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

[Cimacoppi49]

Unless they were there at the same time and place as those saying they saw him dope, it really doesn't prove much of anything. Those ten will be ripped apart on cross-examination.

 

[thehog]

http://blog.nj.com/njv_kathleen_obrien/2011/05/lance_armstrong_--_the_cancer.html

Cancer card.

 

[Berzin]

Keep dreaming, fanboys. It's always the same with y'all.

You think the trial (if there is one) centers solely on what we have so far. Nothing could be farther from the truth. With financial records in Europe being seized and bank accounts frozen, there is a bit more to this than what you wish to believe.

 

[redtreviso]

but if Lance can get 10 people on the stand who say they never saw him dope, then why can't that cast doubt on those who say he did? I think they all doped but it isn't at all sure yet that LA will stand trial

The same 10 people he said he could dig up to say GL did PEDS?

 

[Berzin]

Keep dreaming, fanboys. It's always the same with y'all.

You think the trial (if there is one) centers solely on what we have so far. Nothing could be farther from the truth. With financial records in Europe being seized and bank accounts frozen, there is a bit more to this than what you wish to believe.

Exroadman-there are people here that DO know quite a bit more than you. If you choose to focus on ignorant banter for the sake of saving your hero that's your business.

Come up with a different shtick, why don't you, other than he same arguments over and over again-

1) Eyewitness testimony will get hammered in court.

2) Witnesses against Armstrong have no credibility.

3) Most tested athlete.

It's all nonsense at this point. The proof has gone beyond any of these talking points, but the MO remains firmly entrenched in the Armstrong camp.

If this is what Armstrong is paying millions of dollars for in terms of a legal defense, he'd better start working on a plea deal as of now, because there is only so much witness bashing one could do before the truth inevitably becomes apparent.

 

[sniper]

The same 10 people he said he could dig up to say GL did PEDS?

+2
definitely post of the day

 

[sniper]

Keep dreaming, fanboys. It's always the same with y'all.

You think the trial (if there is one) centers solely on what we have so far. Nothing could be farther from the truth. With financial records in Europe being seized and bank accounts frozen, there is a bit more to this than what you wish to believe.

Exroadman-there are people here that DO know quite a bit more than you. If you choose to focus on ignorant banter for the sake of saving your hero that's your business.

Come up with a different shtick, why don't you, other than he same arguments over and over again-

1) Eyewitness testimony will get hammered in court.

2) Witnesses against Armstrong have no credibility.

3) Most tested athlete.

It's all nonsense at this point. The proof has gone beyond any of these talking points, but the MO remains firmly entrenched in the Armstrong camp.

If this is what Armstrong is paying millions of dollars for in terms of a legal defense, he'd better start working on a plea deal as of now, because there is only so much witness bashing one could do before the truth inevitably becomes apparent.

+1
What would a plea deal look like though? To which crimes would he have to admit? Also to the doping?

The same 10 people he said he could dig up to say GL did PEDS?

+2 post of the day.

 

[Exroadman24902]

Unless they were there at the same time and place as those saying they saw him dope, it really doesn't prove much of anything. Those ten will be ripped apart on cross-examination.

you hope. Riders who were on the tour de France teams in 1999,2000,2001,2003 have said they saw nothing. It's their word against the others. I do think LA doped and I don't care, just like possibly you for example, don't care how someone of 6ft 2 and 12 stone body weight can win a tour 7 times

 

[Exroadman24902]

Keep dreaming, fanboys. It's always the same with y'all.

You think the trial (if there is one) centers solely on what we have so far. Nothing could be farther from the truth. With financial records in Europe being seized and bank accounts frozen, there is a bit more to this than what you wish to believe.

Exroadman-there are people here that DO know quite a bit more than you. If you choose to focus on ignorant banter for the sake of saving your hero that's your business.

Come up with a different shtick, why don't you, other than he same arguments over and over again-

1) Eyewitness testimony will get hammered in court.

2) Witnesses against Armstrong have no credibility.

3) Most tested athlete.

It's all nonsense at this point. The proof has gone beyond any of these talking points, but the MO remains firmly entrenched in the Armstrong camp.

