

This isn't that farfetched. If they can't discover enough evidence to make a case, and they are at the end of their inquiry, why wouldn't they haul Lance in front of the GJ with an immunity grant? After all, we're going on 21 months since Floyd disclosed incidents occurring seven to ten years ago. It's not unreasonable to think that the feds might have proof problems when it comes to Lance.

So farfetched it is out of sight!

Provide some links for precedents where a central suspect/target has been provided with immunity.

Defeats the whole purpose of having a "Lance Armstrong Investigation". He is Mr Big.

All the media would not be making that identifying reference unless they had off the record information from witnesses or from the inner sanctum.

Armstrong's lawyers would be working overtime with threatening cease and desist letters to media organizations. Hasn't happened.

 

[Velodude]

You guys really need a lol emoticon. Hilarious.

Ducks fly with ducks;
Geese fly with geese.

 

[MarkvW]

So farfetched it is out of sight!

Provide some links for precedents where a central suspect/target has been provided with immunity.

Defeats the whole purpose of having a "Lance Armstrong Investigation". He is Mr Big.

All the media would not be making that identifying reference unless they had off the record information from witnesses or from the inner sanctum.

Armstrong's lawyers would be working overtime with threatening cease and desist letters to media organizations. Hasn't happened.

Maybe Lance isn't "Mr. Big."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If Armstrong doesn't end up in prison and/or the crimes he's guilty of don't merit it, I would have to agree with the LA defenders. WTF are taxpayers spending all this money for? To make Armstrong look bad?

Well then you are believing the LA defenders mantra that this is an investigation on Armstrong (a witch-hunt)- it is not.
It is about exposing an elaborate team wide doping system - which obviously ties in fraud, and possible tax evasion and other crimes.


Of course LAs difficulty is that he is tied to this 'system' not just as an athlete but through his ownership of Tailwind.

All of his crimes will add up to RICO charges which carry a very heavy penalty.

To me, you seem to be making defense arguments. That's what I object so strenuously to. You seem to be creating some artificial, observer dependent standard of guilt that you, me, and basically all of the rational thinkers of the thread subscribe to, while at the same time saying there is some other standard that Armstrong is going to be judged by in court.

The only standard that exists is whether the accused is guilty or not.

Contrary to what most people think, reasonable doubt accrues to the benefit of the prosecution, not the defense. It's not a burden, it's a gift. The prosecution isn't burdened with debunking every single ridiculous "possible" theory of the crime or wild goose chase the defense concocts.

Unfortunately people don't realize that every single piece of evidence which has ever been introduced in court and which will ever be introduced in court is equivocal.

People seem to buy into the defense stance that each piece of evidence be considered individually rather than in the aggregate. If any doubt can be cast about a piece of evidence, according to the hoi polloi, the evidence has no value. People who argue this way don't realize that even DNA evidence is not 100% certain.

The most accurate physical law known to man, Quantum Electrodynamics, equal to the accuracy of a hair's breadth in the distance from NY to Los Angeles is not absolutely certain.

You seem to be creating a silly defense argument about what it means to prove something, in this case, guilt.

It is not a "silly defense argument" - this is not X-factor, for LA to go to jail, which is what you not only want, but appear to demand - it requires that he is found guilty of specific charges (which I agree is likely) and that these crimes means incarceration.
You still have not suggested how or what that is?

A quick example - Barry Bonds was tried on 4 specific charges, he was found guilty of 'obstruction of justice', yet incredibly walked on the actual specifics of lying to a GJ etc

 

[Velodude]

Maybe Lance isn't "Mr. Big."

You wish

So it should be the "[insert name] Investigation" and not the "Lance Armstrong Investigation"?

And it is just a huge coincidence that known GJ & Fed witnesses like LeMond, Andreus, Landis, Hamilton, McIlwain, Popovych, Saugy, etc., also had an association with this person?

And the US Feds have an interest in the European banking probes into one Dr. M. Ferrari and the doping scientific and racing control results held in France of Mr. L. Armstrong?

 

[MarkvW]

. . .Contrary to what most people think, reasonable doubt accrues to the benefit of the prosecution, not the defense. It's not a burden, it's a gift. The prosecution isn't burdened with debunking every single ridiculous "possible" theory of the crime or wild goose chase the defense concocts. . . .

