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

[MarkvW]

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.

A prima facie case has nothing to do with any of this. Only three related concepts are involved: 1) suspicion; 2) probable cause; and 3) a viable case.

Suspicion gets the GJ process started. You don't need a viable case at this point. If you have a viable case and you don't want to use the GJ process to gather more evidence, you ask the GJ for an indictment. If you have suspicion, but no probable cause, or if you do have probable cause, but you need more evidence for a viable case, (so that you come to trial loaded for bear), then you use the GJ gather evidence. GJs can also seek evidence on their own initiative. The US Attorney is their legal advisor.

Probable cause is the bare minimum of evidence you need to get the jury to determine your case (i.e., what you need to get a good indictment). Prosecutors always want more if they can reasonably get it. The quoted language implies that probable cause exists--without any basis in fact. We just don't know what the GJ knows.

All we know now is that the GJ has the case. There are no inferences that can be drawn from that, except that the feds have suspicions. Anything that argues for more is ridiculous.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

Dude, when Tyler and George talked to the GJ pursuant to a grant of immunity, that was an investigative thing that be happening.

And, yeah, the prosecutor be in the GJ room. He be trying to indict something not a ham sandwich.

 

[Velodude]

A prima facie case has nothing to do with any of this. Only three related concepts are involved: 1) suspicion; 2) probable cause; and 3) a viable case.

Suspicion gets the GJ process started. You don't need a viable case at this point. If you have a viable case and you don't want to use the GJ process to gather more evidence, you ask the GJ for an indictment. If you have suspicion, but no probable cause, or if you do have probable cause, but you need more evidence for a viable case, (so that you come to trial loaded for bear), then you use the GJ gather evidence. GJs can also seek evidence on their own initiative. The US Attorney is their legal advisor.

Probable cause is the bare minimum of evidence you need to get the jury to determine your case (i.e., what you need to get a good indictment). Prosecutors always want more if they can reasonably get it. The quoted language implies that probable cause exists--without any basis in fact. We just don't know what the GJ knows.

All we know now is that the GJ has the case. There are no inferences that can be drawn from that, except that the feds have suspicions. Anything that argues for more is ridiculous.

I respectfully request you look up the legal definition of "prima facie case".

 

[MarkvW]

I respectfully request you look up the legal definition of "prima facie case".

There's a difference between probable cause and prima facie that you may not understand. Prima facie evidence means facts sufficient to support a finding. Probable cause is something else. Probable cause is reasonable ground for a belief of guilt. They are not the same thing.

Read the discussion in ILLINOIS V GATES 462 US 235: "While an effort to fix some general, numerically precise degree of certainty corresponding to "probable cause" may not be helpful, it is clear that "only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause."

Prima facie analysis is not in the mix, dude.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

'...' 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'...'

So what indication, if any, could we in the peanut gallery expect if a true bill was asked for? Just more from a person inside the investigation, or something formal?

Sleazy McCarthyite style argument. Feds are still only investigating.

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

'...'All we know now is that the GJ has the case. There are no inferences that can be drawn from that, except that the feds have suspicions. Anything that argues for more is ridiculous.

So people who think the GJ investigation shows Armstrong used PEDs are McCarthyite style, use dirty smearing tactics and are ridiculous?

With these value judgements, you are overstating the case and distorting the truth more than those you argue against. Consider the indictment rate for GJs and the conviction rate for federal trials. It's reasonable to expect a trial and convictions that will 'prove' at least some of the 'suspicions' about LAs actions. As such, it's reasonable to view the investigation as a strong indicator, that LA did what many of us believe he did. But you knew that didn't you?

Not all lawyers indulge in specious twaddle, so there is no need to confirm stereotypes to persuade us of your credentials.

 

[MarkvW]

So what indication, if any, could we in the peanut gallery expect if a true bill was asked for? Just more from a person inside the investigation, or something formal?







So people who think the GJ investigation shows Armstrong used PEDs are McCarthyite style, use dirty smearing tactics and are ridiculous?

With these value judgements, you are overstating the case and distorting the truth more than those you argue against. Consider the indictment rate for GJs and the conviction rate for federal trials. It's reasonable to expect a trial and convictions that will 'prove' at least some of the 'suspicions' about LAs actions. As such, it's reasonable to view the investigation as a strong indicator, that LA did what many of us believe he did. But you knew that didn't you?

Not all lawyers indulge in specious twaddle, so there is no need to confirm stereotypes to persuade us of your credentials.

