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

[HL2037]

I can safely say that Lance will never be indicted in the US for the crime of "organized crime on an international level." That is a 100% safe prediction.

So you are saying you don't trust the the US justice system? Or you don't think he did it?

 

[zigmeister]

I suggest you review the eye witness evidences of Floyd Landis & Tyler Hamilton (contained in "60 Minutes", video interviews, Paul Kimmage interview, published emails, etc) which stand alone as admissable evidence if testified in a Federal court of law.

It would be expected that there would be supporting corroborating testimonies from other 2002-2004 US Postal team members if you claim that evidence would be dismissed on the grounds Landis & Hamilton are unreliable witnesses.

I can predict a number of indictments arising out of the the eye witness accounts in those interviews without the need for subpoenaed documentary evidence.

See how many your sharp legal mind can ferret out.

Anectdotally, and not far off the same scenario we have with Lance, I sat on a jury where two guys were accussed of armed robbery. A third person, a young female under age, worked in cahoots to set another family friend up who always carried large amounts of cash.

After the family friend was robbed and he called police, the mother got the girl to admit she worked with the two guys to set him up for the robbery.

There was no other evidence or eye witness to the crime, just her word.

She turned state's witness to go after the two guys who committed the act for obvious reasons.

The jury in the end, found the two accussed guys innocent. It was due to the fact that her word just wasn't good enough. It was felt she had some hopes of getting a lenient sentence by cooperating, which she did not. She had no deal with prosecutors at all. So, the two guys with violent criminal histories walked away clear and free.

Now, let's apply this case and the accused is Lance Armstrong, and the two yahoos turned state's witness are Floyd and Tyler. No chance in hell a jury would find them credible and good witnesses with their history.

Particularly when the guy who they are accusing is a national hero, Lance Armstrong. Lance isn't a known criminal offender with a history of crime.

The Feds have Frankie (admitted doper for years, yet never admitted to it while competing and making money during that time), his *** wife...and two guys that are known liars to the 10th degree, Floyd and Tyler.

Good luck with all of that.

 

[frenchfry]

Anectdotally, and not far off the same scenario we have with Lance, I sat on a jury where two guys were accussed of armed robbery. A third person, a young female under age, worked in cahoots to set another family friend up who always carried large amounts of cash.

After the family friend was robbed and he called police, the mother got the girl to admit she worked with the two guys to set him up for the robbery.

There was no other evidence or eye witness to the crime, just her word.

She turned state's witness to go after the two guys who committed the act for obvious reasons.

The jury in the end, found the two accussed guys innocent. It was due to the fact that her word just wasn't good enough. It was felt she had some hopes of getting a lenient sentence by cooperating, which she did not. She had no deal with prosecutors at all. So, the two guys with violent criminal histories walked away clear and free.

Now, let's apply this case and the accused is Lance Armstrong, and the two yahoos turned state's witness are Floyd and Tyler. No chance in hell a jury would find them credible and good witnesses with their history.

Particularly when the guy who they are accusing is a national hero, Lance Armstrong. Lance isn't a known criminal offender with a history of crime.

The Feds have Frankie (admitted doper for years, yet never admitted to it while competing and making money during that time), his *** wife...and two guys that are known liars to the 10th degree, Floyd and Tyler.

Good luck with all of that.

The obvious difference is that Tyler and Floyd aren't charged with any crimes and therefore aren't looking to get a lenient sentence. Tyler told the truth because he was required to in front of a grand jury.

I would think there will a be a lot more evidence than their word. I also like George Hincapie's credibility among others.

Good try though.

(don't...feed...the...trolls...)

 

[mewmewmew13]

Anectdotally, and not far off the same scenario we have with Lance, I sat on a jury where two guys were accussed of armed robbery. A third person, a young female under age, worked in cahoots to set another family friend up who always carried large amounts of cash.

After the family friend was robbed and he called police, the mother got the girl to admit she worked with the two guys to set him up for the robbery.

There was no other evidence or eye witness to the crime, just her word.

She turned state's witness to go after the two guys who committed the act for obvious reasons.

The jury in the end, found the two accussed guys innocent. It was due to the fact that her word just wasn't good enough. It was felt she had some hopes of getting a lenient sentence by cooperating, which she did not. She had no deal with prosecutors at all. So, the two guys with violent criminal histories walked away clear and free.

Now, let's apply this case and the accused is Lance Armstrong, and the two yahoos turned state's witness are Floyd and Tyler. No chance in hell a jury would find them credible and good witnesses with their history.

