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

[LarryBudMelman]

BTW, Maserati saying Armstrong having Stapleton working for him shields Armstrong, is like saying a person paying a tax preparer to file taxes shields himself from tax fraud.

It's so simple as to be laughable.

 

[python]

No. It was you who 'misunderstood'. I suspect everyone else knew exactly what he was talking about.

Anyway, that's enough from me for the moment. Things to do, places to go, people to see.

again, are you capable of reading ? i provided DIRECT links to the statements maserati made and YOU denied.

if that's 'enough from' you, i take it as you being exposed for failing to read plain english you denied yet in front of everyone.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

C'mon now? What are you imagining? I'll be glad to explain it.

The point is it doesn't matter how good his lawyers are if he has all of the evidence against him you've produced, plus all of the other stuff which must also be out there.

The reason he will get off is because you have enough people like Dr Maserati who believe that despite Armstrong obviously being guilty, a different standard that lead Maserati to that conclusion, will be applied in criminal proceedings.

Have you seen high profile trials recently? The juries are idiotically siding with the snowball's chance in hell by basing their findings on beyond ALL doubt.

BTW, ease up on the snark. It's unbecoming.

No - the reason I accept Armstrong is guilty is because I understand the sport and how the team worked and who was calling the shots.

For a jury - they will be presented with a team wide doping system - there will be no drugs on the table. So the way the case will be presented will be through following the paper trail of payments.
I doubt Tailwind fired off checks to Ferrari signed by Lance for "doping services". A spin off company was probably set up to do that and it is unlikely to have LAs name on it. It will be those who set up the company and administered it who will be in big danger. Showing that LA had knowledge of that will be difficult to prove.

 

[python]

The point has been made, no need for people to continue with it.

my apologies, i kept typing as you made this post. feel free to mod any of my inputs you deem. cheers.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No! I quoted him at least twice saying doping had nothing to do with Jones being in prison. You'll have to go back if you're interested.

You can quote it more if you like - she did not go to prison for doping, she went to prison for lying to Federal officers.

To contrast this - Jason Giambi was also embroiled in the BALCO affair, he did not go to prison. Why, because when he was in front of the GJ he admitted he had been doping.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

(A) The beyond a reasonable doubt standard lessens the prosecutor's burden from what?? The BRD standard is, practically speaking, the highest standard of proof in the law. It's not lessened from any other standard, except imaginary standards that we make up in our minds. I have never once heard of ANY court ever using a beyond all doubt standard.

(B) Pick your three crimes. Lay out your admissible evidence. Show us the case! You're not just saying this is a slam dunk, you're saying there's "absolutely no reasonable doubt." If it's not even close, then you ought to be able to lay your proof out clearly.

Hello?? Wake up and understand that defense lawyers are arguing this imaginary beyond all doubt standard ALL THE TIME! They are not explicitly saying they are, but listen to their arguments? How do you think OJ and Casey Anthoney got off? How in the heck can they question DNA evidence? Shoddy handling or contamination does not produce DNA matches either. So then it's a police frame up? And yet people are willing to throw DNA evidence out the window? Why, because they're simple people confused and deceived by unscrupulous defense attorneys. You don't think Barry Scheck knew he was arguing complete bs in the OJ trial?

You've been arguing for Armstrong for months. Delusional IMO. There is NO doubt in the world we live in, where the sun comes up every morning, there's 24 hours in a day. 365 days a year, gravity is in effect and so on, that Lance Armstrong is guilty. There are too many people coming forward, too many positive tests, too many witnesses to fraudulent payoffs, organized doping.

You really think this is going to get better for Armstrong when his attorney's cross examine witnesses? First off, there's going to be an endless parade of them. He's going to call all of them vindictive haters? Please.

Evidently you're one of these people who believes in smoking guns? There is no such thing. All evidence in the hands of a defense attorney is equivocal, and as we've seen they'll argue anything no matter how absurd.

Might he get off? Yeah, because people want to reinforce their prejudices or practice jury nullification, but it's clear to anyone awake that he's guilty.

 

[MarkvW]

BTW, Maserati saying Armstrong having Stapleton working for him shields Armstrong, is like saying a person paying a tax preparer to file taxes shields himself from tax fraud.

