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

[frenchfry]

And last I checked cheating in sport wasn't a crime anyway.

It is in France.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

What about counterfeiting? (Not laundering, just the counterfeiting - duplication of money). Or FDIC robbery? When looked at within the context of the big picture, it's almost harmless. The money not recovered is just absorbed by the national debt. And considering that amount is so astronomically high, $250,000 fraud is a drop in the ocean of a tab that will never be paid off, and the government doesn't make any effort to take it seriously anyway, it's basically victimless.

Okay, now the thread really is pointless.

 

[LoveShack]

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?

Mike Anderson

The first thing I ever read that gave me a chlling view into the "predator" mentality of LA. This testimony from 2005 would seem like "dry" reading at first, but it is anything but that. One gains real insight into LA's lack of compassion or even any awareness of having any, along with his Machiavellian world view and narcissism. When I first read this, it gave me chills and something about it just rings so true for this type of personality:

"Mike Anderson (from cozybeehive.blogspot.com): Mike Anderson was not only Armstrong's former team mechanic, the man also ran errands for him, maintained his kids toys and bicycles, did groceries for him and his family and performed other manual labor around the cyclists' home property in Dripping Springs. Being so close to Armstrong, you would think he would have an intimate knowledge of Lance's homely affairs, behind closed doors. And sure he did. One interesting account, of several, involved him discovering an unmistakable box of androgen in Lance's apartment bathroom. The friendship and written contracts between both parties quickly turned sour from then on. This court account gives the full details of another one of Armstrong's broken relationships."

Michael Anderson's Testimony

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24714560/Michael-Anderson-s-Testimony-On-Lance-Armstrong-Doping

 

[Benotti69]

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.

Sparty, you answered my post, but a few others mentioned Simeoni? I am spoken for in case you are wondering

Why did you mention 'crime', i didn't! . The OP asked 'Victim's'.....big difference, no?

i don't recall Farrar going to court and telling the truth about a doping Doctor, do you? Renshaw is the not the most powerful rider in the peloton, unless you have some new evidence? Big difference between 6 time TdF winner telling you can't race the way you want when you have done nothing but protect your family, ie told the truth in a court of law, if he lied i am sure a prison sentence would have followed. Would you lie in court?

So again Sparty, stop moving goal posts slightly. We were asked for our opinions of his victim's. Simeoni, might have won a stage in the TdF that day but for armstrong. His career might have taken a different trajectory, but for armstrong.

But hey as a self proclaimed man of the law, bullying is acceptable in the work place is it not

 

[Oldman]

Mike Anderson

The first thing I ever read that gave me a chlling view into the "predator" mentality of LA. This testimony from 2005 would seem like "dry" reading at first, but it is anything but that. One gains real insight into LA's lack of compassion or even any awareness of having any, along with his Machiavellian world view and narcissism. When I first read this, it gave me chills and something about it just rings so true for this type of personality:

"Mike Anderson (from cozybeehive.blogspot.com): Mike Anderson was not only Armstrong's former team mechanic, the man also ran errands for him, maintained his kids toys and bicycles, did groceries for him and his family and performed other manual labor around the cyclists' home property in Dripping Springs. Being so close to Armstrong, you would think he would have an intimate knowledge of Lance's homely affairs, behind closed doors. And sure he did. One interesting account, of several, involved him discovering an unmistakable box of androgen in Lance's apartment bathroom. The friendship and written contracts between both parties quickly turned sour from then on. This court account gives the full details of another one of Armstrong's broken relationships."

Michael Anderson's Testimony

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24714560/Michael-Anderson-s-Testimony-On-Lance-Armstrong-Doping

Reading it pretty much confirms what friends/teammates have seen from early days to USPS. It's not that chilling because it is a shared mentality by many pros and active managers of the sport. Everyone is buyable and disposable.

 

[jimmypop]

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.

Not really, I just think you're a f*cktard trying to rationalize doping on some meta-level that us plebeians just can't comprehend. Also, I should mention that you should wait to see what he's charged with before you seed a debate on whether or not his charges can be thought to have tangible negative outcomes.

