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

[python]

*** editd by mod ***

 

[Benotti69]

*** edited by md ***

Aint no BS, Emma O'Reiily quite rightly held her very high. Told the truth about her experience while working for Armstrong. Armstrong went after her with all his rich Lawyer's and still lost. Some people dont need to descend to the gutter to prove they are what they say they are.

 

[Velodude]

to sue people requires money and time. Michael Anderson explained why it is not worth it. go search..

There is also a problem of forum shopping for a plaintiff under these global circumstances.

To find a jurisdiction in which one of the acts of defamation occurred, a jurisdiction that on precedents has tough application of defamation law and resulting awards (eg UK not US), legal costs are mostly recoverable for the successful litigant (UK not US) and where there are sufficient of LA's assets domiciled to enforce any judgment (US not UK).

 

[Benotti69]

There is also a problem of forum shopping for a plaintiff under these global circumstances.

To find a jurisdiction in which one of the acts of defamation occurred, a jurisdiction that on precedents has tough application of defamation law and resulting awards (eg UK not US), legal costs are mostly recoverable for the successful litigant (UK not US) and where there are sufficient of LA's assets domiciled to enforce any judgment (US not UK).

A lot of people outside of america dont run crying to their lawyers like babies every time someone call them names.

O'Reilly clearly stated in a letter to Strickland published on Bicycling.com that

For the record, I might not have achieved anything like Lance has—who has? But I live a nice, quiet life running a small business, with my two dogs and my boyfriend.

She also unbelievably still thinks this, which in my opinion goes a long way to explaining why she is not running to a lawyer as she did what she did for legitimate reasons.

I had a couple of my most enjoyable years working alongside him, and really enjoyed his company, no matter what has happened since.

O'Reilly lives in the UK where it is very easy to go to court over such things as slander. But because she doesn't that doesn't makes her guilty, it makes her strong. A nice word when used on its own dont you agree.?

 

[Velodude]

A lot of people outside of america dont run crying to their lawyers like babies every time someone call them names.

O'Reilly clearly stated in a letter to Strickland published on Bicycling.com that

She also unbelievably still thinks this, which in my opinion goes a long way to explaining why she is not running to a lawyer as she did what she did for legitimate reasons.

O'Reilly lives in the UK where it is very easy to go to court over such things as slander. But because she doesn't that doesn't makes her guilty, it makes her strong. A nice word when used on its own dont you agree.?

I had read Emma O'Reilly's response in "Bicycling" not long after it was published and was aware she was far from being a willing litigant to commence proceedings of defamation against Armstrong.

The point I was making that any willing litigant who was successful against Armstrong in a civil case would need to be able to commence proceedings in a jurisdiction where Armstrong held assets to reap the financial redress.

Also in the equation is that Armstrong is a known predatory and deep pocket litigator who would derive smug satisfaction from bludgeoning his opponent by driving up his/her legal costs even at his own cost.

 

[Benotti69]

I had read Emma O'Reilly's response in "Bicycling" not long after it was published and was aware she was far from being a willing litigant to commence proceedings of defamation against Armstrong.

The point I was making that any willing litigant who was successful against Armstrong in a civil case would need to be able to commence proceedings in a jurisdiction where Armstrong held assets to reap the financial redress.

Also in the equation is that Armstrong is a known predatory and deep pocket litigator who would derive smug satisfaction from bludgeoning his opponent by driving up his/her legal costs even at his own cost.

all which shows why it is a waste of ones life to go after the guy and better to get busy living and from a distance watch all the chickens come home to roost

 

[Cimacoppi49]

all which shows why it is a waste of ones life to go after the guy and better to get busy living and from a distance watch all the chickens come home to roost

Too bad for him that the feds have a bit more staying power than Emma. "Pull out??!! Doesn't sound manly to me, Bill. I say let's keep it in there and get the job done."--a US Senator in the Senate Bar courtesy of Firesign Theater circa 1968

 

[Benotti69]

Too bad for him that the feds have a bit more staying power than Emma. "Pull out??!! Doesn't sound manly to me, Bill. I say let's keep it in there and get the job done."--a US Senator in the Senate Bar courtesy of Firesign Theater circa 1968

My comment was from the point of view from someone like O'Reilly who has no money and lots of integrity. Of course those in power should go after the guy, of that there is no doubt.

