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

[spetsa]

It's not a red herring. This is what a red herring is.

Red herring is a figurative expression in which a clue or piece of information is or is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual question.

The actual question; the only question on this thread is whether Armstrong is guilty. The answer to that question is so obvious as to be ridiculous.

You even say he's guilty but the issue is "proving" it, and after some of the arguments you've made, I can see why you might have problems with what constitutes proof.

I'm saying that Armstrong's defense will argue in the style you argue. They will argue that the jury didn't see what they obviously just saw, the same way you wrote twice that the reason Jones went to prison had nothing to do with doping and then denied it.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you didn't see what the prosecution just showed you."

This explains a lot about the thought processes which defense attorneys try to exploit in general and what the Armstrong lawyers will argue in particular.

How else will Armstrong get off? Floyd and Tyler are proven liars and therefore everything they say is a lie so you can throw that evidence out? 'The prosecution had 127 witnesses and every single one of them has some axe to grind against Armstrong or they cheated on a 3rd grade math quiz?'

Defense attorney's will argue anything, even the probabilities of DNA evidence. Why this doesn't impact their credibility and hurt their clients is evidently because people have no idea what it means to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys just take the shotgun approach and question everything, and the simple jurors who weren't able to find a way out of serving on the jury in the first place, are befuddled.

As to your Marion Jones compartmentalization of the charges, I guess Al Capone went to jail soley for tax evasion? It had nothing to do with racketeering and murder.

You must be a defense attorney.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Your points are valid, but she is also losing a major shield. SI, in addition to being a sports promoter, is also a mighty fortress of legal protection for its reporters. Maybe she's got a book in her, though!

You really believe Armstrong would be stupid enough to sue Selena Roberts?

I mean, I know the guy is a vindictive jerk but he wouldn't be that stupid. What a public relations windfall it would be for any attorney who defended her.

Don't tell me you're a lawyer.

It's funny, just because someone knows the rules of chess, doesn't mean they know how to play.

 

[MarkvW]

If you think guys like Tony Cruz, Damon Kluck, Kenny Labbe, Robbie Ventura, Micheal Creed, Patrick McCarty etc. are going to lie to save LA's *ss, you are nuts.

I don't know why you would suggest that I might think that those racers might lie to help Lance. Why the angry tone? Do you like having this forum filled with flaming rants and angry retorts?

The question isn't whether they'd lie. I don't think they would if they've been already before the GJ. Nobody wants to risk being caught under oath saying 'x' in one proceeding and 'not x' in another.

The question is whether they would participate in the hearing process. And it was a QUESTION--not a statement of opinion.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

You must be a defense attorney.

No, I just pay attention to high profile cases including this one, and circuses like Casey Anthony.

The fact that she's out dancing and getting tattoos a couple of days after her daughter disappeared didn't "prove" anything either.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's not a red herring. This is what a red herring is.

Red herring is a figurative expression in which a clue or piece of information is or is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual question.

The actual question; the only question on this thread is whether Armstrong is guilty. The answer to that question is so obvious as to be ridiculous.

You even say he's guilty but the issue is "proving" it, and after some of the arguments you've made, I can see why you might have problems with what constitutes proof.

I'm saying that Armstrong's defense will argue in the style you argue. They will argue that the jury didn't see what they obviously just saw, the same way you wrote twice that the reason Jones went to prison had nothing to do with doping and then denied it.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you didn't see what the prosecution just showed you."

This explains a lot about the thought processes which defense attorneys try to exploit in general and what the Armstrong lawyers will argue in particular.

How else will Armstrong get off? Floyd and Tyler are proven liars and therefore everything they say is a lie so you can throw that evidence out? 'The prosecution had 127 witnesses and every single one of them has some axe to grind against Armstrong or they cheated on a 3rd grade math quiz?'

Defense attorney's will argue anything, even the probabilities of DNA evidence. Why this doesn't impact their credibility and hurt their clients is evidently because people have no idea what it means to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys just take the shotgun approach and question everything, and the simple jurors who weren't able to find a way out of serving on the jury in the first place, are befuddled.