And, since you see prostitution as a victimless crime, it's no wonder that you see the follies of Lance as "no harm, no foul" as well. The culture of doping is real, and I think anyone familiar with domestic U.S. cycling can name a few young talents who walked away from the sport as soon as DSes articulated what "extra preparation" really meant. I won't dirty your ineffective semantic argument on coercion any more than you already have, but it's safe to say that you'd do well to take some cursory introductory courses in philosophy and hermeneutics. Sometimes, it isn't even worth showing up to the debate, even given that it gives critics the window to say, "See, they won't even argue with us our arguments are so good! lolers!@!!!!". This is one of those cases.

Finally, as a human, I believe in emotional harm. The emotional harm caused by giving false hope, and then setting up a fourth-rate foundation to solicit actual funds. Though this harm isn't "tangible" in any Randian sense of the word, it sure as *** matters when you take into account the fact that we're not a species of self-replicating robots.

 

[eleven]

Give Novitzky a call.

Novitzky's never sent anyone to jail - nor got a guilty verdict - for doping.

 

[patricknd]

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.

ullrich's problem was how his body reacted to chocolate and sausage

 

[Neworld]

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.

I agree. And we are only aware of some, and I bet very few, of those Lance bullying moments. Wait until more and more people come out of the woodwork to expose him. Ask Frankie and Greg. Lying under Oath and Fraud are the crimes that Lance et al. will be accused of.

NW

 

[Ninety5rpm]

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.

I'd like to know what white-collar crimes you're thinking of that don't have victims. What comes to mind is embezzling, which clearly has a victim (the embezzled). The bank employee who conspires with his high school buddies to rob the bank is a white collar criminal guilty of a crime with a victim (the bank).

I too want the truth to come out, but I also recognize my desire for the truth to come out does not warrant violating the rights of others in, I hate to say it, a witch hunt for the commission of a crime. Most investigation start with evidence of a crime being committed, and then they try to figure out who did it. So I'm just asking, what is the crime here and who are the victims?

I like the Ullrich answer, and I agree he was a victim of Armstong in some sense of the word, but I don't see a legal case there. That is, I don't see him going to the police to claim he was legally wronged, that he's a victim in the eyes of the law. Our legal/sports systems are not connected like that.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

What about counterfeiting? (Not laundering, just the counterfeiting - duplication of money). Or FDIC robbery? When looked at within the context of the big picture, it's almost harmless. The money not recovered is just absorbed by the national debt. And considering that amount is so astronomically high, $250,000 fraud is a drop in the ocean of a tab that will never be paid off, and the government doesn't make any effort to take it seriously anyway, it's basically victimless.

Okay, now the thread really is pointless.

Just because there are extreme examples, and those are good ones, does not invalidate what I'm saying at all.

Counterfeiting is one of those special case artificial laws that has to be made in order to allow the use of fiat money in the society.

Stealing is stealing, and is a crime, no matter how small it is relative to what is owned (in this case by the FDIC).

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Mike Anderson

The first thing I ever read that gave me a chlling view into the "predator" mentality of LA. This testimony from 2005 would seem like "dry" reading at first, but it is anything but that. One gains real insight into LA's lack of compassion or even any awareness of having any, along with his Machiavellian world view and narcissism. When I first read this, it gave me chills and something about it just rings so true for this type of personality:

"Mike Anderson (from cozybeehive.blogspot.com): Mike Anderson was not only Armstrong's former team mechanic, the man also ran errands for him, maintained his kids toys and bicycles, did groceries for him and his family and performed other manual labor around the cyclists' home property in Dripping Springs. Being so close to Armstrong, you would think he would have an intimate knowledge of Lance's homely affairs, behind closed doors. And sure he did. One interesting account, of several, involved him discovering an unmistakable box of androgen in Lance's apartment bathroom. The friendship and written contracts between both parties quickly turned sour from then on. This court account gives the full details of another one of Armstrong's broken relationships."

