Subpoenas issued -- Armstrong's goose is cooked

[spectacle]

I'm afraid this is how this is going to play out. They'll need a lot more than "credible" testimony from known liars like Landis and Hamilton. I'm still waiting for the beef. I dislike Armstrong, but I'm not in favor of our government spending $50 million (rumored cost of BALCO) of taxpayer money on a witch hunt.

really? how many 16 year old boys in high school football programs committed suicide last year as a side effect of their steroid abuse in order to "be the best"?

how many in all the other youth sports programs?

this is why i left this sport--this attitude that its not really a big deal with real world repercussions. it matters to each and every parent who has found their son's bodies dangling in their bedrooms.

and what about the effect it has on society that comes to think that nothing can be believed in, everything is a lie--cynicism is the worst form of cancer in a democracy. democracy requires our ability to trust our fellow citizens. all forms of cheating erodes that ability. being able to show that cheaters get caught and are held responsible in the end, restores that trust. a little at least. as does showing that no matter how rich, famous, or powerful you are, you are not above the law.

 

[BikeCentric]

really? how many 16 year old boys in high school football programs committed suicide last year as a side effect of their steroid abuse in order to "be the best"?

how many in all the other youth sports programs?

this is why i left this sport--this attitude that its not really a big deal with real world repercussions. it matters to each and every parent who has found their son's bodies dangling in their bedrooms.

and what about the effect it has on society that comes to think that nothing can be believed in, everything is a lie--cynicism is the worst form of cancer in a democracy. democracy requires our ability to trust our fellow citizens. all forms of cheating erodes that ability. being able to show that cheaters get caught and are held responsible in the end, restores that trust. a little at least. as does showing that no matter how rich, famous, or powerful you are, you are not above the law.

This is amazing, you sound like you are a lawyer, and yet somehow I find myself liking you!

Kidding of course, but I wanted to say in all seriousness don't give up on the sport just because there are a lot of corrupt a-holes involved in it. Remember there are corrupt a-holes that you'll have to deal with wherever you go and cycling is a wonderfull sport despite the fact that it currently has a disgusting side to it.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

and what about the effect it has on society that comes to think that nothing can be believed in, everything is a lie--cynicism is the worst form of cancer in a democracy. democracy requires our ability to trust our fellow citizens. all forms of cheating erodes that ability. being able to show that cheaters get caught and are held responsible in the end, restores that trust. a little at least. as does showing that no matter how rich, famous, or powerful you are, you are not above the law.

hear hear!

That's the big picture exactly.

 

[BroDeal]

Armstrong denying ownership in Tailwind is interesting. He insists that the contracts will bear this out, but there are numerous other pieces of evidence indicating that he did have part ownership, including his own deposition. It looks like there was an off the books agreement. Since Tailwind was a for profit company, it is not unlikely that the agreement resulted in profits being paid to Armstrong surreptitiously..

 

[Publicus]

Armstrong denying ownership in Tailwind is interesting. He insists that the contracts will bear this out, but there are numerous other pieces of evidence indicating that he did have part ownership, including his own deposition. It looks like there was an off the books agreement. Since Tailwind was a for profit company, it is not unlikely that the agreement resulted in profits being paid to Armstrong surreptitiously..

He's inviting an audit of biblical proportions. Especially if he's been hiding money in offshore bank accounts.

 

[spectacle]

This is amazing, you sound like you are a lawyer, and yet somehow I find myself liking you!

awww shucks

lawyers are like everyone else: some of us went to law school because we believed in atticus finch. but most of us went to law school because we believed in 6 figure pay checks

 

[La Vie Claire]

Quote from NYTimes article:

"Armstrong, a cancer survivor who founded a foundation that advocates for cancer research and support, said it would be “a shame” if the case affected his foundation or his efforts in the fight against cancer."

This guy is just despicable.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Quote from NYTimes article:

"Armstrong, a cancer survivor who founded a foundation that advocates for cancer research and support, said it would be “a shame” if the case affected his foundation or his efforts in the fight against cancer."

This guy is just despicable.

Riding the back of the Cancer gambit. What a bad thing to say.

This is the quote I really appreciated: “As long as I live, I will deny that,” he said before the start of stage 10. “There is absolutely no way I forced people, encouraged people, told people, helped people, facilitated… Absolutely not. One hundred percent.”

To the death, he will take this, apparently.

Also, this one from Daniel C. Richman, a professor at Columbia University and former federal prosecutor: “If he is holding himself out as someone that was clean and he was profiting from it, it wouldn’t have any impact on his exposure to fraud charges,” Richman said. “It doesn’t matter what official position he had or did not have with the company.”

This one was also a stunner: “Do the American people feel like this is a good use of their tax dollars?” he said. “That’s for them to decide. Like I said, as long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation, we’d be happy to cooperate. But I’m not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt. I’ve done too many good things for too many people.”

Uh, Mr. Lance, I don't think it is up to you whether you "participate" or not...

This was interesting as well: But Armstrong said he was sure that none of his former teammates, other than Landis, would implicate him in any doping scheme.

How i$ he $o $ure of that?

As well, what you've done (these "good" things) are wholly immaterial and separate...

