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

[LarryBudMelman]

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?

The McVeigh case is irrelevant but interesting. (I'm humoring you here) Stephen Jones, McVeigh's attorney believes strongly, with a lot of evidence too, that Al Qaeda was involved.

Terry Nichols had been to the Phillipines on a couple of occasions where it is thought that he met with Ramzi Yousef, the first WTC bomber in '93.

Back to armstrong.

The point, which you're missing, is that moral relativism is not as much a determinant as you're making it out to be.

Armstrong upped the ante on the moral relativism by making himself into a worldwide false god, and the cost/benefit, with his clinging to his innocence in the face of a tsunami of evidence.

Again, you're missing that aspect somehow.

 

[aphronesis]

The McVeigh case is irrelevant but interesting. (I'm humoring you here) Stephen Jones, McVeigh's attorney believes strongly, with a lot of evidence too, that Al Qaeda was involved.

Terry Nichols had been to the Phillipines on a couple of occasions where it is thought that he met with Ramzi Yousef, the first WTC bomber in '93.

Back to armstrong.

The point, which you're missing, is that moral relativism is not as much a determinant as you're making it out to be.

Armstrong upped the ante on the moral relativism by making himself into a worldwide false god, and the cost/benefit, with his clinging to his innocence in the face of a tsunami of evidence.

Again, you're missing that aspect somehow.

Your humor is touching. I'm asking for qualifications of instances: not specifics of detail.

People make false gods. Every minute, every day. And they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Try reading about the years of the French terror if you would like an extreme example. Read almost anything on consumer society if you would like an acute one (and apply your skepticism to the zealousness of the authors as well.)

Somehow you are missing that aspect.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Uote]

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.

While you have the dictionary out, check up the word reality.

Then apply that word to my view on Armstrong guilt and then the 'reality' of how a Court of Law goes about it charging people.

Now maybe your point is why the Courts do not come one here and take my opinion and just convict Armstrong on that -I have to admit, I do not understand why they do not either.

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

If she was doping and admitted it there would be no perjury,and no jail. Very simple

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

Then can you explain why during the same BALCO case, Jason Giambi admitted he doped, and yet was not charged with any crime.

But as you say.


Thanks for the explanations!

That is why I say "Jone was done for perjury. Not for doping".
I am glad you get it now.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

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?

Back to Alice in Wonderland!

I may be wrong here, but I believe the Felony Murder rule would be instructive to your thinking.

Like if you rob a bank, with a gun, and there is a shootout and the Police accidentally shoot an innocent bystander, the bank robber is then also charged with murder.

I know things like idolatry, and arguing over complete nonsense are hard to get over, but this kind of thing may help you understand why Armstrong and his co conspirators are completely responsible for the costs of the investigation.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

While you have the dictionary out, check up the word reality.

Then apply that word to my view on Armstrong guilt and then the 'reality' of how a Court of Law goes about it charging people.

Now maybe your point is why the Courts do not come one here and take my opinion and just convict Armstrong on that -I have to admit, I do not understand why they do not either.


If she was doping and admitted it there would be no perjury,and no jail. Very simple

Then can you explain why during the same BALCO case, Jason Giambi admitted he doped, and yet was not charged with any crime.



That is why I say "Jone was done for perjury. Not for doping".
I am glad you get it now.

No one is suggesting the court take your point of view on Armstrong's guilt. His guilt is plain to see but for some reason you think proving it is difficult. If Dr. Maserati had that much evidence against him, this thing would have been resolved 1 week after it started with a plea deal and some jail time to boot.

Guilty people like Giambi cooperate all the time to escape prosecution. That doesn't mean that Giambi wasn't guilty of crimes.

Get pulled over while driving with a bottle of oxy codone in plain view. If you don't have a valid prescription for it, I'd bet there is a good chance you'll be charged with a crime.

 

[HL2037]

People make false gods. Every minute, every day. And they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Try reading about the years of the French terror if you would like an extreme example. Read almost anything on consumer society if you would like an acute one (and apply your skepticism to the zealousness of the authors as well.)

Then the right thing would be to try and enlighten these poor people instead of using their mental weakness against them to make profit. Just because many does not have that kind of integrity does not make it right. We should always strive towards our ideals. When you say "oh well, everybody is doing it, I might as well exploit my fellow human beings" then you have truly lost.

 

[aphronesis]

Back to Alice in Wonderland!

I may be wrong here, but I believe the Felony Murder rule would be instructive to your thinking.

Like if you rob a bank, with a gun, and there is a shootout and the Police accidentally shoot an innocent bystander, the bank robber is then also charged with murder.

I know things like idolatry, and arguing over complete nonsense are hard to get over, but this kind of thing may help you understand why Armstrong and his co conspirators are completely responsible for the costs of the investigation.