If this is what Armstrong is paying millions of dollars for in terms of a legal defense, he'd better start working on a plea deal as of now, because there is only so much witness bashing one could do before the truth inevitably becomes apparent.

so you accuse a number of ex USPS riders on his Tour de france team of being liars? There are at least 4 such riders who have said they saw nothing. They were in the rooms, hotels, in the bus, traveled with Lance. But I accept he doped...but they all did, so I don't pick on one too much

 

[Dr. Maserati]

so you accuse a number of ex USPS riders on his Tour de france team of being liars? There are at least 4 such riders who have said they saw nothing. They were in the rooms, hotels, in the bus, traveled with Lance. But I accept he doped...but they all did, so I don't pick on one too much

Hold on - you accept he doped?
Doesn't that mean it is you who is calling these 4 riders liars?

Remember they can do the Vietnam Vet line and say "you don't know, you weren't there".

 

[ChrisE]

you hope. Riders who were on the tour de France teams in 1999,2000,2001,2003 have said they saw nothing. It's their word against the others. I do think LA doped and I don't care, just like possibly you for example, don't care how someone of 6ft 2 and 12 stone body weight can win a tour 7 times

If everybody cheats in whatever field, do you care? Where do your morals kick in?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

you hope. Riders who were on the tour de France teams in 1999,2000,2001,2003 have said they saw nothing. It's their word against the others. I do think LA doped and I don't care, just like possibly you for example, don't care how someone of 6ft 2 and 12 stone body weight can win a tour 7 times

Of those ex-teammates how many are within US jurisdiction and of those which ones have been subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury?

Again, unless those team member were in the same place at the same time as Hamilton and Landis, their testimony is essentially worthless to rebut specific accusations that have been made.

Refresh my recollection, which former teammates are you saying rode the Tour with Armstrong saying they saw no doping. Thanks.

 

[ChrisE]

Of those ex-teammates how many are within US jurisdiction and of those which ones have been subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury?

Again, unless those team member were in the same place at the same time as Hamilton and Landis, their testimony is essentially worthless to rebut specific accusations that have been made.

Refresh my recollection, which former teammates are you saying rode the Tour with Armstrong saying they saw no doping. Thanks.

Totally agree with that. But, if you have a group of people that claims they never saw LA dope, that is worth something. It creates doubt. The "how can all of this crap being going on and X never saw anything?" card.

LA's team will not just let a bunch of witnesses take the stand without first ripping them apart, and secondly they will parade a bunch of these other people up to say they never saw anything.

Inre to your jurisdiction comment....I am curious about the details surrounding Popo's GJ interview. Why didn't he tell them to fark off since he was not American? Is he an Italian citizen, and he was compelled to cooperate by the Italians?

 

[Race Radio]

No..it moved beyond doping cause the court case won;t go ahead..no syringes, no epo ampoules found, no dealer found, no + tests at an official level. These are the facts at the moment. I don't believe he is clean but he is no more criminal than his predecessor. You believe in two tier justice..I don't!

Do you have a link to support your claims.....or are you just making them up?

 

[Race Radio]

but if Lance can get 10 people on the stand who say they never saw him dope, then why can't that cast doubt on those who say he did? I think they all doped but it isn't at all sure yet that LA will stand trial

The riders who have so far said they saw nothing have one thing in common, they were not part of the "In Group". The riders who were part of that group, the group that went on Pre-Tour training camps, gave Ferrari large cash payments, etc have said they saw him doping.

Direct witness testimony of multiple teammates, ex wives, girlfriends, and doctors outweigh that a guy who was not there.

 

[Race Radio]

Totally agree with that. But, if you have a group of people that claims they never saw LA dope, that is worth something. It creates doubt. The "how can all of this crap being going on and X never saw anything?" card.

LA's team will not just let a bunch of witnesses take the stand without first ripping them apart, and secondly they will parade a bunch of these other people up to say they never saw anything.

Inre to your jurisdiction comment....I am curious about the details surrounding Popo's GJ interview. Why didn't he tell them to fark off since he was not American? Is he an Italian citizen, and he was compelled to cooperate by the Italians?

Yes, he was.

 

[Topangarider]

The riders who have so far said they saw nothing have one thing in common, they were not part of the "In Group". The riders who were part of that group, the group that went on Pre-Tour training camps, gave Ferrari large cash payments, etc have said they saw him doping.

Direct witness testimony of multiple teammates, ex wives, girlfriends, and doctors outweigh that a guy who was not there.

I also presume that eyewitness testimony will be only one form of evidence that a doping program was used. It will reinforce evidence from financial records, drug tests (whether "merelyl" suspicious or positive) etc. If there are large payments to Ferrari, numerous suspicious or positive tests, a culture of doping, and eye witnesses to LA doping, does anyone think that a few guys saying they never saw anything is going to matter?
So yes, team members who saw no doing will raise some doubts perhaps, but I can't see that as overriding all other forms of evidence.

