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

[Velodude]

I fond it rather creepy that you are stalking me.
Wanting to know my address yikes. REPORTED.

Anyway, if charges do not get launched - I will have to admit I was wrong.
It was NOT a Witch Hunt.

It would turn out to be a Wild Goose Chase.

If LA gets convicted will you call him an AWESOME cheat?

 

[AngusW]

Thanks for the correction Angus - I will fix my post.
Although Lance would have finished 11 (or more) TdF's if his DS did not pull him out of the race. He started so young. As a neo-pro.
Eddy did not start as a neo-pro.
Neither did The Badger or Jacques.
Lance started so young.
Raced the Tour every year.
Neo pro onwards. Mr July.

Anyway, while I am at it, I will increase the podium appearances from 8 to 9.
Lance stood atop the final podium in Paris in 2010 too.
Team Honors. Musketeer status.

10 finishes. 9 podiums.
Awesome.

<snip>
How about this?

12 finishes. 12 podiums. Even more awesome! But it's not Lance! Yikes! Any guesses who it might be?

Joop? Off the top of my head

Actually it was Raymond Poulidor (eight individual podiums, 3 team prizes and 1 team points prize). 4 team honors. 4 times the musketeer status of Lance Armstrong?

 

[MarkvW]

I just hope the FEDs do not use expired SOLs as an excuse not to launch charges.
Sure, it is a way to save face. Avoid backlash.
But it would deny Lance the opportunity to win.
Be like scheduling a Tough Mountain stage and then cancelling.
Boo.
It would really suck. Bring on those charges!

It sure would be a show. But would you want to see your control-freak hero completely out-of-control with his fate to be decided by twelve strangers and a disinterested judge?

Like watching the brave Roger Clemens actually having to face a fastball pitched by the opposing team!

 

[fatandfast]

I understand, you just wanted to 'talk', feel included in some legal discussions...I get it. I work with individuals like you. Let me help, rather than chirping off with every legal word in your lexicon in hopes of being heard, try just asking questions, and the richness of those questions will show others that you belong. Thereafter, love, unity and happiness will consume us all.

"I'd rather know all the questions, than all the answers" (Aryeh Frimer)

NW

Are any of these really legal questions? I think it's loads of people repeating that Armstrong is guilty(on in their minds so far) of 100's of horrible wrong doings that have gone ignored. Armstrong has arrived in middle age without any of the tarnish that people say he has. I really don't see a parallel with some of other captain of industry, like a Kozlowski or Ken Lay.
Most of the most passionate posts about Armstrong's guilt of multiple felonies are filled with loads of facts, just none of them to date have added up to any law enforcement action except the Novitzky dig.

I don't think Novotzky and Armstrong will ever shake hands and say that the have mutual understanding for the other's point of view. Armstrong has been to court a couple of time and has walked away the winner.
I have to wonder as somebody that admires the law and the people employed in is practice. Wouldn't the constant smear for over 20 years, while working in a multitude of different criminal and judicial systems, why can't they see it?
Why is somebody so criminal so invisible to the law? Why is it so easy for a guy in lycra shorts w a 150 dollar polystyrene helmet to see that Armstrong should be jailed but all the people that do it for a living are just tooo f-cking stupid to even open their eyes ?

Maybe there are a legal question or 10 to be asked but first 20 years of getting away w whatever he has gotten away w should surely toast a career or two of people he did it in front of, George Bush doesn't count because he was another criminal that got away w it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are any of these really legal questions? I think it's loads of people repeating that Armstrong is guilty(on in their minds so far) of 100's of horrible wrong doings that have gone ignored. Armstrong has arrived in middle age without any of the tarnish that people say he has. I really don't see a parallel with some of other captain of industry, like a Kozlowski or Ken Lay.
Most of the most passionate posts about Armstrong's guilt of multiple felonies are filled with loads of facts, just none of them to date have added up to any law enforcement action except the Novitzky dig.

I don't think Novotzky and Armstrong will ever shake hands and say that the have mutual understanding for the other's point of view. Armstrong has been to court a couple of time and has walked away the winner.
I have to wonder as somebody that admires the law and the people employed in is practice. Wouldn't the constant smear for over 20 years, while working in a multitude of different criminal and judicial systems, why can't they see it?
Why is somebody so criminal so invisible to the law? Why is it so easy for a guy in lycra shorts w a 150 dollar polystyrene helmet to see that Armstrong should be jailed but all the people that do it for a living are just tooo f-cking stupid to even open their eyes ?