Huh. No. Because in your example the bystander is the damage. Easy to equate. Are you the bystander in this instance. Did he shoot you? Did um, Wada or the UCI? Boohoo. Which bank were you standing outside of? Versus? Or the post office?

 

[aphronesis]

Then the right thing would be to try and enlighten these poor people instead of using their mental weakness against them to make profit. Just because many does not have that kind of integrity does not make it right. We should always strive towards our ideals. When you say "oh well, everybody is doing it, I might as well exploit my fellow human beings" then you have truly lost.

I don't say that (the cynical opportunism stance). And that is probably the most reprehensible aspect of this entire situation. But I don't believe that it should be prosecuted under these laws. That no matter how extreme the findings they will for a second counteract that condition.

Not the argument I'm making.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Guilty people like Giambi cooperate all the time to escape prosecution. That doesn't mean that Giambi wasn't guilty of crimes.

So, why did they not offer this lovely deal to Jones?

Also - Giambi was guilty, of doping - he even admitted it. Case closed - but your right that he was not guilty of a crime, as taking PEDs in itself is not illegal.

Get pulled over while driving with a bottle of oxy codone in plain view. If you don't have a valid prescription for it, I'd bet there is a good chance you'll be charged with a crime.

No idea what any of this means. Sorry.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Huh. No. Because in your example the bystander is the damage. Easy to equate. Are you the bystander in this instance. Did he shoot you? Did um, Wada or the UCI? Boohoo. Which bank were you standing outside of? Versus? Or the post office?

Well obviously (maybe I'm wrong) Armstrong hasn't murdered anyone.

A lot of people did buy his books and associated paraphernalia. The atheist scumbag was even selling "HOPE." Even Trek, Nike, Carmichael became quite wealthy based on the fraud.

No one died, maybe. So you're arguing there's no reason for class action lawsuits? It's impossible for a crime be the basis of filing one?

Well, Armstrong's fraud is the basis. No, apparently no one died, unless his high cadence bs exploded someone's heart.

 

[Hugh Januss]

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

That is true, you are right.

If she was doping and admitted it there would be no perjury,and no jail.

Also true, you are right.

How many more pages until we find out which of you is rightest.


BTW Larry, python took your side mostly because he has some sort of an ax to grind with Dr M. Just check the way he sometimes chases ChrisE and Glenn Wilson around the forum.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I quoted myself so others could follow this insanity.

No one is suggesting the court take your point of view on Armstrong's guilt. His guilt is plain to see but for some reason you think proving it is difficult. If Dr. Maserati had that much evidence against him, this thing would have been resolved 1 week after it started with a plea deal and some jail time to boot.

Guilty people like Giambi cooperate all the time to escape prosecution. That doesn't mean that Giambi wasn't guilty of crimes.

Get pulled over while driving with a bottle of oxy codone in plain view. If you don't have a valid prescription for it, I'd bet there is a good chance you'll be charged with a crime.

So, why did they not offer this lovely deal to Jones?

Prosecutorial discretion perhaps?
They did offer her some kind of deal, no? She decided to roll the dice initially and then later accepted a plea.

Also - Giambi was guilty, of doping - he even admitted it. Case closed - but your right that he was not guilty of a crime, as taking PEDs in itself is not illegal.

I don't believe I stated anywhere that Giambi wasn't guilty or I might have gotten tangled up in these insane interchanges.

If you show me where I said Giambi was not guilty, I mis spoke.

Possessing illicit drugs or prescription drugs without a prescription is illegal so Giambi was in fact guilty of a crime. I don't think legislatures could even dream up the scenario where someone could take drugs without being in possession of them in the first place unless they were injected like Strock.

No idea what any of this means. Sorry.

It means you can't have prescription drugs in your possession without a prescription. That is a crime. Steroids are a prescription drug and are even more restricted than your average prescription drug, I believe. The designer steroids are illicit and illegal.

 

[Race Radio]

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?

Nice try. I am referring to a USADA case, not the Fed case. I would suggest reading the WADA code.

 

[aphronesis]

Nice try. I am referring to a USADA case, not the Fed case. I would suggest reading the WADA code.

I have read it. Thanks. I was asking that the lines of connection be kept clear.

 

[Race Radio]

Well obviously (maybe I'm wrong) Armstrong hasn't murdered anyone.

A lot of people did buy his books and associated paraphernalia. The atheist scumbag was even selling "HOPE." Even Trek, Nike, Carmichael became quite wealthy based on the fraud.

No one died, maybe. So you're arguing there's no reason for class action lawsuits? It's impossible for a crime be the basis of filing one?

Well, Armstrong's fraud is the basis. No, apparently no one died, unless his high cadence bs exploded someone's heart.

