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

[Velodude]

Super talented?

Hard to understand how anyone other than Lance or one of his inner circle would know if Lance took "copious amounts" of PEDs for any of his victories.
Of course there are going to be suspicians about any dominating athlete, during these times. If EPO was involved in any of Lance's mighty fine wins, Lance and his suppliers were simply bulldozing a level playing field.
If Lance "dozed, as in bulldozed his wins" why pray tell was their no uproar for those first 3 big wins, the core states, 93 world's or Lance's infamous Tours 99, Swiss 2001 or the dopers extravaganza 2003 Tour.
Obviously Lance is super talented. His adversaries were super talented. No issue.

Why was he not super talented in the TdF prior to 1999 in 1993 - 1996?

Best finish 36th (1995). Abandoned 1993, 1994, 1996.

22 stage wins 1999 - 2005.

2 stage wins 1993 - 1996.

In 1993 he won a stage when he was in a nonthreatening 96th on GC then abandoned. In 1995 on stage 18 the peloton ran neutral in honour of the death of Motorola team mate Fabio Casartelli and LA was gifted the stage win.

Were his adversaries more super talented in 1993-1996?

 

[VeloCity]

Hard to understand how anyone other than Lance or one of his inner circle would know if Lance took "copious amounts" of PEDs for any of his victories.

um, dude, Landis and Hamilton were part of Armstrong's inner circle and are telling you that he took copious amounts of PEDs.

 

[Samwise]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cycling/13675045.stm

don't know if this has been posted, but it's quite interesting. millar seems slightly less supportive of armstrong now...

 

[thehog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cycling/13675045.stm

don't know if this has been posted, but it's quite interesting. millar seems slightly less supportive of armstrong now...

Less supportive? Come on. He calls Landis a weasel but Lance loves the sport.

 

[Deagol]

I'de like to see Millar and Landis in a bar fight....

 

[Oldman]

Originally Posted by DISTRICT 9
Hard to understand how anyone other than Lance or one of his inner circle would know if Lance took "copious amounts" of PEDs for any of his victories.

um, dude, Landis and Hamilton were part of Armstrong's inner circle and are telling you that he took copious amounts of PEDs.

...via a needle in his a*s. Hard to argue Tyler could have been misinformed as to the extent of "Excellence" displayed in that act.

 

[DISTRICT 9]

um, dude, Landis and Hamilton were part of Armstrong's inner circle and are telling you that he took copious amounts of PEDs.

Still, manrod and Tyler are proven cheaters and liars, therefore their credibility is in doubt. Undoubtably Lance has been voted a cheater in this sub-forum section, however that rumor still has not been proven in a court of law....even in here it is obviously a he said she said kinda thingee....in terms of Lance's wins or what have you....

 

[Kennf1]

Still, manrod and Tyler are proven cheaters and liars, therefore their credibility is in doubt. Undoubtably Lance has been voted a cheater in this sub-forum section, however that rumor still has not been proven in a court of law....even in here it is obviously a he said she said kinda thingee....in terms of Lance's wins or what have you....

When you say "she said," are you referring to Emma O'Reilly, of Stephanie McIlvain, or Betsy Andreu, or ...

 

[Benotti69]

<public strata-lie>

Undoubtably Lance has been voted a cheater in this sub-forum section, however that rumor still has not been proven in a court of law....even in here it is obviously a he said she said kinda thingee....in terms of Lance's wins or what have you....

CBS, WSJ, NYT, Feds have voted Armstrong a cheater

the 'rumour' crash landed a long long long time ago, there were no survivors

 

[DISTRICT 9]

CBS, WSJ, NYT, Feds have voted Armstrong a cheater

the 'rumour' crash landed a long long long time ago, there were no survivors

Agreed. A uniquely American process, build up the hero and then pummel him. I guess that is an important part of American culture.

 

[Benotti69]

Agreed. A uniquely American process, build up the hero and then pummel him. I guess that is an important part of American culture.

the 'hero' (comic book) created the myth and asked to be built up on a mountain of doping, cheating, bribery, corruption and fraud.

Is that american culture?

Edit: in case you misunderstood the 'facts' have landed safely and are still disembarking at LAX.

 

[MarkvW]

CBS, WSJ, NYT, Feds have voted Armstrong a cheater

the 'rumour' crash landed a long long long time ago, there were no survivors

Sleazy McCarthyite style argument. Feds are still only investigating.

 

[Granville57]

When you say "she said," are you referring to Emma O'Reilly, of Stephanie McIlvain, or Betsy Andreu, or ...