As to your Marion Jones compartmentalization of the charges, I guess Al Capone went to jail soley for tax evasion? It had nothing to do with racketeering and murder.

Larry, I am sorry - you only paid for a 5 page argument, not a 10 page argument.

 

[spetsa]

I don't know why you would suggest that I might think that those racers might lie to help Lance. Why the angry tone? Do you like having this forum filled with flaming rants and angry retorts?

The question isn't whether they'd lie. I don't think they would if they've been already before the GJ. Nobody wants to risk being caught under oath saying 'x' in one proceeding and 'not x' in another.

The question is whether they would participate in the hearing process. And it was a QUESTION--not a statement of opinion.

Sorry that you took my tone the wrong way, but since the answer is so obvious, I guess the real question is whether or not they have been talked to and I would guess that the answer to that one is yes. Whether or not USAC would be the initiator of the same questioning is up in the air, but if things play out the way I happen to see it, USAC is going to have no choice but to put out a long list of NAF suspensions in the near future.

 

[Race Radio]

Armstrong's obstruction of investigation could stretch back much further. There are multiple witnesses that say he lied when he tested positive for Cortisone in 1999. There was also an investigation into the dumping of dope and syringes in 2001. Add to this the EPO positives at the TdS in 2001 as well as covered up Testosterone positives in the 90's and we see there are many possibilities for the SOL to be extende.

 

[Velodude]

I was being mildly facetious. Given how involuted the thread became, again, (if that's possible) despite the redirection given a few days ago.

On the one hand my question was factual as my understanding is that LA could simply be presented with the list of charges in private should a case be imminent.

I've said nothing about targets.

On the other hand, it was rhetorical.

Facetious and rhetorical? That intent could never have been drawn given your incessant criticism of "the system".

But now, in contradiction, you say your questions had an objective for a factual response. So you were seeking a response and not being rhetorical.

"The system" gives Armstrong the opportunity to enter into a plea deal only after the indictments are issued by the Grand Jury. No private beforehand wiggling room.

Federal statistics show about 95% of indicted felons enter into a plea deal.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Larry, I am sorry - you only paid for a 5 page argument, not a 10 page argument.

Well, I was hoping beyond hope that you might give a straight answer.

You don't realize that the display you carried on with Python and myself undermines a lot of of your points?

edit, actually this is another similarity to the Armstrong defense, they'll give any crazy answer, or issue any falacious attack, and that takes even more time for the prosecution to answer.

The reason this has gone on for these however many pages is BECAUSE OF YOU as python has also pointed out.

 

[aphronesis]

Armstrong's obstruction of investigation could stretch back much further. There are multiple witnesses that say he lied when he tested positive for Cortisone in 1999. There was also an investigation into the dumping of dope and syringes in 2001. Add to this the EPO positives at the TdS in 2001 as well as covered up Testosterone positives in the 90's and we see there are many possibilities for the SOL to be extende.

Must be the shake a stick hour. Can you explain (or get one of the advocates to work) how low-level sporting deflection is going to be refurbished as legal obstruction?

Is this a character development or a discussion of the case?

 

[MarkvW]

Sorry that you took my tone the wrong way, but since the answer is so obvious, I guess the real question is whether or not they have been talked to and I would guess that the answer to that one is yes. Whether or not USAC would be the initiator of the same questioning is up in the air, but if things play out the way I happen to see it, USAC is going to have no choice but to put out a long list of NAF suspensions in the near future.

I agree. The real question is whether the appropriate body is following up. They sure ought to be following up if they are remaining consistent.

 

[spetsa]

Must be the shake a stick hour. Can you explain (or get one of the advocates to work) how low-level sporting deflection is going to be refurbished as legal obstruction?

Is this a character development or a discussion of the case?

Try reading the thread for context before just spouting off.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, I was hoping beyond hope that you might give a straight answer.

You don't realize that the display you carried on with Python and myself undermines a lot of of your points?

Ask me a straight question on the topic and I will give a straight answer.

All I have read over the last few pages is you attributing to me views I do not have, and bringing in Python actually undermines your position - I explained his only interest here and it has nothing to do with Armstrong.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Facetious and rhetorical? That intent could never have been drawn given your incessant criticism of "the system".

