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

[VeloGirl]

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.

Cache Cache is a public place. Anyone can go there. There was nothing wrong with TH or LA being there at the same time. The problem arises when LA approches TH.

I strongly disagree with "his actions were asking for trouble". Asking TH to stay out of every place LA frequents is just silly

 

[D-Queued]

Cache Cache is a public place. Anyone can go there. There was nothing wrong with TH or LA being there at the same time. The problem arises when LA approches TH.

I strongly disagree with "his actions were asking for trouble". Asking TH to stay out of every place LA frequents is just silly

And we already have a pattern with the reverse scenario... where Tyler has been, Lance is want to follow.

Dave.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

And we already have a pattern with the reverse scenario... where Tyler has been, Lance is want to follow.

Dave.

Ouch!
____________

 

[VeloGirl]

And we already have a pattern with the reverse scenario... where Tyler has been, Lance is want to follow.

Dave.

I walked right into that one.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Cache Cache is a public place. Anyone can go there. There was nothing wrong with TH or LA being there at the same time. The problem arises when LA approches TH.

I strongly disagree with "his actions were asking for trouble". Asking TH to stay out of every place LA frequents is just silly

No, I disagree. It's not a good idea for Tyler to choose to go to the number one local restaurant of a defendant he has immunity to testify against. It compromises both of them. It may not fit the script here but the feds should warn Tyler not to do this again along with any warning they have for Armstrong. Putting personalities aside, that would be fair from a legal standpoint.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

I'm sorry BPC - as much as the rest of your posts have given me a chuckle, I have to stop you here.

There may be many sides to a story - but there is only ever one truth, although I can see why you would be afraid of that.
Now continue on.

 

[Willy_Voet]

It's not a good idea for Tyler to choose to go to the number one local restaurant of a defendant he has immunity to testify against.

You are a dolt of the highest caliber.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

I'm sorry BPC - as much as the rest of your posts have given me a chuckle, I have to stop you here.

There may be many sides to a story - but there is only ever one truth, although I can see why you would be afraid of that.
Now continue on.

I'm not sure what you mean, but the truth can be complicated with lots of nuances and context.

 

[mewmewmew13]

...and brazen for a 'new member'.

How about we move on...

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

You are a dolt of the highest caliber.

Rather than use insults as intimidation against people who aren't providing testimony you wish to see, why not counter the point?

 

[Willy_Voet]

Rather than use insults as intimidation against people who aren't providing testimony you wish to see, why not counter the point?

Not going to play that game, troll. Funny you mention "intimidation"...you really try to think about this crap, don't you?

Now shut it you old guff.

 

[rata de sentina]

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

You need to return to the mothership for rebriefing. Obviously you have been assigned to the wrong website, that script you are using isn't going to work here.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Not going to play that game, troll. Funny you mention "intimidation"...you really try to think about this crap, don't you?

Now shut it you old guff.

If you're not able to contribute to the subject then don't use insults and threats to shut people up because they're not saying the right thing. Given the subject matter it makes you look like a hypocrite.

I don't think what I'm saying here is really very extraordinary. It really wasn't a great idea for Hamilton to go to a restaurant that LA attends as much as three times a week. TH does have immunity to testify against him. It doesn't fit the script but I think the feds should tell him not to do this along with their warning for Armstrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not sure what you mean, but the truth can be complicated with lots of nuances and context.

it is not complicated at all.

Tyler was a guest at an event organised by Outside magazine - it was known that he would be there.
Likewise Armstrong was invited to an event in Tennessee and it was known he would be there.

Unless you think Hamilton should not eat then he will go to a restaurant. As he and his party were seated in the dining area then its obvious they had a booking.
Armstrong was at the bar - did he arrive late.

Even if it was an innocent encounter Armstrong did not need to put his arm out to stop Hamilton and he certainly did not need to berate him.
Any chance that Armstrong did not know that Hamilton was not a witness went out the window when he said that his legal team would tear him apart on the stand.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

You need to return to the mothership for rebriefing. Obviously you have been assigned to the wrong website, that script you are using isn't going to work here.

One of the comments that Armstrong apparently made to Tyler was to demand to know how much he was paid by 60 minutes.

It's interesting that you see no problem with using that line against me.

I suppose we're all human and have similar mentalities when it comes down to it. No shocks there.

 

[Maxiton]

I'm sorry BPC - as much as the rest of your posts have given me a chuckle, I have to stop you here.

There may be many sides to a story - but there is only ever one truth, although I can see why you would be afraid of that.
Now continue on.

Good call, Dr Maserati. BPC, by now you must have at least seven yellow jerseys in forum trolling. Gotta hand it to you there.

In any event, what we say here is of little consequence in this situation. Subject A is under investigation for various alleged federal crimes. Subject B has testified and will testify against him. The FBI is investigating whether the suspect, Subject A, approached the witness, Subject B, for the purpose of retaliation, intimidation, or other interference, which is a federal crime all on its own. The investigators will turn their findings over to a prosecutor, who will decide whether to issue an indictment. If the suspect, Subject A, had accomplices, they will likely also be indicted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you're not able to contribute to the subject then don't use insults and threats to shut people up because they're not saying the right thing. Given the subject matter it makes you look like a hypocrite.

I don't think what I'm saying here is really very extraordinary. It really wasn't a great idea for Hamilton to go to a restaurant that LA attends as much as three times a week. TH does have immunity to testify against him. It doesn't fit the script but I think the feds should tell him not to do this along with their warning for Armstrong.

Can you show that that was common knowledge before last Saturday?
As the only person who has said that was Lance's "good friend" the owner of Cache Cache Jodi Larner.

