WADA: Armstrong investigation to drop "bomb" shortly.

[scribe]

I gotta say, the best seat in the world this past couple has been this GJ room.

 

[scribe]

As I have said before, I do not believe he will either. Lance is all hat and no cattle. He will settle.

How does one settle on a crime?

 

[shawnrohrbach]

If Lance need to spends 3 days in jail - or 3 months - I see candlelight vigils of support outside the Federal Penitentiary. Yellow signs. Maybe a fanboy hunger strike or two. Should get good media coverage.

Different topic...."Barry Bonds' Six Lessons For Lance Armstrong"

Lesson #1: It's Not About Real Crimes.
Lesson #2: There Are No Rules In This Game.
Lesson #3: Your Teammates Will Talk
Lesson #4: Humiliation is The Goal.
Lesson # 5: This Can Take Years.
Lesson #6: Jurors Hate Liars

"Beyond the rules of sport there are the larger principles of fairness and justice under American law. How the testimony of these and other witnesses ultimately play out in the Bonds trial and Armstrong investigation remains to be seen. Everybody shades the truth.

But there's nothing a juror hates more than a government witness who lies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-littman/barry-bonds-six-lessons-f_b_766853.html

I will be something to watch the Defense Lawyers grill the Government witnesses ouch.

From the master of hot, smelly air out of an unmentionable orifice. Keep speculating about the totally unknown universe.

 

[Tubeless]

A lot of direct evidence? You have no idea of what evidence they have or don't have or whether it supports or is against Armstrong. You also have no idea as to the degree of corroboration between eye witnesses ( which is what I assume you mean by direct evidence). Surely you must also realise that a GJ process is hugely (totally) biased in favour of the prosecution and that it is merely a vehicle used to establish a primae facie case. It takes no account of any defence evidence so if you cannot get a case through a GJ process you really have no case at all.

At the end of the day time will show who is right and who is wrong. I don't have an emotional attachment to this unlike you and others seem to. I just find the anti Armstrong hysteria amusing.

The GJ exists as an investigative tool - and as a system check against prosecutorial misconduct. In that sense, it is fulfilling its role - otherwise we'd already have a list of those indicted.

It is a good bet that the GJ will deliver an indictment (or two) and that Armstrong will be on that list. The selection of GJ witnesses speaks to that, and so do several leaks as well as a few witnesses who've spoken openly about their testimony. If Armstrong's camp had wanted to make the GJ go away, they probably should have used different language than accusing the investigators of "wasting taxpayer money". Hard to find stronger motivator to deliver on those indictments.

What happens after the GJ process is more complicated and open for interpretation. My guess is that the prosecutors are not interested in any plea-bargaining at this stage - that comes after the key characters have been charged.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

"Beyond the rules of sport there are the larger principles of fairness and justice under American law. How the testimony of these and other witnesses ultimately play out in the Bonds trial and Armstrong investigation remains to be seen. Everybody shades the truth.
.

Dude! Where's this quote going, and where's it from? You've got the opening quotation marks, sounds good, and then it peeters out...

 

[Race Radio]

How does one settle on a crime?

Plea bargain

 

[eleven]

Well - you agree that because Mcilvain was questioned it shows Armstrong is a target of the investigation.
Then add to that the testimony being gathered from others and the request for documents from Nike & Trek (that we know about).
Thats 'boatloads' of evidence too.

That's not boatloads of evidence. There is conflicting evidence from witnesses - and Trek has confirmed that they sold bikes.

Every team sells bikes.

T

he only question is how much is in Lances name.

No, the first question is "were any US laws violated?"

 

[stephens]

If Armstrong's camp had wanted to make the GJ go away, they probably should have used different language than accusing the investigators of "wasting taxpayer money". Hard to find stronger motivator to deliver on those indictments.

