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

[ChrisE]

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.

He probably just needs to mix in some emoticons.

BTW, his lawyers will be good.

 

[Cloxxki]

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

Yet, Armstrong went out of his way to perjure himself.
Shouldn't this act annul the whole case? If the feds have reason to conclude doping was a factor in Armstrong's Tour wins, starting the first one, then he lied in court. That, in my sense of justice, should not ask for a civil sequel case, but annulment due to new evidence. My sense of justice is not always in line with law, but it often is.

 

[ChrisE]

I thought awhile back it was concluded by the smart people in here that the SCA arbitration settlement was final.

 

[ChrisE]

Yet, Armstrong went out of his way to perjure himself.
Shouldn't this act annul the whole case? If the feds have reason to conclude doping was a factor in Armstrong's Tour wins, starting the first one, then he lied in court. That, in my sense of justice, should not ask for a civil sequel case, but annulment due to new evidence. My sense of justice is not always in line with law, but it often is.

I agree. We should do away with the whole judicial leg of the government. If the government claims something, then it must be true. Why muck up the process with pesky legal proceedings where people can defend themselves?

Maybe we should just make an exception here for LA.

 

[python]

this thread’s usual listlessness has taken a new fascinating turn.

the ’normal’ back-and-forth between the ‘usuals’ with frankly acknowledged differing views on armstrong had now been superseded by the ever heating argument between the 2 blokes who, in their own words, agree with each other on the very basic facts of Armstrong doping. it started over 10 pages ago because a poster ( Larrybudmelman) had dared to disagree with maserati regarding the appropriate punishment for armstrong

I see a lot of meaningless distinctions in your theory of the crime

.this was a start to the later counter by maserati

Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping.

so jones, according to maserati had NOTHING (absolutely nothing ?) to do with doping.

it is this type of argument that is still going on 11 pages after larry took maserati to task about the 1% that isn’t the 99% they agree on. i honestly find this curious.

 

[Hugh Januss]

this thread’s usual listlessness has taken a new fascinating turn.

the ’normal’ back-and-forth between the ‘usuals’ with frankly acknowledged differing views on armstrong had now been superseded by the ever heating argument between the 2 blokes who, in their own words, agree with each other on the very basic facts of Armstrong doping. it started over 10 pages ago because a poster ( Larrybudmelman) had dared to disagree with maserati regarding the appropriate punishment for armstrong

.this was a start to the later counter by maserati


so jones, according to maserati had NOTHING (absolutely nothing ?) to do with doping.

it is this type of argument that is still going on 11 pages after larry took maserati to task about the 1% that isn’t the 99% they agree on. i honestly find this curious.

Excellent observation, interesting isn't it?
Now if Mark and Chris begin to carry on in the same vein it will be really entertaining.

 

[ChrisE]

Excellent observation, interesting isn't it?
Now if Mark and Chris begin to carry on in the same vein it will be really entertaining.

I'm just trying not to get banned before indictments come down. Mark is much too advanced for me anyway. I just read John Grisham novels.

 

[MarkvW]

I thought awhile back it was concluded by the smart people in here that the SCA arbitration settlement was final.

Fraud is one of the few ways to overturn a final judgment, and upon discovering the fraud, you must act promptly. Seems to be a difference of opinion here on whether doping would have made a difference in the outcome of the arbitration.

 

[doolols]

Originally Posted by maserati
Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping.

so jones, according to maserati had NOTHING (absolutely nothing ?) to do with doping.

I think you win today's prize for deliberately misinterpreting a post.

DM didn't say that she had nothing to do with doping. He said that she went to prison for perjury - not doping.

 

[MarkvW]

I'm just trying not to get banned before indictments come down. Mark is much too advanced for me anyway. I just read John Grisham novels.

The feds either bring it strong, or they don't bring it at all. I hope there are indictments!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Excellent observation, interesting isn't it?
Now if Mark and Chris begin to carry on in the same vein it will be really entertaining.

Not really.
Firstly it was Larrybud who responded to Benotti (who responded to RR) - I only responded to that post, and gave a pretty good outliner on Jones that amazingly did not appear above, and I gave my reasons for why I think LA will escape prison even if found guilty for some crimes.

