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

[Edgar Poe]

Tyler should explain what he was doing there as well. Turning up to LA's regular local hangout on the basis he thought he might not be there could be seen as interfering and provocative. I think the feds would be foolish to come down hard on Armstrong without taking this into account.

Tyler was at an event at Cache Cache with Outside personel. I suppose they could have chosen CC to thumb their nose at Lance and try to provoke him. Yet, based on what I've read, I think thats unlikely. 1) The bar area had several of Lance's friends. Noone has said Tyler tried to provoke Lance. Rather, his friends are saying it was a neutral encounter. 2) Both Lance and Tyler have had crediblility issues, but Tyler is the one who has come clean with the Feds and the public. Tyler could still be telling lies, but he is free to tell the truth at this point. Lance is still tangled in a web of lies. 3) Tyler promptly contacted his lawyer who released a strong public statement about what Lance said and then contacted the Feds. I find it hard to believe Tyler would lie to his lawyer, put out a strong public statement, and contact the Feds. They may have embellished a bit, yet I think Lance probably said something snarky or intimidating to Tyler. 4) Lance's attorny did not come out with a strong statement on the incident. Rather, they started talking up an entirely new story about Tyler and his buddies hanging outside Lance's house (nothing has come out of that story - sounds made up to me). If Lance is telling the truth that all he said was "Hey, whats up?", then I think his lawyers would have come out with a strong public statement. My hunch is that Lance said something inappropriate, told his lawyers what he said, and the lawyers tried to redirect the story to something else (that Tyler and his friends visited Lance's house).

 

[thirteen]

I think LA has a pragmantic side to him. You can't get as successful as he has by just being some crazy psycho. Even with this Tyler incident, we forget that Tyler has been given immunity to essentially testify against Armstrong and possibly put him in jail. If we were in LA's shoes and had a former team mate do that to us, I think we would be pretty teed off about it. Having a few quiet words outside the restroom is pretty restrained.

Tyler should explain what he was doing there as well. Turning up to LA's regular local hangout on the basis he thought he might not be there could be seen as interfering and provocative. I think the feds would be foolish to come down hard on Armstrong without taking this into account.

Landis plays hardball with people who give testimony he doesn't like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDAoqK9SiC0

oh my!

must you show your colours so soon?

will we now be treated with you dissecting every post?

joy.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Landis plays hardball with people who give testimony he doesn't like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDAoqK9SiC0

Your MO may be a waste of time in regards to the Clinicians, but nice try. Keep it up!

Nothing like desperation to get people to throw sh*t-balls. You realize that what you're doing isn't going to hold any water with this crowd, right?

I have to say I love the 'newbs' showing up with year-old arguments that don't carry any weight. You can cut the desperation with a spoon...

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Tyler was at an event at Cache Cache with Outside personel. I suppose they could have chosen CC to thumb their nose at Lance and try to provoke him. Yet, based on what I've read, I think thats unlikely. 1) The bar area had several of Lance's friends. Noone has said Tyler tried to provoke Lance. Rather, his friends are saying it was a neutral encounter. 2) Both Lance and Tyler have had crediblility issues, but Tyler is the one who has come clean with the Feds and the public. Tyler could still be telling lies, but he is free to tell the truth at this point. Lance is still tangled in a web of lies. 3) Tyler promptly contacted his lawyer who released a strong public statement about what Lance said and then contacted the Feds. I find it hard to believe Tyler would lie to his lawyer, put out a strong public statement, and contact the Feds. They may have embellished a bit, yet I think Lance probably said something snarky or intimidating to Tyler. 4) Lance's attorny did not come out with a strong statement on the incident. Rather, they started talking up an entirely new story about Tyler and his buddies hanging outside Lance's house (nothing has come out of that story - sounds made up to me). If Lance is telling the truth that all he said was "Hey, whats up?", then I think his lawyers would have come out with a strong public statement. My hunch is that Lance said something inappropriate, told his lawyers what he said, and the lawyers tried to redirect the story to something else (that Tyler and his friends visited Lance's house).

I'm refering to the act of being there at all at this point in a sensitive investigation. It could be seen as a provocative act. Under these circumstances I think it would be vindictive for the feds to target Armstrong. If the feds are fair they should take this into account and simply warn the both of them to stay away from each other.

 

[sniper]

That might be because the one time he tried he got his **** handed to him by Gilles Bouvard.

That was in a stage won by Jeroen Blijlevens in 1996, right?
Is there an official account of what happened between them?

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Your MO may be a waste of time in regards to the Clinicians, but nice try. Keep it up!

Nothing like desperation to get people to throw sh*t-balls. You realize that what you're doing isn't going to hold any water with this crowd, right?