Michael Anderson's Testimony

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24714560/Michael-Anderson-s-Testimony-On-Lance-Armstrong-Doping

Okay, but to what did Anderson have a right that Armstrong denied such that Anderson was a victim? Did Armstrong harm him physically? Did he steal from him? Even just in a breach of contract? Where is the crime? Where is the victim? Narcissism and breaking relationships is not a crime.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Reading it pretty much confirms what friends/teammates have seen from early days to USPS. It's not that chilling because it is a shared mentality by many pros and active managers of the sport. Everyone is buyable and disposable.

Which might be sad must is not a crime, nor is one who is bought and then disposed a victim whose rights have been violated.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Not really, I just think you're a f*cktard trying to rationalize doping on some meta-level that us plebeians just can't comprehend. Also, I should mention that you should wait to see what he's charged with before you seed a debate on whether or not his charges can be thought to have tangible negative outcomes.

And, since you see prostitution as a victimless crime, it's no wonder that you see the follies of Lance as "no harm, no foul" as well. The culture of doping is real, and I think anyone familiar with domestic U.S. cycling can name a few young talents who walked away from the sport as soon as DSes articulated what "extra preparation" really meant. I won't dirty your ineffective semantic argument on coercion any more than you already have, but it's safe to say that you'd do well to take some cursory introductory courses in philosophy and hermeneutics. Sometimes, it isn't even worth showing up to the debate, even given that it gives critics the window to say, "See, they won't even argue with us our arguments are so good! lolers!@!!!!". This is one of those cases.

Finally, as a human, I believe in emotional harm. The emotional harm caused by giving false hope, and then setting up a fourth-rate foundation to solicit actual funds. Though this harm isn't "tangible" in any Randian sense of the word, it sure as *** matters when you take into account the fact that we're not a species of self-replicating robots.

I agree the culture of doping is real and many good talents are walking away.

I don't agree people should be required to study philosophy and hermeneutics in order to be able to think about and debate what should or should not constitute coercion, crime, rights violation and being a victim of criminal wrongdoing. But if you want to appeal to authority, suit yourself.

I also recognize emotional harm, but that's a very gray area where it's difficult to draw lines between what constitutes a crime and what doesn't. Are you saying that should be the basis for going after Armstrong?

I think emotional harm has more application in justifying what otherwise would be wrongdoing, as in killing an abusive husband justified by battered wife syndrome (which arguably is a form self-defense), but even then there has to be harm other than emotional harm (battery in the case of battered wife syndrome) in order for it apply. That is, I don't the Ullrich or Anderson would be legally justified in trying to kill Armstrong due to the "emotional harm" they suffered due to him.

 

[carl spackler]

Okay, but to what did Anderson have a right that Armstrong denied such that Anderson was a victim? Did Armstrong harm him physically? Did he steal from him? Even just in a breach of contract? Where is the crime? Where is the victim? Narcissism and breaking relationships is not a crime.

It is clear from this thread that quite a few people disagree with you about the nature of crime.

It seems to me you have some kind of libertarian, property rights are the most important thing, view of the world. Real libertarians will tell you in order for someone to have a right to property, that property must have been obtained fairly and honestly.

I wonder what is your view on taxes, does that equate to "theft of labor" and so forth. If so, hasn't Armstrong "stolen labor" from Anderson. Wouldn't you say he has effectively "enslaved him"? But maybe you think thats ok too, as long as there is no overt threat of physical violence.

Maybe you should get a job on Wall Street, if you dont already have one.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

ullrich's problem was how his body reacted to chocolate and sausage

True And imagine he still was 2nd best, only loosing to the biggest doper all-time...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So, we have moved on from: He is clean, never doped, never tested positive, they're all doing it................. now its his 'crime' has no 'victims'




Next up - Lance is Robin Hood.

He only amassed a fortune that others would have spent on sausage, pie, chocolate, cheese.....

The only 'victim' is and ever will be...... Lance....

 

[Tim_sleepless]

I like the Ullrich answer, and I agree he was a victim of Armstong in some sense of the word, but I don't see a legal case there. That is, I don't see him going to the police to claim he was legally wronged, that he's a victim in the eyes of the law. Our legal/sports systems are not connected like that.

This is the problem with this whole thread... you posited a rather simplistic view of what you believe should make things a crime, that is "victimhood" (subsquently amended to include risk or potential of victimhood), however when presented with examples of victimhood which aren't necessarily crimes today, you then revert back to the existing legal system which is not based on your "there must be a victim" philosophy.