Sounds like the kind of argument Vyshinsky or Friesler would make!

 

[Race Radio]

Immunity is one possibility that can't be excluded. If the feds have proof problems, they might figure that getting something from Lance in the way of testimony might outweigh getting nothing at all. Or, if the investigation leads to a bigger fish, they might elect to give Lance immunity. If Lance gets immunity, and lies, perjury charges could result.

This isn't that farfetched. If they can't discover enough evidence to make a case, and they are at the end of their inquiry, why wouldn't they haul Lance in front of the GJ with an immunity grant? After all, we're going on 21 months since Floyd disclosed incidents occurring seven to ten years ago. It's not unreasonable to think that the feds might have proof problems when it comes to Lance.

Which investigation are you referring to? There are multiple. It is not that far fetched that Lance would flip on his friends as his main concern has always been his own welfare.

As far as proof, I doubt that is an issue. Getting people to talk has not been a challenge

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

Ducks fly with ducks;
Geese fly with geese.

I am but a humble observer. Note that I quoted the logical fallacy and not Polish's attack on 'Sir Edmunds'. If the moderators stuck to their guns they should issue suspensions for you and (perhaps) Polish for contravening:

Do not post in this thread if your argument centers on "you are a fanboy" or "you guys are haters" or "you work for Livestrong" or "you have an obsession". If you want to post along these lines, do so elsewhere, as it will no longer be tolerated here. No one who wants to read discussions about Lance Armstrong is interested in such topics.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Sounds like the kind of argument Vyshinsky or Friesler would make!

I should modify what I wrote a little in that of course each piece of evidence should be considered by itself and together with all the other evidence.

I think you owe an explanation to me for your scurrilous accusations which is not mitigated by the use of the smiley.

 

[MarkvW]

You wish

So it should be the "[insert name] Investigation" and not the "Lance Armstrong Investigation"?

And it is just a huge coincidence that known GJ & Fed witnesses like LeMond, Andreus, Landis, Hamilton, McIlwain, Popovych, Saugy, etc., also had an association with this person?

And the US Feds have an interest in the European banking probes into one Dr. M. Ferrari and the doping scientific and racing control results held in France of Mr. L. Armstrong?

Does that establish that Lance is "Mr. Big?" It just looks like a bet that the feds are going to indict Lance.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Well then you are believing the LA defenders mantra that this is an investigation on Armstrong (a witch-hunt)- it is not.
It is about exposing an elaborate team wide doping system - which obviously ties in fraud, and possible tax evasion and other crimes.

Where do you come up with this? I said if the investigation is about matters that are so trivial that they don't result in jail time, I would think the LA defenders have a point.

The fact is that I believe, and the evidence shows beyond all doubt, that Armstrong has participated in enterprise corruption and that the RICO statutes which apply to these crimes demand incarceration for lengthy terms.

It is not a "silly defense argument" - this is not X-factor, for LA to go to jail, which is what you not only want, but appear to demand - it requires that he is found guilty of specific charges (which I agree is likely) and that these crimes means incarceration.
You still have not suggested how or what that is?

A quick example - Barry Bonds was tried on 4 specific charges, he was found guilty of 'obstruction of justice', yet incredibly walked on the actual specifics of lying to a GJ etc

I told you, RICO crimes. Read up on what that entails if you don't know.

The silly defense argument/perspective is that you are buying into their insane definition of what constitutes proof. I expect it from the defense. I don't expect this observer dependent meaningless/distinction standard from someone who's convinced of Armstrong's guilt.

How can you believe with a lot of certainty that Armstrong is guilty and then go on to say that it's going to be hard to prove it? My point is that you don't understand what it actually means to prove something, and that you are doing the bidding of the defense by introducing artificial, differing standards of proof which have no meaning or purpose.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Does that establish that Lance is "Mr. Big?" It just looks like a bet that the feds are going to indict Lance.

You are the only one here to continue to suggest that Armstrong may not be indicted, may not be a target or be called as a witness.

Yet when you are asked how you come to that opinion you offer nothing.

Can you just answer the simple question and stop derailing the thread by bringing it up and avoiding the question?

 

[MarkvW]

You are the only one here to continue to suggest that Armstrong may not be indicted, may not be a target or be called as a witness.