Maybe there are a legal question or 10 to be asked but first 20 years of getting away w whatever he has gotten away w should surely toast a career or two of people he did it in front of, George Bush doesn't count because he was another criminal that got away w it.

As someone who has 'legal experience' (read, talked to people, watched Law & Order) I resent that remark.

Perhaps why these legal people (judges & stuff) missed Armstrongs doping was because the evidence was found on a 'land fill' as opposed to in a safe. Because if you know anything about the law it is that evidence has context.

If you require anymore legal advise please do not hesitate to ask me.

 

[9000ft]

Are any of these really legal questions? I think it's loads of people repeating that Armstrong is guilty(on in their minds so far) of 100's of horrible wrong doings that have gone ignored. Armstrong has arrived in middle age without any of the tarnish that people say he has. I really don't see a parallel with some of other captain of industry, like a Kozlowski or Ken Lay.
Most of the most passionate posts about Armstrong's guilt of multiple felonies are filled with loads of facts, just none of them to date have added up to any law enforcement action except the Novitzky dig.

I don't think Novotzky and Armstrong will ever shake hands and say that the have mutual understanding for the other's point of view. Armstrong has been to court a couple of time and has walked away the winner.
I have to wonder as somebody that admires the law and the people employed in is practice. Wouldn't the constant smear for over 20 years, while working in a multitude of different criminal and judicial systems, why can't they see it?
Why is somebody so criminal so invisible to the law? Why is it so easy for a guy in lycra shorts w a 150 dollar polystyrene helmet to see that Armstrong should be jailed but all the people that do it for a living are just tooo f-cking stupid to even open their eyes ?

Maybe there are a legal question or 10 to be asked but first 20 years of getting away w whatever he has gotten away w should surely toast a career or two of people he did it in front of, George Bush doesn't count because he was another criminal that got away w it.

Did you ever see an old John Carpenter film called (I think) "They live"? Thw whole premise was than an alien race had invaded earth and by the miracle of their technology and the cooperation of a small number of humans in power were able to conceal themselves among the population. A small underground of humans developed some special sunglasses that could see the ugly aliens for what they were and all the subliminal messages they had posted about.

The true crusaders on this forum are live those brave humans in the underground in that film who wear the sunglasses and see the grand conspiracy for what it is. They can see the conspiracy, they wear the glasses.

Great movie in a John Carpenter kind of way.

 

[Race Radio]

That is simply not true in criminal cases. I defy you to bring forward one example of a criminal prosecution that was extended because of "effort to cover up the crime" or "pressuring witnesses."


In civil cases, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment can be available.

Google is your friend

the period for conspiracies begins with the last affirmative act committed in furtherance of the scheme

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

An act like stopping a key witness in a bar and threatening to tear him apart on the stand.......

 

[ChrisE]

It sure would be a show. But would you want to see your control-freak hero completely out-of-control with his fate to be decided by twelve strangers and a disinterested judge?

Like watching the brave Roger Clemens actually having to face a fastball pitched by the opposing team!

I sure wish you would make up your mind about whether you are a fanboy or a hater.

 

[Neworld]

I fond it rather creepy that you are stalking me.
Wanting to know my address yikes. REPORTED.

Sorry Polish, didn't mean to creep you out.

When you asked for my credit card I guess I didn't think it was off base to ask for your address. I didn't report you then and I won't now. By the way, a while back you did in fact state you owned a bike store, I guess I just have a good memory.

I just received my warning and will respect it. My apologies!

PS: I live in Canada, do you know how long it would take me to saddle up the huskies, the sled and get my pack ready for 'creepy traveling'? I'd at least have to wait until the June thaw (just joking ok)

NW

 

[Francois the Postman]

OK folks, time to draw a line under all that and move on please. Or at a bare minimum keep going in more acceptable circles.

 

[Cal_Joe]

OK folks, time to draw a line under all that and move on please. Or at a bare minimum keep going in more acceptable circles.

Welcome back Francois.

 

[MarkvW]

Google is your friend
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf
An act like stopping a key witness in a bar and threatening to tear him apart on the stand.......