Here's a tip: Raise that issue at sentencing!

Oh, the folly of it all.

 

[spectacle]

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?

you do have to affirmatively assert your fifth amendment rights (FYI according to a recent supreme court ruling you also have to now affirmatively assert your miranda rights as well).

the prosecutor just has to prove you obstructed justice, not that you were innocent. anyone can obstruct justice, not just participants: if you were walking down the street and took a picture of a guy raping a girl with your cell phone and refused to give the picture to the police, even though you were just a bystander, you could be charged with obstruction.

but most obstruction cases are retaliatory (you said you would help, you provided evidence, but then you recanted on the witness stand), or last ditch attempts to get some charge to stick (think bill clinton's impeachment). it is used as the cattle prod more often than as guillotine: "you help us or else." obstruction usually results in the person going to jail for contempt of court until they are willing to be helpful. does anyone love lance enough to do that for him?

i'm not sure i follow your hypothetical. do you mean witnesses giving false confessions to protect themselves from charges of obstruction? that seems kind of unlikely TBH. people do give false confessions to protect others, but that happens more on law and order than in real life, and it would still set them up for obstruction charges regardless. they also give false confessions to the police out of desperation to make the questioning stop (this happens a lot unfortunately). maybe i don't understand what you mean?

 

[BroDeal]

This is the quote I really appreciated: “As long as I live, I will deny that,” he said before the start of stage 10. “There is absolutely no way I forced people, encouraged people, told people, helped people, facilitated… Absolutely not. One hundred percent.”

I wonder what Bruyneel is thinking about now. If Armstrong denies having anything to do with managing the doping program then who has responsibility? Armstrong is attempting to man the life boats while leaving Bruyneel to go down with the ship.

 

[avanti]

One problem with the USA system of justice is that a prosecutor gets brownie (and political) points for getting a grand jury indictment with often no rebuttal. Then a different prosecutor has the difficult job of presenting the case during a trial.

 

[Cerberus]

you do have to affirmatively assert your fifth amendment rights (FYI according to a recent supreme court ruling you also have to now affirmatively assert your miranda rights as well).

Ok, I was curious hwo it was in the US, thanks.

the prosecutor just has to prove you obstructed justice, not that you were innocent. anyone can obstruct justice, not just participants: if you were walking down the street and took a picture of a guy raping a girl with your cell phone and refused to give the picture to the police, even though you were just a bystander, you could be charged with obstruction.

Yes, I understand that, but if I was complicit in the rape, refusing to hand it over would be part of my fifth amendment rights.

i'm not sure i follow your hypothetical. do you mean witnesses giving false confessions to protect themselves from charges of obstruction? that seems kind of unlikely TBH. people do give false confessions to protect others, but it happens more on law and order than in real life, and it would still set them up for obstruction charges regardless. maybe i don't understand what you mean?

OK imagine this situation. I'm a friend of Armstrong and Landis tells truthfully that I was there to see Armstrong using doping. Being a friend of Armstrong I don't want to roll over on him, so I say I pledge the Fifth, The prosecutor points out that Landis has only said I was present not involved to which I reply "well that's what Landis knows of".

Clearly if I was involved is for example acquiring the drugs then I could pledge the fifth, but if I'm not involved I'm guilty of obstruction. thus creating a rather odd catch 22-like situation where in order to be innocent I have to be guilty.

I realize the hypothetical is sort of bizarre, but it's possible and I'm curious how it would work. I understand I could be given immunity from charges thus forcing me to testify, but in certain cases the prosecutor might not want to give me immunity if the crime I might have been involved in was very serious.

 

[avanti]

......................

Uh, Mr. Lance, I don't think it is up to you whether you "participate" or not...

.................

Actually he does have the right to not particpate (checkout Amendment V of the Consitution of the USA).

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I wonder what Bruyneel is thinking about now. If Armstrong denies having anything to do with managing the doping program then who has responsibility? Armstrong is attempting to man the life boats while leaving Bruyneel to go down with the ship.

It is interesting, for sure.

He is denying things (ownership) which the good people on the forum impeached him on in about 20 minutes (SCA transcript). Trained legal folks will skewer him on that for sure.

He is getting separation on the issue of facilitating doping, which if you are the middle mgmt on the team (doctors, directors, etc) you could be getting set-up.

Pleading ignorance of riders doping on the team also comes off badly, and using the NFL as your analogy points to it as if it is assumed they were all doping but you should not be held for your teams actions.... Very weak.

This is the unglueing of Armstrong before our eyes. Yelling at the reporter, snapping at the heckler, crashing on his face in California, crashing all over France.... it is the end in slow motion.

 

[131313]

This is the quote I really appreciated: “As long as I live, I will deny that,” he said before the start of stage 10. “There is absolutely no way I forced people, encouraged people, told people, helped people, facilitated… Absolutely not. One hundred percent.”

Is it just me, or is there something conspicuously absent in the list of things which he'll deny to his grave?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Is it just me, or is there something conspicuously absent in the list of things which he'll deny to his grave?

Other than he himself doped?

 

[Cerberus]

Is it just me, or is there something conspicuously absent in the list of things which he'll deny to his grave?