 

[MacRoadie]

Gotta Bump it Up!

A courtesy bump, because the thread was actually in danger of falling off the first page (one slot away).

You are all welcome.

The Bloviator

 

[Cloxxki]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Cimacoppi49]

A courtesy bump, because the thread was actually in danger of falling off the first page (one slot away).

You are all welcome.

The Bloviator

I'd like to make a suggestion to the moderators. When indictments do come down, lock this thread and commence an indictment thread. Depending on the people and charges, it may be helpful to set up additional discussion threads to keep the discussion organized.

 

[Oldman]

I'd like to make a suggestion to the moderators. When indictments do come down, lock this thread and commence an indictment thread. Depending on the people and charges, it may be helpful to set up additional discussion threads to keep the discussion organized.

Where's the fun in that? This thread weaves down the road like chickens on crack and always has. Have you no respect for the it's rich tradition?

 

[fatandfast]

I'd like to make a suggestion to the moderators. When indictments do come down, lock this thread and commence an indictment thread. Depending on the people and charges, it may be helpful to set up additional discussion threads to keep the discussion organized.

I was kind of wishing that some guru of the world wide web find the budgeting for chasing Lance. Kind of like the tickers that are in NYC that show the national debt growing. Just to have a rough figure on how much time and money is being spent on catching or not catching Lance and co for selling beat up DuraAce Eddy's or taking a bag or two of ruby red like everybody else. Any dollar figure give or take 100,000. Or just the fact finding mission to Europe, how much did that cost?

Don't lock down the thread, instead this is CN's chance to have a webcam inside Novitzky's office when the word is announced one way or another. If he is taking a test and Longo's data was just discovered,good thing there is no time limit on pass or fail

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Where's the fun in that? This thread weaves down the road like chickens on crack and always has. Have you no respect for the it's rich tradition?

I feel the pull of tradition as much as anyone, but indictments will need a new thread because the Lance Tifosi will need space to cleanly float Fabiani's defense theories to see if they will fly with the few remaining true believers they hope to have seated in the jury box.

 

[Cloxxki]

*** edited by mod ***

Because the innocent 911 truth parallel I drew seems too sensitive on a US forum, or was maybe considered to be too specific, I'll ask my question more stand-lone:

After possibly getting off the hook...
What in the long list of evidence and anecdotes against Armstrong will keep standing, and making people wonder when he's once more portayed as world savoir and universal hero? The failed tests, the witness hampering, the 'tude? What's Armstrong's worst smoking gun in the hand?

This was also edited out, and seems sufficiently on topic by itself:

You know you are in trouble when...
...your most vocal critics can't find a new thing to blame you for.

 

[MarkvW]

I feel the pull of tradition as much as anyone, but indictments will need a new thread because the Lance Tifosi will need space to cleanly float Fabiani's defense theories to see if they will fly with the few remaining true believers they hope to have seated in the jury box.

I have yet to hear anybody attempt to predict even one indictable offense against Armstrong. There are many vague assertions about RICO and fraud and taxes, but nothing more. It is not reasonable to assume that there will be an indictment unless you can point to a specific crime, with a specific date of offense(s), and specific evidence.

The feds have been at this a long time, and no charges have been announced. There are two explanations: They don't yet have proof, or there is an ongoing investigation with sealed indictments. Either explanation may be correct; we don't know.

I keep thinking that the feds must not have probable cause to believe Tailwind or Livestrong, or any other Armstrong related entities are involved in any wrongdoing because they surely would have executed search warrants long ago to seize evidence before it could be destroyed. The same problem with tax charges.

The old stuff just looks weaker and weaker as the months go past. The only thing that still resonates is the idea of an ongoing doping investigation. THAT is something the feds would fight hard to keep secret and would best explain the European trip a few months ago.