 

[ChrisE]

Yes, he was.

OK thanks.

How many other foreigners have been compelled to testify? The Spaniards are what I am really curious about, for obvious reasons. The only foreigner I have heard of is Popo.

 

[Jagers]

New You Tube Lance Tribute

 

[Race Radio]

I also presume that eyewitness testimony will be only one form of evidence that a doping program was used. It will reinforce evidence from financial records, drug tests (whether "merelyl" suspicious or positive) etc. If there are large payments to Ferrari, numerous suspicious or positive tests, a culture of doping, and eye witnesses to LA doping, does anyone think that a few guys saying they never saw anything is going to matter?
So yes, team members who saw no doing will raise some doubts perhaps, but I can't see that as overriding all other forms of evidence.

Another key thing is how easy it is to trace prescription drugs. Lot numbers, serial numbers. This is not crack.

While some like to pretend the case is just about Landis many others have talked. Support staff, other teammates etc. Add in forensic accounts and the FBI and most can see that just putting a few guys who were not in the room on the stand will do nothing.

Doug Miller's district has the highest conviction rate in the nation. The charges they bring will be a slam dunk. There will be an avalanche of smoke, mirrors, and deliberate distortion.....followed by a plea deal. No way this goes to trial.

 

[ChrisE]

Another key thing is how easy it is to trace prescription drugs. Lot numbers, serial numbers. This is not crack.

While some like to pretend the case is just about Landis many others have talked. Support staff, other teammates etc. Add in forensic accounts and the FBI and most can see that just putting a few guys who were not in the room on the stand will do nothing.

Doug Miller's district has the highest conviction rate in the nation. The charges they bring will be a slam dunk. There will be an avalanche of smoke, mirrors, and deliberate distortion.....followed by a plea deal. No way this goes to trial.

Wanna bet?

 

[VeloCity]

but if Lance can get 10 people on the stand who say they never saw him dope, then why can't that cast doubt on those who say he did? I think they all doped but it isn't at all sure yet that LA will stand trial

Do you really think this is based solely on rider testimony? If there weren't hard evidence, the investigation would've ended a long time ago. Novitzky's not dumb, you know.

And you probably should stop thinking that it's about whether or not Armstrong doped, because it isn't, at least not directly.

 

[Anonymous]

Another key thing is how easy it is to trace prescription drugs. Lot numbers, serial numbers. This is not crack.

While some like to pretend the case is just about Landis many others have talked. Support staff, other teammates etc. Add in forensic accounts and the FBI and most can see that just putting a few guys who were not in the room on the stand will do nothing.

Doug Miller's district has the highest conviction rate in the nation. The charges they bring will be a slam dunk. There will be an avalanche of smoke, mirrors, and deliberate distortion.....followed by a plea deal. No way this goes to trial.

Jail time? Also, what do you think happens to the evidence if there is a plea arrangement?

 

[Berzin]

You will have to juxtapose the nature of the testimony between the riders in question.

A rider can say he never saw Armstrong dope. Well, he will then be asked about a specific time and place, like when Landis stated they pulled off the road on the team bus and had transfusions.

If the witness wasn't there, then what good would his testimony be in this specific instance? How can you say something never happened if you weren't privy to it? It doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means you have no knowledge of the events. But the fanboys are taking this and running with it. This is the new apologist mantra-"If someone wasn't there to see it, it could not have taken place". What blindingly stupid logic.

Now if said witness states he was on the bus and saw nothing, that is testimony that can get him in trouble for lying.

So two riders testify they witnessed and also partook in transfusions themselves-another says something else. Who's the liar in this case? Oh, let's go back to the credibility issue. That'll work. NOT.

This is nothing but a pathetic grasping at straws-obfuscating the truth so Armstrong can seem innocent via technicalities as opposed to the truth, which in this case will not set him free.

 

[VeloCity]

There are at least 4 such riders who have said they saw nothing. They were in the rooms, hotels, in the bus, traveled with Lance.

Of course they're going to say they saw nothing - pretty easy to say you saw nothing when you're not compelled to, since it would be basically admitting to your own doping. But lying to the media is quite a bit easier than lying to a GJ - why do you think all these riders who've sworn up and down in the past that they've never doped are suddenly spilling their guts to Novitzky?

Subpoena those 4 and put them in a room with a bunch of Feds asking questions and I guarantee you their stories will change pretty damn fast.