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

[LarryBudMelman]

Isn't that what Dr M said?

No, he said that doping is not a crime, and her lying in relation to the doping was not related, which is absolutely absurd. The point is that Jones lied about something material, something that is criminal or related to something that is criminal.

This point must be made because we've had people sanctioned for lying about absolutely immaterial behavior.

So then it follows, according to your buddy ChrisE, 'well he (WJC) lied under oath.'

Jones went to jail for her involvment in doping. Maserati is focused on the mainly irrelevant point that she was lying. Fundamentally aren't all cheaters and crooks lying? The perjury charge was the easiest way the feds could get her, and both her attorneys and the government agreed to plea to it.

Proving she was in possession, at some point in time, of drugs; it might be much more problematic for a prosecutor to present those charges, I don't know.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your reluctance is based on public misperception that Armstrong's guilt is difficult to prove or even what it means to prove something in court. It's based on nonsense advanced by moronic talking heads in high profile cases.

You have alluded to this a few times - something about Armstrongs lawyers making this claim, can you show me where Tim or Fabianini have said something similar to what I said?
I would enjoy reading them say - "Listen. You know, I know and everyone knows he is guilty, but even if he is found guilty and serves severe penalties if he does not go to jail we will celebrate that as proof of his innocence".

Do you understand the phenomenon of the Stockholm Syndrome?

A quick wiki search says having empathy or sympathy for your captors when you are held against your will in the basement.
Am, no - I am not Livingston.

Well it does seem to make your position appear shockingly close to that of the renowned LA apologist ChrisE.

I would not call ChrisE an LA apologist. And yes, I have agreed with his take on this issue that Armstrong may escape the ultimate penalty of jailtime.
It actually kills the perception that there are 2 groups who have opposing opinions on here

May I ask - what your view? Do you think LA will be found guilty and that this will lead to imprisonment?

 

[Velodude]

<snip>.......

@velodude, i don't know which club you're referring to (nor do you, and you couldn't be more wrong with the allusion), but, for the sake of argument, let's say that most such clubs are very discriminating about the offensive and defensive recourse that they have to the law proper.

this selective hypocrisy is at the heart of this debate and isn't much acknowledged by most of those who are on the frontal assault here.

Check your UCI membership racing license issued by your cycling "club", if you are a competitive cyclist, and you will find on a part of the license where you are required to affix your signature words to the effect:

In signing this license, the Holder is subject to the Regulations of the UCI

If a license holder, who must hold some form of UCI license to compete, does not comply with the UCI Regulations, which includes anti-doping rules, then the license holder can be sanctioned.

These sanctions arise from internal rules of the "club" not the laws of the land.

My UCI license is not an allusion

 

[Hugh Januss]

No, he said that doping is not a crime, and her lying in relation to the doping was not related, which is absolutely absurd. The point is that Jones lied about something material, something that is criminal or related to something that is criminal.

This point must be made because we've had people sanctioned for lying about absolutely immaterial behavior.

So then it follows, according to your buddy ChrisE, 'well he (WJC) lied under oath.'

Jones went to jail for her involvment in doping. Maserati is focused on the mainly irrelevant point that she was lying. Fundamentally aren't all cheaters and crooks lying? The perjury charge was the easiest way the feds could get her, and both her attorneys and the government agreed to plea to it.

Proving she was in possession, at some point in time, of drugs; it might be much more problematic for a prosecutor to present those charges, I don't know.

If you admit to having smoked pot but have never failed a work related test nor ever been caught in possession I wouldn't think you would have too much to fear legally no matter how may of your acquaintances come forward to say they saw you do it. Doping itself is not going to be the issue here.
If Armstrong winds up being found guilty of nothing more than perjury then I am afraid the Polishes of the world will rest relatively easily, secure (in their own minds) with the thought that LA didn't do "anything that everyone else was not doing".
Would that be a travesty? Damn right!
Could it happen?

 

[MarkvW]

But only if the target(s), Lance Edward Armstrong & others, are co-operating with the investigation.

