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

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
buckwheat said:
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.

don't blame armstrong just because you're out of shape and can't pedal fast.:D
 
DirtyWorks said:
Being a sex worker isn't evil, but there are real, well documented personal/social costs.
There are real, well documented personal/social costs to lots of behavior, including eating at McDonalds. Many would argue, perhaps even the majority, that riding a bicycle on streets with cars falls into this category. That's not grounds for making the behavior illegal, nor should it be, which is why I oppose any laws that prohibit behavior based on those grounds.

DirtyWorks said:
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 can't speak for others, but I'm not pretending those personal/social costs don't exist (though I note the concept of a "social cost" is only relevant if you presume a welfare state, and regulating behavior based on "social costs" is an Orwellian slippery slope, under which, again, many would argue that bicycling on roads qualifies).

I'm saying the existence of those costs does not make the behavior a crime. Nor does it create victims. Referring to an adult who voluntarily chooses to engage in some behavior as a victim does a great disservice not only to that individual, but to all true victims of crime, and ultimately to all of us.

NOTE: Just to note the relevance here, my concern is that we condone finding someone guilty because we believe that person deserves punishment, regardless of whether the legal grounds for punishment are really there. Let's not sanction abuse of power when it happens to be swinging in a direction we believe is "deserved", for it's almost certainly swinging on a pendulum.
 
buckwheat said:
Ninety5rpm said:
buckwheat said:
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.
Since when is fraud not a crime?
In criminal law fraud has a specific definition, and rightfully so. That kind of fraud is a crime.

Fraud also has a colloquial meaning, much of the "fraud" Armstrong is accused of perpetuating falls only into that category, especially the alleged "fraud" against cancer patients and the public and his book buyers.

Now, if it can be shown that the USPS was truly duped into contributing millions (or whatever) under the false guise of Armstrong riding clean, and would not have done so had they known he was not riding clean, then there is a case there. But that's the only answer to my question I see... victim is USPS and harm is being defrauded of millions of dollars.
 
carl spackler said:
Please explain what you think constitutes a crime? Then I can answer your original question.
What I think SHOULD constitute a crime is not the same as what I think does legally currently constitute a crime. I'm asking about the former... that is:
a) a behavior in which unjustified rights-violating harm was done, or is threatened to be done, to a specific identified victim; OR
b) behavior that is reasonably likely to cause rights-violating harm to some potential (not necessarily identifiable until the harm is done) victim (as in drunk driving).

Note that "rights-violating harm" must be physical harm or violation of property rights.

I've been asked about tax evasion. Largely to avoid a deep quagmire, I'll presume the "social contract" in which we all theoretically take part under which we have supposedly consented to abide by these rules, thus "the state" can legitimately be a "victim", and tax evasion is a crime by definition because tax evasion is fraud against "the state".

Per this definition of crime, typically "wrong" behavior is a crime, from stealing to murder to rape to bank robbery to embezzling to defrauding via Ponzi scheme, while "victimless crimes" such as engaging in sex (paid or not, hetero or homosexual) between consenting adults, and the business exchange between, or taking of drugs by, consenting adults, is not a crime.

So by that definition of crime, what did Armstrong do that was a crime (besides the obvious case of USPS and maybe other sponsors being defrauded by him - assuming that can be proven)?
 
Sep 19, 2009
91
0
0
lots of things

First, even if its not illegal-which Im sure it is on some level-I would still say its wrong to cheat in sport, and all those people he cheated against are victims. They engaged in what was presumably a fair contest. If any others cheated then they have also committed a crime. Just because someone has committed a crime doesn't mean that they cant also be a victim. One might even say that they were forced into cheating after Armstrong brought doping back big time in 1999. So there is the cheating itself, and the others in the race, and the people there or watching on TV who believed the race was fair. When someone lies it is not the fault of the person who believes the lie. Blaming the victim does not excuse the crime.

So then you got all the legal shenanigans. Perjury, which is a crime against the justice system, state, etc..etc.. Witness tampering. Just because these are not directly "crimes against property" directly does not diminish their significance.

