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

[mewmewmew13]

If he was formally indicted, there'd be no hiding it. It's a matter of public record. Rest assured, media hounds are watching court dockets and would sniff it out even if LA's camp didn't acknowledge it. He would be dragged into court and formally charged.....

Subpoenaed? I understand indictment--hugely public...but was wondering about subpoena to answer some ?s...can it be downplayed, but I guess it would still be public record.

 

[breakaway]

Subpoenaed? I understand indictment--hugely public...but was wondering about subpoena to answer some ?s...can it be downplayed, but I guess it would still be public record.

A subpoena is a court order requiring a witness to appear to testify in a matter that they are not a party in, so as to legally obligate the person to appear. A party to a case is already under legal obligation to appear simply by being a party, no subpoena necessary. The filing of the suit or fact that you're a defendant already obligates you legally.

In a criminal matter like this, the defendant doesn't have to cooperate and answer any questions (hence the 5th Amendment right to remain silent.). Cops can ask the "person of interest" to voluntarily answer some questions, but of course he doesn't have to. If they hypothetically asked LA to voluntarily answer some questions and he and his lawyers agree, then nobody would theoretically have to know about it. In practice though it seems like someone always leaks it, sometimes even the cops, prosecutors or attorneys for the defendant themselves for strategic purposes.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Thnx for the clarification. Yes, I thought they may try to stifle if he were to be called in to answer some questions, but you are right...they always seem to leak, it must be expected.

 

[ShawnB]

Pharmstrong...if he hasn't been formally notified that he specifically is being investigated, it draws up some interesting questions in regards to witness tampering, such as: If I havent been charged, or formally notified of an investigation, how can I tamper?

One does not have to be a party to a federal crime, to be seen as attempting to influence witness testimony relevant to that crime.

Not a question in any legal sense. RICO laws cover it, thoroughly.

Fair enough to be curious about it if you've never considered the issues before. But that is assuredly not the case for the federal investigators and prosecutors involved, and the laws on this are clear. That clarity is what you're pondering, but in fact is not in question, at all.

See:
United States v. Guadalupe, 402 F.3d 409, 412 (3d Cir. 2005)
United States v. Lopez, 372 F.3d 86, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2004)


A goon can be sent to intimidate a federal witness he's never seen before or has any direct connection to. That goon is still guilty of witness tampering. It's straighforward, boilerplate federal law.

The law is boilerplate and inclusive of the alleged actions. Proving motivation i.e. intent is the only ponderable, and whether the feds will get enough dots connected that they believe they can indict.

My reading on this is that there are not many dots that need to be connected, and Armstrong's motivations -- due to citation by the witness in GJ testimony as being involved in the commission of federal offenses -- is taken by the courts as largely self-evident.

 

[auscyclefan94]

And how does organizing a campaign of constant abuse and harassment prove this point? Where is the evidence? As the article states, it seems like some waffle to justify giving Armstrong abuse.

I find it amusing that people are taking off my accounts. Good to see I am being recognised in this forum

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Thanks for the good post Shawn.

 

[joeyrobbo]

Am I the only one who found it a little strange that Lance didn't publicly congratulate Levi on Twitter for winning the Tour de Suisse?

He normally makes a big deal of any Radioshack rider doing even remotely well, so seems weird that he chooses not to comment on this.

Is this due to:

A) He's been asked to distance himself from RS due to bad publicity.

B) Been informed that Levi has talked to the Feds about doping.

C) I'm reading too much into things.

 

[Berzin]

Leipheimer hasn't spoken to the Feds that anyone knows of. I think something like that would have hit the news somehow.

Seeing as he's still doping himself, giving testimony for him would be the height of irony.

 

[Frosty]

Leipheimer hasn't spoken to the Feds that anyone knows of. I think something like that would have hit the news somehow.

Has the full list of cyclists that have spoken to the Feds appeared on the news though? I dont think it has, just a few people have been mentioned as having spoken?

 

[Stingray34]

Am I the only one who found it a little strange that Lance didn't publicly congratulate Levi on Twitter for winning the Tour de Suisse?

He normally makes a big deal of any Radioshack rider doing even remotely well, so seems weird that he chooses not to comment on this.

Is this due to:

A) He's been asked to distance himself from RS due to bad publicity.

B) Been informed that Levi has talked to the Feds about doping.

C) I'm reading too much into things.

RR a few days ago said that Lance and Levi no longer get along. Has Bicep's pulled a Haven with Odessa?

 

[HL2037]

Am I the only one who found it a little strange that Lance didn't publicly congratulate Levi on Twitter for winning the Tour de Suisse?

He normally makes a big deal of any Radioshack rider doing even remotely well, so seems weird that he chooses not to comment on this.

Is this due to:

A) He's been asked to distance himself from RS due to bad publicity.

B) Been informed that Levi has talked to the Feds about doping.

C) I'm reading too much into things.