It would not be the first time

http://byliner.com/jon-krakauer/stories/excerpt-three-cups-of-deceit#update-13

 

[MarkvW]

I quoted myself so others could follow this insanity.

Need anything more be said?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

If she was doping and admitted it there would be no perjury,and no jail. Very simple


That is why I say "Jone was done for perjury. Not for doping".
I am glad you get it now.

That is true, you are right..

In fact THIS IN NOT RIGHT! Possessing illicit drugs is illegal as is possessing prescription drugs without a prescription.

Prosecutors use their discretion as to the charges. In the Jones case, it appears likely that if she told the truth she may not have gone to jail. The prosecutors may have even made that deal, I'm not sure. But, it doesn't necessarily follow that an athlete avoids jail because they testify truthfully.

The fact that Jones was an uncooperative vindictive jerk, (much like Armstrong) would probably contribute to any difference in the deals offered.

How many more pages until we find out which of you is rightest.


BTW Larry, python took your side mostly because he has some sort of an ax to grind with Dr M. Just check the way he sometimes chases ChrisE and Glenn Wilson around the forum.

I know you like bang for the buck in posting economy but you're off base here, especially in regard to these other guys.

Python took my side because Maserati continues to insist that the perjury charge has nothing to do with Jones' doping.

Btw Hugh, I'm very familiar with the antics of ChrisE and Glenn Wilson. Python's being correct here has no relation to the previous "activity" of ChrisE and his buddy Glenn.

But thanks anyway.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That is true, you are right.

Also true, you are right.

How many more pages until we find out which of you is rightest.

I know you wrote that tongue in cheek -it is not about "rightest", my point is perfectly correct.
Larrys point misses that application of laws is indeed precise, no point of having loads of evidence if there is no law broken or charge that can be made.

What I object to mostly is that my reluctance to assume that any charges against Armstrong will inevitably result in jailtime for Armstrong is somehow upholding an Armstrong talking point.

BTW Larry, python took your side mostly because he has some sort of an ax to grind with Dr M. Just check the way he sometimes chases ChrisE and Glenn Wilson around the forum.

 

[spetsa]

That is true, you are right.

Also true, you are right.

How many more pages until we find out which of you is rightest.


BTW Larry, python took your side mostly because he has some sort of an ax to grind with Dr M. Just check the way he sometimes chases ChrisE and Glenn Wilson around the forum.

Pretty much sums up what this place has turned into.

 

[Race Radio]

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Need anything more be said?

Oh, this is all sideline entertainment.

Final Verdict.

Guilty

Keep looking for a miracle. I hear Armstrong is selling Hope!

 

[Hugh Januss]

In fact THIS IN NOT RIGHT! Possessing illicit drugs is illegal as is possessing prescription drugs without a prescription.

Prosecutors use their discretion as to the charges. In the Jones case, it appears likely that if she told the truth she may not have gone to jail. The prosecutors may have even made that deal, I'm not sure. But, it doesn't necessarily follow that an athlete avoids jail because they testify truthfully.

The fact that Jones was an uncooperative vindictive jerk, (much like Armstrong) would probably contribute to any difference in the deals offered.



I know you like bang for the buck in posting economy but you're off base here, especially in regard to these other guys.

Python took my side because Maserati continues to insist that the perjury charge has nothing to do with Jones' doping.

Btw Hugh, I'm very familiar with the antics of ChrisE and Glenn Wilson. Python's being correct here has no relation to the previous "activity" of ChrisE and his buddy Glenn.

But thanks anyway.

Isn't that what Dr M said?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I know you wrote that tongue in cheek -it is not about "rightest", my point is perfectly correct.
Larrys point misses that application of laws is indeed precise, no point of having loads of evidence if there is no law broken or charge that can be made.

What I object to mostly is that my reluctance to assume that any charges against Armstrong will inevitably result in jailtime for Armstrong is somehow upholding an Armstrong talking point.

Your reluctance is based on public misperception that Armstrong's guilt is difficult to prove or even what it means to prove something in court. It's based on nonsense advanced by moronic talking heads in high profile cases.

Do you understand the phenomenon of the Stockholm Syndrome?

 

[Hugh Januss]

What I object to mostly is that my reluctance to assume that any charges against Armstrong will inevitably result in jailtime for Armstrong is somehow upholding an Armstrong talking point.

Well it does seem to make your position appear shockingly close to that of the renowned LA apologist ChrisE.

 

[Velodude]

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

But only if the target(s), Lance Edward Armstrong & others, are co-operating with the investigation.

The GJ would not have run its course and, obviously been extended, if Armstrong, who you claim is not and will not be the target, has thrown in the towel and has offered to plead guilty to unspecified charges.

This step is available in any criminal jurisdiction.

The originating process for the trial must be the indictments.