Who are Lance's victims and what have they lost?

[Ninety5rpm]

I'm of the firm belief that for a crime to exist there must be a victim who was harmed (accordingly, I'm opposed to so-called victim-less crime laws like prohibition of alcohol, drugs and prostitution). The harm must be real, whether physical or monetary, and caused by the accused for the accused to be guilty. Mental cruelty counts too, as does coercion backed by threat of harm.

So, assuming Armstrong is guilty, who are the victims and how exactly were they harmed?

 

[Race Radio]

I'm of the firm belief that for a crime to exist there must be a victim who was harmed (accordingly, I'm opposed to so-called victim-less crime laws like prohibition of alcohol, drugs and prostitution). The harm must be real, whether physical or monetary, and caused by the accused for the accused to be guilty. Mental cruelty counts too, as does coercion backed by threat of harm.

So, assuming Armstrong is guilty, who are the victims and how exactly were they harmed?

Do you consider tax evasion a crime?

 

[eleven]

Ulrich was damaged by all of that lost income from 2nd place finishes. Oh, wait...Nevermind.

Whether you believe in victimless crimes isn't really important. The fact that the laws exist means people are held to them.

 

[Tim_sleepless]

I'm of the firm belief that for a crime to exist there must be a victim who was harmed (accordingly, I'm opposed to so-called victim-less crime laws like prohibition of alcohol, drugs and prostitution). The harm must be real, whether physical or monetary, and caused by the accused for the accused to be guilty. Mental cruelty counts too, as does coercion backed by threat of harm.

Driving while so drunk you can barely see?

Building a bomb and planning to plant it in Times square?

 

[Realist]

I'm of the firm belief that for a crime to exist there must be a victim who was harmed (accordingly, I'm opposed to so-called victim-less crime laws like prohibition of alcohol, drugs and prostitution). The harm must be real, whether physical or monetary, and caused by the accused for the accused to be guilty. Mental cruelty counts too, as does coercion backed by threat of harm.

So, assuming Armstrong is guilty, who are the victims and how exactly were they harmed?

That depends on which particular crime. US taxpayers. Sponsors. Other athletes coerced into doping. Simeoni. Cyclists who never got a chance because they didn't dope. There are endless possibilities.

 

[redtreviso]

cancer patients who believe in lance miracles...

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

any Tour GC contender that didn't win during LA's reign

 

[oldschoolnik]

Who were Lance's victims and what have they lost?

 

[Benotti69]

Basson's, cycling, Simeoni, cancer survivors who believed, american tax payers, SCA, his children and wife... those most hurt by lance is the fanboys.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Spin Detection

I'm of the firm belief that for a crime to exist there must be a victim who was harmed (accordingly, I'm opposed to so-called victim-less crime laws like prohibition of alcohol, drugs and prostitution). The harm must be real, whether physical or monetary, and caused by the accused for the accused to be guilty. Mental cruelty counts too, as does coercion backed by threat of harm.

So, assuming Armstrong is guilty, who are the victims and how exactly were they harmed?

First, prostitution is hardly victimless. Let's imagine waking up in a world where prostitution is legal. Are you going to be proud that your son or daughter wants to become a prostitute? Back in the real world, are you going to be proud when your son or daughter has a conversation with you where they are glad to be doping for the express purpose of securing a State Championship? That EPO and HGH cocktail is great stuff Dad! I'll get you some and my administrator will inject it for you. Yeah, the hairy palms and imminent heart attacks are minor problems, but it's only temporary!


I think this kind of question is about persons trying to make two very conflicting/troubling realities of a well-known person congruent. A rudimentary dialog something like, "I really admire Pharmstrong for reasons X, Y, Z. And I want to continue to hold this opinion of him despite the fact I strongly disapprove of his recently publicized actions."

So a question like this is a negotiation attempting to simultaneously hold onto high praise of Pharmstrong AND disapprove at the same time. All humans do it. Fascinating!

I'm sure finding some kind of absurd conjoining of both views of Pharmstrong is a Public Strategies project at the top of their long-term list. Once they know what the government is prosecuting, their job crafting a plausible Pharmstrong facade will begin in earnest.