In fact they have been important in perpetuating what I think is the greatest crime of all; coercion affecting the "property" of millions of people who bought the livestrong myth, literally and figuratively. "What am I on, I'm on my Bike." Shameless, terrible lie.

I think its awful that in our society we excuse lies like these because they aren't "crimes against property." It's somehow ok to lie to someone about the very nature of who you are if it will help you get the sale. It is somehow their fault they believed you. Liggett, Sherwen, Roll, HV, JB, all are complicit in this big lie, which they justify by personal financial gain. Everyone is mad at Floyd about the fairness fund, a fraud for sure, but what about the 100 million LA has put away by virtue of his lies. Where do you think that money came from? people who believed his BS.

Not to mention all the trolls on this forum that I have been victimized by, criminals all.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
buckwheat said:
I also subscribed to that high cadence horse$hit for a short time. Pharmstrong should get his as$ kicked for perpetrating that bs alone.


:D........need to clean me' shorts
 
carl spackler said:
What constitutes coercion?
Good question.

Coercion is when someone is forced to comply against his own wishes by being physically harmed, or threatened to be harmed, if he does not comply.

If no rights to himself or property are being violated or threatened to be violated, then he is not being coerced.

a) If your boss says "clean the toilets for 16 hours or I'll fire you", that's not coercion.
b) If your boss says "clean the toilets for 16 hours or I'll fire this gun at your head", that is coercion.

The difference is that in (a) you can make a choice in which no rights of yours are violated. In (b) you're not given any such choice.

Now,

c) If your boss says "clean the toilets for 16 hours or I won't pay you for the work you did for the last two weeks", that's not coercion, but it is theft (and thus a crime) if he indeed does not pay you.
 
Sep 19, 2009
91
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
c) If your boss says "clean the toilets for 16 hours or I won't pay you for the work you did for the last two weeks", that's not coercion, but it is theft (and thus a crime) if he indeed does not pay you.

Sounds like you think a threat is not a crime unless you follow through on the threat.

One other question. What are rights and where do they come from? Maybe two questions
 
carl spackler said:
First, even if its not illegal-which Im sure it is on some level-I would still say its wrong to cheat in sport, and all those people he cheated against are victims. They engaged in what was presumably a fair contest. If any others cheated then they have also committed a crime.
I think you're being a little fast and loose with the term "crime" here. I mean, you're saying it might not be illegal, but it is a crime.

I'm sure it's "wrong" to cheat in sports by many moral standards, but it's not illegal nor is it a crime. Now, i suppose if they're all contractually obligated to not cheat, including not dope, then it could theoretically be a crime, but that's somewhat arbitrary based on what kind of legal teeth a society puts into those kinds of contracts.

carl spackler said:
Just because someone has committed a crime doesn't mean that they cant also be a victim.
Yes, of course. Murdering your robbery partner after the heist is still murder.

carl spackler said:
One might even say that they were forced into cheating after Armstrong brought doping back big time in 1999.
Now you're playing fast and loose with the term "forced". See my previous post answering the question about coercion. In that context, "coercion" and "being forced" are synonymous.

carl spackler said:
So there is the cheating itself, and the others in the race, and the people there or watching on TV who believed the race was fair. When someone lies it is not the fault of the person who believes the lie. Blaming the victim does not excuse the crime.
By that standard the gullible who believe magicians are really magical, that TV wrestling is really competitive, and that Limbaugh and Beck are being genuine, are also victims.

Who is blaming what victim for what?

carl spackler said:
So then you got all the legal shenanigans. Perjury, which is a crime against the justice system, state, etc..etc.. Witness tampering. Just because these are not directly "crimes against property" directly does not diminish their significance.
Fair enough. These are arguably artificial crimes that must exist in order for the rest of the legal system to work. But I don't know that any of this has occurred, except maybe some perjury approximately equivalent to that which Clinton committed when he claimed under oath that he didn't have sex with Lewinsky.

carl spackler said:
In fact they have been important in perpetuating what I think is the greatest crime of all; coercion affecting the "property" of millions of people who bought the livestrong myth, literally and figuratively. "What am I on, I'm on my Bike." Shameless, terrible lie.


