Quote from: stateprez on October 24, 2012, 07:25:22 AM
It was all Grand Jury testimony.  I'm not an attorney, but I was under the impression lying was a federal offense under those circumstances?

In the 2005 investigation.

It is a federal offense, if there is an open investigation by an AG or prosecutor and you lie to THEM.  The USADA is neither.  You can lie to USADA all you want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/sports/cycling/federal-prosecutors-drop-lance-armstrong-investigation.html

One more time:

QuoteArmstrong, who won the Tour de France a record seven times, has always emphatically denied all accusations that he used illegal performance-enhancing drugs. But his first Tour de France win in 1999 followed the event’s largest doping scandal and ever since he has fought suspicions that his Tour titles were tainted by drug use. But he has never tested positive for any illegal substance. (At the 1999 Tour, he failed a test for a corticosteroid but produced a doctor’s note indicating that the drug had been used for therapeutic reasons.)

Quote from: ducatiz on October 24, 2012, 07:28:00 AM
In the 2005 investigation.

No, Hamilton, Landis, Hincapie, Leipheimer, et al. testified in the 2011 case to a federal Grand Jury.

QuoteIn July 2010, he was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury revolving around the use of performance enhancing drugs in cycling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Hamilton

QuoteAfter that initial connection was made between Landis and Novitzky, federal agents began knocking on the doors of other former Armstrong teammates, some of whom later testified against Armstrong.

From here:

Quote from: Ducatamount on October 18, 2012, 09:21:14 AM
The beginning of the end. (Sorry if this is derby)
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/inquiry-into-tattooed-guy-put-lance-armstrong-case-in-motion-281282

Quote from: stateprez on October 24, 2012, 07:39:28 AM
No, Hamilton, Landis, Hincapie, Leipheimer, et al. testified in the 2011 case to a federal Grand Jury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Hamilton
From here:

I gotcha, but again, that is not USADA, the investigation was dropped and USADA does not have the authority to prosecute anyone for perjury to a grand jury, even if they could materially prove it.

Which, by the way, they cannot.  Testimony of an unclean party is insufficient evidence to convict regarding perjury.  Even if USADA sent their investigation to the US attorney's office, the USAG would not reopen anything as their evidence is legally insufficient to convict.

No jury would even convict someone on testimony of a GUILTY party over laboratory test info. 

Try to imagine it....

Rape victim says attacker was defendant.

Rape victim's friend says defendant was attacker.

Both rape victim and friend were in a business venture with defendant, but both got into trouble and defendant didn't.

DNA evidence showing the defendant's blood does not match the sperm from the rape kit.

Jury convict?  I have to say I seriously doubt it.

That is pretty much what we have here.

My point was instead of suing USADA, why wouldn't Lance tell his truth.  To me the answer is very simple: because he can't.

I agree with your points about physical proof.  This is a very good explanation of the problem....caused largely by the UCI.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum

Quote1998 was the warning that the 50% limit chosen by the UCI two years earlier was an open invitation to dope to that level. The teams of the period, as teams had always done, expected the rules to be pushed and organised themselves as they thought fit. The UCI said it was 50% to protect riders’ health and just ignored the sudden emergence of the 75kg climbers.

QuoteWant to know who was juiced? That's easy â€" just ask to see their blood levels . Before EPO, the haematocrit norm would have been around 40-42%, gradually reducing as a grand tour went on. Then suddenly everyone's jumped to 50% or more and stayed there for weeks at a time.

I don't want the guy to go to jail.  I admire his accomplishments, and he did win 7 on a level playing field, but everyone else has taken their fall.

My time has passed for this level of competition- I'm concerned about the 17 and 18 year old kids I race with on a weekly basis to be put in those positions when they're racing in Europe.  The whole system needs to be seen as a failure so it can be cleaned up, and I'm sorry to say, but Lance is going to be that vehicle.

Quote from: stateprez on October 24, 2012, 08:02:36 AM
My point was instead of suing USADA, why wouldn't Lance tell his truth.  To me the answer is very simple: because he can't.

I'd say as a practical matter, he doesn't have to.  He has made his money.  He might have to deal with some lawsuits over it, but he's not going to jail, and he won't be forgotten -- all those videos of him winning are everywhere.  This isn't 1908 and the only newsreels can be burnt. 

The USADA has egg on their face.  They should have just closed the book.  His actions in the real world wouldn't even bear scrutiny -- there is a statute of limitations on almost every crime, except murder and a few others.  Sure USADA doesn't have to do that, but the fact is -- they had a testing standard and they have ignored their own rules to go after him.

At the most, they should have just required a "star" after his name to say there was a question of substance use.

Quote from: ducatiz on October 24, 2012, 08:08:28 AM
The USADA has egg on their face.  They should have just closed the book.  His actions in the real world wouldn't even bear scrutiny -- there is a statute of limitations on almost every crime, except murder and a few others.  Sure USADA doesn't have to do that, but the fact is -- they had a testing standard and they have ignored their own rules to go after him.

Not to split heirs, but their testing standards only applies to the Olympic program and probably domestic competition- with respect to international cycling competition, they would default to the WADA or UCI tests which were horribly flawed.

That is irrelevant for the criminal case though.  Using EPO or blood transfusions to win a race in the US is not a crime in itself.  Not to mention the vast majority of incidents in question for Lance took place in Spain, France, and Italy. 

It is however a crime in Spain, since 2006 I believe- whether or not they can go after retroactive incidents is another question.

