Urine Trouble

[Dr. Maserati]

The statutes of limitation will protect Lance from being charged with any criminal act that occurred more than 5 years ago. The only apparent exception to this is conspiracy--but for that exception to work, the conspiracy must be ongoing within the limitation period.

Any conspiracy to defraud the federal government would have ended in 2004, or shortly afterward, when the USPS sponsorship ended. I doubt that the feds are expending their resources to investigate alleged fraud in the Astana or Discovery sponsorships.

Lance's lawyers say they haven't received a GJ target letter from the feds. This supports the inference that Lance is not a target.

Barry Bonds was not a target until he made himself one by lying to the GJ. BALCO was the target. Something similar is happening here.

Proving a dope deal is pretty much impossible without dope. Dope in urine furnishes the necessary dope. It is ridiculous to think that the feds are considering charging Lance for doping over 10 years ago in Europe. The feds don't care about USING. They care about DISTRIBUTION. Unless Lance was part of a drug dealing conspiracy within the last five years, he's off the criminal hook.

Unless Lance lies to the GJ. . . .

Again you are mixing up the different invetigations:

To the blue - the FDA are not involved with the defrauding of USPS, thats a civil case.

The FDA are interested in the drugs (trafficking, pecuremnent etc) ... also for there to be a Statute of Limitations then you are assuming they stopped their doping?!
All the FDA need is one person to show that doping was/is ongoing .... which is why they picked up Popovych.

 

[BotanyBay]

All the FDA need is one person to show that doping was/is ongoing .... which is why they picked up Popovych.

And he works for Lance.

 

[MarkvW]

Criminals are Dumb

And over the course of human history, the risk of subsequent exposure has precluded how many people from lying?

This wouldn't just be lying. It would be a calculated lie framed and presented by Lance's lawyers. It is more probable that the lawyers were telling the truth. A lie is, of course, possible but the no target statement is just one more fact suggesting that Lance isn't a target. Taking everything all together, it is the most logical conclusion.

Believe it or not, the best lawyers do care about their reputation for trustworthiness-- and Lance has the money to hire the best.

 

[D-Queued]

Please DON'T give legal strategy lessons!! RICO has a 5 year statute of limitations and you must present evidence of a "predicate act" occurring within the five year period.

Hi Mark,

Please don't offer legal advice of any kind.

First, we have no idea if RICO will be invoked. Second, your over-simplification strongly departs from both the original statute and its application.

the United States Supreme Court has remedied that oversight and imposed a four-year statute of limitations on all civil RICO claims. Civil Rico's statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury.

If RICO is pursued, and if this narrow definition applies (that is two assumptions already), then the test may well be based on when Floyd came forward - as this was when the 'victim' discovered or reasonably should have discovered its injury.

In that case, the four year clock started last May.

But, I am not a lawyer and I am not providing legal advice.

Dave.

 

[BotanyBay]

A lie is, of course, possible but the no target statement is just one more fact suggesting that Lance isn't a target.

Objection. The defense keeps presenting conjecture as fact. It has not been established that there is no target letter.

 

[Granville57]

Civil Rico's statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury. Once a victim is aware or should be aware of its injury, the victim has four years to discover the remaining elements of its claim and bring suit....however, there are several equitable doctrines that may toll or suspend the running of the statute of limitations. If a defendant fraudulently conceals facts that are essential to the victim's ability to purse its rights, the running of the statute of limitations may be tolled. Also, if a defendant engages in a new pattern of racketeering, that causes new and independent injuries, a new limitations period may apply to those new and independent injuries.

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/index.asp

 

[red_flanders]

This wouldn't just be lying. It would be a calculated lie framed and presented by Lance's lawyers. It is more probable that the lawyers were telling the truth. A lie is, of course, possible but the no target statement is just one more fact suggesting that Lance isn't a target. Taking everything all together, it is the most logical conclusion.

Believe it or not, the best lawyers do care about their reputation for trustworthiness-- and Lance has the money to hire the best.

How many press conferences has Lance had over the years where he said something that later turned out not to have ever happened, or to be patently false? That's a rhetorical question.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This wouldn't just be lying. It would be a calculated lie framed and presented by Lance's lawyers. It is more probable that the lawyers were telling the truth. A lie is, of course, possible but the no target statement is just one more fact suggesting that Lance isn't a target. Taking everything all together, it is the most logical conclusion.

Believe it or not, the best lawyers do care about their reputation for trustworthiness-- and Lance has the money to hire the best.

Why are you suggesting its LA lawyers who lied?

