Urine Trouble

[BotanyBay]

agreed, but don't LA's lawyers have the highest acquittal rate in the country?

If Lance Armstrong walks free but:

1) is bankrupted acquitting himself

2) everyone learns what a schmuck he really is

3) is no longer the "hero" people once thought he was

4) people stop throwing money into his do-nothing charity

I'll still be able to sleep at night.

 

[Race Radio]

agreed, but don't LA's lawyers have the highest acquittal rate in the country?

p.s. not that I think LA will walk, but hey, just trying to make a point.

good one

No, they do not, but Daly is in the top 10. He is a great lawyer who specializes in Qui Tam cases....guess that is where Armstrong's chief concern lies.

I would be very surprised if this case went to a final jury decision. Expect a negotiated plea....after a long delay and lots of smoke a mirrors.

 

[Benotti69]

If Lance Armstrong walks free but:

1) is bankrupted acquitting himself

2) everyone learns what a schmuck he really is

3) is no longer the "hero" people once thought he was

4) people stop throwing money into his do-nothing charity

I'll still be able to sleep at night.

5) was proven a doper

6) was proven to have lied

7) Andreu's vindicated

 

[Benotti69]

good one

<snip>

I would be very surprised if this case went to a final jury decision. Expect a negotiated plea....after a long delay and lots of smoke a mirrors.

you know for LA that would be admitting he lost and he doesn't like losing.

If it was a negotiated plea, would the feds release all the info they have?

 

[sniper]

If Lance Armstrong walks free but:

1) is bankrupted acquitting himself

2) everyone learns what a schmuck he really is

3) is no longer the "hero" people once thought he was

4) people stop throwing money into his do-nothing charity

I'll still be able to sleep at night.

But what if Verdruggen is then still sailing around on his yacht?

I'll be able to sleep only if Hein gets it up his, behind bars.

 

[Benotti69]

But what if Verdruggen is then still sailing around on his yacht?

I'll be able to sleep only if Hein gets it up his, behind bars.

i have to say i would like to see the 'UCI twins' get smeared by this case so badly that they have to disappear into oblivion.

 

[sniper]

If Lance Armstrong walks free but:

1) is bankrupted acquitting himself

2) everyone learns what a schmuck he really is

3) is no longer the "hero" people once thought he was

4) people stop throwing money into his do-nothing charity

I'll still be able to sleep at night.

5) was proven a doper

6) was proven to have lied

7) Andreu's vindicated

8) Hein gets it up his *** behind American bars.

 

[BotanyBay]

Hein & Pat will come out in the wash. Don't worry about them. Give them enough rope and they'll tie their own nooses.

 

[JA.Tri]

i have to say i would like to see the 'UCI twins' get smeared by this case so badly that they have to disappear into oblivion.

Motion seconded.

 

[BotanyBay]

Motion seconded.

It'll happen. They're both players in the card game. Everyone who plays gets a mention in the script.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

Spelling Police

Did they "want" him to dope himself and his team to win races? No. The contract forbid it. Doing so is breach. First things first, comply with the contract.

They breached it. They said they didn't dope but they truly did. For years and years.

The "effect" or "benefit" past the breach is immaterial, though they certainly do not want to have every picture of Lance in a USPS kit going forward to be matched with the terms Fraud, Criminal, Doper, Scammer, Liar, Cheat, Convict, Felon, etc., as that will be the case, not the Champion hogwash that previously had been there.

A breech is where you place a bullet in a rifle, a breach is a break, gap or leak.... Just being pedantic, picking on the Irish.....

 

[MarkvW]

The SOL

If anything the case is moving rapidly. Cases like this take time, often years, and any faster and the groupies would be crying about a rush to judgement. Even in Spain it took them 3 years to act on Operation Puerto.

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. . . .

 

[BotanyBay]

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.

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.

 

[MarkvW]

Sol

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.

Why would he lie about not getting a target letter? That lie would be exposed sooner or later?

Lance is surely spending a lot of money to defend against Floyd's qui tam action. That explains the money.

How in the world can the feds get around the statutes of limitation? Magical thinking doesn't count.

 

[BotanyBay]

Why would he lie about not getting a target letter? That lie would be exposed sooner or later?

Presuming he's ever been asked. I've not seen the subject come up at a press conference (not that he's offered any lately). Those conferences related to cycling usually come with the warning that if you ask him a tough question, it'll be your last press conference.

Lance is surely spending a lot of money to defend against Floyd's qui tam action. That explains the money.

But it's all fundamentally untrue, right? Sounds like a ridiculous waste of resources when there are kancer kids walking around hospitals dragging IV poles with no famous cyclists coming to visit them.