I think its awful that in our society we excuse lies like these because they aren't "crimes against property." It's somehow ok to lie to someone about the very nature of who you are if it will help you get the sale. It is somehow their fault they believed you. Liggett, Sherwen, Roll, HV, JB, all are complicit in this big lie, which they justify by personal financial gain. Everyone is mad at Floyd about the fairness fund, a fraud for sure, but what about the 100 million LA has put away by virtue of his lies. Where do you think that money came from? people who believed his BS.

Not to mention all the trolls on this forum that I have been victimized by, criminals all.
Do you think that lying should be a crime? What would you suggest the penalty should be?
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
Ninety5rpm said:
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?[

Are they still giving multiple-choice exams in first-year philosophy lectures? How is that post-modern lit class going?

Folks, this is what a brief exposure to high-level topics does to mediocre minds. They try to apply the basic concepts to the events of the universe we live in and fail miserably.
 
carl spackler said:
c) If your boss says "clean the toilets for 16 hours or I won't pay you for the work you did for the last two weeks", that's not coercion, but it is theft (and thus a crime) if he indeed does not pay you.

Sounds like you think a threat is not a crime unless you follow through on the threat.
Not necessarily; it depends on the nature of the "threat".

If the threat is, "or I'll kill you", the threat alone IS a crime, especially if it's clear he's not joking around (e.g., has a gun to your head).
If the threat is, "or I won't pay you", the threat alone is not a crime. He actually has to not pay you for it to be a crime.

Do you disagree about this distinction?
 
carl spackler said:
What are rights and where do they come from? Maybe two questions
Another good question.

A right is an ability to act in a certain way, or an ability to have access to something, that is recognized by society as not being prohibited.

I believe rights come from a combination of nature, reason and logic.
 
jimmypop said:
Are they still giving multiple-choice exams in first-year philosophy lectures? How is that post-modern lit class going?

Folks, this is what a brief exposure to high-level topics does to mediocre minds. They try to apply the basic concepts to the events of the universe we live in and fail miserably.
Ah, the old the real world is more complicated than that (it is, isn't it?) dismissive excuse to ignore and not have to think about what the guy is saying. :rolleyes:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Ninety5rpm said:
So, assuming Armstrong is guilty, who are the victims and how exactly were they harmed?

Jan Ullrich.
Even tough himself a doper, he lost at least 3 more sure TdF titles, fame and would be the greatest cyclist of all time. In return he got a real witch hunt in germany (Armstrong don´t even know a little bit of what a real witch hunt can be. He should be lucky to be born in the USA).

Quote Jef d'Hont: "In a clean peloton Jan would have won 10 tours. He is the biggest talent i saw in 40 years of cycling". Quote Pevenage: "We were no idiots. The change of Armstrong after his return from cancer was beyond belief. We knew immediately we had no choice (but to dope the same extrem way)".

Unlucky, Ullrichs body didn´t react to doping as well as Armstrongs. Call me cynical for that comment but not fanboy. Because i am not denying that Ullrich cheated to.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
Good question.

Coercion is when someone is forced to comply against his own wishes by being physically harmed, or threatened to be harmed, if he does not comply.

If no rights to himself or property are being violated or threatened to be violated, then he is not being coerced.

a) If your boss says "clean the toilets for 16 hours or I'll fire you", that's not coercion.
b) If your boss says "clean the toilets for 16 hours or I'll fire this gun at your head", that is coercion.

The difference is that in (a) you can make a choice in which no rights of yours are violated. In (b) you're not given any such choice.

Now,

c) If your boss says "clean the toilets for 16 hours or I won't pay you for the work you did for the last two weeks", that's not coercion, but it is theft (and thus a crime) if he indeed does not pay you.

No offense, but this thread is not going anywhere. You're asking us to answer a semi-legal question about your sense how the legal system should work. There are many "victimless" crimes. Most white-collar crimes fit your description. What most of us want to happen, is for the truth to come out. Then there's a process to see whether there were any laws broken. That's where the process is at now it seems.

If you really want to look for true victims, I'd suggest any pro biker who wanted to succeed clean, but could not due in part of the omerta uber-boss LA.