Subpoenas issued -- Armstrong's goose is cooked

[Der_Gestreifte]

Holczer "conservatively optimistic".

Didn´t know where to put it, guess it fits here.

FWIW, probably promoting the forthcoming release of his book, Holczer says:

Q: What do expect from the investigations against Lance Arnstrong?

A: I had insight into a lot of things and thought: now there´s going to be a big bang an the people in account will be prosecuted. But too often i learned everything was beeing diluted.
[...]
I am conservatively optimistic something will be coming forth. After all it´s people like Jeff Novitzky and they go into that with their gloves off.


Q: Landis mentioned Levi Leipheimer who at that time was under contract whith you.

A: There will be something about that in my book. That´s all I´m going to say.

 

[Cerberus]

Until a case is actually convened, refusing to answer questions is permitted, but it could expose one to obstruction of justice charges.

How does the fifth square with obstruction of justice? Do you have to officially plead the fifth as an excuse to not answer or is it automatic?

Also does the prosecutor have to prove you're innocent of any involvement in the actual crime in order to pursue obstruction charges. I can imagine this rather surreal situation where a defendant in an obstruction charge would pledge involvement in a crime in order to shield himself from obstruction charges, but obviously refuse to say what he'd done specifically to protect himself from charges relating to the primary crime. The prosecutor would then have to argue you were innocent and therefore guilty! Is that scenario actually possible?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"They don't refuse they just say " I don't recall" - none of these guys are under any pressure - they just say they didn't know the bikes were being sold - they didn't know what LA was doing in the room by himself. etc...

You do realise that 2 riders have already spoken?
Anyone going in with a "don't recall" will get short change.

As for the bikes - the onus on Tailwind/CSE is now to show what exactly happened all the bikes that were given by Trek.

I can't wait to hear the prosecutor. "Well boss he's a big fish..this Armstrong guy. People are calling for his head" "I need to take me and my team to France to look around for 10 year old clues...I think I will need about 500000 euros or so""The people that can overturn his TDF results have already said they have no interest but I say we go there anyway""I am pretty sure that nobody has burned or thrown away anything..it's probably in the glove box of the blood bus". Once they start looking up Floyd's but_t with a microscope this thing is going to be a career ruining task for anybody. The public and their checkbook are not too keen on Roman Polanski,Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds 10's of million dollar dead horse beatdowns.

France? Novitzky won't have to leave his office - people will be coming to him.

Much of this case will be worked out on the papertrail and his earlier career as an IRS investiagtor will also be beneficial.

 

[spectacle]

As a Canuck I'm wondering about the whole subpoena process. Are they just confirming they have enough info to press charges? How many people are involved in the process (judges, lawyers, jury???).

So if you get asked to show up and they ask you "did you ever smoke dope with Fred". If you say yes you've admitted that you committed a crime. Can you say I'll take the 5th because I don't want to admit I did something illegal?

What about the question "Did you ever see Fred smoke some dope". I'm guessing Fred's lawyer is not in the room to question your character.

in a grand jury you have <a judge (or sometimes a magistrate),> an impaneled jury, the prosecutor, and the witnesses. the defense is not allowed to participate, nor are defense lawyers or lawyers for the various witnesses allowed to watch or know what is going on during the proceedings. it is a secret, sealed, one-sided affair.

the purpose is to test the evidence to see if the case is strong enough to bring to trial. if the jury indicts the defendant, it will usually go to trial (but not always).

you may always assert your fifth amendment rights, but as someone pointed out, they only extend to not incriminating yourself; and, if there is other evidence to convict you, it won't matter that you did not testify (or vice versa) (often defendants will not testify because, even though truthful in their assertions of innocence, they would hurt themselves on the stand for other reasons, such as coming off "too cold" or "too angry" etc. juries are made up of humans and humans tend to judge books by their covers after all--if you want to be a successful serial killer, it helps to be charming and pretty).

if you admit to a crime under oath, you could be charged for it, but in most cases the witnesses at risk of criminal prosecution will have been granted immunity or plea bargains in exchange for their testimony before they are called to tesitfy.

i'm surprised candandians don't have grand juries, we inherited them from crazy george and our english overloads

EDITED: There are no judges in grand jury proceedings, sorry about that

 

[VeloCity]

It would be really interesting to know the current peloton opinion of armstrong. Are they all whispering behind his back, is it no surprise and they are just getting on with their business.

Well there was that interview with Ivanov who said something to the effect that Armstrong has lost his "reputation" and is now just considered one of the ordinary riders in the peloton because of the Landis allegations.