The GJ would not have run its course and, obviously been extended, if Armstrong, who you claim is not and will not be the target, has thrown in the towel and has offered to plead guilty to unspecified charges.

This step is available in any criminal jurisdiction.

The originating process for the trial must be the indictments.

Any person (cooperating or not) can plead to an information with an appropriate waiver. The feds have a lot of flexibility in plea bargaining.

You willfully misstate my opinion regarding Armstrong's target status or non-status. Read post #10534 for an accurate statement of my position.

 

[aphronesis]

Check your UCI membership racing license issued by your cycling "club", if you are a competitive cyclist, and you will find on a part of the license where you are required to affix your signature words to the effect:

In signing this license, the Holder is subject to the Regulations of the UCI

If a license holder, who must hold some form of UCI license to compete, does not comply with the UCI Regulations, which includes anti-doping rules, then the license holder can be sanctioned.

These sanctions arise from internal rules of the "club" not the laws of the land.

My UCI license is not an allusion

You race at country clubs?

 

[MarkvW]

If you admit to having smoked pot but have never failed a work related test nor ever been caught in possession I wouldn't think you would have too much to fear legally no matter how may of your acquaintances come forward to say they saw you do it. Doping itself is not going to be the issue here.
If Armstrong winds up being found guilty of nothing more than perjury then I am afraid the Polishes of the world will rest relatively easily, secure (in their own minds) with the thought that LA didn't do "anything that everyone else was not doing".
Would that be a travesty? Damn right!
Could it happen?

Depends on the perjury, doesn't it? If the perjury is a statement by Armstrong relating to unambiguous doping conduct, then Lance would be shattered by it. All depends . . .

 

[Velodude]

Yes, I was seeking a response. There is no system (and there is no man, although there are plenty of men and women clamoring for the job); the question was both factual and rhetorical in terms of how where all the displaced energy around this case might go if it doesn't come to pass? Levi bashing? A sudden fascination with legal appointments and elections? Where?

Back to the system: there is a juridical apparatus with which you are relatively familiar. Its procedures are more or less set. The politics of selection and entry are another matter. These are two separate things. That distinction is mostly lost here.

Not only is that distinction lost but I am also lost

You had better recover that dictionary that you have seemed to have swallowed and check the accuracy of the use and meaning of critical words you apply.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

You have alluded to this a few times - something about Armstrongs lawyers making this claim, can you show me where Tim or Fabianini have said something similar to what I said?
I would enjoy reading them say - "Listen. You know, I know and everyone knows he is guilty, but even if he is found guilty and serves severe penalties if he does not go to jail we will celebrate that as proof of his innocence".

Are you saying that Armstrong's lawyers think he's innocent? You're really not that naive, are you? Of course they'll never explicitly say that but you may not be far off if they believe that.

A quick wiki search says having empathy or sympathy for your captors when you are held against your will in the basement.
Am, no - I am not Livingston.

To a certain degree, they have captured your mind and your thought processes. That's even better than you being KL because there is no cost to LA for your capture.

It's very analogous to Democrats who are now playing on the field of negotiating cuts in safety net entitlement programs. Previously it was forbidden amongst them to even allow conversations about slowing the growth of the programs. Now the whole debate is taking place on the playing field of the Republicans, a huge victory for them.

You're making some kind of concession that even though both of us know Armstrong is guilty as sin, proving it in court requires some almost unattainable legal standard being met, and that Armstrong being publicly disgraced is as much as we can ask for.

I would not call ChrisE an LA apologist. And yes, I have agreed with his take on this issue that Armstrong may escape the ultimate penalty of jailtime.
It actually kills the perception that there are 2 groups who have opposing opinions on here

May I ask - what your view? Do you think LA will be found guilty and that this will lead to imprisonment?

There should be only two groups, and the one that thinks Armstrong is not guilty should be exceedingly small. All of these technical legal issues shouldn't even be worth discussing but because we have people desperate to have the myth survive they do.

Fundamentally, the law itself shouldn't even be focused on technicalities, except where needed. It should be only about justice.