Okay, then, Fausto. You claim to be a lawyer. You say that Armstrong WILL be indicted. Lay out your case for ONE count that he will be charged with --including the relevant statute, dates of violation, and brief statement of factual predicate. Can you do it?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I have yet to hear anybody attempt to predict even one indictable offense against Armstrong. There are many vague assertions about RICO and fraud and taxes, but nothing more. It is not reasonable to assume that there will be an indictment unless you can point to a specific crime, with a specific date of offense(s), and specific evidence.

The feds have been at this a long time, and no charges have been announced. There are two explanations: They don't yet have proof, or there is an ongoing investigation with sealed indictments. Either explanation may be correct; we don't know.

I keep thinking that the feds must not have probable cause to believe Tailwind or Livestrong, or any other Armstrong related entities are involved in any wrongdoing because they surely would have executed search warrants long ago to seize evidence before it could be destroyed. The same problem with tax charges.

The old stuff just looks weaker and weaker as the months go past. The only thing that still resonates is the idea of an ongoing doping investigation. THAT is something the feds would fight hard to keep secret and would best explain the European trip a few months ago.

Okay, then, Fausto. You claim to be a lawyer. You say that Armstrong WILL be indicted. Lay out your case for ONE count that he will be charged with --including the relevant statute, dates of violation, and brief statement of factual predicate. Can you do it?

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, dreams, desires, etc. As to Armstrong, the underlying charges to a RICO indictment have been discussed here at length. As major Federal Criminal investigations go, this one has not been going on all that long. When you consider just the money trail that has to be followed, the task seems daunting. Still, the Treasury Dept. has had a team of forensic accountants in Switzerland going over Swiss bank records; meetings with Euro counterparts and production by them of Armstrong's urine samples; probably hundreds of witness interviews with some of them making Grand Jury appearances after being granted immunity to testify----all this takes time. The Feds don't like to indict until they feel they are ready to go to trial with a virtual slam dunk. Be patient and it will come--the indictment, that is.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have yet to hear anybody attempt to predict even one indictable offense against Armstrong. There are many vague assertions about RICO and fraud and taxes, but nothing more. It is not reasonable to assume that there will be an indictment unless you can point to a specific crime, with a specific date of offense(s), and specific evidence.

I realize you like to lawyer things up but why is it only "reasonable" to believe there will be indictments only once you know the specific dates or offence?

There is an ongoing investigation - by the Feds, that's serious stuff. Do you think all involved have been acting in a legal manner in all their dealing and duties - me neither, so it is "reasonable" to assume that indictments will be served.

The feds have been at this a long time, and no charges have been announced. There are two explanations: They don't yet have proof, or there is an ongoing investigation with sealed indictments. Either explanation may be correct; we don't know.

There is more than 2 - how about the amount of information and evidence gathered takes time to sort through and prioritize?

I keep thinking that the feds must not have probable cause to believe Tailwind or Livestrong, or any other Armstrong related entities are involved in any wrongdoing because they surely would have executed search warrants long ago to seize evidence before it could be destroyed. The same problem with tax charges.

Thats a good point - why do you keep thinking they don't have probable cause? Its an ongoing investigation - they have Landis, Tyler and more people from the GJ.
The Feds won't need much evidence from CSE (not tailwind or LS) as they have all the contacts from Trek, Nike etc.

The old stuff just looks weaker and weaker as the months go past. The only thing that still resonates is the idea of an ongoing doping investigation. THAT is something the feds would fight hard to keep secret and would best explain the European trip a few months ago.

Why does stuff look weaker as "the months go past"?
They are either weak or they are not.

Okay, then, Fausto. You claim to be a lawyer. You say that Armstrong WILL be indicted. Lay out your case for ONE count that he will be charged with --including the relevant statute, dates of violation, and brief statement of factual predicate. Can you do it?