Particularly when the guy who they are accusing is a national hero, Lance Armstrong. Lance isn't a known criminal offender with a history of crime.

The Feds have Frankie (admitted doper for years, yet never admitted to it while competing and making money during that time), his *** wife...and two guys that are known liars to the 10th degree, Floyd and Tyler.

Good luck with all of that.

Zig, I'm not sure what you are trying to ineffectually contrive here for a comparison, but it is at best a long stretch for the sake of argument.

The only reason I am repeating (quoting) this whole mess is for the sake of pointing out your off-the -cuff irresponsible description of Betsy. This sadly highlights a bleak level of comprehension on your part and an attempt to label a person who has done nothing "crazy" . She has only told the truth and refused to be bulldozed into backing down by the tactics of a classic alpha-male bully who is used to getting things his way.

Shame on you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Anectdotally, and not far off the same scenario we have with Lance, I sat on a jury where two guys were accussed of armed robbery. A third person, a young female under age, worked in cahoots to set another family friend up who always carried large amounts of cash.

After the family friend was robbed and he called police, the mother got the girl to admit she worked with the two guys to set him up for the robbery.

There was no other evidence or eye witness to the crime, just her word.

She turned state's witness to go after the two guys who committed the act for obvious reasons.

The jury in the end, found the two accussed guys innocent. It was due to the fact that her word just wasn't good enough. It was felt she had some hopes of getting a lenient sentence by cooperating, which she did not. She had no deal with prosecutors at all. So, the two guys with violent criminal histories walked away clear and free.

Now, let's apply this case and the accused is Lance Armstrong, and the two yahoos turned state's witness are Floyd and Tyler. No chance in hell a jury would find them credible and good witnesses with their history.

Particularly when the guy who they are accusing is a national hero, Lance Armstrong. Lance isn't a known criminal offender with a history of crime.

The Feds have Frankie (admitted doper for years, yet never admitted to it while competing and making money during that time), his *** wife...and two guys that are known liars to the 10th degree, Floyd and Tyler.

Good luck with all of that.

So the case that you were on which relied on 1 witness is similar to this case even though you acknowledge lots of 'witnesses' to this case?

I think that is pretty big difference - also don't forget George Hincapie - he is a nice guy right? Everyone likes George - or will he soon be cast as an "admitted doper for years, yet never admitted to it while competing and making money during that time"?

 

[fatandfast]

Anectdotally, and not far off the same scenario we have with Lance, I sat on a jury where two guys were accussed of armed robbery. A third person, a young female under age, worked in cahoots to set another family friend up who always carried large amounts of cash.

After the family friend was robbed and he called police, the mother got the girl to admit she worked with the two guys to set him up for the robbery.

There was no other evidence or eye witness to the crime, just her word.

She turned state's witness to go after the two guys who committed the act for obvious reasons.

The jury in the end, found the two accussed guys innocent. It was due to the fact that her word just wasn't good enough. It was felt she had some hopes of getting a lenient sentence by cooperating, which she did not. She had no deal with prosecutors at all. So, the two guys with violent criminal histories walked away clear and free.

Now, let's apply this case and the accused is Lance Armstrong, and the two yahoos turned state's witness are Floyd and Tyler. No chance in hell a jury would find them credible and good witnesses with their history.

Particularly when the guy who they are accusing is a national hero, Lance Armstrong. Lance isn't a known criminal offender with a history of crime.

The Feds have Frankie (admitted doper for years, yet never admitted to it while competing and making money during that time), his crazy wife...and two guys that are known liars to the 10th degree, Floyd and Tyler.

Good luck with all of that.

while I agree with some of the descriptions of Landis and Hamilton, and to a lesser extent Frankie. But it's kind of a stretch to call Betsy crazy. She was one of a select group of people that was at Lance's bedside, went to delivery hope where there didn't appear to be very much. She was told things in a critical moment and when she repeated her version she was dismissed. That has made her super angry. I think she is still a sound witness

I have read about Novitzky and he from most accounts is a good law enforcer. The behavior of Landis and Hamilton has been a great benefit to Armstrong. They have made his job as hard as possible with the clown like BS they do almost every time they discuss the case.
The UCI and pro teams in general don't have any relief valve built in for guys who made a mistake or 2. Andreau made a few, but time was the only thing in place for his admission. The UCI should get an outline from South Africa or alike about starting w a clean slate or Armstrong and Longo BS is going to keep popping up.

 

[Race Radio]

Snip

The Feds have Frankie (admitted doper for years, yet never admitted to it while competing and making money during that time), his crazy wife...and two guys that are known liars to the 10th degree, Floyd and Tyler.