Nah, you're seeing thing, no doubt you love of cancer is causing you to hallucinate.

 

[BikeCentric]

Actually he does have the right to not particpate (checkout Amendment V of the Consitution of the USA).

Only in the case of self incrimination if I'm not mistaken, which of course would be taken as an admission of guilt by the general public if he refuses to participate while claiming he's innocent. So he's pretty much screwed either way. Sucks to be fanboy these days.

 

[Cobblestones]

OK imagine this situation. I'm a friend of Armstrong and Landis tells truthfully that I was there to see Armstrong using doping. Being a friend of Armstrong I don't want to roll over on him, so I say I pledge the Fifth, The prosecutor points out that Landis has only said I was present not involved to which I reply "well that's what Landis knows of".

I thing it depends a bit on how the precise question is formulated. I would say in this case, you cannot take the fifth (disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer). As a prosecutor, I would formulate the question something like this:

Were you in the room together with ...

Did you see that Lance ...

See, answering these questions wouldn't imply self-incrimination, so no taking the fifth.

You cannot say, 'well I'm taking the fifth because I also doped, right then and there', since that's not part of the question, and how stupid would you sound anyway?

 

[kokohead]

and using the NFL as your analogy points to it as if it is assumed they were all doping but you should not be held for your teams actions.... Very weak.

Yes, and I'm sure Peyton Manning really appreciated the friendly shout-out there in the context of PEDs on offense. Lance is the gift that keeps on giving...

 

[Cerberus]

I thing it depends a bit on how the precise question is formulated. I would say in this case, you cannot take the fifth (disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer). As a prosecutor, I would formulate the question something like this:

Were you in the room together with ...

Did you see that Lance ...

See, answering these questions wouldn't imply self-incrimination, so no taking the fifth.

You cannot say, 'well I'm taking the fifth because I also doped, right then and there', since that's not part of the question, and how stupid would you sound anyway?

Am also not a lawyer nor even American, but I don't think the Fifth is that narrow. If that was the case a group of criminals could be compelled to testify against each other simply by asking what the other people did. I know that's not possible in Denmark, and while I'm not 100% certain I don't think it is in the US either.

 

[Cobblestones]

Am also not a lawyer nor even American, but I don't think the Fifth is that narrow. If that was the case a group of criminals could be compelled to testify against each other simply by asking what the other people did. I know that's not possible in Denmark, and while I'm not 100% certain I don't think it is in the US either.

Compelled and compelled. It just says you have no legal right to refuse to answer. In practice you can still lie or say 'I don't recall' or not say anything at all, in which case the whole 'obstruction of justice' thing rears its head. I actually don't think this is so different in Denmark when called in to witness.

 

[Mainerider]

really? how many 16 year old boys in high school football programs committed suicide last year as a side effect of their steroid abuse in order to "be the best"?

how many in all the other youth sports programs?

this is why i left this sport--this attitude that its not really a big deal with real world repercussions. it matters to each and every parent who has found their son's bodies dangling in their bedrooms.

and what about the effect it has on society that comes to think that nothing can be believed in, everything is a lie--cynicism is the worst form of cancer in a democracy. democracy requires our ability to trust our fellow citizens. all forms of cheating erodes that ability. being able to show that cheaters get caught and are held responsible in the end, restores that trust. a little at least. as does showing that no matter how rich, famous, or powerful you are, you are not above the law.

You raise some good points that frankly, I didn't think about when I was posting. I would like to see those stats on the high school football players when you get a chance. Thanks.

In your opinion, is there a dollar amount that would be too much to spend on this or is it infinite ?

 

[Publicus]

Ok, I was curious hwo it was in the US, thanks.


Yes, I understand that, but if I was complicit in the rape, refusing to hand it over would be part of my fifth amendment rights.


OK imagine this situation. I'm a friend of Armstrong and Landis tells truthfully that I was there to see Armstrong using doping. Being a friend of Armstrong I don't want to roll over on him, so I say I pledge the Fifth, The prosecutor points out that Landis has only said I was present not involved to which I reply "well that's what Landis knows of".

Clearly if I was involved is for example acquiring the drugs then I could pledge the fifth, but if I'm not involved I'm guilty of obstruction. thus creating a rather odd catch 22-like situation where in order to be innocent I have to be guilty.

I realize the hypothetical is sort of bizarre, but it's possible and I'm curious how it would work. I understand I could be given immunity from charges thus forcing me to testify, but in certain cases the prosecutor might not want to give me immunity if the crime I might have been involved in was very serious.

Your hypothetical would not be a basis upon which you could assert your 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. My guess is the prosecutor would treat you as a hostile witness and go to town on you. Under the facts you've laid out.

 

[Cerberus]

Compelled and compelled. It just says you have no legal right to refuse to answer. In practice you can still lie or say 'I don't recall' or not say anything at all, in which case the whole 'obstruction of justice' thing rears its head. I actually don't think this is so different in Denmark when called in to witness.

I know there are some differences, the most important being that in Denmark you cannot be charged with perjury in you own defence. you can lie through your teeth as long as you're a suspect.