But now, in contradiction, you say your questions had an objective for a factual response. So you were seeking a response and not being rhetorical.

"The system" gives Armstrong the opportunity to enter into a plea deal only after the indictments are issued by the Grand Jury. No private beforehand wiggling room.

Federal statistics show about 95% of indicted felons enter into a plea deal.

What a perfect storm of stupidity Armstrong and his lawyers have talked themselves into. A combination of a sociopathological, delusional, stubborn, egomaniacal tyrant, for a client, and a team of parasitical scumbag lawyers!

Does Las Vegas have any odds on this going to trial?

 

[Velodude]

Must be the shake a stick hour. Can you explain (or get one of the advocates to work) how low-level sporting deflection is going to be refurbished as legal obstruction?

Is this a character development or a discussion of the case?

It is a private SOL in the rules of the UCI "club". Not a SOL at law.

License holders must comply with the "club" rules. Breach of club rules could result in the handing back of silverware (and yellow jerseys).

Just like that exclusive country club of which you hold membership

RR linked to a USADA decision (USADA is US enforcer of club rules) where the club SOL can be extended back if the club member has been previously dishonest about non complying behavior.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Ask me a straight question on the topic and I will give a straight answer.

All I have read over the last few pages is you attributing to me views I do not have, and bringing in Python actually undermines your position - I explained his only interest here and it has nothing to do with Armstrong.

You explained? That's the point I'm making. Armstrong's lawyers are also explaining! The problem is, enough people may be listening to the Armstrong insanity version and some of them may be on the jury.

Your idea of proof and your compartmentalization of the charges against Jones, from a person who is ostensibly convinced of Armstrong's guilt; I find this to be unsettling.

Any place where Armstrong might think he can get away with his massive crimes I see embodied in your attitude and arguments, that is, 'of course he's guilty, but they didn't prove it.'

I don't need Python to tell me what I can see with my own eyes.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Must be the shake a stick hour. Can you explain (or get one of the advocates to work) how low-level sporting deflection is going to be refurbished as legal obstruction?

Is this a character development or a discussion of the case?

You've thrown in the towel on the moral relativism and cost/benefit analysis arguments?

What is it that you have invested in Armstrong?

 

[aphronesis]

You've thrown in the towel on the moral relativism and cost/benefit analysis arguments?

What is it that you have invested in Armstrong?

Nothing whatsoever. I haven't thrown them in. You don't want to argue them.

Nor do most here. I leave you to your more attractive dead horse.

@velodude, i don't know which club you're referring to (nor do you, and you couldn't be more wrong with the allusion), but, for the sake of argument, let's say that most such clubs are very discriminating about the offensive and defensive recourse that they have to the law proper.

this selective hypocrisy is at the heart of this debate and isn't much acknowledged by most of those who are on the frontal assault here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You explained? That's the point I'm making. Armstrong's lawyers are also explaining! The problem is, enough people may be listening to the Armstrong insanity version and some of them may be on the jury.

Armstrongs lawyers are spinning, not explaining.

As for a jury, they will have to be drawn from a group who have not followed the case or not formed an opinion.

Your idea of proof and your compartmentalization of the charges against Jones, from a person who is ostensibly convinced of Armstrong's guilt; I find this to be unsettling.

This is your new word "compartmentalization".
I asked what doping related charges (your words) Jones was charged with. You did not answer, because of course she never was, as she was questioned as a witness, she lied and went to prison.

Any place where Armstrong might think he can get away with his massive crimes I see embodied in your attitude and arguments, that is, 'of course he's guilty, but they didn't prove it.'

Again - attributing something I never said.
I said the opposite, even if they do not prove it in a Court of Law and he escapes prison, I still believe he is guilty.

I don't need Python to tell me what I can see with my own eyes but I'm rational enough to listen to other people too.

Good, if you don't need someone to tell you something than do not bring them up again.

 

[aphronesis]

Facetious and rhetorical? That intent could never have been drawn given your incessant criticism of "the system".

But now, in contradiction, you say your questions had an objective for a factual response. So you were seeking a response and not being rhetorical.

