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

[Neworld]

This is going as my signature. I mean this sort of back slapping, circle j*rking behaviour is just what I'm talking about.

Are you also "Louison" ?

Just wondering, sorry if you're not.

NW

 

[wirral]

The bickering thread = 10400 replies

The case developments thread = 1 reply

Keep bickering, guys.

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

I'll stop bickering as soon as Race Radio posts proof along with his\her hearsay.

 

[thehog]

LOL - it's bed-time here in the UK anyway. Things are always quieter when I wake up. Except for that middle-of-the-night alarm to make sure my heart doesn't just ... stop, of course.

My theory is as follows;

This forum and in particular this thread used to be a source of great information. Several here have come from the days of cheering Lance and USPS to realise it was all a bit of lie.

Many newbies could drop into this thread and pick up an assortment of good information and detail on what really happened between 1999-2005 and 2009-2010. Often we'd get thank-you posts for new joiners.

The well run defence of "Until I see some real proof you guys have nothing", "Its all circumstantial and lies of bitter ex-teammates" etc. doesn't cut it anymore.

Alas we have now we have "noise". This thread gets bogged down in pre-meditated attacks of useless information so no one can keep up and a new poster could learn nothing new. This is the new tactic. I think its orchestrated and its conducted with intent and malice.

I think we fall for it way to often. Its obvious when its coming but we seem to bite and start firing posts back. I think if we ignored it until the poster appeared genuine that they wanted to defend their point we'd have much better and reasonable discussions.

The thread used to be great. Sure we used to be debate and we deconstructed the events of the moment but now we get sucked in to these guys who just want to stir up trouble then leave. At least Polish sticks around for her posts and has been here some time.

We all need to make an effort here. The moderators are not watching 24 x 7 and we should be better at self policing our output.

So when we spot a troll ignore them. We all know what the classic signs are. Lets see how we go. I think the forum will pick up again. I know a few have moved to Dim's forum because they cannot put up with the craziness in this forum - that should be a sign.

 

[Berzin]

No you're probably the worst offender. Are you sleeping with one of the prosecutors to procure all this 'inside info'?

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Race Radio knows more about what's going on with this situation than you'll ever guess at, because all you're doing is throwing rocks from a glass house.

Trolling for Public Strategies in such an aggressive manner is only going to get you banned very soon, my son. Are you angry that you're hero is being denuded as we speak?

As Jim Jones would say, "drink the Kool-Aid-it's good for you".

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

Where is the proof? Maybe Notivzky should just hand the case to RaceRadio so he can prosecute. If you really want to help RaceRadio out post proof of when he\she was right instead of the 'scary- you don't know who you're messing with'

Let's say RaceRadio does have the 'inside scoop' post the proof and the source. Is he some sort of journalist that has confidentiality agreement or is he like 'The Hog' who is in some mythical wonderland of fact and fiction who must fight with the 'Fellowship of the Ring' against the forces of Saruman and Lance Armstrong.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Wrong!

Hardly meaningless - Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping.

What was she lying about? It was a material lie about something which was the subject of an investigation, the doping.

As Armstrong will be a target, not a witness he wont be questioned by the Feds (like Jones) but on a stand. Even if he lies there (big if) they do not usually pursue perjury charges..

You're all hung up on these perjury charges. Armstrong is a criminal in about 5 or 6 different ways. The Feds know this and are out to get him whatever the charges may be. With him clinging to his eroding public image, he's ensnared in a Catch-22. Even if he admitted to doping, which he won't, he'll still be going to prison. Even if they don't go after him for perjury, a guilty verdict on the other charges indicates he is guilty of perjury too.

No doubt Armstrong is the name and that he will be the center of any media focus.
But as for doing jail time - as I said, others will be in a more direct firing line than LA - so even though I would love to see it these types usually have enough distance from any crimes and the money to fight/reduce exposure jail time.

You don't think the Feds can directly link Armstrong to specific crimes or general racketeering? He's been too much of a jerk to avoid prison at this point.

 

[Race Radio]

It appears Wonderboy is not the only one desperate for information.

meanwhile someone is living a stress free life.

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

Put up or shut up, Race Radio. Seems like all you can do is divert attention while all your 'fans' scurry about protecting you even while you can't bother defending yourself. You're a poser on the internet trying to prove you're 'in' with the 'cycling fraternity'. You're pathetic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What was she lying about? It was a material lie about something which was the subject of an investigation, the doping.

Yes, she lied about the doping - it does not matter what she lied about except that she lied to the Feds, which is perjury.
Doping is not a crime, which is why she got canned for perjury.