You may want to read the forum rules

6. No insulting other members.
11. Blatant lying, baiting, or teasing other members will not be tolerated.

Also, Frankie did not "Dope for years" and Floyd, Tyler, Betsy and Frankie are far from the only witnesses.

 

[thehog]

What about the chic who wanted to smash Betsy's head in with a baseball bat? She's rooting for Lance. She's got lots of credibility. I like her credibility! LOL!!

while I agree with some of the descriptions of Landis and Hamilton, and to a lesser extent Frankie. But it's kind of a stretch to call Betsy crazy. She was one of a select group of people that was at Lance's bedside, went to delivery hope where there didn't appear to be very much. She was told things in a critical moment and when she repeated her version she was dismissed. That has made her super angry. I think she is still a sound witness

I have read about Novitzky and he from most accounts is a good law enforcer. The behavior of Landis and Hamilton has been a great benefit to Armstrong. They have made his job as hard as possible with the clown like BS they do almost every time they discuss the case.
The UCI and pro teams in general don't have any relief valve built in for guys who made a mistake or 2. Andreau made a few, but time was the only thing in place for his admission. The UCI should get an outline from South Africa or alike about starting w a clean slate or Armstrong and Longo BS is going to keep popping up.

 

[MacRoadie]

The Feds have Frankie (admitted doper for years, yet never admitted to it while competing and making money during that time), his crazy wife...

Admitted doper for years? How many years? Made tons of money while doping? And a crazy wife?

Man, I thought we had moved off the Andreu character assassination talking points months and months ago...

 

[mewmewmew13]

I think it's pretty clear what Z's intent is here....

..wish I could design my own emoticons

 

[MarkvW]

Well according to yourself:



Don't worry, I share you confusion - as you have been suggesting that warrants haven't been served because:

We must be talking past each other because I don't get what you're saying. My point is that I would expect to see warrants in a tax / fraud case and I haven't heard of any. The absence of warrants indicates (to me) an absence of PC to support a warrant. That indicates they haven't got sufficient evidence to charge Lance with an articulable crime (yet).

The staleness doctrine wouldn't apply in a case where no warrants have been sought.

You are fixing on staleness for a reason I don't understand. Staleness is only relevant to my argument insofar as it is a motivator for prompt police action to obtain warrants. The principal utility of this argument is in rebuttal to your point that you would expect to see warrants at the end of the case. You wouldn't expect late search warrants because the cops seek their warrants while their info is fresh.

Polish: How many days, hours, minutes since Floyd went full ***?

 

[MacRoadie]

The behavior of Landis and Hamilton has been a great benefit to Armstrong. They have made his job as hard as possible with the clown like BS they do almost every time they discuss the case.

How many times has Hamilton "discussed the case", and what "clown like BS" did he perpetrate?

I'll give you Floyd.

 

[fatandfast]

What about the chic who wanted to smash Betsy's head in with a baseball bat? She's rooting for Lance. She's got lots of credibility. I like her credibility! LOL!!

I get scared that there may be a deeper pool of polish than I can imagine. People with bats and ideas that Lance has or is incapable of doing anything wrong. I am not sure if Betsy has been asked about batting practice on Lance's melon but even without the question I know the answer.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

***edited by mod ***

 

[mewmewmew13]

'*** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We must be talking past each other because I don't get what you're saying. My point is that I would expect to see warrants in a tax / fraud case and I haven't heard of any. The absence of warrants indicates (to me) an absence of PC to support a warrant. That indicates they haven't got sufficient evidence to charge Lance with an articulable crime (yet).

No, you are just talking in circles.

You would expect to see 'warrants' even though they can get all that information from others.
The lack of warrants (even though they won't need them) must be because the information is stale, which means they do not have PC, which means they have no case

The staleness doctrine wouldn't apply in a case where no warrants have been sought.

You are fixing on staleness for a reason I don't understand. Staleness is only relevant to my argument insofar as it is a motivator for prompt police action to obtain warrants. The principal utility of this argument is in rebuttal to your point that you would expect to see warrants at the end of the case. You wouldn't expect late search warrants because the cops seek their warrants while their info is fresh.

Polish: How many days, hours, minutes since Floyd went full ***?

No, you are the one bringing up warrants (or lack of) as some sort of indication.

The Feds work on information - they have plenty of ways of getting it - if they required search warrants it would indicate that they could not obtain that information elsewhere or that the investigation was floundering.
As it is ongoing (& not wound up) then we can safely assume they are making progress.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Keep it civil, folks

Susan

 

[thehog]

Keep it civil, folks

Susan

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling...ong-compete-xterra-usa-championship-triathlon

Lance effect!