I'm sure there are highly technical cases where there are valid, justified, competing interests.

This isn't one of them.

 

[Velodude]

You race at country clubs?

No, you were the target for that flippant comment. In my mind's eye I see you mixing with the country club crowd

 

[aphronesis]

Not only is that distinction lost but I am also lost

You had better recover that dictionary that you have seemed to have swallowed and check the accuracy of the use and meaning of critical words you apply.

I was being lazy and deliberately vague. I'm clear on the definition of the words; they're lacking subjects and objects. The last two or three pages of the thread seem have brought the distinction back around.

But I'll give it form: say the case falls apart, doesn't materialize, he walks, only the bankers are held to task, etc. what conclusions are drawn by everyone--you--who are devoting energy to thinking through all the ways in which he could be caught?

 

[Velodude]

Any person (cooperating or not) can plead to an information with an appropriate waiver. The feds have a lot of flexibility in plea bargaining.

You willfully misstate my opinion regarding Armstrong's target status or non-status. Read post #10534 for an accurate statement of my position.

Your position appears to be one of perpetual oscillation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you saying that Armstrong's lawyers think he's innocent? You're really not that naive, are you? Of course they'll never explicitly say that but you may not be far off if they believe that.

I did not say that or even suggest that in any way - why do you keep misrepresenting what people say?
If you need me to clarify, then simply ask.

To a certain degree, they have captured your mind and your thought processes. That's even better than you being KL because there is no cost to LA for your capture.

It's very analogous to Democrats who are now playing on the field of negotiating cuts in safety net entitlement programs. Previously it was forbidden amongst them to even allow conversations about slowing the growth of the programs. Now the whole debate is taking place on the playing field of the Republicans, a huge victory for them.

You're making some kind of concession that even though both of us know Armstrong is guilty as sin, proving it in court requires some almost unattainable legal standard being met, and that Armstrong being publicly disgraced is as much as we can ask for.

That is not a concession - there IS a very high standard of proof required to find guilt in a Court of Law, I never said it was unattainable. Just that it is nowhere near as simplistic as you make it seem.

There should be only two groups, and the one that thinks Armstrong is not guilty should be exceedingly small. All of these technical legal issues shouldn't even be worth discussing but because we have people desperate to have the myth survive they do.

Fundamentally, the law itself shouldn't even be focused on technicalities, except where needed. It should be only about justice.

I'm sure there are highly technical cases where there are valid, justified, competing interests.

This isn't one of them.

The highlighted is a wish, indeed your wish - I am dealing with the reality of what happens in Courts -you appear to confuse what you hope for with the reality of the Justice system.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

If you admit to having smoked pot but have never failed a work related test nor ever been caught in possession I wouldn't think you would have too much to fear legally no matter how may of your acquaintances come forward to say they saw you do it. Doping itself is not going to be the issue here.
If Armstrong winds up being found guilty of nothing more than perjury then I am afraid the Polishes of the world will rest relatively easily, secure (in their own minds) with the thought that LA didn't do "anything that everyone else was not doing".
Would that be a travesty? Damn right!
Could it happen?

If I plead to a pot possession charge than it's all over, I would think.

If the authorities really wanted to get you for something, and a parade of acquaintences were willing to be witnesses, why wouldn't that hold up in court? I think the only issue would be a opportunity cost/moral relativism issue, ie. why in God's name are they going after this guy for smoking weed.

I really have no idea why the charges against Jones were what they were. There were probably legal issues way above my awareness or understanding. I mean you have to wrap it up sometime and she was obviously lying, but then again, doping is lying, cheating is lying.. I don't think it's that important to the authorities that it was lying specifically as that justice is served generally. I think she was required to allocute to doping so her perjury was directly tied to the doping.

But to say it was lying apart from doping as if it's important to make this artificial technical distinction? Who cares about that, except for Dr. Maserati and people who want to impeach the POTUS.