You're all hung up on these perjury charges. Armstrong is a criminal in about 5 or 6 different ways. The Feds know this and are out to get him whatever the charges may be. With him clinging to his eroding public image, he's ensnared in a Catch-22. Even if he admitted to doping, which he won't, he'll still be going to prison. Even if they don't go after him for perjury, a guilty verdict on the other charges indicates he is guilty of perjury too.


You don't think the Feds can directly link Armstrong to specific crimes or general racketeering? He's been too much of a jerk to avoid prison at this point.

I think the Feds will find enough evidence of racketeering, however I am not yet hopeful that they will be able to, as you say directly link Armstrong to it.

Did he know about it? Yes? Did he benefit from it? Yes. The Feds will have a tough time proving that Armstrong knew what was going on.
I would be quite happy for LA to do some prison time - but I doubt that will happen (although his tax affairs could prove interesting) - but even if he does not do a day he will be stripped of what he most craved, the adulation -as he will be viewed as the biggest fraud in sports history.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Put up or shut up, Race Radio. Seems like all you can do is divert attention while all your 'fans' scurry about protecting you even while you can't bother defending yourself. You're a poser on the internet trying to prove you're 'in' with the 'cycling fraternity'. You're pathetic.

You realize you can go back through everyone's posts?

 

[Ferminal]

Closing the thread briefly so I can be sure everyone reads the next post.

 

[Ferminal]

Over some time, and in particular the last few days, this thread has become unreadable. As has been expressed many times previously, this thread is useless if the entire "discussion" focuses on a minor detail, or something not even relevant to Lance Armstrong. From this point on, the guidelines for posting in this thread will be stricter, and enforced without hesitation.

It is not necessary to post in this thread if you can't discuss the actual topic. The topic is Lance Armstrong and the events which he is linked to. This is all that matters, if you're unable to add something new, or debate points related to this core topic, don't post. It is Lance Armstrong who is the centerpiece of this thread, not the posters who are involved here. No one is interested in your opinion of another poster, what their motivations for posting here may be, or whether or not anyone should listen to what they have to say. These matters are for a private place, and aren't even relevant to this forum, let alone this thread.

Do not post in this thread if your argument centers on "you are a fanboy" or "you guys are haters" or "you work for Livestrong" or "you have an obsession". If you want to post along these lines, do so elsewhere, as it will no longer be tolerated here. No one who wants to read discussions about Lance Armstrong is interested in such topics.

Non-compliance will result in suspensions, brief to begin with, but repeat offenders will face extended periods on the sidelines. There will be no warnings, this is the final warning to anyone posting in this thread, new or old. I will update the first post with this information and it is your responsibility to understand what is acceptable. If you're unsure if your post is relevant, it is probably wise to hold back, or ask a moderator.

Every poster is also responsible for ensuring they are not drawn into these unwanted discussions. As I've said before, it is a lot more difficult to maintain a thread if everyone involved is responsible for its erosion. There will be no "they started it", there will be penalties for anyone who breaches these guidelines, even if they are replying to an offending post.

As usual, please do not respond in this thread to these new guidelines.

 

[RownhamHill]

As the facts unravel before us all I believe that the LA supporters will behave a lot like Paul and Phil as they watched Lance wilt in 2009 on that stage to Verbier.

Something like this... "Contador has attacked and only Andy S can respond. Lance will use his unparalleled experience and poise to control the attacks now. He has a poker face, looks just like 4 yrs ago and he is capable of so much. Look at how poor Frank S looks as he rides beside the big Texan. Oh, there goes Wiggins, oh now Nibali and Frank, wow where did that come from. Look at how Lance is playing a tactical and respectful race by not chasing Contador. Oh boy, there goes Carlos, and now Evans. Lance is not going well, at least Kloden is there to help. Yikes, Kloden is riding away from Lance, I guess its not tactical at all...he just cannot keep up."

Does anyone know of a link to that commentary on youtube? I watched that verbier climb the other day, but could only find it with commentary in an unidentifiable (to me!) european language. Would love to hear the P&P show in full cry!

 

[Berzin]

A few questions-when the charges drop, will we be privy to who testified to what?

As an example, George Hincapie has been totally silent and has made statements about "moving cycling forward" and not wanting to dwell on the past.

Will his testimony be made public even if he refuses to speak on it, or will the pressure be too much?

Will the list of people testifying be made public, or will it depend on if they individually do interviews?

 

[Cloxxki]

A few questions-when the charges drop, will we be privy to who testified to what?

As an example, George Hincapie has been totally silent and has made statements about "moving cycling forward" and not wanting to dwell on the past.

Will his testimony be made public even if he refuses to speak on it, or will the pressure be too much?

Will the list of people testifying be made public, or will it depend on if they individually do interviews?

[I must be careful to stay on topic. Agree with the stricter rules though, and wish they'd count for all threads. It might help if only posters with a significant post history could chime in.]