 

[The Hitch]

cancer patients who believe in lance miracles...

they would probably benefit more than suffer from that.

Back to the topic. its a good question. If you subscribe to negative liberty, there is no link between the crime and the victim, as Lance is not forcing anyone else to dope, and is just harming himself.

Still there are laws to stop this because if doping was allowed, lots of people would kill themselves doing it, so he has broken the law.

Perhaps you could say that Simeoni was a victim - not allowed to race the giro, because of Lance. But thats more Lance being a d**k than because Lance was doping.

 

[LKing25]

David Moncoutie, the cleanest GC guy in the Armstrong era.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Driving while so drunk you can barely see?

Building a bomb and planning to plant it in Times square?

And shooting a gun into the air in a city, even if the bullet happens to come down without hitting anyone.

These are all special cases of criminal behavior that threatens the rights of others. I don't see how anything Lance is likely to have been found to do will fall into this category.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Basson's, cycling, Simeoni, cancer survivors who believed, american tax payers, SCA, his children and wife... those most hurt by lance is the fanboys.

The slight but real problem in your argument is that there have been no victims because there has been no crime.

There has not even been an alleged crime yet in that there have been no charges laid against any individual or corporate body. If there has been maybe you could point me to them.

The 'hurt' as you put it, will just be your feelings once this runs its course.

Simeoni?? Get over it. You may as well start railing against Mark Renshaw for being nasty to Farrar by putting him into the railings or even better, Theo Boss for throwing Impey into the fence. Amazing how a spat between riders is totally blown out of proportion by you people.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

First, prostitution is hardly victimless. Let's imagine waking up in a world where prostitution is legal.

Okay. We're in Amsterdam! I'm liking this so far...

"Prostitution in the Netherlands is legal and regulated. Operating a brothel is also legal."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands

Are you going to be proud that your son or daughter wants to become a prostitute?

I wouldn't be proud, but I can see how some people might want to choose to make a living that way, and I don't see why you or I have the right to prohibit them from doing so. Still not seeing a victim.

Back in the real world, are you going to be proud when your son or daughter has a conversation with you where they are glad to be doping for the express purpose of securing a State Championship? That EPO and HGH cocktail is great stuff Dad! I'll get you some and my administrator will inject it for you. Yeah, the hairy palms and imminent heart attacks are minor problems, but it's only temporary!

I wouldn't be proud, but if they're eighteen or older, they and nobody else should have the right to dictate what goes into their bodies. I'd say anyone else trying to regulate what someone puts into his body (outside of the context of where that substance can lead to behavior that endangers others, e.g. DUI) is the one who is committing a crime.

I think this kind of question is about persons trying to make two very conflicting/troubling realities of a well-known person congruent. A rudimentary dialog something like, "I really admire Pharmstrong for reasons X, Y, Z. And I want to continue to hold this opinion of him despite the fact I strongly disapprove of his recently publicized actions."

If you think I admire Lance Armstrong (the person), you couldn't be more wrong.

So a question like this is a negotiation attempting to simultaneously hold onto high praise of Pharmstrong AND disapprove at the same time. All humans do it. Fascinating!

Huh? I hope my answers to your other questions make it clear to you how offtrack you are.

I'm sure finding some kind of absurd conjoining of both views of Pharmstrong is a Public Strategies project at the top of their long-term list. Once they know what the government is prosecuting, their job crafting a plausible Pharmstrong facade will begin in earnest.

Way off track.

 

[redtreviso]

DOS xxx beer...

If he hit you in the face you would thank him..He's the most interesting man alive


Richard Cheney.. Shot a man in the face and the man apologized to him on national tv..

Some people love their Lance so much..

 

[lean mean &green]

First, prostitution is hardly victimless. Let's imagine waking up in a world where prostitution is legal. Are you going to be proud that your son or daughter wants to become a prostitute? Back in the real world, are you going to be proud when your son or daughter has a conversation with you where they are glad to be doping for the express purpose of securing a State Championship? That EPO and HGH cocktail is great stuff Dad! I'll get you some and my administrator will inject it for you. Yeah, the hairy palms and imminent heart attacks are minor problems, but it's only temporary!