You can't have it both ways... either victimhood should be "wrong" in your moral universe, or "illegal" should be wrong, regardless of whether a clear victim can be identified.

 

[LoveShack]

It is clear from this thread that quite a few people disagree with you about the nature of crime.

It seems to me you have some kind of libertarian, property rights are the most important thing, view of the world. Real libertarians will tell you in order for someone to have a right to property, that property must have been obtained fairly and honestly.

I wonder what is your view on taxes, does that equate to "theft of labor" and so forth. If so, hasn't Armstrong "stolen labor" from Anderson. Wouldn't you say he has effectively "enslaved him"? But maybe you think thats ok too, as long as there is no overt threat of physical violence.

Maybe you should get a job on Wall Street, if you dont already have one.

I get the sense he is just engaging in a "supremely rational" discussion of what is a "crime" as defined by current Law, and trying to find where Lance has committed any. Since there are no "convictions", this course of debate is apt to come to nothing. I think he is trying to be objective and just engage in a debate as to what is a proven crime and what isn't. The problem is that if you use Lance's victorious or settled out of court Lawsuits, he is by current law "innocent" and there are no "victims".

Since Lance has the power and money to win all these lawsuits, it is kind of like he never commits "a crime" in the same sense that he has "never failed a drug test" due to a complicity at the top. If these are the tools that we use to gauge a crime, and beyond these purposely "impotent" tools (at least for the rich and powerful) there are no judgements, then Machiavelli's "means to an end" is considered fair. His record and means might also be attractive to Social Darwinians who believe that the animal that wins is always justified, again always ignoring the means.

I like what you wrote though, and I agree with the feelings of outrage and can't see how anyone can read that document without noting Anderson witnessed crimes for which Lance has never answered, and Michael and his wife were "enslaved" and "abused" as meticulously pointed out in the charges of the document.

The fact he was abused after passing out due to "hypoglycemic shock" as Lance harrassed him could be seen as justified by "the elite" in that this reaction and severe stress was Mike Anderson's fault for not being a stronger animal. But then those same qualities of kindness (or "weakness" in a Darwinian view) were what Lance manipulated and used.

The Legal document sums up the crimes starting at point #27 and then continuing under E.49 "Causes of Action":

D.27 (Note: not the entire section)
• The conduct of Lance Armstrong and Luke David was also extreme and outrageous because Lance Armstrong and Luke David fired Anderson, not for cause, but because Anderson would not support and approve of Lance Armstrong's use of illegal, banned substances, because Armstrong suspected that Anderson knew he (Armstrong) was using illegal, banned substances as a way of cheating in professional cycling events and was avoiding random drug testing, and because Armstrong intended to terminate Anderson in a way and with timing that would force Anderson to sign a hush agreement that would keep Anderson from ever telling anyone about the evidence Anderson had that Armstrong had used or was using illegal, banned substances as a way of cheating in professional cycling events.

• The conduct of Lance Armstrong and Luke David was also extreme and outrageous because Armstrong followed the termination of Anderson with threats and bullying toward Anderson, including but not limited to his false statements to Anderson and Allison, designed to make Anderson and Allison fear for the security of themselves and their family, that Anderson had stolen from Armstrong, his threats to Armstrong and his family, and his efforts to discredit Anderson in the media.

• The conduct of Lance Armstrong and Luke David was also extreme and outrageous because Armstrong's threats, bullying tactics and character assassination toward Anderson are part of Lance Armstrong's modus operandi.

• The conduct of Lance Armstrong and Luke David was also extreme and outrageous because Anderson followed the termination with persistent and oppressive efforts, including threats to Anderson and his family and slander, to force Anderson to sign a "hush agreement" or to discredit him in the event that he failed to sign the hush agreement and told the public about his knowledge of Lance Armstrong's illegal drug use and Armstrong's effort to avoid random testing for drug use.