Is this a courtroom?
Let me ask you -do you think Lance, Weisel and all their buddies have been acting in a complete honorable and legal fashion?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

To address the point about warrants for Tailwind records. Criminal subpoenas are often issued under seal to banks and other entities with records. In fact, Tailwind's premises and computers could be seized under a sealed warrant.

If Armstrong, Tailwind and friends received target letters, do you think Fabiani would make that known publicly? If Armstrong and Tailwind's computers were seized, would they make that known? Would they tell the public if they knew their bank records and computer records had been subpoenaed from banks and ISPs?

 

[Oldman]

To address the point about warrants for Tailwind records. Criminal subpoenas are often issued under seal to banks and other entities with records. In fact, Tailwind's premises and computers could be seized under a sealed warrant.

If Armstrong, Tailwind and friends received target letters, do you think Fabiani would make that known publicly? If Armstrong and Tailwind's computers were seized, would they make that known? Would they tell the public if they knew their bank records and computer records had been subpoenaed from banks and ISPs?

Add to that the occurance of Livestrong accounting being reviewed by the IRS and there are enough complications that Fabiani can't spin them all.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Add to that the occurance of Livestrong accounting being reviewed by the IRS and there are enough complications that Fabiani can't spin them all.

I have this vision of Fabiani doing a Chinese acrobat plate spin show dressed as Charlie Chan. Apologies in advance to all whom I've offended.

 

[MacRoadie]

I have this vision of Fabiani doing a Chinese acrobat plate spin show dressed as Charlie Chan. Apologies in advance to all whom I've offended.

Polish should be along any minute now...

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Add to that the occurance of Livestrong accounting being reviewed by the IRS and there are enough complications that Fabiani can't spin them all.

How do you know this?

 

[lancaster]

is the any possibility of LA facing perjury charges in the UK (from the SCA case)?

 

[MarkvW]

I realize you like to lawyer things up but why is it only "reasonable" to believe there will be indictments only once you know the specific dates or offence?

There is an ongoing investigation - by the Feds, that's serious stuff. Do you think all involved have been acting in a legal manner in all their dealing and duties - me neither, so it is "reasonable" to assume that indictments will be served.


There is more than 2 - how about the amount of information and evidence gathered takes time to sort through and prioritize?


Thats a good point - why do you keep thinking they don't have probable cause? Its an ongoing investigation - they have Landis, Tyler and more people from the GJ.
The Feds won't need much evidence from CSE (not tailwind or LS) as they have all the contacts from Trek, Nike etc.



Why does stuff look weaker as "the months go past"?
They are either weak or they are not.


Is this a courtroom?
Let me ask you -do you think Lance, Weisel and all their buddies have been acting in a complete honorable and legal fashion?

My personal opinion is that Armstrong is a loathsome creature (lower than Papp or Landis or even Rasmussen). I'd like to see an indictment that requires proof that he was a doper, but I can't be a cheerleader because I have not seen anything like sufficient proof for a criminal charge. And sufficient proof just gets you to the starting gate. The Attorney General has huge discretion. Armstrong would never be charged based on mere probable cause--the feds would want good, convincing evidence--like they had for Bonds, Clemens, and Hairy Tammy.

Time is the friend of the defendant. Very rarely does a good thing happen after a continuance. Memories fade, attitudes shift, people get lost or die. This would be obvious to an experienced prosecutor.

You need PC to get a search warrant. The prosecutor would want a search warrant if he was after documents. Documents are the bread and butter of a fraud/tax prosecution. The fact that there have been no such warrants is is an indicator that no PC for a warrant exists. Subpoenas duces tecum suck compared to a warrant because you can grab the docs before the target can lose them or modify them. The subpoena depends on voluntary compliance and contempt sanctions.

I am rebelling against the unsupportable assertion that an indictment WILL be coming. Nobody talking about charges on this forum has ever talked about a concrete charge (with elements and facts and a date of offense). It is just "drumroll" in different forms, over and over again.

Such a concrete discussion would be useful. If I could come up with a plausible charge, I'd start the discussion. But I can't. And so far, neither can anybody else.