I think this kind of question is about persons trying to make two very conflicting/troubling realities of a well-known person congruent. A rudimentary dialog something like, "I really admire Pharmstrong for reasons X, Y, Z. And I want to continue to hold this opinion of him despite the fact I strongly disapprove of his recently publicized actions."

So a question like this is a negotiation attempting to simultaneously hold onto high praise of Pharmstrong AND disapprove at the same time. All humans do it. Fascinating!

I'm sure finding some kind of absurd conjoining of both views of Pharmstrong is a Public Strategies project at the top of their long-term list. Once they know what the government is prosecuting, their job crafting a plausible Pharmstrong facade will begin in earnest.

i don't particularly like the prostitution analogy but the rest is darn good.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Curious that many of you interpret this thread is as a lovefest for Pharmstrong or something.

It's an honest question.

 

[lean mean &green]

Curious that many of you interpret this thread is as a lovefest for Pharmstrong or something.

It's an honest question.

you may not have posed the OP question in this way but many will.

more important in the DW post to me was the necessity for investigators to remain silent for as long as possible as much as we may not like it. i think novitsky and company have learned from balco and have sharpened their craft.

 

[buckwheat]

I'm of the firm belief that for a crime to exist there must be a victim who was harmed (accordingly, I'm opposed to so-called victim-less crime laws like prohibition of alcohol, drugs and prostitution). The harm must be real, whether physical or monetary, and caused by the accused for the accused to be guilty. Mental cruelty counts too, as does coercion backed by threat of harm.

So, assuming Armstrong is guilty, who are the victims and how exactly were they harmed?

He perpetrated a fraud on the public.

Read my signature courtesy of Jan.

I bought his first book. I also subscribed to that high cadence horse$hit for a short time. Pharmstrong should get his as$ kicked for perpetrating that bs alone.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

He perpetrated a fraud on the public.

Read my signature courtesy of Jan.

I bought his first book. I also subscribed to that high cadence horse$hit for a short time. Pharmstrong should get his as$ kicked for perpetrating that bs alone.

Seriously, none of that is a crime.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

He sells products based on a story. Bikes, books, clothing, sunglasses, speaking engagements etc. That story is false.

I don't think that selling products based on false stories is a crime. Otherwise any TV commercial hocking some cleaning product showing a model cleaning a kitchen with that product who in real life has maids and never cleans herself (or buys that product) would be a crime.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Okay. We're in Amsterdam!....
I wouldn't be proud, ... but....
I wouldn't be proud, ... but...

If you think I admire Lance Armstrong (the person), you couldn't be more wrong.

Being a sex worker isn't evil, but there are real, well documented personal/social costs. Pretending they don't exist by depersonalizing it doesn't make it a victimless crime. I think we would agree that regulating Sex Workers is the better choice between two bad choices. Again though, not a victimless crime.

I actually wasn't trying to divine your Lance preferences. I was using it as an example of the process I see happening on lots of comments sections to Pharmstrong articles..

I'm actually more interested in seeing more Pro-Lance rationalizations. The NewSpeak they use is practically impossible to sustain and the regulars here reason too well to keep them hanging around.

 

[buckwheat]

Seriously, none of that is a crime.

Since when is fraud not a crime?

 

[oldschoolnik]

The slight but real problem in your argument is that there have been no victims because there has been no crime.

There has not even been an alleged crime yet in that there have been no charges laid against any individual or corporate body. If there has been maybe you could point me to them.

The 'hurt' as you put it, will just be your feelings once this runs its course.

Simeoni?? Get over it. You may as well start railing against Mark Renshaw for being nasty to Farrar by putting him into the railings or even better, Theo Boss for throwing Impey into the fence. Amazing how a spat between riders is totally blown out of proportion by you people.

As an attorney you're cool with what he did to Simeoni? It wasn't the "spat" part of it that was out of line it was the most powerful person in the sport at the time telling him he was not going to let him try and do what he os paid to do. It seemed (to me) that Lance was affecting his livelihood. You other examples are "Heat of the momment" - Lance was very pre-meditated.