I have to say I love the 'newbs' showing up with year-old arguments that don't carry any weight. You can cut the desperation with a spoon...

Can you quote the year old argument you are refering to? Please clarify your statements.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Can you quote the year old argument you are refering to? Please clarify your statements.

referencing your post re landis and lemond. old news...

there's a whole lot more new news to talk about, but why not drag in the wing-nut and the old man? scraping the bottom?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Just looked at the website for the Harpeth River Ride in which LA participated on the Saturday in Tennessee before the "confrontation" with TH in CacheCache restaurant in Aspen that night.

The website (http://harpethriverride.com/) informs that LA's participation was only made known on 6 June 2011 - 6 days earlier.

Youtube videos evidence that the 100 mile group including LA and other RS riders was undertaken at a leisurely pace.

LA came in 129th without any time recorded against his name in the official results. However times recorded for those in the 120's was 9 hours + and consistent with the pedestrian pace of the videos.

Youtube videos also show LA making the presentations after the event.

A very long day in Tennessee after a late official notification of presence.

TH would certainly be comforted that under those circumstances LA would not be in Aspen that night at his favourite haunt.

What would be the flight time for a private jet TN to Aspen?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

no offense to the wing-nut and the old man...

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

referencing your post re landis and lemond. old news...

there's a whole lot more new news to talk about, but why not drag in the wing-nut and the old man? scraping the bottom?

I was replying to a post in this thread that asked what Floyd would have done. I reminded the user that Floyd did quite a tough bit of witness intimidation himself.

You probably felt uncomfortable with this because it shows what Armstrong apparently did to not be particularly unqiue or even as bad. Floyd is also against Armstrong now so we're not supposed to bring that stuff up anymore.

 

[Edgar Poe]

I'm refering to the act of being there at all at this point in a sensitive investigation. It could be seen as a provocative act. Under these circumstances I think it would be vindictive for the feds to target Armstrong. If the feds are fair they should take this into account and simply warn the both of them to stay away from each other.

Tyler was participitating with an Outside event. Outside probably picked up the bill and chose the restaurant. I suppose they could have chosen CC to be a little cocky, but I think its a BIG stretch to say attending a restaurant in and of itself is a provocative act.

"I think it would be vindictive for the feds to target Armstrong."

Not at all. If Lance did indeed tell Tyler that his lawyers would destroy him on the witness stand and make his life a living hell - then that is intimidating a witness. Claiming he was provoked to say that is laughable and a lame excuse. "Yes your honor, I did say those intimidating things to a witness. But, it wasn't my fault, the witness was at my favorite restaurant. I was clearly provoked and couldn't control myself. Any reasonable person would have said the same thing under those provocative circumstances".

Good luck with that.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

That was in a stage won by Jeroen Blijlevens in 1996, right?
Is there an official account of what happened between them?

No, I've looked for the footage but can't find it. My memory is that it was in the rain. There was a crash, Armstrong tried to get into it with Bouvard and Bouvard hit him.

Maybe someone else has a better memory of the incident.

 

[ShawnB]

I'm refering to the act of being there at all at this point in a sensitive investigation. It could be seen as a provocative act. Under these circumstances I think it would be vindictive for the feds to target Armstrong. If the feds are fair they should take this into account and simply warn the both of them to stay away from each other.

No. They are not equal actors in this game.

One is a federal witness, the other is not.

The one who is not, is a private citizen with no special status if trespassed, beyond the rights of any other citizen.

The federal witness, however, is specifically and especially protected from interference, tampering, and intimidation, and it is a federal offense to trespass him.

"Under these circumstances", as you say, 'boys will be boys' doesn't cut it, and is not 'fair'.
In the eyes of the DOJ, anyway.

The Fabricator may tell you otherwise, at HQ.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I was replying to a post in this thread that asked what Floyd would have done. I reminded the user that Floyd did quite a tough bit of witness intimidation himself.

You probably felt uncomfortable with this because it shows what Armstrong apparently did to not be particularly unqiue or even as bad.

no, i felt uncomfortable because the cases are totally different and you were swiping with a really broad brush.

as far as i know, there was no grand jury or federal inquiry regarding flandis and/or lemond. i think, legally speaking, lance's behaviour is entirely unique and even worse than anything the wing-nut did.

i appreciate where you're coming from, and actually find it really amusing (or desperate), so keep it up!

 

[Edgar Poe]

I was replying to a post in this thread that asked what Floyd would have done. I reminded the user that Floyd did quite a tough bit of witness intimidation himself.

You probably felt uncomfortable with this because it shows what Armstrong apparently did to not be particularly unqiue or even as bad. Floyd is also against Armstrong now so we're not supposed to bring that stuff up anymore.

