Lance to Finally Admit For the First Time to...Oprah??

Blah, blah, blah... wrote:

Old Woman in the Shoe wrote:

A positive drug test.... which they have... (probably several)

Which would have to coincide with the witnesses testimony regarding dates and times. If Andreau "saw" Lance use a syringe with unknown contents in 2002, but a positive test was not consistent with the timeline, then you'd have strong circumstancial evidence, along the lines "where there's smoke, there's fire", but not enough for a guilty.

I don't see why the times have to coincide. I get the circumstantial evidence piece, but I don't think it applies in a scenario like this. A positive test is a positive test. It's all you need. If the cops pull me over for drunk driving, and I blow a 0.25, they don't also need to ask my friends if I've been drinking.

But if we continue this madness, for the people who think Lance is clean (can barely type that without laughing), what's he going on Oprah for? Just a nice chat? What's the "90 minute special" for? Do you think Lance is going to sit there and say he's innocent for 90 minutes? That seems like repetitive television. What's the point!?!?

the whole saga logged

Armstrong should be sitting in front of a judge not Oprah Winfrey, typical that he goes down the stage managed route with no accountability, It’s just pathetic, I just hope the vast majority of the public don’t fall for it again!

Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:

Rojo, you are the one who is incorrect. Lance did not refuse to go to trial. He refused to participate in an arbitration and actually filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the fairness of the process. The federal judge denied Lance's injunction, but did not rule on the merits of USADA's doping allegations.

Prison???!!! What is your evidence of perjury? Novitzky's federal case was dropped. Was Lance ever even subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury (like George, Tyler, etc.)?

Rojo has disappeared from the thread.

I am with Robert all the way here, with only two exceptions, both very minor: first, as a factual matter, testing for PEDs is an invasion of privacy, but there are countless invasions of privacy each of us faces day to day, and the more important question is whether this particular invasion of privacy is warranted, and it absolutely is to protect the integrity of the sport. Those who choose to compete need to accept this particular invasion of privacy. Second, I'm not sure I agree that imprisonment is an appropriate penalty here.

Where I agree with robert above all else is that these collectively bargained testing procedures and penalties we see in team sports are woefully inadequate. It's ironic that track and field has a reputation as a drug riddled sport. It has this reputation because our sport has done more than any other to combat PED use through year round, unnannounced random testing and harsh penalties, even on first use. Take a look at these behemoths playing NFL football and tell me what sport has a drug problem. Human beings don't come in that size.

rojo wrote:

Lance belongs in prison for perjury.

I do not remember when he testified under oath in a manner that would involve perjury. Was the civil case about the insurance a case where he testified under oath in a manner that opens him to perjury?

I am not trying to be a butt-head or a Lance apologist, but I just do not remember (and I am posting a long-term name, not some no-name account).

ISTP with

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

, meet ENFJ with

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

.

Have fun!

He used O3.

All's LA has to do is admit that he was under a doctors care and admit that during the time he used performance enhancing drugs was beneficial to riders/team that could afford them.

AND LA has to admit that there were plenty of clean American riders that could've beat him during that time had they too been offered PED. So let's all break out the Ronald Reagan jelly bean jars chew the licorice ones, belch, cough, hack up a boogery snot blow it out of our noses and give Oprah a chance to open LA's heart. Knowing her she'd probably have a Madonna waiting in the wings with her cold hearted stare eying LA's body.

he belongs in jail for perjury, as much as, you belong in jail for running a godawful site

a woooo wrote:

he belongs in jail for perjury, as much as, you belong in jail for running a godawful site

If we are recommending jail for various people, is there any room for those who can't punctuate? Please learn what a f-cking subclause is, and how to use one, before your next post (consider that your first lesson).

26mi235 wrote:

rojo wrote:

Lance belongs in prison for perjury.

I do not remember when he testified under oath in a manner that would involve perjury. Was the civil case about the insurance a case where he testified under oath in a manner that opens him to perjury?

I am not trying to be a butt-head or a Lance apologist, but I just do not remember (and I am posting a long-term name, not some no-name account).

Yes - it was a case that was specifically arguing whether he doped or not. He said, under oath, that he did not.