Well, if one assumes Armstrong was a target all along, then anything his camp has said doesn't really make a difference. It may anger Novitsky but he was already targeting Armstrong anyway. The grand jury, if they heard the quote (they likely didn't), is not likely to be offended by charges of wasting taxpayers money because, as members of the public, they are all critical of government doing just that. They'll just listen to the testimony and decide if there is enough for an indictment.

The sad thing is that there will likely be all sorts of people threatened with charges only so that the government can force them into testifying against whomever they decide are the targets likely to put Novitsky's name in the news the longest and build his career the best and provide material for his inevitable best selling memoir. That sort of thing doesn't sit well with me. I mean, if what they've done is serious enough to be charged, then fine, do so. But only charging them because they might be able to help get someone else just seems wrong.

 

[Race Radio]

Well, if one assumes Armstrong was a target all along, then anything his camp has said doesn't really make a difference. It may anger Novitsky but he was already targeting Armstrong anyway. The grand jury, if they heard the quote (they likely didn't), is not likely to be offended by charges of wasting taxpayers money because, as members of the public, they are all critical of government doing just that. They'll just listen to the testimony and decide if there is enough for an indictment.

The sad thing is that there will likely be all sorts of people threatened with charges only so that the government can force them into testifying against whomever they decide are the targets likely to put Novitsky's name in the news the longest and build his career the best and provide material for his inevitable best selling memoir. That sort of thing doesn't sit well with me. I mean, if what they've done is serious enough to be charged, then fine, do so. But only charging them because they might be able to help get someone else just seems wrong.

The reality is Novitzky has been overwhelmed by the number of people who have come forward with information and offers to testify. No need to threaten, plenty of people want to tell the truth when it comes to Armstrong.

 

[Tubeless]

Well, if one assumes Armstrong was a target all along, then anything his camp has said doesn't really make a difference. It may anger Novitsky but he was already targeting Armstrong anyway. The grand jury, if they heard the quote (they likely didn't), is not likely to be offended by charges of wasting taxpayers money because, as members of the public, they are all critical of government doing just that. They'll just listen to the testimony and decide if there is enough for an indictment.

The sad thing is that there will likely be all sorts of people threatened with charges only so that the government can force them into testifying against whomever they decide are the targets likely to put Novitsky's name in the news the longest and build his career the best and provide material for his inevitable best selling memoir. That sort of thing doesn't sit well with me. I mean, if what they've done is serious enough to be charged, then fine, do so. But only charging them because they might be able to help get someone else just seems wrong.

Armstrong is hardly an innocent target here, and his associates should have known they were skirting with the law all along. There was organized lying going on for sure by many - whether it amounts to actual crimes committed is the subject of the investigation.

Most people in the GJ room are faced with only one choice - tell the truth, or not. Perjury is the stick. It'd be surprising to find someone quite as loyal to Armstrong as Bond's personal trainer Anderson - time will tell if anyone chose to obstruct, or lie.

 

[Boeing]

Rumor currently flying around in the local morning group rides here is that Tony Cruz was contacted

but I just heard that thrown around and don't know him or certain for the record or anything other than that....

 

[buckwheat]

Actually I am betting that I have more knowledge of the court process than you ever will. You seem to have gleaned most of your knowledge from Boston Legal.

For all your knowledge you are coming up with the wrong answers and in the end, that's all that matters. The process is of NO value whatsoever if you come up with the wrong answer.

A lot of direct evidence? You have no idea of what evidence they have or don't have or whether it supports or is against Armstrong. You also have no idea as to the degree of corroboration between eye witnesses ( which is what I assume you mean by direct evidence). Surely you must also realise that a GJ process is hugely (totally) biased in favour of the prosecution and that it is merely a vehicle used to establish a primae facie case. It takes no account of any defence evidence so if you cannot get a case through a GJ process you really have no case at all.

As I've said before. The prosecution is asking very few questions they don't already know the answers to. I'm sure with McIlvaine, they figuratively pinioned her arms and legs and then asked questions she COULD NOT evade.

What type of defense evidence are you suggesting exists?

That he's passed all his controls?