I suppose this is the new LA rationale. Others did it so its not unique or really that bad. Others have intimidated witnesses so its not unique or that bad. Others have doped, so its not unique or that bad.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

No. They are not equal actors in this game.

One is a federal witness, the other is not.

The one who is not, is a private citizen with no special status if trespassed, beyond the rights of any other citizen.

The federal witness, however, is specifically and especially protected from interference, tampering, and intimidation, and it is a federal offense to trespass him.

"Under these circumstances", as you say, 'boys will be boys' doesn't cut it, and is not 'fair'.
In the eyes of the DOJ, anyway.

The Fabricator may tell you otherwise, at HQ.

As I understand it Tyler is not yet a witness in an investigation, just as Armstrong is not yet a defendent. However it's just as bad for a witness to interfer with a defendent of an investigation in which they have been given immunity to testify against. I think it is reasonable to say Tyler should not have taken the risk of being there, especially after appearing on national TV to dish further dirt on Armstrong. His actions were asking for trouble. My firm view is neither of them should be charged over this - they should be warned not to repeat it.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

no, i felt uncomfortable because the cases are totally different and you were swiping with a really broad brush.

No I don't think you are telling the truth. Of course it's a different type of case and there are legal differences - I never said there wasn't, but if anything Landis' actions were even more inexcusable because Lemond was not giving direct testimony against him. The point is it's witness intimidation. That's all. You shouldn't feel the need to leap to Landis defense in the fear this might make Armstrong not look as bad.

 

[Edgar Poe]

As I understand it Tyler is not yet a witness in an investigation, just as Armstrong is not yet a defendent. However it's just as bad for a witness to interfer with a defendent of an investigation in which they have been given immunity to testify against. I think it is reasonable to say Tyler should not have taken the risk of being there, especially after appearing on national TV to dish further dirt on Armstrong. His actions were asking for trouble. My firm view is neither of them should be charged over this - they should be warned not to repeat it.

More LA-based rationale.
-- Others have done it - its not unique or that bad. (a.k.a The "everybody does it" rationale).
-- He was asking for trouble. (aka The "blame the victim" rationale).

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

I suppose this is the new LA rationale. Others did it so its not unique or really that bad. Others have intimidated witnesses so its not unique or that bad. Others have doped, so its not unique or that bad.

That does seem to be the fear that some have. Agreed.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

More LA-based rationale.
-- Others have done it - its not unique or that bad. (a.k.a The "everybody does it" rationale).
-- He was asking for trouble. (aka The "blame the victim" rationale).

We shouldn't be afraid of there being more than one side to a story.

 

[Edgar Poe]

We shouldn't be afraid of there being more than one side to a story.

I don't think Lance's story will have a happy ending in this area. Actions have consequences. He should be held accountable for any crimes he has committed.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

No I don't think you are telling the truth. Of course it's a different type of case and there are legal differences - I never said there wasn't, but if anything Landis' actions were even more inexcusable because Lemond was not giving direct testimony against him. The point is it's witness intimidation. That's all. You shouldn't feel the need to leap to Landis defense in the fear this might make Armstrong not look as bad.

easy, buddy. i'm no flandis defender. his history is full of d*che-baggery.

but, on the other hand, i'm not an apologist. your monologues make me think otherwise of you. the armstrong case is so utterly different, and so much bigger in terms of cycling, that there is no legitimate parallel.

keep it up...

 

[D-Queued]

I suppose this is the new LA rationale. Others did it so its not unique or really that bad. Others have intimidated witnesses so its not unique or that bad. Others have doped, so its not unique or that bad.

Yup.

Sooner or later, it is going to evolve to:

"I never inhaled"

Given where his advisor went to school, expect the same old, same old.

Dave.

 

[hrotha]

No, I've looked for the footage but can't find it. My memory is that it was in the rain. There was a crash, Armstrong tried to get into it with Bouvard and Bouvard hit him.

Maybe someone else has a better memory of the incident.

I remember reading about it in a Spanish magazine, in their Tour de France special issue. They talked about how disappointing LA's Tour was, how everybody expected a lot from him after his superb 1996 season, and how he abandoned early on, using the Atlanta Olympic Games as an excuse, but not before getting in that fight with Bouvard. The text said LA had had to endure lots of pressure as the expectations were so high for that Tour, as that's the only thing that would explain why "one of the nicest guys in the peloton" (sic) would get into a fist fight.

Seriously, re-reading old cycling magazines from the 90s and 00s is hilarious.

 

[Edgar Poe]

Yup.

Sooner or later, it is going to evolve to:

"I never inhaled"

Given where his advisor went to school, expect the same old, same old.

Dave.

"The needle broke the skin, but I never pushed the plunger".