You should not infer anything from the mere existence of a grand jury investigation. That is a logically and legally unassailable argument. But here in Clinic-land . . . .

You can fairly infer from facts, I'm not arguing that. But the argument that a fact is true because there is an ongoing investigation is a sleazy argument.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

You should not infer anything from the mere existence of a grand jury investigation. That is a logically and legally unassailable argument. But here in Clinic-land . . . .

You can fairly infer from facts, I'm not arguing that. But the argument that a fact is true because there is an ongoing investigation is a sleazy argument.

Legally unassailable - sure. Logically unassailable - not at all.

The fact is there is an investigation.

Happy to keep debating this with you Mark. How about I cut out the lawyer digs and you stop calling my argument sleazy?

 

[dbrower]

Oh no, "server busy". It may be over.

 

[powerste]

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

And something that LA, who spent so much energy to build up himself as a hero, should have been aware of. BTW it's much easier to pummel said hero when he lied and cheated to the extent that LA did in order to get there.

 

[thehog]

Oh no, "server busy". It may be over.

Gone

 

[krebs303]

This comes up for me. Lance facts are by invitation only.

"The blog http://facts4lance.wordpress.com was marked private by its owner. If you were invited to view this blog, please log in below. For more information about blog privacy settings, please visit our support site."

 

[tubularglue]

denial- An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

delusional- A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence


When conscious denial continues delusion follows.


Just some thoughts

 

[nicholas]

Look for this to be on SNL soon. Who will play Lance?

LOL!

What I want to know is when the made-for-television movie about Lance's life will come out?1? Who will play Lance? Will the movie end at the point of his last Tour win? ;-)

 

[Granville57]

It's all still there though.
Just drop "facts4lance" into Google and click "cached"

The main page will show. To see the other pages, search on "facts4lance hamilton" "facts4lance andreu" etc and clicked the "cached" version for each one.

Love the interwebs

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

LOL!

What I want to know is when the made-for-television movie about Lance's life will come out?1? Who will play Lance? Will the movie end at the point of his last Tour win? ;-)

Tom Cruise as Armstrong. He has the sociopath with a phony image down pat.
Sam Neil as Bruyneel
Toby McGuire as Hamilton
Steve Zahn as Landis
Freddy Prince Jr. as Hincapie

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Vin Diesel as Jeff Novitzky
Kid Rock as Landis
Tammy Thomas as Lance Armstrong
Mini Me as Levi Leipheimer
Yakov Smirnoff as Ekimov
Keanu Reeves as Hincapie
Bruyneel as Himself
Gerard Depardieu as Pat McQuaid

 

[barn yard]

this is quite disappointing as i just logged onto the world wibe web to look up some facts 4 lance

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

this is quite disappointing as i just logged onto the world wibe web to look up some facts 4 lance

Lance's "It's Not About the Bike" will soon be gracing the fiction sections at dollar bookstores everywhere.

 

[El Imbatido]

Didn't we already have a topic like this a long time ago.....i think it was called something like 'Who will play lance in the movie' There are some pretty good choices for actors like:

Ullrich - Dolph Lundgren
Lance - Kevin Bacon
Leipheimer - Danny Devito

Edit: here we are - http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=1239&highlight=play+lance+movie

 

[Granville57]

Vin Diesel as Jeff Novitzky
Kid Rock as Landis
Tammy Thomas as Lance Armstrong
Mini Me as Levi Leipheimer
Yakov Smirnoff as Ekimov
Keanu Reeves as Hincapie
Bruyneel as Himself
Gerard Depardieu as Pat McQuaid

Nice list!

Throughout that 60 Minutes piece, I was seeing Sean Penn as Tyler.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Nice list!

Throughout that 60 Minutes piece, I was seeing Sean Penn as Tyler.

Holy crap, that's golden!

 

[D-Queued]

It's all still there though.
Just drop "facts4lance" into Google and click "cached"

The main page will show. To see the other pages, search on "facts4lance hamilton" "facts4lance andreu" etc and clicked the "cached" version for each one.

Love the interwebs

Yup, electronic is forever.

Even the FFF pages can still be found...

Dave.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Well, that didn't last long.

Has anyone seen if FreeLance.com has been registered by Fabiani?!

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

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

What on earth makes you think that is unique to America?

Susan

 

[Captain Serious]

Yes, in Australia and NZ it's called the "tall poppy syndrome".
We grow 'em up nice and big, then we seem to take just as much delight in cutting them down