It seems logical that those who received immunity, would get that including discretion and formal anonimity. If a witness testified against the trend of the other witnesses, and this is considered possible perjury, then the anonimity goes out of the window, right to the front page of l'équipe and NYT.

Those who didn't need anonimity I believe have already been able to echo their testinomy outside the GJ room, providing it's accurate.

If for instance GH decides after the case he's done being silent and being asked questions in the streets, he could give up his anonimity by giving his account of facts (lawyers, please confirm or correct). How this would affect his immunity though...I'd love to learn.

 

[Race Radio]

Hincapie did not testify in front of the GJ, he volunteered to talk to investigators.

Funny, only a few years ago he was writing nasty emails to former teammates who were subpoenaed.

 

[MarkvW]

A few questions-when the charges drop, will we be privy to who testified to what?

As an example, George Hincapie has been totally silent and has made statements about "moving cycling forward" and not wanting to dwell on the past.

Will his testimony be made public even if he refuses to speak on it, or will the pressure be too much?

Will the list of people testifying be made public, or will it depend on if they individually do interviews?

If there are no charges, then GJ testimony will be secret for a long time. The Nixon (early 1970s) GJ testimony, for example, just got released recently. If there are charges, then GJ testimony can be unsealed for the purpose of serving the criminal process (but I'm not up on how that happens).

The best guess is that Hincapie did not testify before the GJ, though. As others have pointed out, that's the best way of harmonizing 60 Minutes and George's statements. George may have provided sworn testimony to federal investigators. That kind of testimony may also be subject to GJ secrecy provisions if disclosure might readily be expected to yield information regarding the scope or direction of the GJ investigation. If it is that kind of information, you can expect it to remain secret just like GJ testimony.

If there are charges that relate to George's testimony, parts of that testimony may be restated in an indictment (but George's name won't be used). George might also be obligated to testify in one way or another.

It is possible that a target of the GJ investigation could waive indictment and plead to an information (a written statement of charges prepared by the US). If that happens, the GJ proceedings will stay secret for a long time. That kind of a scenario could favor somebody like Armstrong (imagine him pleading to an information charging currency and tax charges and no doping related charges). Armstrong's strong desire to keep doping secret would be a big negotiating advantage for the feds.

The results of the federal investigation will determine whether or not George's testimony (or knowledge) becomes public in the near term.

 

[Velodude]

If there are no charges, then GJ testimony will be secret for a long time. The Nixon (early 1970s) GJ testimony, for example, just got released recently. If there are charges, then GJ testimony can be unsealed for the purpose of serving the criminal process (but I'm not up on how that happens).

The best guess is that Hincapie did not testify before the GJ, though. As others have pointed out, that's the best way of harmonizing 60 Minutes and George's statements. George may have provided sworn testimony to federal investigators. That kind of testimony may also be subject to GJ secrecy provisions if disclosure might readily be expected to yield information regarding the scope or direction of the GJ investigation. If it is that kind of information, you can expect it to remain secret just like GJ testimony.

If there are charges that relate to George's testimony, parts of that testimony may be restated in an indictment (but George's name won't be used). George might also be obligated to testify in one way or another.

It is possible that a target of the GJ investigation could waive indictment and plead to an information (a written statement of charges prepared by the US). If that happens, the GJ proceedings will stay secret for a long time. That kind of a scenario could favor somebody like Armstrong (imagine him pleading to an information charging currency and tax charges and no doping related charges). Armstrong's strong desire to keep doping secret would be a big negotiating advantage for the feds.

The results of the federal investigation will determine whether or not George's testimony (or knowledge) becomes public in the near term.

Information provided to Federal investigators is not sworn testimony or required to be sworn for charges to be laid for providing false information to investigators.

Suggest you peruse 18 U.S.C. § 1001 or the relevant explanation in the US Criminal Resource Manual

 

[LarryBudMelman]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/news/interview-former-armstrong-assistant-ashamed-of-working-for-him_158382

Great read!

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Hincapie did not testify in front of the GJ, he volunteered to talk to investigators.

Funny, only a few years ago he was writing nasty emails to former teammates who were subpoenaed.

Another disgusting individual. 'I want to talk about the future, not the past.' What a jerk hincapie is especially him sitting next to LA and LL at that TOC/Kimmage press conference.

I have very little sympathy for him and LMAO when Garmin chased him down.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

[I must be careful to stay on topic. Agree with the stricter rules though, and wish they'd count for all threads. It might help if only posters with a significant post history could chime in.]

It seems logical that those who received immunity, would get that including discretion and formal anonimity. If a witness testified against the trend of the other witnesses, and this is considered possible perjury, then the anonimity goes out of the window, right to the front page of l'équipe and NYT.