Priceless.

 

[DirtyWorks]

however that rumor still has not been proven in a court of law....

And if the indictment comes down, or when the plea deal is done, the discussion shifts to the tainted evidence and Wonderboy's now a victim of some kind of vendetta by average people everywhere... Blah. Blah. Blah.

Wonderboy will need to do a better job on the courthouse steps than Marion Jones. I don't see how that's possible.

even in here it is obviously a he said she said kinda thingee....in terms of Lance's wins or what have you....

Leipheimer's statement ring a bell?
Landis?
Hamilton?
They all have the same story. Wait, don't tell me. It's a coordinated plot to sell 10000(!) books between all three of them. Yeah, that book deal will have them rolling in cash.

So, why was wonderboy hanging around with proven cheats and liars for all those years? Maybe because he's just like they are? Maybe? Just a little?

Do you get Men's Health for free in Austin?

 

[Topangarider]

CBS, WSJ, NYT, Feds have voted Armstrong a cheater

the 'rumour' crash landed a long long long time ago, there were no survivors

Why no Sports Illustrated mention? Have Fabiani and Keker made them recant!

And let's not rush the judicial process

 

[Velodude]

Still Investigating?

Sleazy McCarthyite style argument. Feds are still only investigating.

The Feds are not "still only investigating" if their case is before the Grand Jury to obtain indictments.

In other parts of the world that no longer use Grand Juries these are committal or preliminary hearings before a judicial officer (magistrate or judge).

Novitzky is only presenting to the Grand Jury the prosecution's case that there exists sufficient evidence for LA to go to trial that a crime has been committed on each of the presented indictments.

 

[VeloCity]

Still, manrod and Tyler are proven cheaters and liars, therefore their credibility is in doubt. Undoubtably Lance has been voted a cheater in this sub-forum section, however that rumor still has not been proven in a court of law....even in here it is obviously a he said she said kinda thingee....in terms of Lance's wins or what have you....

But Armstrong is a proven liar too, so if that's your standard for questioning someone's credibility, shouldn't it go both ways?

Besides, Pantani was never "proven" to be a cheater in a court of law. Nor was Ullrich. I have to assume then, for you, they're in the same category as Armstrong?

 

[Hitchey]

I like the "at least entertain us" comment quite a bit.
I'll give it a shot.

"Hmmm, I really need to try to make rent today, shall I put on the white cotton candy shield with the pink borders today or the red candy cane breastplate with purple tassels as I go to my computer and inject some more idiocy.... Oh I better call Mr Fibiani, I'm running out of dumb.. I mean diffusive things to write about that jack_sssss, just fess up and be done with it will ya..Who thought up my silly screen name, it should have been area 51....now that's cool"

 

[VeloMaster]

Novitzky is only presenting to the Grand Jury the prosecution's case that there exists sufficient evidence for LA to go to trial that a crime has been committed on each of the presented indictments.

I am afraid that is not quite accurate. I've served on a Grand Jury here in the States, and posted details elsewhere on this forum. GJ's can be used for investigative purposes; they are an extremely powerful weapon for compelling testimony, collecting evidence, and eventually building a case.

In other words, just because a GJ is meeting and investigating, we cannot infer that prosecutors have yet presented a request for any specific indictments, nor can we infer who the eventual target of any requested prosecution will be.

That is not to say that this not a serious investigation or that prosecutors will not present such a request, it's just that we don't really know what stage they have reached.

Also, it is a little known fact, and thus rarely practiced, that it is the grand jurors themselves, not the prosecutors, who formally have the last say in the way the investigation proceeds. They can call witnesses on their own, they get to ask questions, etc. They rarely do so, and are often at the mercy of manipulation by prosecutors, who know the law and are more experienced in such matters. That's why prosecutors call such independent panels "runaway grand juries." It's rare but theoretically and legally possible.

 

[MarkvW]

nonsense

The Feds are not "still only investigating" if their case is before the Grand Jury to obtain indictments.

In other parts of the world that no longer use Grand Juries these are committal or preliminary hearings before a judicial officer (magistrate or judge).

Novitzky is only presenting to the Grand Jury the prosecution's case that there exists sufficient evidence for LA to go to trial that a crime has been committed on each of the presented indictments.

Your statement is nonsense. First, Novitsky is not presenting anything; the US Attorney is. Second, the GJ process is an investigative process, as well as an accusatorial process. That should be obvious to everyone after the 60 Minutes piece. We have zero indication that the US Attorney has even asked for a true bill of indictment yet, so we don't even know if the feds think they have probable cause to support a criminal charge. All we know is that the investigation continues. To argue that mere investigation equates to guilt is an intellectually dishonest argument.