"The system" gives Armstrong the opportunity to enter into a plea deal only after the indictments are issued by the Grand Jury. No private beforehand wiggling room.

Federal statistics show about 95% of indicted felons enter into a plea deal.

Yes, I was seeking a response. There is no system (and there is no man, although there are plenty of men and women clamoring for the job); the question was both factual and rhetorical in terms of how where all the displaced energy around this case might go if it doesn't come to pass? Levi bashing? A sudden fascination with legal appointments and elections? Where?

Back to the system: there is a juridical apparatus with which you are relatively familiar. Its procedures are more or less set. The politics of selection and entry are another matter. These are two separate things. That distinction is mostly lost here.

 

[MarkvW]

"The system" gives Armstrong the opportunity to enter into a plea deal only after the indictments are issued by the Grand Jury. No private beforehand wiggling room.

That is incorrect. Refer to FRCrP 7(b). A person can waive indictment and plead to an information.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Nothing whatsoever. I haven't thrown them in. You don't want to argue them.

Nor do most here. I leave you to your more attractive dead horse.

@velodude, i don't know which club you're referring to (nor do you, and you couldn't be more wrong with the allusion), but, for the sake of argument, let's say that most such clubs are very discriminating about the offensive and defensive recourse that they have to the law proper.

this selective hypocrisy is at the heart of this debate and isn't much acknowledged by most of those who are on the frontal assault here.

For God's sake he's referring to the rules of the "clubs" that hold the races and tweaking you at the same time, in a very minor way btw....

I'll devote two sentences to your criteria.

Because Armstrong's crimes aren't the worst in the history of mankind, he gets a pass?

Because Armstrong will continue this idiotic protesting of his innocence despite being to blame for ALL of the costs associated with this fiasco, he walks?

The dead horse is Armstrong's guilt. It's obvious. You and others arguing all of these legal technicalities on his behalf for God knows what reason is the reason we're still beating this dead horse.

Not to say I don't enjoy the stupidity of the proceedings.....

 

[aphronesis]

For God's sake he's referring to the rules of the "clubs" that hold the races and tweaking you at the same time, in a very minor way btw....

I'll devote two sentences to your criteria.

Because Armstrong's crimes aren't the worst in the history of mankind, he gets a pass?

Because Armstrong will continue this idiotic protesting of his innocence despite being to blame for ALL of the costs associated with this fiasco, he walks?

The dead horse is Armstrong's guilt. It's obvious. You and others arguing all of these legal technicalities on his behalf for God knows what reason is the reason we're still beating this dead horse.

Not to say I don't enjoy the stupidity of the proceedings.....

You might want to adjust your filter. Velo and I got the tweak.

Grateful for the two sentences. Can you negotiate some territory between Pol Pot and Armstrong? McVeigh and Manning?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Definitions

Armstrongs lawyers are spinning, not explaining.


This is your new word "compartmentalization".
I asked what doping related charges (your words) Jones was charged with. You did not answer, because of course she never was, as she was questioned as a witness, she lied and went to prison.



.

are important!

Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc within themselves. Compartmentalization allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct and/or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self states.

Regarding Jones, if there was no doping, there was no perjury! See, simple!

Of course if the Feds had caught her with all of the gear she was injecting, she would have been charged with that.

But as you say.

Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping

it does not matter what she lied about

Thanks for the explanations!

 

[aphronesis]

Because Armstrong will continue this idiotic protesting of his innocence despite being to blame for ALL of the costs associated with this fiasco, he walks?

Good of you to make this link back out finally. This is the economics as a closed vacuum argument. He is not to blame for the costs because there are none. It's not costing you. That "money" would be spent regardless.

Maybe you missed the recent articles about the fact that police are no longer doing house calls for burglary, etc. because of diminished budgets? (This is not quite the case in NY.)

So now who is to blame for the lack of cost in these situations? Say your rare dvd/vhs collection gets stolen and is written off as irrecoverable. Or, alternatively, if the police can be mustered to track down those discs are you saying that the criminal is to blame for the overtime? Or is that the cost of the upkeep on your virtual world? And doesn't the "cost" or "expense" now reside at the level of insurance? What if you get monetary recompense but some shows are gone? How do you calibrate that?