It's so simple as to be laughable.

It is only simple and laughable if the government does not have to prove thing like "intent" or "knowledge." If you can't break Armstrong's "inner circle," how are you going to try to prove his mental state? It makes the job HUGELY harder. That's why RICO prosecutions almost always depend on wiretaps and coconspirator testimony.

 

[python]

You can quote it more if you like - she did not go to prison for doping, she went to prison for lying to Federal officers.

you can try to save your blunder more if you like, but i did not see anyone stating jones went to prison for doping. please provide links or any back up to the extent. i only deem it's appropriate to ask you for such b/c that's what you usually ask for. cheers.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Please

You can quote it more if you like - she did not go to prison for doping, she went to prison for lying to Federal officers.

To contrast this - Jason Giambi was also embroiled in the BALCO affair, he did not go to prison. Why, because when he was in front of the GJ he admitted he had been doping.

Python AGAIN pointed out what you wrote..

Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping

it does not matter what she lied about

 

[LarryBudMelman]

It is only simple and laughable if the government does not have to prove thing like "intent" or "knowledge." If you can't break Armstrong's "inner circle," how are you going to try to prove his mental state? It makes the job HUGELY harder. That's why RICO prosecutions almost always depend on wiretaps and coconspirator testimony.

You can count on tons of coconspirator testimony. Plus it's going to be pretty simple when the question is posed, "how could Armstrong NOT know." He's just some hayseed who rides his bike? People are stupid but when lawyers start trying to pull TOO much obvious crap they don't like being played for fools.

Armstrong is done. Take it to the bank.

 

[python]

Python AGAIN pointed out what you wrote..

i think maserati may have a software concern. perhaps he does not realise that the little arrow next to his quotes leads readers to his own posts.

 

[MarkvW]

Hello?? Wake up and understand that defense lawyers are arguing this imaginary beyond all doubt standard ALL THE TIME! They are not explicitly saying they are, but listen to their arguments? How do you think OJ and Casey Anthoney got off? How in the heck can they question DNA evidence? Shoddy handling or contamination does not produce DNA matches either. So then it's a police frame up? And yet people are willing to throw DNA evidence out the window? Why, because they're simple people confused and deceived by unscrupulous defense attorneys. You don't think Barry Scheck knew he was arguing complete bs in the OJ trial?

You've been arguing for Armstrong for months. Delusional IMO. There is NO doubt in the world we live in, where the sun comes up every morning, there's 24 hours in a day. 365 days a year, gravity is in effect and so on, that Lance Armstrong is not guilty. There are too many people coming forward, too many positive tests, too many witnesses to fraudulent payoffs, organized doping.

You really think this is going to get better for Armstrong when his attorney's cross examine witnesses? First off, there's going to be an endless parade of them. He's going to call all of them vindictive haters? Please.

Evidently you're one of these people who believes in smoking guns? There is no such thing. All evidence in the hands of a defense attorney is equivocal, and as we've seen they'll argue anything no matter how absurd.

Might he get off? Yeah, because people want to reinforce their prejudices or practice jury nullification, but it's clear to anyone awake that he's guilty.

You speak of a lot about "too much" stuff, but you're not talking about admissible evidence or elements of specific crimes. Otherwise, there's not much to discuss because you say there is overwhelming evidence of crime but you don't say what that evidence is or what the crime is.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

No - the reason I accept Armstrong is guilty is because I understand the sport and how the team worked and who was calling the shots.

For a jury - they will be presented with a team wide doping system - there will be no drugs on the table. So the way the case will be presented will be through following the paper trail of payments.
I doubt Tailwind fired off checks to Ferrari signed by Lance for "doping services". A spin off company was probably set up to do that and it is unlikely to have LAs name on it. It will be those who set up the company and administered it who will be in big danger. Showing that LA had knowledge of that will be difficult to prove.

Good prosecutors construct a narrative and spoon feed a jury if necessary. You really don't think people like Knaggs and Stapleton are going to cave? Especially with targets like Weisel, Armstrong, and Ferrari waiting in the wings? You're joking.