 

[spectacle]

I see the speed at which this might be happening to mean that they have some clear take-downs. The haste at which it's happening suggest some of the *really* rotten apples will walk. The show will probably go on, Bio Passport as 'the answer', wildly uneven doping penalties, and worst of all, limited damage to the Armstrong myth.

I'd *love* to be wrong.

i don't read it as haste or speed--i read it as this case having been in the works for a lot longer than any of us imagined. that they are already in the grand jury stage tells me this investigation started 2 or 3 years ago and that the feds went to landis, as opposed to landis going to the feds. (i think this is all started as payback for balco--cycling is a fringe , "weird," sport in america (no offense intended), but baseball and our olympic heroes are "apple pie"--seems like maybe someone with influence's feathers got rankled).

though, i also think this may have something to do with lance's foundation not being on the up and up (admittedly this is all just a hunch). and it's possible this case was initiated by OP even. maybe there were a lot of americans on the list of 200?

 

[nebbiolo]

Someone please convince me that our government should waste its time and our money to investigate a bicycle rider that, gasp, may have cheated? I've always thought that we hold our athletes in way too high of a regard, but this really takes it to the next level.

 

[spectacle]

It will be interesting to see what a certain insurance company does. Remember the one that had to pay out the many millions after it couldn't prove the PEDs usage in civil court. If anyone from that year admits to PEDs usage on the team, that will be an interesting day in court!

http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2005_01_0110-003.shtml

IIRC, they can't do anything because they failed to put a clause in the insurance policies voiding them if the wins weren't procured fairly. i believe that's why the case was dismissed originally, because even if everything the insurance company claimed was true--i.e. that lance cheated by doping, and that without doing so he would not have won--it was a moot point because the policies only said he had to win, not how.

 

[Black-Balled]

As a Canuck I'm wondering about the whole subpoena process. Are they just confirming they have enough info to press charges? How many people are involved in the process (judges, lawyers, jury???).

So if you get asked to show up and they ask you "did you ever smoke dope with Fred". If you say yes you've admitted that you committed a crime. Can you say I'll take the 5th because I don't want to admit I did something illegal?

What about the question "Did you ever see Fred smoke some dope". I'm guessing Fred's lawyer is not in the room to question your character.

Dude! You know Fred? No way!

 

[Black-Balled]

Someone please convince me that our government should waste its time and our money to investigate a bicycle rider that, gasp, may have cheated? I've always thought that we hold our athletes in way too high of a regard, but this really takes it to the next level.

Are you serious? What about all the gains begotten under false pretenses?

Do you think cops writing speeding tickets should be out investigating 'real' crimes? Guess what: when they eye-fukc your car and run your papers, they are looking for real criminals.

Think it through, baybeee! Think it through.

 

[spectacle]

Nope, still not right. The team (farmer) would buy all the bikes that they said they bought. Nothing changes there. It's what they did with the bikes (tomatoes) when they got home that is the issue. That has nothing to do with how many tomatoes trek took to the market.

The team, the farmer, will then say they either no longer have records of what happened to all the bikes, or they sold them on. But that doesn't prove what they used the money for. Do you see? And this has nothing to do with federal funds either.

This is a total dead end. Old Columbo is going to be chasing lance around for a long time if this is all he has.

i doubt they are pursuing the bikes-for-doping angle either, but mainly because the bikes presumably became the property of the team the minute they were given to them, and so the team was free to do whatever they wished with them.

i agree that the misuse of federal funds issue is also pretty tenuous, but for a different reason--the united state postal service is not a federal agency, it is a quasi-governmental, private corporation with a federally sanctioned monopoly. funds from the USPS are not governmental funds. also, like the bikes above, the money paid to the team would become the team's property as soon as it was transferred, and they were likewise free to do what they wanted to with it.

regarding culpability for tax payer funds paid from USPS to the team, which was subsequently used in an illegal manner by the team, responsibility would lie, if at all, with USPS itself failing to conduct due diligence and proper audits etc. but even then it is a pretty weak argument: if you work for the government and you use part of your salary to buy drugs and child pornography, and your boss knows you do this, neither you, nor your boss, is guility of misuse of public funds--the funds stopped being public when they were given to you as your salary. classic misuse of public funds is when you have access to a government expense account and are paying for your private expenses directly from the government's account.

trek is probably being subpoenaed because they have a long business history with lance and a long history of colluding with him in inappropriate ways (see the greg lemond case). prosecutors cast as big a net as their funding and staff allows--the bigger the net, the better the chance of finding something that sticks.

