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

[Anonymous]

The Fifth Amendment ALWAYS applies. That's why it is such a beautiful thing.

And not ALL the witnesses were given immunity! Victor Conte certainly wasn't!

No it doesn't. When there is a grant of immunity, because of the immunity, the 5th Amendment does not apply. Sure you still have 5th Amendment rights for crimes for which you have not been given immunity, but for those that you have, no 5th Amendment right is applicable nor necessary. The 5th Amendment ceases to have any application at all actually. There is no threat of incrimination, therefore your statements regarding any events for which you can no longer be prosecuted are not statements that could incriminate you, thus the 5th Amendment is inapplicable.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" You are not being a witness AGAINST yourself where you have immunity. Self-incrimination ceases to be an issue, and so does the 5th Amendment in relation to any statement you make.

Another little quirk I love about the 5th Amendment is that it cannot be violated unless self-incriminating statements are used in court. You can have statements coerced out of you by extremely inappropriate means (like being hounded in your hospital bed by a police officer who is telling you that unless you tell him what he wants, he will withhold medical treatment for the gunshot wounds you have to your face), but if they don't ever introduce those statements, there has been no violation of the 5th Amendment.

The 5th Amendment only protects statements used in a court proceeding against you. It doesn't apply in relation to self-incrimination in any other way. I can quote you the language and case if you want.

You struck out a bit with this statement, I would move on if I were you.

 

[ChrisE]

The UCI says he paid them
Lance says he paid them
Head of the Lab said positive test was ignored and Hog was given special access
Armstrong and Verburggen were business partners
Lance told multiple teammates and staff he paid off the UCI

You may not think there is an problem but Armstrong clearly thinks he is in trouble. He hired a lawyer who specializes in FCPA cases and obsessively follows a Doug Miller FCPA case

LA publically said he "gave them a donation". If that would have never come out, and FL and TH had not said he paid them, then he would not have paid them, right? Something must be news or it doesn't exist, right? Isn't that how it works?

Just because there has been no news about something does not mean it didn't happen. Of course I have no proof, but to think that LA was the only one getting protection is ludicrous. Why would somebody turn down $ from JU or anybody else, if they didn't turn it down before?

Why do you think I think LA does not have a problem here? I think he is in big trouble. The aftermath of this whole ordeal is what you and I disagree on.

 

[Race Radio]

LA publically said he "gave them a donation". If that would have never come out, and FL and TH had not said he paid them, then he would not have paid them, right? Something must be news or it doesn't exist, right? Isn't that how it works?

Just because there has been no news about something does not mean it didn't happen. Of course I have no proof, but to think that LA was the only one getting protection is ludicrous. Why would somebody turn down $ from JU or anybody else, if they didn't turn it down before?

Why do you think I think LA does not have a problem here? I think he is in big trouble. The aftermath of this whole ordeal is what you and I disagree on.

Let us know when you find evidence of Jan paying off the UCI.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm saying that the Fifth Amendment always applies--even when a person is granted immunity. When a person is granted immunity, the Fifth Amendment protects the person (and applies) because the witnesses' immunized testimony cannot be used against the witness.

A person ALWAYS has Fifth Amendment rights. Even when the person is immunized. If you don't want to understand that obvious legal fact, then you're an idiot.

No, what protects them is the grant of immunity. The 5th Amendment only protects them regarding statements that are introduced in a court proceeding against them. When a person invokes the 5th Amendment in a proceeding that does not involve them, what they are saying is that they do not wish to make statements that could lead to legal proceedings being brought against them in which their statements could be used. When a person who invokes the 5th Amendment does so in a proceeding against them, that too is avoiding self-incrimination. When a person has immunity from prosecution for a specific crime, it is impossible for them to make an incriminating statement related to that crime, therefore the 5th Amendment no longer applies to those statements made in relation to a crime for which one has immunity.