In the hypothetical you propose, the statute of limitations is not extended by the acts of concealment. In the hypothetical you propose, an ongoing crime is being committed. You still haven't met my challenge, but you do present an interesting question.

The conspiracy has to have an OBJECT. It also has to have more than one conspirator. Acts taken in furtherance of that object are conspiratorial acts. As long as those acts keep happening, the conspiracy keeps happening. And you're right, the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy is when the statute of limitations clock starts to tick. When the object of the conspiracy is attained, the conspiracy is COMPLETE. You cannot commit an act in furtherance of the conspiracy after the conspiracy is complete. The terms "complete" and "object" are terms of art with meaning you can determine from reading the cases.

If the conspiracy is to dope, then the conspiracy to dope is complete when the doping is done. If the conspiracy is to commit fraud on the USA, then the conspiracy is complete when the fraud has been executed.

In Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957) The Supreme Court said this: "But a vital distinction must be made between acts of concealment done in furtherance of the main criminal objectives of the conspiracy, and acts of concealment done after these central objectives have been attained, for the purpose only of covering up after the crime." That case was about a conspiracy to corrupt a grand jury. Here is what the Court held: "We hold, therefore, that, considering the main objective of the conspiracy to have been the obtaining of "no prosecution" rulings, prosecution was barred by the three-year statute of limitations, since no agreement to conceal the conspiracy after its accomplishment was shown or can be implied on the evidence before us to have been part of the conspiratorial agreement."

Grunewald makes it hard for the feds to prove cover up as an object independent of the crime to dope or commit fraud on the USA, and that's exactly what the feds will have to prove in a conspiracy.

United States v. Upton, 559 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. March 5, 2009) (No. 05-1593) is perhaps the best case to rely on if you want to use covering up as a separate crime that was agreed upon as part of a conspiracy. It is, as the District Court noted, a very close case. In that case, which was decided over a dissent, the court found an ongoing conspiracy to commit a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B).

Your hypothetical situation fails because of Grunewald--specifically because you can't (a) specify a cover-up crime; (b) that Lance and another person agreed upon to commit; and (c) that the Aspen incident furthered.

Try again. As you say: Google is your friend.

 

[Velodude]

Are any of these really legal questions? I think it's loads of people repeating that Armstrong is guilty(on in their minds so far) of 100's of horrible wrong doings that have gone ignored. Armstrong has arrived in middle age without any of the tarnish that people say he has. I really don't see a parallel with some of other captain of industry, like a Kozlowski or Ken Lay.
Most of the most passionate posts about Armstrong's guilt of multiple felonies are filled with loads of facts, just none of them to date have added up to any law enforcement action except the Novitzky dig.

I don't think Novotzky and Armstrong will ever shake hands and say that the have mutual understanding for the other's point of view. Armstrong has been to court a couple of time and has walked away the winner.
I have to wonder as somebody that admires the law and the people employed in is practice. Wouldn't the constant smear for over 20 years, while working in a multitude of different criminal and judicial systems, why can't they see it?
Why is somebody so criminal so invisible to the law? Why is it so easy for a guy in lycra shorts w a 150 dollar polystyrene helmet to see that Armstrong should be jailed but all the people that do it for a living are just tooo f-cking stupid to even open their eyes ?

Maybe there are a legal question or 10 to be asked but first 20 years of getting away w whatever he has gotten away w should surely toast a career or two of people he did it in front of, George Bush doesn't count because he was another criminal that got away w it.

Armstrong was never awarded a decision in any court to my knowledge. He did not walk away a winner as every civil case was settled between the parties on confidential terms.

The Sunday Times will have the opportunity to have the court stamped settlement set aside if from these upcoming events it is proved that from evidence from other sources that LA perjured himself in evidence before that British court.

It is apparent LA allegedly committed multiple felonies throughout his professional cycling career. The omerta protecting LA was broken in 2010 and we know sufficient information about those felonies has been laid before the authorities to initiate an investigation under Mr. Novitzky.

Without knowledge of the felonies and their mechanics, prior to that date LA was only non legally accountable if he breached the UCI rules relating to cycling. They are, in effect, "club rules" to which you must comply to hold a UCI cycling license. You will not go to prison or have a criminal record if you breach UCI rules.