You said this earlier:

Google "lance armstrong" and "target letter". Lance's lawyers denied getting a target letter in December.

.... I took up your offer - the only reference I have is from the October edition of OutsideOnline:

Whatever happens next, this process is likely to take a long time. BALCO was first searched by Novitzky in 2003. After seven years of legal maneuvers, Barry Bonds's trial date for perjury and obstruction has finally been set, for March 2011. Armstrong's lawyers have yet to receive any kind of target letter, a formal notice that their client is the subject of a criminal investigation. In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office has not communicated with them at all, so any possible charges are still speculation probably based on strategic leaks.

.....

Where is the December piece you suggest?

 

[MarkvW]

ad hominem

MarkvW:

You sound like my 4-year-old who suddenly throws tantrums for unknown reasons.

ahem:

"What the hell do you want from us?" What can we do for you? What is your goal here and what exactly are you asking and what do you need?

If you're trying to educate, then grab-on to a specific area and educate. The man hasn't been charged yet. Word on the street is that indictments exist and are being held under seal.

If you think we're standing around gawking at a train wreck that will never happen, then just go watch our folly from a tall tree and just laugh. But I don't know why you're down here with us trying so hard to convince.

I've educated (schooled) you! You now know about the 'not a target' statement and you know that RICO has a five year statute of limitations.

And . . . The word on the street is that 'the word on the street' isn't that reliable.

 

[Benotti69]

8) he admits to something...but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

for me he admitted to it when he said "i've done too much good for too many people".

 

[Benotti69]

Right now, Lance is a cash machine. The moment news of this gets out, the cash flow will slow significantly. So if he did get a letter, I seriously would not expect Lance or his team to volunteer such a fact (at this point). Would you?

He's paying more money for his defense of "nothing" today than 99.9% of people who've actually been indicted. The busiest non-target I've ever seen.

the actions of a guilty man

 

[MarkvW]

civil vs criminal

Hi Mark,

Please don't offer legal advice of any kind.

First, we have no idea if RICO will be invoked. Second, your over-simplification strongly departs from both the original statute and its application.



If RICO is pursued, and if this narrow definition applies (that is two assumptions already), then the test may well be based on when Floyd came forward - as this was when the 'victim' discovered or reasonably should have discovered its injury.

In that case, the four year clock started last May.

But, I am not a lawyer and I am not providing legal advice.

Dave.

My posts concerned CRIMINAL RICO. That's the only kind of RICO that you can get indicted and go to prison for. That is what grand juries are used for!

 

[BroDeal]

You still have the problem of coming up with a predicate RICO. Act that occurred within the five year period. There don't seem to be any apparent candidates.

His team broke the doping rules in 2009 by use of illegal infusion equipment, which is now in possession of the French police and has the DNA of seven team members on it. The team conspired to defraud Radio Shack and the team's other sponsors, which was the latest act in a long running scheme that defrauded dozens of other companies.

 

[foolgrownman]

Forgive me if this has been addressed, but wouldn't the FDA ultimately be investigating 'how' and pursuing 'who', regarding the PED's finding their way to the end user, especially products that are legitimate pharmaceuticals?

 

[MarkvW]

citation

Why are you suggesting its LA lawyers who lied?

You said this earlier:

.... I took up your offer - the only reference I have is from the October edition of OutsideOnline:
.....

Where is the December piece you suggest?

NY Daily News reported quote of Bryan Daly. Referenced by the Hog on December 19 in the Whispers thread on this forum. Found it at http://www.veloptimum.net/velonouvelles/10/art/12dec/afp19.htm

 

[D-Queued]

My posts concerned CRIMINAL RICO. That's the only kind of RICO that you can get indicted and go to prison for. That is what grand juries are used for!

In which case, your posts are still misleading.

With regard to criminal prosecutions, it is generally held that a prosecution is timely so long as the defendant has committed one predicate act (that forms part of the pattern for which he is being prosecuted) within five years or less of the indictment. See United States v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507 (8th Cir. 1995).

As noted above, the Gendarmes have transfusion equipment in their possession from 2009.

We also have the early-warning Chaperone system, etc. Heck, even the isolation and intimidation of teammate Contador looked a bit like extortion. Same with claiming he was riding for free (extorting the Charity), when in fact he was receiving a salary.

And, to suggest that there was no pattern in Lance's behavior is just plain silly.

Lance mounted the 'hope rides again' campaign. This has buoyed the hopes for at least one finding against him. I am hopeful, are you?

Thus, whether it is Floyd's testimony and wire-tapping evidence, or whether it is events in and around the 2009 Tour, we have lots of time left on the RICO clock.