Sure a person always has 5th Amendment rights, but they don't have them in relation to statements regarding a criminal matter for which they have received immunity. They just have them in relation to crimes for which they have not received immunity. ---edited by mod---

 

[Anonymous]

Here, let me do the heavy lifting for you: "The interdiction of the Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself, and does not apply if the criminality is taken away." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

 

[Cimacoppi48]

No, what protects them is the grant of immunity. The 5th Amendment only protects them regarding statements that are introduced in a court proceeding against them. When a person invokes the 5th Amendment in a proceeding that does not involve them, what they are saying is that they do not wish to make statements that could lead to legal proceedings being brought against them in which their statements could be used. When a person who invokes the 5th Amendment does so in a proceeding against them, that too is avoiding self-incrimination. When a person has immunity from prosecution for a specific crime, it is impossible for them to make an incriminating statement related to that crime, therefore the 5th Amendment no longer applies to those statements made in relation to a crime for which one has immunity.

Sure a person always has 5th Amendment rights, but they don't have them in relation to statements regarding a criminal matter for which they have received immunity. They just have them in relation to crimes for which they have not received immunity. ---edited by mod---

A lot depends on whether the witness has been granted use or transactional immunity.

 

[Anonymous]

A lot depends on whether the witness has been granted use or transactional immunity.

Unless I misunderstand use immunity (and that is possible), then the statements made to the GJ cannot be used period, and the immunity regarding those statements is not overcome by anything other than an independent source for prosecution, however the original statements themselves are still incapable of being used NOT because of the 5th Amendment (because there was no 5th Amendment issue because of the immunity), but because immunity prescribes their inability to be used. At least that is the way I read Kastigar v. U.S. And I think there is some basis for my assertion if you read the ruling because they don't mention the prohibition from use as a function of the 5th Amendment, but as a function of the immunity.

"although a grant of immunity must afford protection commensurate with that afforded by the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, it need not be broader, and immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege and is sufficient to compel testimony over claim of privilege."

"commensurate" being the key word as I read it. It doesn't say "as a derivative of" or anything that suggests that the prohibition of use is based in the 5th Amendment, only that the prohibition of use is an idea parallel to a violation of the 5th Amendment, not because their use would be a violation of the 5th.

 

[Velodude]

You don't know if he ever paid the UCI or not. This has been debated to death on here.

You are obviously referring to Ullrich.

Pat McQuaid has publicly admittedthat Armstrong is the only rider ever to have, regrettably, made donations to the UCI.

The President of the UCI Pat McQuaid has revealed that Lance Armstrong is the only rider ever to have made a donation to UCI and has admitted that in hindsight, the decision to accept $100,000 while the Texan was still racing was regrettable

So Sherlock Holmes would deduce that Ullrich must not have made any donations to the UCI.

 

[Oldman]

You are obviously referring to Ullrich.

Pat McQuaid has publicly admittedthat Armstrong is the only rider ever to have, regrettably, made donations to the UCI.



So Sherlock Holmes would deduce that Ullrich must not have made any donations to the UCI.

Chris E could be right if Pat McQuaid is a liar. What are the odds of that?

 

[Polish]

You are obviously referring to Ullrich.

Pat McQuaid has publicly admittedthat Armstrong is the only rider ever to have, regrettably, made donations to the UCI.



So Sherlock Holmes would deduce that Ullrich must not have made any donations to the UCI.

Elementary my dear Velodude.
Sherlock would deduce that Lance WAS the only rider to make a donation.
Used for Testing Equipment.

The monies from all the other rider's, ds's, etc etc would be considered BRIBES.

There is a difference between donations and bribes.
No **** Sherlock

 

[Velodude]

Chris E could be right if Pat McQuaid is a liar. What are the odds of that?

The odds are very good actually. Pat has stumbled on this issue even though the UCI pride themselves on an impeccable accounting record system.

No doubt that amounts of $125,000 were paid and Pat identifies the source of each payment but then he is all at sea in the timing and purpose of the second payment of $100,000 and the direction of the first payment of $25,000.

Then there is a yawning gap between the amounts of $125,000 received and the significantly higher amounts claimed to have been paid by Armstrong, Verbruggen and former UCI board member, Sylvia Schenk

“There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong,” Schenk added. “The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong – to my knowledge 500,000 dollars – and now there is speculation that there are financial connections to Armstrong, as well as the American market. I do not know what sort of connections Verbruggen has.”

 

[Cloxxki]

A bit too quick to admit, and stress that Armstrong was the only one.
Why would we ever believe official statements from UCI regarding doping or conflict of interest?