10329

I agree with this synopsis. He will probably avoid jail time but it will cost him big $$$$$ and all he has in the bank not to mention his reputation will never recover.

Post 10346

What do you base the bolded assertion on?
.............

10352

Firstly - I am not convinced that LA will serve any prison time.
For that to happen he would have to be directly exposed to criminal or financial acts - that is why he has someone like Stapleton working for him.
...........
As for Jones - she did not go to jail for doping, she went because she lied to the Feds who were investigating BALCO. She was a witness, while Armstrong will be one of the targets.

 

[Velodude]

Yet, Armstrong went out of his way to perjure himself.
Shouldn't this act annul the whole case? If the feds have reason to conclude doping was a factor in Armstrong's Tour wins, starting the first one, then he lied in court. That, in my sense of justice, should not ask for a civil sequel case, but annulment due to new evidence. My sense of justice is not always in line with law, but it often is.

I understand he would be accountable within that Texas jurisdiction for any perjury.

If the USADA/UCI was obligated to strip him of TdF wins through non analytical evidence appearing in the courts during the SOL period then SCA could claim recovery of payments and costs.

In another jurisdiction it would only be of use in exposing his lack of credibility. But I don't expect his lawyer will permit him to be in a position to be exposed. Don't expect Armstrong to be called as a witness in his own or Tailwind's defense.

The only juiciness coming out of his SCA deposition hearing is his vague evidence relating to donations to UCI and the $1.5m donation to the Indiana University Hospital (by Livestrong but he claimed he was the donor) within days of becoming aware of the Andreus' "hospital room" affidavits.

The latter would have significance to any Livestrong investigation by the IRS into the mandatory proper governance for approving payments particularly when Livestrong was in "awareness" mode not scientific support mode.

 

[MarkvW]

I think you win today's prize for deliberately misinterpreting a post.

DM didn't say that she had nothing to do with doping. He said that she went to prison for perjury - not doping.

. . .and a check scam. The check scam probably played a huge role in her getting time. Otherwise its hard to distinguish Jones from Tammy Thomas.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

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.

I knew you misinterpreted my earlier post for some reason. I've followed your posts for a while and it's hard to believe that you're not being intentionally obtuse.

My earlier post said it was a slam dunk in the same vein that Casey Anthony is a slam dunk. Unfortunately the jurors and many here have no idea what it means to prove guilt.

The popularly quoted beyond a reasonable doubt means just that, NOT BEYOND ALL DOUBT. This lessens the burden for the prosecution, and that is obvious. There are absolutely no reasonable doubts that Armstrong is guilty of a number of crimes that add up to Racketeering.

I then went in to the usual defense tactic that discredits every piece of evidence individually to rebut the strawman idea that a "smoking gun" ever exists. Even DNA which is accurate to 5 or 6 places to the right of the decimal point is equivocal evidence which defense attorneys argue. ARE THEIR ARGUMENTS GOOD, OR DO THEY HAVE ANY MERIT? Absolutely not, they're ridiculous and absurd very similiar to the bs Armstrong's attorneys are pushing. Might they be effective? Yes, because the average imbecile's powers of discernment are atrocious.

ChrisE, I've seen you argue ridiculous points, and even when it was shown that you were wrong in black and white you continued so my expectations aren't very high you'll understand.

 

[python]

DM didn't say that she had nothing to do with doping. He said that she went to prison for perjury - not doping.

i think you win the prize for not doing the ELEMENTARY home work today. cheers (as i disabled emoticons scripts)

I quoted maserati exactly the way he said it and was properly taken to task for the sloppy statement he made and never corrected. that's the manner i've seen before in his endless attempts to win pointless arguments with people he should have had no differences with.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=778370&postcount=10369

Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping

as is his usual, he continued to try to outlast the disagreeable, intead of extricated himself out of hole he dug for himself.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=778585&postcount=10387

it does not matter what she lied about

 

[Velodude]

Fraud is one of the few ways to overturn a final judgment, and upon discovering the fraud, you must act promptly. Seems to be a difference of opinion here on whether doping would have made a difference in the outcome of the arbitration.