It is strictly forbidden for Lance's former teammates to succeed. Expect Levi to test positive any minute.

 

[thehog]

Am I the only one who found it a little strange that Lance didn't publicly congratulate Levi on Twitter for winning the Tour de Suisse?

He normally makes a big deal of any Radioshack rider doing even remotely well, so seems weird that he chooses not to comment on this.

Is this due to:

A) He's been asked to distance himself from RS due to bad publicity.

B) Been informed that Levi has talked to the Feds about doping.

C) I'm reading too much into things.

Levi outlined his doping to USADA and received immunity from doping sanctions. They used this testimony for the investigation into Armstrong's doping at a sporting level.

It must grate poor old Lance that he's paying Levi to cycle on Radioshack knowing he spilt the beans to save his own skin.

 

[Cloxxki]

It is strictly forbidden for Lance's former teammates to succeed. Expect Levi to test positive any minute.

The positives only come after leaving Lance's service. Technically, Levi's still working for Lance. He's thus being tolerated as a race winner, for now.
Leaving Lance's team voluntarily is not allowed, especially not improving your results. Perhaps tutoring fees should be offered after the fact to keep the after-Lance-effect from exhibiting?
Even on Lance's service though, I cannot imagine Levi to be allowed to win the TdF. Then again, Levi may be using Floyd's smart, but working Lance from the inside. Using his full dedication to get his own win, and keep it. Blackmailing a crook must be sweet.

 

[Race Radio]

Am I the only one who found it a little strange that Lance didn't publicly congratulate Levi on Twitter for winning the Tour de Suisse?

The Garden Gnome should not expect any public, or private, encouragement from Wonderboy anytime soon.

 

[BillytheKid]

Wait a sec.

I thought the Outside Magazine guys were the orchestrators of the Armstrong setup in Aspen.

The guys on here who regularly profess to be much smarter (and infinitely wittier) than the rest of us, assured us that Outside had set up the bogus meal at Cache Cache, had deliberately dangled Hamilton as bait, and had laid in wait until hamilton was able to lure Armstrong outside (the point at which their nefarious plan went south).

Now the devious SOB's come out with what appears to be a rather well-balanced and even pro-Armstrong (or anti-Floyd depending on your POV) article.

Damn those Outside guys are slippery...

Your misstating my position. I never said it was a fact, but suspicious. Having worked in journalism for 20-years, you would think I might have a right to an informed opinion.

Aggressive reporting is nothing new. Wether Hamilton and his Outside contingent were actively seeking a desired outcome is not to be considered outside the realm of possibilities. It smacks of a Phishing expedition in my mind.

The term muckraker also comes to mind.

Here's a link if your unfamiliar with the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker

Notice that investigative reporting of today traces its roots to the early muckrakers. Investigative reporting has been known to use "sting operation" tactics. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the movement, but I still question Hamilton being at the Cache Cache. That, in my opinion, goes too far. Someone like Armstrong, who has a jet, can easily be home for dinner at a favorite restaurant having been halfway across the country that morning. Hamilton, as a potential witness, really has some burden of responsibility to avoid Mr. Armstrong all together. That would mean not going to a restaurant that he is know to frequent, especially with aquatinted journalists at hand.

Still dubious. More dubious if Outside publishes a cover story out of it.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe someone should write an article about Juan Pelota taunting novitsky.

maybe someone should ask Lance about accounts like Antiraceradio that are set up to taunt and intimidate his critics.

 

[DomesticDomestique]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Anonymous]

oh, and how can he intimidate and harrass lance on twitter if lance has blocked him.

 

[MarkvW]

an important unresolved question

One does not have to be a party to a federal crime, to be seen as attempting to influence witness testimony relevant to that crime.

Not a question in any legal sense. RICO laws cover it, thoroughly.

Fair enough to be curious about it if you've never considered the issues before. But that is assuredly not the case for the federal investigators and prosecutors involved, and the laws on this are clear. That clarity is what you're pondering, but in fact is not in question, at all.

See:
United States v. Guadalupe, 402 F.3d 409, 412 (3d Cir. 2005)
United States v. Lopez, 372 F.3d 86, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2004)


A goon can be sent to intimidate a federal witness he's never seen before or has any direct connection to. That goon is still guilty of witness tampering. It's straighforward, boilerplate federal law.

The law is boilerplate and inclusive of the alleged actions. Proving motivation i.e. intent is the only ponderable, and whether the feds will get enough dots connected that they believe they can indict.

My reading on this is that there are not many dots that need to be connected, and Armstrong's motivations -- due to citation by the witness in GJ testimony as being involved in the commission of federal offenses -- is taken by the courts as largely self-evident.