Also, with respect to being able to lie all you want to USADA...here's an excerpt from Levi Leipheimer's affidavit:

Full document here:
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer%2c+Levi%2c+Affidavit.pdf

As a USA Cycling Professional license holder, Lance would have been under the same jurisdiction.

Quote from: stateprez on October 24, 2012, 10:42:08 AM
Also, with respect to being able to lie all you want to USADA...here's an excerpt from Levi Leipheimer's affidavit:

Full document here:
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer%2c+Levi%2c+Affidavit.pdf

...meaning that lying to USADA has no immediate legal ramifications.  They cannot order you to jail for lying to them.

The idea that widespread doping creates a "level playing field" is simply a fallacy, both because riders bodies have wildly different physiological reactions to identical doping regimes, and because more money buys better doping and squelches competition rather than enhancing it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/13/doping-cycling-level-playing-field-fallacy

Money quote from the above:

But EPO is expensive. And to get as close as you can to that 50% level without straying above it and getting disqualified, you need an expert clinician, blood lab centrifuges and all sorts. So teams put doctors on the payroll: doctors they could trust to help them cheat and stay shtum, which doesn't come cheap. And some of those doctors also supplied testosterone, human growth hormone, cortisone, Activogen, etc â€" depending on what the budget was. We know from the Usada report that Lance Armstrong spent more than $1m on the services of one single doctor, Michele Ferrari; and that almost certainly did not account for all his drug supplies.

Thanks to the Usada report, we know what the best doping programme money can buy looks like. And thanks to the 1998 Festina scandal, we also know what the cheap and desperate version looks like: a random cocktail of drugs stashed in the back of a car driven by a soigneur who was high himself, paid for by an impoverished French team from pooling the winnings of their meagre results.

And even within teams, not all doping is created equal - the testimony indicates that Lance got the best drugs & the best medical support, while his teammates often didn't get the same drugs & support. One of the weird, sad ironies (for me, at least) of this whole period involved riders like George Hincape who came into the sport with physiological gifts that included a naturally high hematocrit level (so was helped less by EPO & other blood boosters) and other advantages that would put him among the elite of the elite. In a peloton rife with doping, he's relegated from likely team leader to domestique. That's not a level playing field.

Put me in the category of those naifs who had a rotating series of posters up on the wall, with Tyler, George, Bjarne, Floyd and finally Lance (yes, I actually had posters of every one of them .. still have my Andy Hampsten one ) - which might just as well have been an X-Files "I want to believe" poster. Like Stateprez, what I'm hoping for now is a conflagration that will burn things to the ground and clear the way for new growth by the juniors just starting in the sport - and that includes not only Lance, but the UCI, USADA, sponsors and other entities that were complicit for a very long time in making lots and lots of money off people like me who believed in UFOs and other miracles.

I'm on the Side of DUCATIZ on this one  ( yes I have a law degree to)


If the situation  was in civil or criminal court   no lawyer would persue ...lack of physical evidence and testimonies obtain under pressure !

absolutely no lawyer nor judge would hear a case like that ! It goes against all legal notion of equity and common legal sense !

altough Lance could actually  sue all these guy's for  false allegations and they would have to make a testimony under oath . It  could expose them to commit perjury     in front o an actual judge ...that would be funny to watch !!   

ho yes!!!  I'm god 

My legal strategy would be to sue all those guy's for false claims instead of the USDA    the judge would be in favor of lance  because he could prove that all is tests where negative ....
physical ..   

don't forget then in a civil trail is a actual REAL decision !!   

bam!!

He would have a REAL legal decision in is favor    with it he could then he could sue the UCI  and the USADA for damages in another lawsuit

don't get me wrong I don't like cheater's but I'm also against something that as no legal common sense!! 

Quote from: ducatigirl100 on October 24, 2012, 01:22:03 PM
altough Lance could actually  sue all these guy's for  false allegations and they would have to make a testimony under oath . It  could expose them to commit perjury     in front o an actual judge ...that would be funny to watch !!   

ho yes!!!  I'm god 

That already happened, and it's about to backfire on him:

QuoteLondon's Sunday Times is considering suing Lance Armstrong over a libel case he brought against the newspaper over doping allegations which resulted in a costly payout.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/13/sport/armstrong-doping-sunday-times/index.html

I'll give you that you're fairly persistent arguing a case you don't really know anything about.

Quote from: stateprez on October 24, 2012, 01:45:00 PM
That already happened, and it's about to backfire on him:http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/13/sport/armstrong-doping-sunday-times/index.html

~~~SNIP~~~

I find it ironic that they would pursue suing in response to losing a libel case, basing it on "testimony" which could well be deemed libelous in itself.

But I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps there's something there that I'm not aware of.

CNN is airing this documentary on the case Saturday at 9pm.  

Streaming here:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm

FFWD to 9:00 for the deposition segment where Stephanie McIlvain (Oakley) lies about being in the hospital room with the Andreu's where Lance laundry lists his drug use, followed by her recorded conversation with Greg LeMond stating otherwise.

Lance isn't going to sue anyone for libel again...guess why.

Quote from: stateprez on October 24, 2012, 01:45:00 PM
That already happened, and it's about to backfire on him

actually it  Didn't happen  Lance  Lawer's never filed lawsuit for libel against is ex-teamate

if they did so me the link to the lawsuit ?
I'm intersted to see how it work out

Lance lawyer's where probably waithing to see what would happend whit UCI before doing those kind of lawsuit.


I'll call Lance this weekend just to make sure