• The conduct of Lance Armstrong and Luke David was also extreme and outrageous because it was part of a deliberate effort by this group of wrongdoers to insure that Lance Armstrong wins at the Tour de France, cheating for profit, with the use of banned substances, while professing that Armstrong does not use any banned substances, while holding out Lance Armstrong as a hero and role model, and to silence or discredit those who may expose this scheme, an evil, oppressive and dishonest scheme that equals the greatest scandal in sports history.

E.50. Armstrong and Luke David LLC's conduct was extreme and outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

 

[carl spackler]

This is the problem with this whole thread... you posited a rather simplistic view of what you believe should make things a crime, that is "victimhood" (subsquently amended to include risk or potential of victimhood), however when presented with examples of victimhood which aren't necessarily crimes today, you then revert back to the existing legal system which is not based on your "there must be a victim" philosophy.

You can't have it both ways... either victimhood should be "wrong" in your moral universe, or "illegal" should be wrong, regardless of whether a clear victim can be identified.

totally agree with this

 

[JA.Tri]

Hi

Thought provoking topic. Crime? Does it exist in the absence of a trial and finding?

Technically? Maybe not. Now the following gets pretty muddy.

I have inferred from Spartacus Rox post that: as LA has not yet been found guilty, in a court of law, of a crime...
therefore LA is not a criminal... therefore no crime has been confirmed (becomes rather circuitous).

Pardon the analogy but this seems to be similar to: a tree falls in an uninhabited forest... was there a sound???

Part of the problem is the definition of crime. IMHO "crime" is an arbitrary beast... defined, redefined/hashed repealed, blah blah blah by various legislatures/bodies/societies around the world.

So an individual (A) may take an action that that individual (A) knows to be defined by "their society" as a crime. They then may acknowledge themselves as a criminal. The crime may or may not be discovered. The individual may or may not be charged; and may or may not be found guilty in a "properly founded court of law".

The posited "crime" may have been entirely justified and an independent viewer deem "no crime". As I implied before "crime"
...pota toe...po tay toe.

Is that individual any less (or for that matter are they) a "criminal".

The OP asked about victims: posters better informed than myself point to various parties that have suffered harm at the actions/inactions of LA.
I am satisfied that LA has on many occasions abused those that he had a duty to care for. By "duty" I intend: consideration for a fellow being...to be treated as you (LA) would desire.

Yes you may contend there are no victims, I disagree. By his actions LA has left individuals and society "poorer" for the contact. Is he a criminal??? Does it really matter???

I hope that some day, Some more of the truth of LA's actions is revealed and LA redresses some of the hurt he has caused. Whether or not he is a "criminal" and whether or not he is found guilty of one or many "crimes".

regards js

 

[Francois the Postman]

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.

Hitch, I'm not getting this. On the one hand you use the words "negative liberty" which suggest you are trying to take a broader rational view. On the other hand you seem unable to spot obvious victims.

If someone used illegal means to win "the grand prize", the people who were defrauded out of that opportunity kinda spring to mind, for starters. If he used illegal means, for 7 years, up to 7 someones in that race lost out on a lot of money, not?

There is a ripple effect all the way out from that, for affected people and organisations.

It's a bit like saying that there is no actual theft taking place if you stole a parcel that was on its way to someone random who hadn't quite got it yet. Worse, someone random who had invested heavily for an honest attempt to get that parcel.

You can "negative liberty" me all the way, but surely obvious victims aren't too hard to spot, even if you ignore the entire network of folk who invested with those people as they too stood to gain many add-on benefits if the parcel arrived at a particular door?

 

[Francois the Postman]

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.

Disagree. That is a blatant coercion too.

The consequences of the threat ("gun") might not be lethal, but that doesn't mean you haven't got a threat of harmful consequences levelled at you, and thus under no definition of "free choice" constitutes this a genuine choice. Something that is yours is put at stake in both the b and c example (owed wages and a head that doesn't leak when you get into the bath tub). You are being coerced.

For some people with two weeks wages at stake, you might as well count it a gun too. [And even in your way of reasoning about it, in the gun situation, you still have a choice too, if you want to get ueber-technical].

Lose your job because you refused an illegitimate order above and beyond the contracts in place, and the person losing the job could actually still end up winning a "loss of income" action in court. Depending on the contracts and laws in place. And if they wanted to put their lives on hold for a while, probably suffering more consequences than the initial loss would warrant.