 

[Cimacoppi48]

Unless I misunderstand use immunity (and that is possible), then the statements made to the GJ cannot be used period, and the immunity regarding those statements is not overcome by anything other than an independent source for prosecution, however the original statements themselves are still incapable of being used NOT because of the 5th Amendment (because there was no 5th Amendment issue because of the immunity), but because immunity prescribes their inability to be used. At least that is the way I read Kastigar v. U.S. And I think there is some basis for my assertion if you read the ruling because they don't mention the prohibition from use as a function of the 5th Amendment, but as a function of the immunity.

"although a grant of immunity must afford protection commensurate with that afforded by the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, it need not be broader, and immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege and is sufficient to compel testimony over claim of privilege."

"commensurate" being the key word as I read it. It doesn't say "as a derivative of" or anything that suggests that the prohibition of use is based in the 5th Amendment, only that the prohibition of use is an idea parallel to a violation of the 5th Amendment, not because their use would be a violation of the 5th.

I'm not aware of any witness telling the public what type of immunity they were granted. Quick--someone call Tyler!

 

[Velodude]

Elementary my dear Velodude.
Sherlock would deduce that Lance WAS the only rider to make a donation.
Used for Testing Equipment.

The monies from all the other rider's, ds's, etc etc would be considered BRIBES.

There is a difference between donations and bribes.
No **** Sherlock

The bribes from riders, other than Armstrong's "donations", must have been in consideration for special favors delivered by the UCI.

You surely must have a suspect rider list linked to favors on their behalf by the UCI to make such a bold statement.

 

[ChrisE]

A bit too quick to admit, and stress that Armstrong was the only one.
Why would we ever believe official statements from UCI regarding doping or conflict of interest?

Shhh. LA is the only one that bribed or received cover; don't you read L-Equipe or USA Today? They have mentioned nobody else so LA is the only one, of course.

Of course UCI would come right out and tell all about the "donations" they have received from all cyclists.

 

[Oldman]

Shhh. LA is the only one that bribed or received cover; don't you read L-Equipe or USA Today? They have mentioned nobody else so LA is the only one, of course.

Of course UCI would come right out and tell all about the "donations" they have received from all cyclists.

I don't know if the UCI had "donations" in their vocabulary until someone came along that had "foundation" in theirs.

 

[sniper]

I don't know if the UCI had "donations" in their vocabulary until someone came along that had "foundation" in theirs.

lovely.
well said.

the whole donation-excuse was such a bad joke that I strongly doubt if even polish is still taking it seriously.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I don't know if the UCI had "donations" in their vocabulary until someone came along that had "foundation" in theirs.

Prior to that they simply banked the cash into their personal bank accounts?

 

[red_flanders]

The list of riders who could have donated 1/2 a million before or even after their first Tour win is pretty short. There's no evidence of others doing it, but there is confirmation that Armstrong did.

One can reasonably believe that he was likely the only one getting special dispensations, and still not be surprised if information came to light that some other very wealthy rider got them. None has come to light though, and the light has been shining pretty brightly and hard on this train wreck for a while.

 

[Mambo95]

You're obsessed with Armstrong - I am obsessed with exposing the untruths that people like yourself & others continue to post here.

What untruths am I posting?

I think Armstrong doped, and due to Ferrari had one of the best programmes.

Most of his contempories - Ullrich, Basso, Beloki, Pantani, Zulle, were also dopers. I'm not going to hate Armstrong for cheating better than the other cheats.

Unless you have a truly deep interest in the US Postal Service's finances or insurance company policies, he's no different than the rest of them - just more successful. Maybe you're all financial nerds - no problem with that, my cousin is.

Maybe I got the exact costs of the Bonds case wrong, but an 8 year case doesn't come cheap. It is my opinion that this investigation will lead nowhere, and may even have been dropped. It's an opinion, not fact, not hope. But I like it that some of you are so threatened by it.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not aware of any witness telling the public what type of immunity they were granted. Quick--someone call Tyler!

I am not sure what you are referring to here. I was merely pointing out (to someone else) that once immunity is granted, the 5th Amendment is no longer in question because the immunity takes the issue outside of the constitutional protections of the 5th. You kind of lost me here.

