It Needn't Be Lance-Centric
The whole world does not revolve around Armstrong. Michael Ball, for instance is probably very nervous right now. The person who actually sold Floyd his dope is probably very nervous right now. Perhaps the whole network of people who supplied Floyd have been compromised. There is a whole load of righteous targets that Novitzky is doubtless working on. If any undercover or wiretap work was done, well . . .WOW.
Your argument assumes that the feds are out to get Lance, in particular. That just can't be true. You are asserting that the federal investigation is stupid if it continues without a prospect of nailing Lance. It is not stupid if it nails others, and I have great confidence that others will be indicted--I just have no confidence that Lance will be indicted (criminally).
RICO predicate acts are federal crimes. Nothing that you recite looks like a federal predicate offense, nor is there anything that suggests Lance's personal agreement to the commission of a predicate act.
Nothing I've seen on this forum indicates anything like a chargeable federal crime. By the way, a prosecutor's conviction rate would tend to inversely relate to that prosecutor's indictment rate.
My premise is straightforward: The facts that are publicly available make it more likely that Lance will not be indicted. I have yet to see anything resembling a good argument that it is more likely that Lance will be indicted (but I have been compared to a 4 year old and my argument has been called stupid).
The ad hominem argument, the "you're a Lance lover" argument, the "word on the street" argument, the "I have superior knowledge" argument, and the "why are you here" argument are arguments unworthy of grown-ups.
D-Queued said:In which case, your posts are still misleading.
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.
The whole world does not revolve around Armstrong. Michael Ball, for instance is probably very nervous right now. The person who actually sold Floyd his dope is probably very nervous right now. Perhaps the whole network of people who supplied Floyd have been compromised. There is a whole load of righteous targets that Novitzky is doubtless working on. If any undercover or wiretap work was done, well . . .WOW.
Your argument assumes that the feds are out to get Lance, in particular. That just can't be true. You are asserting that the federal investigation is stupid if it continues without a prospect of nailing Lance. It is not stupid if it nails others, and I have great confidence that others will be indicted--I just have no confidence that Lance will be indicted (criminally).
RICO predicate acts are federal crimes. Nothing that you recite looks like a federal predicate offense, nor is there anything that suggests Lance's personal agreement to the commission of a predicate act.
Nothing I've seen on this forum indicates anything like a chargeable federal crime. By the way, a prosecutor's conviction rate would tend to inversely relate to that prosecutor's indictment rate.
My premise is straightforward: The facts that are publicly available make it more likely that Lance will not be indicted. I have yet to see anything resembling a good argument that it is more likely that Lance will be indicted (but I have been compared to a 4 year old and my argument has been called stupid).
The ad hominem argument, the "you're a Lance lover" argument, the "word on the street" argument, the "I have superior knowledge" argument, and the "why are you here" argument are arguments unworthy of grown-ups.