Those who didn't need anonimity I believe have already been able to echo their testinomy outside the GJ room, providing it's accurate.

If for instance GH decides after the case he's done being silent and being asked questions in the streets, he could give up his anonimity by giving his account of facts (lawyers, please confirm or correct). How this would affect his immunity though...I'd love to learn.

Isn't one of the rules not to comment on the rules, positively or negatively???


Here is is:

As usual, please do not respond in this thread to these new guidelines.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Yes, she lied about the doping - it does not matter what she lied about except that she lied to the Feds, which is perjury.
Doping is not a crime, which is why she got canned for perjury..

And the whole point is that the Fed's have to ask a subject questions that are material to the investigation. Distributing controlled substances the way Balco was doing is illegal though. If she or anyone else was lying about orgies that she may or may not have had, this is not perjury.

My point is that it does matter what she lied about.

I think the Feds will find enough evidence of racketeering, however I am not yet hopeful that they will be able to, as you say directly link Armstrong to it.

Did he know about it? Yes? Did he benefit from it? Yes. The Feds will have a tough time proving that Armstrong knew what was going on.
I would be quite happy for LA to do some prison time - but I doubt that will happen (although his tax affairs could prove interesting) - but even if he does not do a day he will be stripped of what he most craved, the adulation -as he will be viewed as the biggest fraud in sports history.

Well, it depends on your definition of "proving" it. It's becoming very obvious that a jury of your peers in America means a jury of imbeciles.

Juries are allowed to make inferences based on what can be considered reasonable behavior, but that's been lost on the uneducated masses from which juries are selected. We've seen this time and time again with some of the recent high profile verdicts in American courtrooms.

If by "proving" Armstrong is guilty the jury will need to be spoon fed the proverbial "smoking gun" whereby Armstrong is filmed in criminal activity with notary publics documenting the authenticity of the film and the presence of guilty parties, yes, you may be correct in saying his guilt hasn't been "proven."

To any sentient being however, Armstrong's guilt is a foregone conclusion.

 

[patricknd]

And the whole point is that the Fed's have to ask a subject questions that are material to the investigation. Distributing controlled substances the way Balco was doing is illegal though. If she or anyone else was lying about orgies that she may or may not have had, this is not perjury.

My point is that it does matter what she lied about.




Well, it depends on your definition of "proving" it. It's becoming very obvious that a jury of your peers in America means a jury of imbeciles.

Juries are allowed to make inferences based on what can be considered reasonable behavior, but that's been lost on the uneducated masses from which juries are selected. We've seen this time and time again with some of the recent high profile verdicts in American courtrooms.

If by "proving" Armstrong is guilty the jury will need to be spoon fed the proverbial "smoking gun" whereby Armstrong is filmed in criminal activity with notary publics documenting the authenticity of the film and the presence of guilty parties, yes, you may be correct in saying his guilt hasn't been "proven."

To any sentient being however, Armstrong's guilt is a foregone conclusion.

good thing you're not on a jury. no charges, no evidence presented, no cross examination of witnesses etc., and you've convicted him. so much for fair trials..........

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And the whole point is that the Fed's have to ask a subject questions that are material to the investigation. Distributing controlled substances the way Balco was doing is illegal though. If she or anyone else was lying about orgies that she may or may not have had, this is not perjury.

My point is that it does matter what she lied about.

And my point is that Jones was a witness who lied to Federal Officers investigating the crime. That is perjury.
Armstrong will not be a witness, he will be one of the targets - he will be the one charged with the crimes. If Armstrong lies, then it will be while being questioned about the crime, if convicted perjury charges are rarely sought, it is viewed as being part of the game.

Well, it depends on your definition of "proving" it. It's becoming very obvious that a jury of your peers in America means a jury of imbeciles.

As I am not American, I guess it is not at all obvious.....

Juries are allowed to make inferences based on what can be considered reasonable behavior, but that's been lost on the uneducated masses from which juries are selected. We've seen this time and time again with some of the recent high profile verdicts in American courtrooms.

If by "proving" Armstrong is guilty the jury will need to be spoon fed the proverbial "smoking gun" whereby Armstrong is filmed in criminal activity with notary publics documenting the authenticity of the film and the presence of guilty parties, yes, you may be correct in saying his guilt hasn't been "proven."

I never mentioned a jury (although what you raise could be valid) - my view is that while the prosecution will be able to prove the overall case, Armstrong through his exceedingly expensive legal team will be able to suggest that LA had accountants and lawyers to conduct his business affairs and he had no direct knowledge. It might not be enough to escape penalties, but I still don't see prison as the most likely outcome.

To any sentient being however, Armstrong's guilt is a foregone conclusion.

By in large agree - certainly in the media and public mind. But I still do not see him getting anything that will put him in prison. YMMV