Now, we can continue to argue - non-lawyer to non-lawyer. And, you are not doing very well I am afraid.

Or, you can accept that whoever is paying Novitzky's salary has already asked all of the stupid questions like whether or not they are pursuing RICO, and whether or not they can readily satisfy the tests associated with it.

But, stupid is as stupid does. If you want to further a stupid assertion that the Feds are too stupid to think about such things, go right ahead.

Dave.

 

[BotanyBay]

I've educated (schooled) you! You now know about the 'not a target' statement and you know that RICO has a five year statute of limitations.

And . . . The word on the street is that 'the word on the street' isn't that reliable.

I like our word on the street. It usually ends up being true.

 

[Race Radio]

I've educated (schooled) you! You now know about the 'not a target' statement and you know that RICO has a five year statute of limitations.

And . . . The word on the street is that 'the word on the street' isn't that reliable.

UGh, not this again.

SOL is easy to overcome if the targets maintained a conspiracy to cover up the crime. Armstrong and Brunyeel did this.

Also, Armstrong, and others, have received a target letters for the Qui Tam case.

 

[BotanyBay]

His team broke the doping rules in 2009 by use of illegal infusion equipment, which is now in possession of the French police and has the DNA of seven team members on it. The team conspired to defraud Radio Shack and the team's other sponsors, which was the latest act in a long running scheme that defrauded dozens of other companies.

+1

It doesn't need to be the USPS sponsors to be a criminal fraud case. One possible theory had been that they were going to go after him for defrauding the federal government. But Radio Shack is a US based business, and Lance is a honcho in regards to this team. If doping is going-on and he is central to it, that can certainly be RICO.

This Mark guy, he's just trying to derail discussion by wrapping his chord around single misperceptions about purely theoretical discussions. He's twisting the fact that there has been no "letter" revealed to the media as fact that no letter has ever been generated. Whatever. Go ahead and be that naive, Mark. A grand jury or prosecutor has taken extensive notice of almost everyone BUT Lance?

I suppose that federal prosecutors just sit around calling people to sit in front of grand juries because they want to see how The Clinic will react.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I like our word on the street. It usually ends up being true.

Streets are a tough place but I tend to agree,,,,,word on the street usually ends up being true.

In my opinion using RICO would not be the best way to go after LA.

 

[D-Queued]

+1

...

I suppose that federal prosecutors just sit around calling people to sit in front of grand juries because they want to see how The Clinic will react.

That seems to be the best that PS can come up with right now.

Lance better hope that Fabiani et al have something else to offer.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

NY Daily News reported quote of Bryan Daly. Referenced by the Hog on December 19 in the Whispers thread on this forum. Found it at http://www.veloptimum.net/velonouvelles/10/art/12dec/afp19.htm

Your link doesn't work - however I found this quote from LA's lawyer Daly:

Daly said that if the grand jury decides not to bring any charges against Armstrong, he would seek a "declination letter" from the U.S. Attorney's office to formally signal that Armstrong is not in the government's cross hairs. "We certainly hope that we could convince the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles to provide us with a declination of any possible criminal charges so that Lance Armstrong can close the book on the criminal rumors and allegations that have been swirling for about six months now," Daly said.

If Armstrong is not part of an FDA investigation then why have his lawyers not released these 'declination letters'?

 

[BotanyBay]

Sometimes when prosecutors investigate, they find overt evidence of crimes that they weren't even expecting to find. Did you ever consider this, MarkvW?

 

[BotanyBay]

Your link doesn't work - however I found this quote from LA's lawyer Daly:


If Armstrong is not part of an FDA investigation then why have his lawyers not released these 'declination letters'?

Had I not been arguing with MarkvW, I'm willing to bet that his response would be something like "Just because you've not heard of such a letter doesn't mean it wasn't delivered"

 

[BroDeal]

It seems to me that if the prosecutors are inventive then there are a lot of options. For example, when the conspiracy set its sites on Radio Shack Inc., it engaged in an elaborate ruse to hide the fraud. This ruse involved transmission of blood values purportedly showing that Lance Armstrong was not breaking the doping rules of the sport. Those values were transmitted via interstate wires. Along with blood values, Lance Armstrong, by use of services such as Twitter, frequently used the internet to deflect allegations of doping. In fact, Armstrong and his team pre-planned and carried out a violation of the doping rules during the 2009 Tour de France using infusion equipment. The ruse to trick the scheme's victims into thinking that Amrstrong and his team were racing within the rules was an act of wire fraud.