However, note that if it is transactional, the 5th Amendment is not implicated once immunity is given, so it is irrelevant whether or not it was use or transactional because neither generates a 5th Amendment issue in relation to statements made because of immunity.

 

[Velodude]

What untruths am I posting?

I think Armstrong doped, and due to Ferrari had one of the best programmes.

Most of his contempories - Ullrich, Basso, Beloki, Pantani, Zulle, were also dopers. I'm not going to hate Armstrong for cheating better than the other cheats.

Unless you have a truly deep interest in the US Postal Service's finances or insurance company policies, he's no different than the rest of them - just more successful. Maybe you're all financial nerds - no problem with that, my cousin is.

Maybe I got the exact costs of the Bonds case wrong, but an 8 year case doesn't come cheap. It is my opinion that this investigation will lead nowhere, and may even have been dropped. It's an opinion, not fact, not hope. But I like it that some of you are so threatened by it.

Most of his contempories - Ullrich, Basso, Beloki, Pantani, Zulle, were also dopers. I'm not going to hate Armstrong for cheating better than the other cheats.

Armstrong would not be having his problems if he behaved like Ullrich, Basso, Beloki, Pantani, Zulle.

Instead of turning the other cheek like his contemporaries he threw down the gauntlet to those who were skeptical about his post cancer performances and their geneses through his self created myths.

The book "Lance Armstrong's War" is a treatise on Armstrong's arrogance, aggression and complexities and how he divides his world into groups of either friends or foes.

Some book review quotes:

Armstrong himself emerges as a quite terrifying figure: driven, intense, single-minded, ruthless and wholly self-centred...with little or no fellow feeling for the rest of the human race...As Coyle writes: "Postal was the only team to snap digital photographs of journalists' faces. ("For the black list," spokesman Jogi Muller joked, lamely but accurately."..In the fourth paragraph of the first chapter we see Armstrong on a private jet above Europe, peering into his BlackBerry, tracking the activities of his enemies, to whom he refers, collectively, as "f---ing trolls!"...“There’s a pattern,” Armstrong’s former teammate Jonathan Vaughters explained to Coyle. “People get close [to Armstrong], and something inevitably goes haywire.”

And for those who believe Armstrong's claim that he is just an employee:

Coyle's account also shows a laser-sharp managerial style, in the face of monumental distractions, that would be the envy of any Fortune 500 CEO

If he had conducted himself like his contempories when issues were raised about PED use he would be enjoying his retirement from professional road cycling.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Elementary my dear Velodude.
Sherlock would deduce that Lance WAS the only rider to make a donation.
Used for Testing Equipment.

Oh really? And where is this gear? Pat promised the world he'd produce evidence of the gear. Except... No proof. Ever.

Maybe it's at your house? You'd be helping Pat out if you dropped it off in Agile.

Quick Polish! Drop a non-sequitur! Or just make stuff up.

 

[DirtyWorks]

And for those who believe Armstrong's claim that he is just an employee:

Being a registered officer of a corporation trumps employee duties. People can try to sell, "Just some cycling champion who ended up being an officer of a corporation to do some stuff related to being so awesomely successful" But it ends up looking as foolish as believing what was published at facts4lance.com.

 

[kukiniloa]

What untruths am I posting?

I think Armstrong doped, and due to Ferrari had one of the best programmes.

Most of his contempories - Ullrich, Basso, Beloki, Pantani, Zulle, were also dopers. I'm not going to hate Armstrong for cheating better than the other cheats.

Unless you have a truly deep interest in the US Postal Service's finances or insurance company policies, he's no different than the rest of them - just more successful. Maybe you're all financial nerds - no problem with that, my cousin is.

Maybe I got the exact costs of the Bonds case wrong, but an 8 year case doesn't come cheap. It is my opinion that this investigation will lead nowhere, and may even have been dropped. It's an opinion, not fact, not hope. But I like it that some of you are so threatened by it.

It should also be mentioned that the Bonds prosecution was very unpopular, and in this political climate these actions are likely to be a political liability. So it very well may be that Lance is never prosecuted and this is the end of that.