it isn't clear to me how money laundering is an issue in this case. money laundering is a way to account for excess cash in one's bank account that can't be explained by one's income. trek presumably gave the bikes, real or other wise, to the team. they didn't sell them to the team. so there is no money laundering there. if the team then sold the bikes and bought PEDs with the proceeds--that's just a straight up transaction: grandma gives you an ugly sweater for christmas, you sell it for whatever you can get for it. no money laundering has occurred, you've just sold something you own.

how to launder money:

The solution--classic money laundering--is to create a business to ostensibly earn that money. Any business that brings in a good deal of cash will do. You run the business as usual during the day. Then, after closing, you feed in your day's illicit receipts, pretending that they'd been received by the business. In due course the business pays its taxes and all the tax man can see is that you're running an unusually profitable business.

Now, the tax man may well take an interest in such a profitable business, so it's best if it'd be hard to prove that you couldn't be doing the business you're paying taxes on. A bar, for example, wouldn't be the best choice, because you wouldn't have ordered enough booze to pour all the drinks your books will say you've sold. Coin operated laundries and car washes are classics, because the only way to prove that you hadn't actually done all that business would be to have an undercover agent surveil your place for weeks, counting every coin inserted by every customer. (Although agents have been known to subpoena the water bill and try to make the case that way.)

 

[Publicus]

So according to this new article in the New York Times, Lance is distancing himself from any ownership or control of USPS. He basically claims that he was just a rider (i.e., not a team leader) and had nothing to do with management or how they used funds, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/sports/cycling/15armstrong.html?_r=2

Oh and he thinks it is a waste of tax payer dollars if they are going after him. He's done too many good things for other people. Or something.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Someone please convince me that our government should waste its time and our money to investigate a bicycle rider that, gasp, may have cheated? I've always thought that we hold our athletes in way too high of a regard, but this really takes it to the next level.

There's limited benefit from convincing someone of the obvious.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So according to this new article in the New York Times, Lance is distancing himself from any ownership or control of USPS. He basically claims that he was just a rider (i.e., not a team leader) and had nothing to do with management or how they used funds, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/sports/cycling/15armstrong.html?_r=2

Oh and he thinks it is a waste of tax payer dollars if they are going after him. He's done too many good things for other people. Or something.

From todays article:

“It wasn’t my company,” he said. “I can’t make it clear enough to you. I don’t know. I didn’t know the company. I didn’t have a position. I didn’t have an equity stake. I didn’t have a profit stake. I didn’t have a seat on the board. I was a rider on the team. I can’t be any clearer than that.”

Lance must have forgot his own testimony (under oath) at the SCA case:

Q. Can you tell us what your relationship, first, your business relationship with Tailwind Sports, is?

A. I'm an athlete on the team.

Q. Do you have any ownership interest in
Tailwind Sports?

A. A small one.

Q. When you say a small one, can you give me an approximate percentage as to what that would be, if you know?

A. Perhaps ten percent.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

LOL. Lance caught in a lie again. Just like the TUE exemption for corticosteroids.

What a turd.

 

[spectacle]

Testimonies can be clear cut evidence. it's actually very hard to probberly coordinate false testimonies, so if a number of people get up and describe the same thing it's fairly clear cut.

It's also a matter of making statements against interest. You can sell the notion that Landis is lying because he's a bitter man, it could be true and he loses little by making up stories about Armstrong. Zabriskie, Hincapie or Vaughter among many others have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting involvement. If any one of them do admit something it's IMO going to be very hard to cast doubt on their credibility. If all of them do LA's lawyers would have to sell the a jury the notion that 3 or more professionals decided to carefully conspire to endanger their own careers and legacies for no discernible reason except to get Armstrong. I think that's going to be more than a tough sell.

I realize of cause that you said that enough testimonies would be hard to dismiss, but I think you overestimate how many are needed. Just one credible testimony can carry a lot of weight and 2-3 is more or less iron clad unless the witnesses have a clear incentive to make up their testimonies, something that might be said about Landis, but not about most other potential witnesses.

witness testimony is the gold standard. in-court witness testimony counts as direct evidence (and there are very few sources of direct evidence that are not testimonial in fact). one witness on the stand testifying that he saw OJ stab his wife to death is worth all the DNA evidence in the world (unless the DNA evidence says there is no way it could have been OJ).

corroborating testimony + corroborating circumstantial evidence = prosecutor's wet dream

an admission again self interest is one that incriminates the witness and places him a jeopardy for prosecution as well--landis has met that threshold, and it gives credibility to what he says in the eyes of the law.