It would appear you consider there was an injustice relating to George Bush evading being tried for criminal acts. Then you should be pleased to accept that LA's conduct is undergoing close scrutiny to determine if he has a case to answer for criminal acts.

Or do you have a double standard?

 

[Race Radio]

And if the conspiracy is the trafficking of drugs? The Bribing of foreign officials? The avoidance of taxes? The Illegal use of unlicensed pharma?

I am fairly confident that the Feds are no overly concerned with SOL but you are welcome to remain concerned about it.

 

[MarkvW]

I sure wish you would make up your mind about whether you are a fanboy or a hater.

I thought he was great until the Simeoni incident. Simeoni convinced me beyond all doubt that he is a disgusting human being and a doper. Floyd + Tyler + George just reaffirmed what I already knew. Ferrari is (and Conconi was) putrid scum.

In this forum, calling someone a fanboy is just a common way of telling someone that you disagree with their opinion.

 

[Race Radio]

I need to go to sleep but for our next exercise in the adventures in Google I suggest the term "Equitable Tolling"

Enjoy

 

[MarkvW]

And if the conspiracy is the trafficking of drugs? The Bribing of foreign officials? The avoidance of taxes? The Illegal use of unlicensed pharma?

I am fairly confident that the Feds are no overly concerned with SOL but you are welcome to remain concerned about it.

If it's an ongoing doping conspiracy, sure. That is one thing the feds are definitely investigating in addition to anything else. But covering up old USPS doping is a SOL loser.

Your tax avoidance scenario is the purest speculation.

Any conspiracy between two or more people to use unlicensed pharma is over when the unlicensed pharma is used.

The feds must be very concerned about the SOL because they have to explain the expense of their investigation.

 

[Race Radio]

If it's an ongoing doping conspiracy, sure. That is one thing the feds are definitely investigating in addition to anything else. But covering up old USPS doping is a SOL loser.

Your tax avoidance scenario is the purest speculation.

Any conspiracy between two or more people to use unlicensed pharma is over when the unlicensed pharma is used.

The feds must be very concerned about the SOL because they have to explain the expense of their investigation.

Do you really think Armstrong only did bad things on Postal? I am confident the Feds will be able to show an ongoing effort that stretched for over a decade. I also expect he will lose his 2005 title and his 2009 podium

Direct witness testimony of bags of cash is not speculation.

 

[Velodude]

In the hypothetical you propose, the statute of limitations is not extended by the acts of concealment. In the hypothetical you propose, an ongoing crime is being committed. You still haven't met my challenge, but you do present an interesting question.

The conspiracy has to have an OBJECT. It also has to have more than one conspirator. Acts taken in furtherance of that object are conspiratorial acts. As long as those acts keep happening, the conspiracy keeps happening. And you're right, the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy is when the statute of limitations clock starts to tick. When the object of the conspiracy is attained, the conspiracy is COMPLETE. You cannot commit an act in furtherance of the conspiracy after the conspiracy is complete. The terms "complete" and "object" are terms of art with meaning you can determine from reading the cases.

If the conspiracy is to dope, then the conspiracy to dope is complete when the doping is done. If the conspiracy is to commit fraud on the USA, then the conspiracy is complete when the fraud has been executed.

In Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957) The Supreme Court said this: "But a vital distinction must be made between acts of concealment done in furtherance of the main criminal objectives of the conspiracy, and acts of concealment done after these central objectives have been attained, for the purpose only of covering up after the crime." That case was about a conspiracy to corrupt a grand jury. Here is what the Court held: "We hold, therefore, that, considering the main objective of the conspiracy to have been the obtaining of "no prosecution" rulings, prosecution was barred by the three-year statute of limitations, since no agreement to conceal the conspiracy after its accomplishment was shown or can be implied on the evidence before us to have been part of the conspiratorial agreement."

Grunewald makes it hard for the feds to prove cover up as an object independent of the crime to dope or commit fraud on the USA, and that's exactly what the feds will have to prove in a conspiracy.

United States v. Upton, 559 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. March 5, 2009) (No. 05-1593) is perhaps the best case to rely on if you want to use covering up as a separate crime that was agreed upon as part of a conspiracy. It is, as the District Court noted, a very close case. In that case, which was decided over a dissent, the court found an ongoing conspiracy to commit a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B).