It was not a judgment. It was a settlement.

SCA could not win the "contract dispute" relating to the 2004 TdF bonus for victory because there was no condition in the SCA/Tailwind contract concerning doping.

So how could it be ever established that Tailwind (Armstrong) obtained the settlement by fraud?

Different with the Sunday Times UK defamation case as he falsely denied all the David Walsh claims of doping.

 

[doolols]

I quoted maserati exactly the way he said it and was properly taken to task for the sloppy statement he made and never corrected ...

No. It was you who 'misunderstood'. I suspect everyone else knew exactly what he was talking about.

Anyway, that's enough from me for the moment. Things to do, places to go, people to see.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

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.

C'mon now? What are you imagining? I'll be glad to explain it.

The point is it doesn't matter how good his lawyers are if he has all of the evidence against him you've produced, plus all of the other stuff which must also be out there.

The reason he will get off is because you have enough people like Dr Maserati who believe that despite Armstrong obviously being guilty, a different standard that lead Maserati to that conclusion, will be applied in criminal proceedings.

Have you seen high profile trials recently? The juries are idiotically siding with the snowball's chance in hell by basing their findings on beyond ALL doubt.

BTW, ease up on the snark. It's unbecoming.

 

[python]

I think you win today's prize for deliberately misinterpreting a post.

DM didn't say that she had nothing to do with doping. He said that she went to prison for perjury - not doping.

so i quoted maserati's own words and provided the links to his posts, 'mr dileberately misreading', did you read them ?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

No. It was you who 'misunderstood'. I suspect everyone else knew exactly what he was talking about.

Anyway, that's enough from me for the moment. Things to do, places to go, people to see.

No! I quoted him at least twice saying doping had nothing to do with Jones being in prison. You'll have to go back if you're interested.

 

[python]

No! I quoted him at least twice saying doping had nothing to do with Jones being in prison. You'll have to go back if you're interested.

you should not count on accuracy when someone like maserati is caught with his pants down - quoted directly. it's just not in the cards (again, i can't post friendly emotions b/c i disabled the script)

 

[Race Radio]

C'mon now? What are you imagining? I'll be glad to explain it.

The point is it doesn't matter how good his lawyers are if he has all of the evidence against him you've produced, plus all of the other stuff which must also be out there.

The reason he will get off is because you have enough people like Dr Maserati who believe that despite Armstrong obviously being guilty, a different standard that lead Maserati to that conclusion, will be applied in criminal proceedings.

Have you seen high profile trials recently? The juries are idiotically siding with the snowball's chance in hell by basing their findings on beyond ALL doubt.

BTW, ease up on the snark. It's unbecoming.

Sorry for any confusion, I was not referring to you or your posts

Mark's post, while challenging to keep track of, do represent how a defense for Armstrong would be mounted. A good lawyer tries to create as much doubt and question as possible. I expect we will see a concerted public effort from Fabiani and his buddies.

 

[Kretch]

No. It was you who 'misunderstood'. I suspect everyone else knew exactly what he was talking about.

Anyway, that's enough from me for the moment. Things to do, places to go, people to see.

Totally agree. Mr Snakey aint too objective when trying one-up the Doc. So much better when Mr Snakey keeps to the science. Plenty of others can keep the banal squabbling going.

 

[Ferminal]

The point has been made, no need for people to continue with it.

 

[MarkvW]

The popularly quoted beyond a reasonable doubt means just that, NOT BEYOND ALL DOUBT. This lessens the burden for the prosecution, and that is obvious. There are absolutely no reasonable doubts that Armstrong is guilty of a number of crimes that add up to Racketeering.

(A) The beyond a reasonable doubt standard lessens the prosecutor's burden from what?? The BRD standard is, practically speaking, the highest standard of proof in the law. It's not lessened from any other standard, except imaginary standards that we make up in our minds. I have never once heard of ANY court ever using a beyond all doubt standard.

(B) Pick your three crimes. Lay out your admissible evidence. Show us the case! You're not just saying this is a slam dunk, you're saying there's "absolutely no reasonable doubt." If it's not even close, then you ought to be able to lay your proof out clearly.