(A) There appears to be a factual dispute over what was actually said and done in the restaurant.
(B) If the feds thought they had an intimidation case, they would not wait to charge it because, more than anything else, they'd want the BS to stop so their investigation could proceed unhampered.
(C) There is nothing "largely self evident" about proving intent. First: it is an element of the crime that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Second: it isn't something that is "taken" by the "court"--it is something that must be proven to a jury (unless the defendant elects to try the case to the judge). If one juror believes that Lance's only intention was to express himself about Tyler's TV appearance (and not about the GJ testimony), then there will be no guilty verdict.
(D). As far as I can tell, there is still a factual dispute over whether this was a staged media event, whether Lance was stalking Tyler, or whether it was an accidental encounter.

If this were a strong case Lance would be indicted by now.

 

[BillytheKid]

Maybe someone should write an article about Juan Pelota taunting novitsky.

maybe someone should ask Lance about accounts like Antiraceradio that are set up to taunt and intimidate his critics.

There's nothing wrong with covering or pursuing the Armstrong story. Questions should be asked. The legal process should continue to work.

I stand by my opinion that TH showing up at the Cache Cache with his Outside friends just off stage is over the line.

 

[Merckx index]

Hamilton, as a potential witness, really has some burden of responsibility to avoid Mr. Armstrong all together. That would mean not going to a restaurant that he is know to frequent, especially with acquainted journalists at hand.

You can't be serious. You believe that being a witness restricts your movements, that you aren't allowed to go to places where someone you might have testified against, who might be a defendant in some legal case, might also show up? That Tyler owes LA the right to know in advance that he, Tyler, won't be someplace where LA might be, because if he were, his presence might tempt LA to do something his $1000/hour lawyers have told him over and over and over not to do? Tyler is supposed to help LA stay within the confines of the law?

Should Tyler have called Cache-Cache in advance, to find out of LA was likely to be there? Should he try to find out all the places in Aspen that LA frequents, to make sure that he never shows up at any of these places? Or not having a complete list, maybe Tyler should just avoid Aspen altogether?

 

[BillytheKid]

oh, and how can he intimidate and harrass lance on twitter if lance has blocked him.

I talking only about what went down at the Cache Cache. The fact that you keep drifting off the subject could be mean you have no reply to the specific question I am raising. A fallicious argument called a "Red Herring" or an effort to distract by changing the topic?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

(A) There appears to be a factual dispute over what was actually said and done in the restaurant.
(B) If the feds thought they had an intimidation case, they would not wait to charge it because, more than anything else, they'd want the BS to stop so their investigation could proceed unhampered.
(C) There is nothing "largely self evident" about proving intent. First: it is an element of the crime that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Second: it isn't something that is "taken" by the "court"--it is something that must be proven to a jury (unless the defendant elects to try the case to the judge). If one juror believes that Lance's only intention was to express himself about Tyler's TV appearance (and not about the GJ testimony), then there will be no guilty verdict.
(D). As far as I can tell, there is still a factual dispute over whether this was a staged media event, whether Lance was stalking Tyler, or whether it was an accidental encounter.

If this were a strong case Lance would be indicted by now.

Ah, "there appears to be a factual dispute over what was actually said and done in the restaurant" .... reported in the media.
I doubt Feds do their investigations on press clippings.

What isn't in factual dispute is that they met and that there was an exchange which alone could be enough for intimidating a witness, what ShawnB acknowledged is that for a conviction it would have to show intent.

A staged media event? So carefully planned they forgot to have anyone there to record it?

 

[skippythepinhead]

Oh, hey Kid Billy, just wanted to point out that it's "whether." Of course nobody's perfect, but if one is going to constanty throw out "20 years in journalism"....

Good luck on the campaign trail to all the candidates. Looking forward to the debates.

 

[ultimobici]

(A) There appears to be a factual dispute over what was actually said and done in the restaurant.
(B) If the feds thought they had an intimidation case, they would not wait to charge it because, more than anything else, they'd want the BS to stop so their investigation could proceed unhampered.
(C) There is nothing "largely self evident" about proving intent. First: it is an element of the crime that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Second: it isn't something that is "taken" by the "court"--it is something that must be proven to a jury (unless the defendant elects to try the case to the judge). If one juror believes that Lance's only intention was to express himself about Tyler's TV appearance (and not about the GJ testimony), then there will be no guilty verdict.
(D). As far as I can tell, there is still a factual dispute over whether this was a staged media event, whether Lance was stalking Tyler, or whether it was an accidental encounter.

If this were a strong case Lance would be indicted by now.

If the Feds thought there was anything to the claims they would investigate first but not necessarily need to charge anyone straight away. That LA has been silent on the matter is very interesting. Not so much as one glib tweet? I wonder why.

The fact that there were no pro-TH witnesses coupled with the penalties for falsely accusing someone of this act suggests to me that it was not staged and that LA probably did accost him in the way he claims. That the restaurant owner has adjusted her story regarding LA's presence and her part in warning him add weight to this, IMO.

It also doesn't help that LA has a history of confronting his critics in a head-on manner. Simeoni, Bassons & Lemond are only the ones we've heard of.