 

[ShawnB]

No, I disagree. It's not a good idea for Tyler to choose to go to the number one local restaurant of a defendant he has immunity to testify against. It compromises both of them. It may not fit the script here but the feds should warn Tyler not to do this again along with any warning they have for Armstrong. Putting personalities aside, that would be fair from a legal standpoint.

FFS! You don't listen.

It is not what is 'fair' from a legal standpoint.

Listen up this time: Tyler IS a witness who has given testimony to an empaneled federal Grand Jury. He IS -- read: IIIIZZZZ -- a federal witness. He IS thus protected by federal statutes prohibiting his intimidation and harassment. That will be the case until the GJ disbands. You can't just wish that away or spin some fantasy negating it.

And Armstrong is not -- is NOT -- a defendant in anything at this point. So the same rules do NOT apply. Do NOT. Apply. He is not -- read IIIZZZ NOOOOOTT! -- entitled to any protections beyond that of any other citizen.

Do you get it yet?
It doesn't matter what you wish were true about their 'fair' 'legal standpoint'. Your view on that is just crazy, unrelated to reality, and thankfully means nothing to the feds. They have their purview, and this is well within it now.

Remains to be seen what they can make stick. But don't try to reweave the narrative of the rights, responsibilities, and protections of two people with very different legal standing, into an argument for their essential equality. Federal law doesn't support that AT ALL. And the federal laws here are what matters, not the opinion of an uninformed fool. The facts of what's legal and what's not, in this incident, are known, are at hand, and you ignore them as you will, but I won't respond to you again about this. Your purpose here is obvious, but these waters won't be muddied.

 

[MarkvW]

I'm not sure what you mean, but the truth can be complicated with lots of nuances and context.

Maybe in real life, but for the groupthinkers the truth is either something that hurts Lance or helps Lance.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

it is not complicated at all.

Tyler was a guest at an event organised by Outside magazine - it was known that he would be there.
Likewise Armstrong was invited to an event in Tennessee and it was known he would be there.

Unless you think Hamilton should not eat then he will go to a restaurant. As he and his party were seated in the dining area then its obvious they had a booking.
Armstrong was at the bar - did he arrive late.

Even if it was an innocent encounter Armstrong did not need to put his arm out to stop Hamilton and he certainly did not need to berate him.
Any chance that Armstrong did not know that Hamilton was not a witness went out the window when he said that his legal team would tear him apart on the stand.

There are a couple of assertions there relying on one side of the story, but it doesn't actually dispute my point that it was unwise for Hamilton to attend Armstrong's local bar and restaurant on the basis he might not be there. It's pretty common sense that you shouldn't do this if you have immunity to testify against someone in a sensitive case. I hope the feds are fair and remind both parties to stay away from each other. In the circumstances it would be wrong for them to take any further action against Armstrong.

 

[Cyclist Encoders]

Can you show that that was common knowledge before last Saturday?
As the only person who has said that was Lance's "good friend" the owner of Cache Cache Jodi Larner.

Do you have any evidence it's not the case? It's right near his house and as you point out the owner is a good friend.

 

[MarkvW]

FFS! You don't listen.

It is not what is 'fair' from a legal standpoint.

Listen up this time: Tyler IS a witness who has given testimony to an empaneled federal Grand Jury. He IS -- read: IIIIZZZZ -- a federal witness. He IS thus protected by federal statutes prohibiting his intimidation and harassment. That will be the case until the GJ disbands. You can't just wish that away or spin some fantasy negating it.

And Armstrong is not -- is NOT -- a defendant in anything at this point. So the same rules do NOT apply. Do NOT. Apply. He is not -- read IIIZZZ NOOOOOTT! -- entitled to any protections beyond that of any other citizen.

Do you get it yet?
It doesn't matter what you wish were true about their 'fair' 'legal standpoint'. Your view on that is just crazy, unrelated to reality, and thankfully means nothing to the feds. They have their purview, and this is well within it now.

Remains to be seen what they can make stick. But don't try to reweave the narrative of the rights, responsibilities, and protections of two people with very different legal standing, into an argument for their essential equality. Federal law doesn't support that AT ALL. And the federal laws here are what matters, not the opinion of an uninformed fool. The facts of what's legal and what's not, in this incident, are known, are at hand, and you ignore them as you will, but I won't respond to you again about this. Your purpose here is obvious, but these waters won't be muddied.

Callling another poster an uninformed fool is just bad manners. Just like Tyler displayed bad manners by urinating in Lance's stomping grounds and Lance displayed bad manners by . . . Being Lance. Maybe most road bikers are just jerks. Bike Tourists RULE!!!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There are a couple of assertions there relying on one side of the story, but it doesn't actually dispute my point that it was unwise for Hamilton to attend Armstrong's local bar and restaurant on the basis he might not be there. It's pretty common sense that you shouldn't do this if you have immunity to testify against someone in a sensitive case. I hope the feds are fair and remind both parties to stay away from each other. In the circumstances it would be wrong for them to take any further action against Armstrong.

So - again, where was it known that LA went there 3 times a week?

Even if it was a chance encounter Armstrong stopped Tyler - then berated him. Which is intimidating a witness.

 

[D-Queued]

Do you have any evidence it's not the case? It's right near his house and as you point out the owner is a good friend.

Where's his house? How good a friend?

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do you have any evidence it's not the case? It's right near his house and as you point out the owner is a good friend.

You are the one suggesting that Tyler should have known this - so can you point out where this was known prior to last Saturday.

Also can you give me LA's Aspen address - because I doubt that Cache Cache is the nearest restaurant to his house. Thanks.