 

[ChrisE]

No one is suggesting the court take your point of view on Armstrong's guilt. His guilt is plain to see but for some reason you think proving it is difficult. If Dr. Maserati had that much evidence against him, this thing would have been resolved 1 week after it started with a plea deal and some jail time to boot.

Guilty people like Giambi cooperate all the time to escape prosecution. That doesn't mean that Giambi wasn't guilty of crimes.

Get pulled over while driving with a bottle of oxy codone in plain view. If you don't have a valid prescription for it, I'd bet there is a good chance you'll be charged with a crime.

Yeah, some of us think it will be difficult. OJ had a ton of evidence against him, too, and he walked. Bonds had many more charges against him initially than the ones he was actually tried for, and only was found guilty on one of those counts.

Your "slam dunk" arguments make you look foolish. Time will tell.

 

[ChrisE]

Well it does seem to make your position appear shockingly close to that of the renowned LA apologist ChrisE.

Yes, now doc and I are interchangeable LA apologists.....a character flaw that is evident when people take a sobering look at the issues in here and the possible results. Not foaming at the mouth is another symptom of an LA apologist.

 

[ChrisE]

No, he said that doping is not a crime, and her lying in relation to the doping was not related, which is absolutely absurd. The point is that Jones lied about something material, something that is criminal or related to something that is criminal.

This point must be made because we've had people sanctioned for lying about absolutely immaterial behavior.

So then it follows, according to your buddy ChrisE, 'well he (WJC) lied under oath.'

Jones went to jail for her involvment in doping. Maserati is focused on the mainly irrelevant point that she was lying. Fundamentally aren't all cheaters and crooks lying? The perjury charge was the easiest way the feds could get her, and both her attorneys and the government agreed to plea to it.

Proving she was in possession, at some point in time, of drugs; it might be much more problematic for a prosecutor to present those charges, I don't know.

I think I backed off of my position of what constitutes perjury. Feel free to acknowledge that when it suits you.

Its interesting that you keep bringing up Clinton, and it kinda flies in the face of your certainty about how this whole thing with LA will go.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Your position appears to be one of perpetual oscillation.

It's hard to hit a moving target!

I did not say that or even suggest that in any way - why do you keep misrepresenting what people say?
If you need me to clarify, then simply ask..

First of all, I put up two direct quotes from you with this silliness that Jones' perjury conviction had nothing to do with doping and you still argue that.

That is not a concession - there IS a very high standard of proof required to find guilt in a Court of Law, I never said it was unattainable. Just that it is nowhere near as simplistic as you make it seem..

Guilt is obvious here. When you have the number of witnesses and the amount of evidence these guys have, it's a slam dunk. The trail of evidence and everything else is simple. It's only the power of the people involved who are making things difficult.

The highlighted is a wish, indeed your wish - I am dealing with the reality of what happens in Courts -you appear to confuse what you hope for with the reality of the Justice system.

Very simple case. Don't say it too loud or you'll screw it up for Armstrong's atty's.

If there is any problem with the justice system it is the effect of powerful people obfuscating issues.. No complicated technical legal issues are involved in this case. I will say that with people falsely compartmentalizing issues and internalizing other nonsense about what a high standard reasonable doubt is, no wonder everything is viewed as complex.

It's not.

 

[spetsa]

It would not be the first time

http://byliner.com/jon-krakauer/stories/excerpt-three-cups-of-deceit#update-13

Spending foundation money to promote a book and image. Sounds familiar but I am not sure from where.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I think I backed off of my position of what constitutes perjury. Feel free to acknowledge that when it suits you. .

Oh, ok fine. You do realize that a lot of the great legal minds of WJC's oppostion still argue for the legitimacy of that nonsense.

Its interesting that you keep bringing up Clinton, and it kinda flies in the face of your certainty about how this whole thing with LA will go.

I'm not certain about how it will go and that kind of unsettles me. How it should go is obvious, as it is plain as day that Armstrong is guilty.

What I find strange is how desperate Armstrong's fans are to keep the myth alive in the face of everything.. Don't mature adults want to face facts?