Smearing people with the "under federal investigation" tag is a dirty tactic.

 

[Topangarider]

When does the term of this grand jury end? Can it be extensed or has thag already happened?

Answers to these questions may offer some clue as to when an indictment could come if thats the direction the prosecutor is going

 

[Velodude]

I am afraid that is not quite accurate. I've served on a Grand Jury here in the States, and posted details elsewhere on this forum. GJ's can be used for investigative purposes; they are an extremely powerful weapon for compelling testimony, collecting evidence, and eventually building a case.

In other words, just because a GJ is meeting and investigating, we cannot infer that prosecutors have yet presented a request for any specific indictments, nor can we infer who the eventual target of any requested prosecution will be.

That is not to say that this not a serious investigation or that prosecutors will not present such a request, it's just that we don't really know what stage they have reached.

Also, it is a little known fact, and thus rarely practiced, that it is the grand jurors themselves, not the prosecutors, who formally have the last say in the way the investigation proceeds. They can call witnesses on their own, they get to ask questions, etc. They rarely do so, and are often at the mercy of manipulation by prosecutors, who know the law and are more experienced in such matters. That's why prosecutors call such independent panels "runaway grand juries." It's rare but theoretically and legally possible.

Getting back to the post in question the fanboy poster wrote "the Feds are still investigating" as if they have not completed and prepared their case on LA.

If the Feds have laid their evidence before a GJ to have that body determine if there is sufficient evidence to go to trial they have from the investigations to that stage have been satisfied there exists is a prima facie case against LA.

If the GJ initiate their own investigations that is their right of call. But the Feds are not still investigating, as the poster implied, to determine if LA committed any indictable crimes. That ship has sailed once GJ hearings formally commenced.

Novitzky will continue investigations up to and during the trial for additional evidence, if admissible, but he has gathered, in his mind, sufficient witness and documentary evidence for the GJ to determine if the matter should go to trial.

 

[DISTRICT 9]

But Armstrong is a proven liar too, so if that's your standard for questioning someone's credibility, shouldn't it go both ways?

Besides, Pantani was never "proven" to be a cheater in a court of law. Nor was Ullrich. I have to assume then, for you, they're in the same category as Armstrong?

I never questioned Lance's credibility. As far as I know that is not the purpose of the investigation. Then again, I have heard many things here, about what has been investigated. When Popo gets questioned and released, and free to compete, I wonder what the investigation is about?

 

[Velodude]

Your statement is nonsense. First, Novitsky is not presenting anything; the US Attorney is. Second, the GJ process is an investigative process, as well as an accusatori process. That should be obvious to everyone after the 60 Minutes piece. We have zero indication that the US Attorney has even asked for a true bill of indictment yet, so we don't even know if the feds think they have probable cause to support a criminal charge. All we know is that the investigation continues. To argue that mere investigation equates to guilt is an intellectually dishonest argument.

Smearing people with the "under federal investigation" tag is a dirty tactic.

So is the "US Attorney" appearing in person before the GJ or is it Prosecutor Novitzky appearing on behalf of the US Attorney General (US Department of Justice)?

In other jurisdictions of the world the prosecutions are commenced in the name of the head of state on behalf of the government but I have yet to see an appearance by those persons.

The GJ proceedings are conducted in secret so nothing should be known about the evidence, witnesses and whether the GJ mount their own (rare) investigation.

Accusatory? Never stated or implied in any of my few posts or have I read such errors in any other posts.

 

[Velodude]

I never questioned Lance's credibility. As far as I know that is not the purpose of the investigation. Then again, I have heard many things here, about what has been investigated. When Popo gets questioned and released, and free to compete, I wonder what the investigation is about?

If Popo was given an immunity from prosecution in return for truthful answers or evidence (if sworn) he can be questioned (I understand his passport was held during questioning in the US after visiting LA) and be free to compete if has complied with the conditions to hold a UCI licence.

If his answers were found to be not truthful I doubt he would be a future welcome visitor to the US.

If the raid on Popovych's Tuscany residence in January 2011, as reported by Sports Illustrated, occurred after Popovych's Fed questioning then his answers should dovetail in with the results of that search.

The search uncovered "drug testing documents, medical supplies and performance enhancing drugs as well as evidence of links to controversial Italian physician Michele Ferrari."

Otherwise, he would be a persona non grata at a US immigration port of entry.