Whether we personally think perjury should result in someone going to jail is one thing, but the fact remains that one clear penalty for perjury is jail time.

It is not that lying about a bike race is an important crime, but lying in Court, under oath, has massive implications for a society built on the rule of law.

If we can't have fair trials where witness testimony is to be believed, we really can't have a system based on laws - and that is a huge problem that must be deterred.

Since there seems to be some question about whether LA ever testified under oath that he didn't dope, here's a news story:http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2012/10/30/lance-armstrong-perjury-doping/1668765/

Dallas firm wants Lance Armstrong punished for perjury

...

SCA's case stems from legal proceedings in 2004, when Armstrong sued the company after it refused to pay him a $5 million bonus for winning the 2004 Tour de France. SCA withheld payment, contending that he cheated to win.

Under oath, Armstrong denied doping in a 2005 deposition and in testimony before an arbitration panel. In February 2006, SCA agreed to pay Armstrong $7.5 million, which included legal costs, but Tillotson said SCA paid the money on the basis that the contract called for Armstrong to be paid if he was the official winner of the Tour de France.

Why would he dope in a deposition?

it doesn't make any sense wrote:

Why would he dope in a deposition?

That reminds of the morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know.

Lance was not refused his trial. Federal law forced the judge to tell Lance he could come back later, but not now. There is a process to resolve disputes that Lance agreed to, and the judge said that he cannot bypass that process. Federal law requires that Lance exhaust all of his "administrative remedies" before he comes to court. If Lance wants his fair trial in a real court he must:- go to arbitration, biased or not- appeal to CAS- appeal to the Swiss courtsArbitration was the first step on the path to a fair trial in court. When Lance waived his right to defend himself in arbitration, he effectively refused his right to a trial, as the only path to the US courts involves appealing an arbitration ruling. Actually a biased arbitration would greatly improve Lance's chance of getting in the courts, if that was his real goal.

J.R. wrote:

No, you have it wrong. Lance was refused a trial, which he wanted, and told he had to go to a biased arbitration, which he rightfully refused.

rojo wrote:

You have it incorrect. Lance was not refused a fair trial. Far from it. Just the opposite really. He refused to go to trial.

26mi235 wrote:

I do not remember when he testified under oath in a manner that would involve perjury. Was the civil case about the insurance a case where he testified under oath in a manner that opens him to perjury?

I am not trying to be a butt-head or a Lance apologist, but I just do not remember (and I am posting a long-term name, not some no-name account).

The USADA Reasoned Decision document submits several claims of "Perjury and Other Fraudulent Conduct to Obstruct Legal or Judicial Processes" (page 146 and following) including the following:

1) The SCA Arbitration in 2006 regarding his relationship with Dr Ferrari and his awareness of Tyler Hamilton's doping while they were teammates.

2) Statements in a 2000 French Judicial Investigation with regard to the the team's use of Actovegin.

3) Attempts to Procure False Affidavits in 2010 Ferrari and Salvodelli re systematic doping (This is captured in an e-mail chain submitted with the document).

4) Efforts to Prevent Witness from Testifying in 2010 per Hincapie's affidavit.

I don't see why anyone thinks USADA used questionable tactics. Exactly what did they do that wasn't by the book?When Landis sent his initial e-mail, coming clean and implicating other riders, USADA was forced by their own rules to investigate these serious allegations. UCI too by the way. It's interesting the opposite approach each group took. It would have been a serious breach of duty for USADA to dismiss Landis as a habitual liar.USADA paused the investigation during the federal investigation, I guess not to interfere, and then resumed after the federal investigation was surprisingly, and suddenly stopped.But the federal investigation didn't give any details to USADA, so USADA was forced to retake depositions.Even though the federal investigation ended without explanation, I think it was still a key in USADA obtaining rider depositions, even if USADA was forced to redo all the work. Post Marion Jones, riders know it is a federal crime to lie to investigators. Once they told the truth to federal investigators, then it became a lot easier to keep telling the truth during the USADA depositions.

rojo wrote:

...

I could care less about the tactics USADA used to nail him.

...