Defense evidence is this case is laughable.

By this point in the proceedings, there is a presumption of innocence that exists only as lip service.

The only people who will even have any such presumptions in their minds are the jury and the judge who instructs them.

At the end of the day time will show who is right and who is wrong. I don't have an emotional attachment to this unlike you and others seem to. I just find the anti Armstrong hysteria amusing.

Bro, the only thing you've got is an emotional attachment, ESPECIALLY if you have all of the legal experience you claim to have.

The object of your affection is going down and you can't even put one and one together as Ullrich plainly stated.

 

[buckwheat]

I can explain it. Given the relatively narrow focus of her evidence, to interview her for seven hours smacks of desperation from the prosecution. Why on earth would you interview her for seven hours unless you were asking the same question in twenty different ways. she is hardly Ollie North.

wonder if they shone lights in her eyes too or waterboarded her till she told the "real truth".

Hopefully you're not a prosecutor who interrogates anyone.

The reason it took 7 hours is that they didn't go straight for her heart. They asked peripheral questions and closed in slowly. They cut off all her escape routes, and she was completely boxed in.

They knew she was evasive going in so they asked her stuff she was on the record as saying and things that could and would be corroborated by others. Once they got her story locked in, they went for the kill, and I'm sure it was ugly because she is a hysterical person who has a history of lying.

 

[NashbarShorts]

...she is a hysterical person who has a history of lying.

That's not fair. She just enjoys herself a good glass of merlot and seems to have the Andreu's on speed-dial.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Hmmm... I may be developing a man- crush for Buckwheat. Keep it up, buddy!

 

[Race Radio]

Rumor currently flying around in the local morning group rides here is that Tony Cruz was contacted

but I just heard that thrown around and don't know him or certain for the record or anything other than that....

Novitzky showed up at his house.....he has a habit of doing that.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Poor Tony, the guy who never gotten taken to the Tour or Giro by Uncle Johan.

I always wondered if that was b/c Tony wasn't on the program. Or maybe he was, but just wasn't as good as the Euro heavy-hitters that Johan brought in. Anybody wanna hazard a guess or offer their opinion??

 

[Oldman]

Well, if one assumes Armstrong was a target all along, then anything his camp has said doesn't really make a difference. It may anger Novitsky but he was already targeting Armstrong anyway. The grand jury, if they heard the quote (they likely didn't), is not likely to be offended by charges of wasting taxpayers money because, as members of the public, they are all critical of government doing just that. They'll just listen to the testimony and decide if there is enough for an indictment.

The sad thing is that there will likely be all sorts of people threatened with charges only so that the government can force them into testifying against whomever they decide are the targets likely to put Novitsky's name in the news the longest and build his career the best and provide material for his inevitable best selling memoir. That sort of thing doesn't sit well with me. I mean, if what they've done is serious enough to be charged, then fine, do so. But only charging them because they might be able to help get someone else just seems wrong.

You have a peculiar way of justifying the pursuit of criminals. If they're guilty; threaten them if it's serious? How do you get to the root of complex, organized network crimes? Ask a few folks nicely?

 

[python]

For all your knowledge you are coming up with the wrong answers and in the end, that's all that matters.

buck, time to learn something... when someone (you understand i'm not addressing you !) repeatedly uses an argument to make any point 'i know more than you ever will' it's time to chalk the arrogant chap to a simpleton squad as not having anything better to counter an intelligent argument with. this type of internet arrogance displayed against a member they never met is indicative of both the fear of a superior argument and lack of cerebral facilities to address it. chapeau

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's not boatloads of evidence. There is conflicting evidence from witnesses - and Trek has confirmed that they sold bikes.

Every team sells bikes.

T

No, the first question is "were any US laws violated?"

On one hand you say there isn't boatloads of evidence - and follow that up with the evidence is conflicting? Which is it?

Does every team sell bikes to fund the team doping programme?

Trek - they're an American company - defrauding them answers your first question.