Do you really believe this investigation is going to be stonewalled with the kind of minor impediments you mentioned?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

You speak of a lot about "too much" stuff, but you're not talking about admissible evidence or elements of specific crimes. Otherwise, there's not much to discuss because you say there is overwhelming evidence of crime but you don't say what that evidence is or what the crime is.

You don't think the testimony of FL, TH, and GH means anything and the defrauding of USPS? Those keys have opened the doors to the whole vault. The crime is racketeering. You're an attorney? Criminal Law? Is this helpful?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

Popovych, I forgot about him. They found him with a load of PED's apparently and he's cooperating. Is it even legal to have drugs in your possession without a valid prescription? You tell me? I'll bet the Hemassist people have a lot to say too.. Everywhere these guys are looking they're finding stuff. You think some peon is going down for Armstrong?

 

[MarkvW]

You can count on tons of coconspirator testimony. Plus it's going to be pretty simple when the question is posed, "how could Armstrong NOT know." He's just some hayseed who rides his bike? People are stupid but when lawyers start trying to pull TOO much obvious crap they don't like being played for fools.

Armstrong is done. Take it to the bank.

I get it. Armstrong will get convicted because you say it is so. Thanks.

 

[ChrisE]

I knew you misinterpreted my earlier post for some reason. I've followed your posts for a while and it's hard to believe that you're not being intentionally obtuse.

My earlier post said it was a slam dunk in the same vein that Casey Anthony is a slam dunk. Unfortunately the jurors and many here have no idea what it means to prove guilt.

The popularly quoted beyond a reasonable doubt means just that, NOT BEYOND ALL DOUBT. This lessens the burden for the prosecution, and that is obvious. There are absolutely no reasonable doubts that Armstrong is guilty of a number of crimes that add up to Racketeering.

I then went in to the usual defense tactic that discredits every piece of evidence individually to rebut the strawman idea that a "smoking gun" ever exists. Even DNA which is accurate to 5 or 6 places to the right of the decimal point is equivocal evidence which defense attorneys argue. ARE THEIR ARGUMENTS GOOD, OR DO THEY HAVE ANY MERIT? Absolutely not, they're ridiculous and absurd very similiar to the bs Armstrong's attorneys are pushing. Might they be effective? Yes, because the average imbecile's powers of discernment are atrocious.

ChrisE, I've seen you argue ridiculous points, and even when it was shown that you were wrong in black and white you continued so my expectations aren't very high you'll understand.

I understand. Thanks for enlightening me.

Do you have some lottery ticket suggestions for me, oh omniscient one? Should I take the +3 and the Giants?

 

[MarkvW]

You don't think the testimony of FL, TH, and GH means anything and the defrauding of USPS? Those keys have opened the doors to the whole vault. The crime is racketeering. You're an attorney? Criminal Law? Is this helpful?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

I'm not going to make your case for you. You're the one who said that the proof is there beyond a reasonable doubt. Present your case!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good prosecutors construct a narrative and spoon feed a jury if necessary. You really don't think people like Knaggs and Stapleton are going to cave? Especially with targets like Weisel, Armstrong, and Ferrari waiting in the wings? You're joking.

Do you really believe this investigation is going to be stonewalled with the kind of minor impediments you mentioned?

To the blue -I will repeat, I expect lots of people to be caught up and some to end up in jail.

But the highlighted - again, Stapleton & Knaggs I believe are in big trouble, even if offered a deal to roll it could still involve jailtime. They could gamble on sticking with LA and his high powered lawyers - Armstrong is their mealticket - as a precedent, look at what Anderson did to protect Barry Bonds.

As for Weisel - again he had his own lackys to do the heavy lifting.

I would love to see Michele in the US under oath - alas I do not expect that to happen.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I get it. Armstrong will get convicted because you say it is so. Thanks.

Uh no, Armstrong will be convicted because 1)He's guilty 2)There is overwhelming, voluminous evidence 3) The part of the media which is awake has RAISED AWARENESS of his fraud and ongoing criminal enterprise.

My only contribution comes from my sentience. Thank you...

 

[thehog]

I understand he would be accountable within that Texas jurisdiction for any perjury.