Yet when you are asked how you come to that opinion you offer nothing.

Can you just answer the simple question and stop derailing the thread by bringing it up and avoiding the question?

Just because I'm asked a loaded question, doesn't mean I should answer it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Where do you come up with this? I said if the investigation is about matters that are so trivial that they don't result in jail time, I would think the LA defenders have a point.

The investigation is not trivial (where did you get that?) - there will be prison time for many, and serious penalties for others.

But your point is about Armstrong- and that he is ultimately facing jail.
Here is what you wrote:

The fact is that I believe, and the evidence shows beyond all doubt, that Armstrong has participated in enterprise corruption and that the RICO statutes which apply to these crimes demand incarceration for lengthy terms.

I told you, RICO crimes. Read up on what that entails if you don't know.

The silly defense argument/perspective is that you are buying into their insane definition of what constitutes proof. I expect it from the defense. I don't expect this observer dependent meaningless/distinction standard from someone who's convinced of Armstrong's guilt.

How can you believe with a lot of certainty that Armstrong is guilty and then go on to say that it's going to be hard to prove it? My point is that you don't understand what it actually means to prove something, and that you are doing the bidding of the defense by introducing artificial, differing standards of proof which have no meaning or purpose.

To the last point - then why not just show me, all I am getting is being told I am wrong.

Finally- you said RICO - which I had forgotten many of the details. A quick glance looks promising.
To the blue - we know there was a doping system in place at USPS, financed through Tailwind (or a spin off company) and PEDs bought.
All i am saying is that proving in a court that Armstrong was the director of this enterprise is a tall order.
I would be quite happy to be proved wrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just because I'm asked a loaded question, doesn't mean I should answer it.

Actually it does - because it is becoming obvious that you are not trying to engage in the debate.

From the updated rules on this thread:

The topic is Lance Armstrong and the events which he is linked to. This is all that matters, if you're unable to add something new, or debate points related to this core topic, don't post.

 

[MarkvW]

I should modify what I wrote a little in that of course each piece of evidence should be considered by itself and together with all the other evidence.

I think you owe an explanation to me for your scurrilous accusations which is not mitigated by the use of the smiley.

The reasonable doubt standard is not easy. It is very hard. It is not easy to convince a jury that a person is guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Any experienced criminal defense lawyer will tell you that reasonable doubt is their one big advantage at trial.

I really didn't think you were seriously arguing that reasonable doubt was an advantage for the prosecutor. That's the reason for the smiley. Now that I know you seriously made that statement . . .

 

[MarkvW]

Actually it does - because it is becoming obvious that you are not trying to engage in the debate.

From the updated rules on this thread:

I don't agree with you.

 

[ChrisE]

The investigation is not trivial (where did you get that?) - there will be prison time for many, and serious penalties for others.

....


To the last point - then why not just show me, all I am getting is being told I am wrong.

Finally- you said RICO - which I had forgotten many of the details. A quick glance looks promising.
To the blue - we know there was a doping system in place at USPS, financed through Tailwind (or a spin off company) and PEDs bought.
All i am saying is that proving in a court that Armstrong was the director of this enterprise is a tall order.
I would be quite happy to be proved wrong.

Hey Doc are you following what this guy is shovelling? I've been reading this back and forth between you and him the last day or so.

Upthread he had me believing he agreed with me that it will be a difficult sell, if it goes to trial. Then he goes on to say how much it is a slam dunk, and talks in all of these absolutes. He even debunks the layman's theory of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I know you and I disagree on the ultimate outcome, but at least we do agree it will take some work for LA to be found guilty or even to do time. This Letterman character caricature has him in Guantanimo already.

Yes, along with you I also wait with uber anticipation for this to be all spelled out so us rubes can get on board.

 

[Race Radio]

Hey Doc are you following what this guy is shovelling? I've been reading this back and forth between you and him the last day or so.

Upthread he had me believing he agreed with me that it will be a difficult sell, if it goes to trial. Then he goes on to say how much it is a slam dunk, and talks in all of these absolutes. He even debunks the layman's theory of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Thanks Chris. I thought I was imaging the incomprehensible, circular, shape shifting. Glad I am not the only one

It has been a truly impressive display. Lance can only hope his lawyers are this good.