 

[SpartacusRox]

buck, time to learn something... when someone (you understand i'm not addressing you !) repeatedly uses an argument to make any point 'i know more than you ever will' it's time to chalk the arrogant chap to a simpleton squad as not having anything better to counter an intelligent argument with. this type of internet arrogance displayed against a member they never met is indicative of both the fear of a superior argument and lack of cerebral facilities to address it. chapeau

Classic coming from you, a person who has made an internet career out of doing just what you describe.

I see you have been reading the dictionary again, you are developing a taste for multi syllable words.

Also clearly by inference Mr Wheat was making the same inferences that I made:

Originally Posted by buckwheat
I would almost never recommend to anyone that they read anything in the True Crime genre, because it's awful stuff.

For you, however, I would strongly urge you to read ANYHTHING on Investigating procedure, and evidence gathering.

Clearly, you don't have the faintest idea of what evidence actually is.

Of course with your linear thinking it wouldn't occur to you that your comments cut both ways.

 

[SpartacusRox]

For all your knowledge you are coming up with the wrong answers and in the end, that's all that matters. The process is of NO value whatsoever if you come up with the wrong answer.




As I've said before. The prosecution is asking very few questions they don't already know the answers to. I'm sure with McIlvaine, they figuratively pinioned her arms and legs and then asked questions she COULD NOT evade.

What type of defense evidence are you suggesting exists?

That he's passed all his controls?

Defense evidence is this case is laughable.

By this point in the proceedings, there is a presumption of innocence that exists only as lip service.

The only people who will even have any such presumptions in their minds are the jury and the judge who instructs them.





Bro, the only thing you've got is an emotional attachment, ESPECIALLY if you have all of the legal experience you claim to have.

The object of your affection is going down and you can't even put one and one together as Ullrich plainly stated.

You are making a lot of presumptions about what has been said in a closed process. You have no idea what McIlvane said or didn't say'

Also it is pretty silly to call the defence case laughable when you don't even know what charges will be laid if any.

You will obviously win brownie point with people like Python though for saying what he wants hear.

 

[python]

you are developing a taste for multi syllable words.

your reasoning skills showed up when you attacked peoples avatars and multiple internet names of those who you called sycophants.

your second next strongest argumentation consisted of telling people 'you know more than they ever will'

your 3d line to hide behind is typically - 'no need to discuss as everyone made up their mind'

and the final irresistible bullet is always the same - 'baseless speculation'.

when the same applied to you - that's all i've done to run a simple test - the flood of whining, squealing and self-righteous rants floods any threads.

that's what i suggested buck to account for.

you will hear more from me ruckus rookie, if you dont start addressing substance.

 

[stephens]

You have a peculiar way of justifying the pursuit of criminals. If they're guilty; threaten them if it's serious? How do you get to the root of complex, organized network crimes? Ask a few folks nicely?

You use hard evidence. You know, produce a body, dna, fingerprints, audio, video, a paper trail, whatever. If a crime is serious enough to care about, there should be real evidence of its existence. To rely on making other people get involved and talk about what they saw, people who were not victims but simply disinterested witnesses or other "criminals", who don't even care to testify (until the are forced to) is to basically admit that the crime itself is so obscure that the authorities themselves can't find any hard evidence of it. And if you've threatened these criminals with charges that you otherwise would never file against them, in order to get their testimony, then that also just seems desperate and shows you are "manufacturing" a case instead of pursuing those that are right out in the open and obvious. There are plenty of those crimes out there that the authorities should be handling first, no?

And speaking of victims, when do we hear from them? I mean, traditionally, in a fraud case, there are tons of victims coming forward to talk about how they were victimized and these accounts form a core element of the prosecution. Is there going to be a point where we get to this in this case? If not, what does that say about its relevancy and the attention being paid to it when there are tons of other cases out there that do have real victims that need to be made whole first?

 

[Animal]

Well this is all very entertaining. But why not start a specific "Bickering Thread"?