Usually damn hard to prove and for a variety of reasons it is often easier to comply than fight your ground with your boss. But I wouldn't want to be a boss going into court with that conversation on tape on the list of submitted evidence.

 

[LoveShack]

This is still my favorite "Anti-Social Darwinism" song. Does anyone still write songs like this one? Eerie if you apply it to Lance...

Respectable (1971 by Don Mclean)

Ah, it ain’t so easy is it? you almost lost your place.
And perhaps you’re wondering how you’re going to cope with your disgrace?
Well your wealth is well established and your friends were never few,
And all the things they told you of you’re finding to be true.
Well if "truth" can free the guilty while the innocent must die,
Then I respect, respect, respect the coldest lie.

And you talk of human justice while you ride on fancy wheels.
And you push them to their limit just to see how nice it feels.
Well it doesn’t really matter if she’s living or she’s dead,
You just drive away forgetting that your bumper’s dipped in red.
Well if that’s the kind of justice that our hall of justice claims,
Then I respect, respect, respect old jesse james.

And most cordially they caught you and they asked you to obey.
And they threw you into prison, just in case you could not pay.
Well king arthur jousted lancelot, who stole away his wife;
And your lawyers jousted with the court to save your precious life.
Well if living is what matters though you lie with every breath,
Then I respect, respect, the ones we put to death.

And you won your case most easily and soon you will be free.
But there will be a million more who lose their liberty.
Not because of what they did, but what they did not do:
They did not pay a lawyer or a judge to see them through.
Or they had no friends to call on and they could not raise their bail.
Well if "Winning" is what matters, I respect the ones who fail.

 

[Francois the Postman]

The slight but real problem ...[here] ... 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.

No, there has been no crime proven. There might or might not be victims, To say there aren't any is jumping the gun as far as to say there are.

And this investigation itself is concerned about one very specific type of crime and one particular party only (the latter of which is still trying to figure out if it should feel victimised or not):
- the type of crime where the recipients of public money used it in ways, or for an operation, that is forbidden by law.
- the type of victim that is called "the public".

Even if the finding finds no grounds to prosecute, a crime could still have taken place. The finding could also find grounds to prosecute even if there wasn't anything fishy going on at all.

If they don't go ahead, it is either because they can find no suggestion that a crime, in all likelihood, did take place. Or the case for isn't strong enough. Or evidence might be strong but too hard to prove, or inadmissible, in a court of law. It might not in the public interest to prosecute (unlikely in this case if the evidence does stack up in one direction I think). Or they find proof of an actual crime, but not one that made "the public" a direct victim, if it didn't involve that "public funding" aspect. In which case we would have to wait for that victim to go to court on their own behalf.

Anyone at any time who feels they were the victim of a genuine crime committed by Lance can, at any point, as long as prosecutable time hasn't run out yet, take their case to a court of Law, and make their case in public, in any country that the alleged crime would have taken place (and sometimes even in others). if it is deemed to have enough substance to go to trial. If they convince the appropriate folk of their case, Lance could end up a criminal, and a crime will have been defined as "happened" with a guilt criminal. Even if it didn't actually take place.

If Lance has entered a contract with a conditional clause that everything in place was on the assumption that he would be following all UCI rules... you've got a potential victim right there if he did use banned substances and he gained at the expense of others under false pretences. If its get proven that he won a race on US soil in a fraudulent way, I'm sure there is a "victim" out there who could attempt to take it to court. And a bunch of lawyers to remind you to do so.

The only difference here is that usually it is one word against that of the presumed innocent party, and beyond reasonable doubt seals it in an obvious way. This type of mud hardly ever sticks, legally.

But this time the potentially aggrieved party has investigative tools and coercion methods at its disposal, that no ordinary member of the public has access to. Which makes this a very different ballgame.

So you are correct, there are no proven victims, just speculative ones. That doesn't mean there are no victims, nor that the crime did not take place. It also doesn't mean the opposite.

If a crime will be proven, or what the exact crime is, is gonna be great theatre for a while by the look of things.