If the USADA/UCI was obligated to strip him of TdF wins through non analytical evidence appearing in the courts during the SOL period then SCA could claim recovery of payments and costs.

In another jurisdiction it would only be of use in exposing his lack of credibility. But I don't expect his lawyer will permit him to be in a position to be exposed. Don't expect Armstrong to be called as a witness in his own or Tailwind's defense.

The only juiciness coming out of his SCA deposition hearing is his vague evidence relating to donations to UCI and the $1.5m donation to the Indiana University Hospital (by Livestrong but he claimed he was the donor) within days of becoming aware of the Andreus' "hospital room" affidavits.

The latter would have significance to any Livestrong investigation by the IRS into the mandatory proper governance for approving payments particularly when Livestrong was in "awareness" mode not scientific support mode.

I think your wrong here. Armstrong doesn't need to be stripped of his wins for SCA to appeal or take the matter to court. They were done over. The rules of arbitration were broken and SCA were "set up". Thats enough for the case to be heard again and this time in court.

There's also enough there to suggest that if Armstrong had tested positive in 2001 that he'd be banned for two years and not ridden the Tour thus not collected the 5m. There's now enough evidence to suggest that he had leaned on officials to overlook the doping and not be as tested as often.

SCA will wait for a judgement in the federal case. They won't be waiting for stripping of titles. Thats pointless. He still won those Tours by the laws of the day. You can't change that. Regardless if there's a retrospective stripping.

Its more about how the hearing was handled. One party turned up and played fair the other didn't. Believe you me judges and law makers never look kindly on those who attempt to BUCK arbitration. Its a sin of the highest order.

They will come down hard on Armstrong and SCA will collect 20m.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I'm not going to make your case for you. You're the one who said that the proof is there beyond a reasonable doubt. Present your case!

They're rhetorical questions. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I'll give you another clue which I think you probably realize. This whole thing isn't taking so long because they're having trouble finding evidence. It's taking so long because they are trying to catalogue it while they are composing what amounts to the "War and Peace" of all the charges.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I understand. Thanks for enlightening me.

Do you have some lottery ticket suggestions for me, oh omniscient one? Should I take the +3 and the Giants?

Man! I wish predicting the lottery was as easy as predicting Armstrong's fate.

The Giants are a lock btw.

 

[Velodude]

You speak of a lot about "too much" stuff, but you're not talking about admissible evidence or elements of specific crimes. Otherwise, there's not much to discuss because you say there is overwhelming evidence of crime but you don't say what that evidence is or what the crime is.

Just a brief comment on admissable evidence and related Federal crimes leading to Tailwind being declared a criminal enterprise for a RICO suit.

You have first hand eyewitness evidence from at least 3 US Postal riders that the team was on a doping program and the drugs were supplied by the team. This is in breach of the USPS/Tailwind contract covering 2002-2004 and numerous Federal laws relating to carriage, prescriptions and administering.

Funds were raised from the sale of team Trek bikes (120+ bikes per year) to fund the team doping program. By the manner the bikes were sold there will be a paper trail as admissable evidence to a bank account not in Tailwind's name or incorporated into Tailwind's books & income tax return.

The above involves money laundering and income tax evasion. The minimum of two Federal crimes within a 10 year period required for a RICO proceedings.

Persons running the RICO criminal enterprise are culpable. That is why Lance Armstrong falsely disassociated himself from ownership, directorship and management control of Tailwind when Floyd's allegations hit the fan in 2010.

 

[MarkvW]

They're rhetorical questions. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I'll give you another clue which I think you probably realize. This whole thing isn't taking so long because they're having trouble finding evidence. It's taking so long because they are trying to catalogue it while they are composing what amounts to the "War and Peace" of all the charges.

I get it. Like Senator McCarthy: "A conspiracy so vast . . ."

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I get it. Like Senator McCarthy: "A conspiracy so vast . . ."

Laughable, I'm as Liberal as you can get and more like a socialist. It would be more insulting to me if you called me a Conservative Republican than if you called me a Communist. Anyway, nice try!

The Armstrong thread is about criminal acts, not political affiliations....

You get a look at Velodude's post? Very informative and to the point. No excuse for you to feign confusion or ignorance after that.