 

[spectacle]

Now feltet.dk reports:

"... Alle indkaldte vidner vil kunne aflægge deres vidnesbyrd i fuld anonymitet ..."

which translates into

"... all subpoened witnesses will be able to give their testimony in full anonymity ..."

http://feltet.dk/index.php?id_parent=1&id=28&id_nyhed=26994

Did anybody hear about this? Maybe they misunderstood?

grand juries are secret affairs, and the transcripts are usually sealed

 

[Publicus]

From todays article:


Lance must have forgot his own testimony (under oath) at the SCA case:

Yeah but he refuses to nail down when he took that ownership stake. The relevant period is 2002-2004 I believe. Does anyone know if he had an ownership stake in Capital Sports and Entertainment? I always assumed he did.

 

[buckwheat]

Yeah but he refuses to nail down when he took that ownership stake. The relevant period is 2002-2004 I believe. Does anyone know if he had an ownership stake in Capital Sports and Entertainment? I always assumed he did.

No, Bart Knaggs and Stapleton owned the team. Where the hell did they get the money.

 

[Publicus]

No, Bart Knaggs and Stapleton owned the team. Where the hell did they get the money.

I don't know if thinks trying to disassociate himself from the ownership is going to matter. Who was the team manager of USPS/Discovery Channel? Someone handled the day-to-day management of the team (i.e., distribution of materials, etc.).

Wasn't that Bruyneel?

 

[spectacle]

didn't one of the links about the subpoenas mentioned the grand jury wont be public ? if so i guess that's why a reference to anonymity.

but i have a general question, can someone explain the us law on grand jury ?

does it mean a subpoenaed witness wont be interviewed by the prosecutors/investigators prior to the commencement of a grand jury hearing ?

does the fact that a witness (like hamilton) agreeing to cooperate only if subpoenaed trying to limit the number of questions he/she will be asked and thus to a degree try to limit/impede the full investigation ?

cooperating witnesses will have already been interviewed and will not need to be subpoenaed. they are participating voluntarily--however, they have the right to stop participating at anytime, at which point a subpoena can be issued to compel their participation.

subpoena's are issued for people who are refusing to help voluntarily. it doesn't limit the amount of questions they are exposed to. i would assume that hamilton wants the cover of being able to say he only participated under duress in order to try to be able to remain in cycling in some respect. but refusing to participate does hamper investigations for sure.

protip: if you are ever arrested in the US, always refuse to participate. state unequivocally that you will not answer any questions, that you are exercising your fifth amendment right, and that you want a lawyer; and keep repeating that until your lawyer is present. also be sure to ask if you are in custody, if they say no, you can get up an walk out at anytime. do not say anything else. period. ever.

 

[HL2037]

grand juries are secret affairs, and the transcripts are usually sealed

Ok, I know nothing of US legal system.

But why then would for example Tyler Hamilton or George Hincapie not tell everything right away - if nobody is going to know what they said anyway, how could it hurt business?

 

[Cobblestones]

So according to this new article in the New York Times, Lance is distancing himself from any ownership or control of USPS. He basically claims that he was just a rider (i.e., not a team leader) and had nothing to do with management or how they used funds, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/sports/cycling/15armstrong.html?_r=2

Oh and he thinks it is a waste of tax payer dollars if they are going after him. He's done too many good things for other people. Or something.

Oboy, the investigation is making people nervous. Imagine being the guy who actually sold the TREKs, put the cash into a (most likely undeclared) slushfund for Bruyneel (or whoever) to buy their dope with. Obviously that guy didn't do that on his own incentive, he was told to do it. Imagine now this guy reading Armstrong's interview while staring at a federal subpoena to testify. What would you do? Yeah, I though so.

 

[Publicus]

Ok, I know nothing of US legal system.

But why then would for example Tyler Hamilton or George Hincapie not tell everything right away - if nobody is going to know what they said anyway, how could it hurt business?

Because eventually they would have to testify in open court (Sixth Amendment right to confront your accuser).

EDIT: Assuming that Lance, Stapleton, Wiesel and others would fight this tooth and nail. If they settled/plea bargained, then you might never know who said what.

 

[Cobblestones]

Ok, I know nothing of US legal system.

But why then would for example Tyler Hamilton or George Hincapie not tell everything right away - if nobody is going to know what they said anyway, how could it hurt business?

The actual trial will be public. They'll have to repeat their testimony there most likely to fulfill their plea bargain.

ETA: or what Publicus said.