How in the world can the feds get around the statutes of limitation? Magical thinking doesn't count.

That would depend on what they've found and what charges they've decided to pursue. To Lance's legal team: drop the ego. you're not driving this car.

 

[BroDeal]

How in the world can the feds get around the statutes of limitation? Magical thinking doesn't count.

Charge him under the RICO statutes for being part of a criminal enterprise that operated from 1998 to 2009 or later that was designed to make money from many team and personal sponsors by theft by deception. His return in 2009 was not the start of a new fraud; it was a continuation of the scheme that began in 1998..

 

[MarkvW]

sol

Presuming he's ever been asked. I've not seen the subject come up at a press conference (not that he's offered any lately). Those conferences related to cycling usually come with the warning that if you ask him a tough question, it'll be your last press conference.



But it's all fundamentally untrue, right? Sounds like a ridiculous waste of resources when there are kancer kids walking around hospitals dragging IV poles with no famous cyclists coming to visit them.



That would depend on what they've found and what charges they've decided to pursue. To Lance's legal team: drop the ego. you're not driving this car.

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

The "waste of resources" talk is nonresponsive gibberish.

The "it depends" statute of limitations argument is not helpful. I've tried to think of a coherent theory that could support criminal liability, but I can't. You're just presenting magical thinking. Neither egos, nor cars has anything to do with an argument based on the statute of limitations. Wishing doesn't help either.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Hasn't this case been agreed upon - that it's more about money and the niceties of moving ill-gotten drugs?

I think LA's positives are not really being used to prove that he doped (sorry, fandom), but more that he was complicit in a much larger picture. A picture involving money, trafficking, and taxes.

During it's tenure, how much money was handed over to 'the team' through the USPS? Tens of millions? If that money can't be legitimated, then that's a serious problem involving not only LA but some of the sponsors as well (who also happen to be American). If there are vast funds missing, or product via Trek, that have cash value that can't be accounted for via legit means... That sounds like a serious goat-show. Imagine being investigated with that sort of history. That's more than enough to make one's *ss pucker...

It's money and drugs. The things that make the world go around. It's obvious LA was cranked, but that's not the Fed's fight. I'm sure they're after something a little more 'serious' to the non-cycling world. MONEY.

 

[MarkvW]

Rico

Charge him under the RICO statutes for being part of a criminal enterprise that operated from 1998 to 2009 or later that was designed to make money from many team and personal sponsors by theft by deception. His return in 2009 was not the start of a new fraud; it was a continuation of the scheme that began in 1998..

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.

 

[BotanyBay]

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

I don't need to, as attorneys are not required to tell the truth when asked such questions outside of court. Perhaps they answered in the negative hoping to force the hand of the prosecution, forcing them to reveal their case, thus giving them more time to prepare a strategy.

The "it depends" statute of limitations argument is not helpful. I've tried to think of a coherent theory that could support criminal liability, but I can't. You're just presenting magical thinking. Neither egos, nor cars has anything to do with an argument based on the statute of limitations. Wishing doesn't help either.

It totally DOES depend. Depends on what charges you're considering. RICO has a longer SOL than other charges.

Look pal, I'm not here to give you lessons on legal strategy. If you really think Lance has nothing to worry about, then follow him to his next vacation destination and send a margarita over to his table by the pool. Maybe he'll invite you sit for a few minutes.

 

[Granville57]

If Lance Armstrong walks free but:

1) is bankrupted acquitting himself

2) everyone learns what a schmuck he really is

3) is no longer the "hero" people once thought he was

4) people stop throwing money into his do-nothing charity

I'll still be able to sleep at night.

5) was proven a doper

6) was proven to have lied

7) Andreu's vindicated

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

 

[BotanyBay]

5) was proven a doper

6) was proven to have lied

7) Andreu's vindicated

Absolutely +1

 

[MarkvW]

I don't need to, as attorneys are not required to tell the truth when asked such questions outside of court. Perhaps they answered in the negative hoping to force the hand of the prosecution, forcing them to reveal their case, thus giving them more time to prepare a strategy.



It totally DOES depend. Depends on what charges you're considering. RICO has a longer SOL than other charges.

Look pal, I'm not here to give you lessons on legal strategy. If you really think Lance has nothing to worry about, then follow him to his next vacation destination and send a margarita over to his table by the pool. Maybe he'll invite you sit for a few minutes.

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.

 

[MacRoadie]

Why would he lie about not getting a target letter? That lie would be exposed sooner or later?

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

 

[BotanyBay]

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.

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.