Plus it's not like Armstrong is a nice guy which is clearly obvious.

 

[MarkvW]

Yeah, some of us think it will be difficult. OJ had a ton of evidence against him, too, and he walked. Bonds had many more charges against him initially than the ones he was actually tried for, and only was found guilty on one of those counts.

Your "slam dunk" arguments make you look foolish. Time will tell.

You can use the term "slam dunk" with regard to criminal prosecution only if you implicitly recognize that slam dunk attempts sometimes get blocked.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's hard to hit a moving target!



First of all, I put up two direct quotes from you with this silliness that Jones' perjury conviction had nothing to do with doping and you still argue that.

You can put my quotes up as often as you like - they are correct.

Jones was being questioned as a witness about the activities of BALCO, just like Giambi was.
Giambi admitted he doped and got his PEDs from BALCO. He did not obstruct justice so he did not go to jail.
Jones denied that she doped and got PEDs from BALCO. She was jailed because she lied. Its called perjury.

Guilt is obvious here. When you have the number of witnesses and the amount of evidence these guys have, it's a slam dunk. The trail of evidence and everything else is simple. It's only the power of the people involved who are making things difficult.

Ok, you say guilt is obvious.
Can you show the evidence and set out the charges and how the prosecution can secure convictions on that.

Very simple case. Don't say it too loud or you'll screw it up for Armstrong's atty's.

If there is any problem with the justice system it is the effect of powerful people obfuscating issues.. No complicated technical legal issues are involved in this case. I will say that with people falsely compartmentalizing issues and internalizing other nonsense about what a high standard reasonable doubt is, no wonder everything is viewed as complex.

It's not.

If this case is not complicated then why have there been no indictments since this story broke nearly 2 years ago??

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Yeah, some of us think it will be difficult. OJ had a ton of evidence against him, too, and he walked. Bonds had many more charges against him initially than the ones he was actually tried for, and only was found guilty on one of those counts.

Your "slam dunk" arguments make you look foolish. Time will tell.

All slam dunks. Your opinion of OJ is that he is a murderer. The reason he got off had nothing to do with any legal arguments.

Bonds was jacked to the sky and was inextricably linked to Balco and obviously lied and obstructed justice. You believe that too.

The problem becomes this misperception of what it means to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Part of the problem is that people who end up on juries are often the least qualified to be there.

Now I'd like to see someone solve that problem.

 

[ChrisE]

I'm not certain about how it will go and that kind of unsettles me. How it should go is obvious, as it is plain as day that Armstrong is guilty.

What I find strange is how desperate Armstrong's fans are to keep the myth alive in the face of everything.. Don't mature adults want to face facts?

Plus it's not like Armstrong is a nice guy which is clearly obvious.

Your uncertainty, and mine, and doc's is where the difference is here in the last 20 pages. The difference is we soberly acknowledge it. You go apeshyt when it is suggested that LA may not get the death penalty when this all plays out (sarcasm), and start tossing around the fanboy label when somebody even suggests the worse possible thing imaginable may not happen to him.

And, who in here is an LA "fan" trying to keep some myth alive? You got some neighbors sporting some yellow wristbands drinking Michelob ultra? Nobody in here arguing these last few days has any delusions about what he did.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

You can put my quotes up as often as you like - they are correct.

Jones was being questioned as a witness about the activities of BALCO, just like Giambi was.
Giambi admitted he doped and got his PEDs from BALCO. He did not obstruct justice so he did not go to jail.
Jones denied that she doped and got PEDs from BALCO. She was jailed because she lied. Its called perjury.


Ok, you say guilt is obvious.
Can you show the evidence and set out the charges and how the prosecution can secure convictions on that.



If this case is not complicated then why have there been no indictments since this story broke nearly 2 years ago??

The only question I'll answer is the last as the rest are ridiculous. Answer:Collation.

Maybe you can explain the necessity of Hans Christian Andersen writing "The Emperor's New Clothes?"

A three year old can see Armstrong is guilty. Go ahead, just say it! Evidently there is some kind of psychological impediment.