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I think it's pretty clear what Z's intent is here....

..wish I could design my own emoticons

If it gets to trial, there will likely be a great deal of real evidence corroborating the testimony or George, Floyd, Tyler, Betsy and others. Z can huff and puff like Lance, but it will not change the facts that will be marshaled in court by the Feds.

As to a point made earlier about the surprise factor, IMO, this crew has been slick enough to not leave evidence lying around in their homes. That is not to say that incriminating emails, text messages and other electronic records are not preserved and available for or already subject to criminal subpoenas. ISPs in particular are not about to tell Lance & Co. that they have been served with criminal subpoenas issued by the grand jury and have complied. Likewise banks.

It is no doubt disconcerting to some, like Mark W., to be left out of the criminal search warrant loop, but it is what it is. Staleness is a red herring issue raised to create smoke. When the grand jury issues a criminal subpoena
they have effectively mooted any "staleness" argument and the feds will likely not wait any great length of time to execute a warrant. Generally, the only circumstance that changes with time is that perps move incriminating materials causing a search to turn up nothing. Then it's back to getting another subpoena, assuming the police know to where the materials were moved. In Lance & Co.'s situation, one has to think that most of the evidence against them that exists, is not directly in their possession or under their control---eg. ISP and bank records.

The Supremes have held that there is a presumption of reasonableness to grand jury subpoenas and that the party seeking to quash a subpoena has the burden of proving unreasonableness. Basically, a grand jury gets to see what it wants to see document-wise and they get to have witnesses brought before them with little restriction other than privileges asserted by the witness.

 

[MarkvW]

So you are saying you don't trust the the US justice system? Or you don't think he did it?

I trust Lance and his associates will be investigated thoroughly. There may or may not be charges. The idea that they "will" be indicted or that there is a "high probability" that they will be indicted is unsound. Nobody knows, and such predictions are useless.

For the second question, I have to go full Clinton. It depends on the meaning of "it."

I believe Armstrong doped. I believe the doping was systematic, organized, and involved multiple people. I believe Lance intimidated others in an attempt to keep his doping secret. I believe that Lance played a leading role in the systematic doping program. There is no information out sufficient to form a reasonable opinion on tax fraud.

I think Lance has done lots of bad things. But I cannot say he WILL be indicted for them or that there is A HIGH PROBABILITY that he will be indicted for them. People who say that are pulling your leg.

 

[9000ft]

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling...ong-compete-xterra-usa-championship-triathlon

Lance effect!

It really is fascinating what this one bike racer brings out in people, both pro and con.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I trust Lance and his associates will be investigated thoroughly. There may or may not be charges. The idea that they "will" be indicted or that there is a "high probability" that they will be indicted is unsound. Nobody knows, and such predictions are useless.

For the second question, I have to go full Clinton. It depends on the meaning of "it."

I believe Armstrong doped. I believe the doping was systematic, organized, and involved multiple people. I believe Lance intimidated others in an attempt to keep his doping secret. I believe that Lance played a leading role in the systematic doping program. There is no information out sufficient to form a reasonable opinion on tax fraud.

I think Lance has done lots of bad things. But I cannot say he WILL be indicted for them or that there is A HIGH PROBABILITY that he will be indicted for them. People who say that are pulling your leg.

So you think Lance doped and did all the other things in Blue - and yet the Feds who you admit will investigate "thoroughly" - will be unable to find illegal activity?

 

[oldschoolnik]

It really is fascinating what this one bike racer brings out in people, both pro and con.

"I enjoy the training," Armstrong said. "It's almost like therapy for me. And it's easy to do and it's cheaper than therapy so I'll always need that aspect in my life."

Does anyoneknow if this is this the first time Lance has admitted to being a proponent of therapy (that's the "talking cure" for you non US folks).

I think there's hope for him yet!

Tough call for the therapist though:

Therapist: You say you lied, who did you lie to Lance?

LA: a lot of people.

Therapist: How many is not important at this time.

 

[MarkvW]

No, you are just talking in circles.

You would expect to see 'warrants' even though they can get all that information from others.

Yes you would. Incriminating evidence obtained from a defendant himself has its own value. A doc taken from the defendant's safe tells the jury something different from the same document found in a landfill.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes you would. Incriminating evidence obtained from a defendant himself has its own value. A doc taken from the defendant's safe tells the jury something different from the same document found in a landfill.

No, incriminating evidence is incriminating evidence.