Your hypothetical situation fails because of Grunewald--specifically because you can't (a) specify a cover-up crime; (b) that Lance and another person agreed upon to commit; and (c) that the Aspen incident furthered.

Try again. As you say: Google is your friend.

Legal interpretation is a contentious issue. That is why the composition of the benches of appeal courts are of odd numbers to avoid deadlocks.

Let's leave it to persons who have the qualifications and experience to develop the skills to interpret and apply case judgments.

 

[MarkvW]

Legal interpretation is a contentious issue. That is why the composition of the benches of appeal courts are of odd numbers to avoid deadlocks.

Let's leave it to persons who have the qualifications and experience to develop the skills to interpret and apply case judgments.

No, I don't think I will.

 

[MarkvW]

Do you really think Armstrong only did bad things on Postal? I am confident the Feds will be able to show an ongoing effort that stretched for over a decade. I also expect he will lose his 2005 title and his 2009 podium

Direct witness testimony of bags of cash is not speculation.

Here's what I take from what you've written: You can't point to a particular cover-up crime or ongoing crime that Armstrong conspired to commit with another person, but you believe that there must be one out there. Time will tell.

I hope you're right about the 2005 title and 2009 podium.

 

[MarkvW]

I need to go to sleep but for our next exercise in the adventures in Google I suggest the term "Equitable Tolling"

Enjoy

Again, I defy you to find an instance of equitable tolling that was applied in a federal criminal prosecution. Come on now.

 

[Velodude]

Here's what I take from what you've written: You can't point to a particular cover-up crime or ongoing crime that Armstrong conspired to commit with another person, but you believe that there must be one out there. Time will tell.

I hope you're right about the 2005 title and 2009 podium.

Let's see if there exists the possibility of a conspiratorial based crime.

According to Floyd Landis, Trek, through Robert Burns - general counsel, and David Clinger (US Postal team 2002) Trek bikes issued to the US Postal team were being sold in bike shops and on the internet during the season severely depleting available bikes.

Trek was aware but did not know for what purpose the funds from bike sales were being used. Johan Bruyneel informed Landis the funds were to "assist" the doping program.

If the evidence is produced in court that these events did occur, which is more than highly likely, and Armstrong was part of the decision process, which is more than highly likely, then he would have conspired with others to commit crimes of money laundering and evasion of US taxes relating to the funds from bike sales not accounted to the company.

 

[MacRoadie]

No, I don't think I will.

Yes, why stop now.

By the way, I've spent the last 16 years working as an expert witness, been deposed nearly 100 times, and testified at both arbitration and trial. I have read countless rulings, motions, declarations, and deposition testimony.

I have read, and am required to understand, case law at both the state and federal level regarding production of evidence, qualifications for expert witnesses and expert testimony. I've also been asked on numerous occasions to provide expert responses to claims made, based on my understanding and knowledge of current case law in my area of expertise.

I probably have nearly 200 attorneys in my Outlook Contacts, and have given several dozen lectures and served as an expert panelist on MCLE-accredited seminars. Oh, and I just received a personal invitation to attend a private lecture being given by Erwin Chemerinsky.

I suppose that makes me Clarence Darrow...

 

[MarkvW]

Let's see if there exists the possibility of a conspiratorial based crime.

According to Floyd Landis, Trek, through Robert Burns - general counsel, and David Clinger (US Postal team 2002) Trek bikes issued to the US Postal team were being sold in bike shops and on the internet during the season severely depleting available bikes.

Trek was aware but did not know for what purpose the funds from bike sales were being used. Johan Bruyneel informed Landis the funds were to "assist" the doping program.

If the evidence is produced in court that these events did occur, which is more than highly likely, and Armstrong was part of the decision process, which is more than highly likely, then he would have conspired with others to commit crimes of money laundering and evasion of US taxes relating to the funds from bike sales not accounted to the company.

I doubt they'll be able to get Lance in a conspiracy to evade taxes, because I doubt they'll be able to prove he conspired with anybody else to evade taxes. Tax evasion, by itself, has a six year statute of limitations. That would appear to have expired in 2008, if we're talking about income that should have been reported in 2002.

When was the money laundering crime conspiracy completed? What act completed it?