# Armstrong legal team



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Armstrong Lawyers Ready For Federal Battle | Cyclingnews.com

Cyclingnews has review of Armstrong's legal team. After all that talk about Grand Jury leaks Fabiani admits that George never spoke to the Grand Jury but voluntarily talked to investigators. 

They quote one of American's finer legal minds on the expenses of the case (Over $1,000,000 so far) and the strength and size of Armstrong's team. For a case that is "going nowhere" Lance sure is spending a lot of money. He also notes that it is common for cases like this to take time, the delays are not an indication of a weak case

As the case continues to grow we should not expect any charges this year. Cases like this can take time


----------



## Mulowe (Jul 17, 2003)

*But I am the most tested athlete in history*

Of course a individual would be foolish to not lawyer up.
However this is the equivilant to a dream team. Why?
The only reasonable conclusion is because he will need one.


----------



## peabody (Oct 17, 2005)

*it was all hard work*

and vitamins, i have nothing to hide.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

Mulowe said:


> Of course a individual would be foolish to not lawyer up.
> However this is the equivilant to a dream team. Why?
> The only reasonable conclusion is because he will need one.


Why? Because he can afford it. Everyone on this board will someday need a lawyer for one thing or another, and if the matter is possibly life changing, people will pay for the best lawyer that they can afford.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

The legal system in the US makes it that if you have enough money, you can get away with a lot of problems or at least get a lot of them fixed to the point you essentially have no problems. Innocent or guilt in this system is highly dependent on what kind of lawyer money can buy. Definitely is a legal system favoring those with mucho mulla.

Armstrong isn't one who leaves much to chance. When he does something, he comes in prepared at all cost.


----------



## Mulowe (Jul 17, 2003)

*Legal precedent*

Innocent or not guilty are different things. 
The outcome with world class lawyers is that the probability of not guilty is increased.
OJ trial as evidence of that.
However if a person is truly 100% innocent the need is still there but the dream team is not as nessecary don't you think ?


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

I would do the same. The stakes are immense, however strong he may arguably believe the facts are in his favor. So I don't think you can draw a conclusion about Lance's consciousness of guilt from his mere decision to gird his loins with the best white collar defense team he can obtain. (On the other hand, when OC defendants claim actual innocence then show up with known OC-paid lawyers, that's usually pretty amusing.)

Some of the figures here are very solid picks, but Luskin in particular I've seen in action, and he is brilliant.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

anyone want to bet that the "dream team" will outmanuever the "fred team?"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

a_avery007 said:


> anyone want to bet that the "dream team" will outmanuever the "fred team?"


Assume the dream team you are referring to is Doug Miller/Jeff Novitzky? Miller's office has the highest conviction rate in the nation, 97%.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

No, I think he had it right if you consider Keker & Van Nest's palmares.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

covenant said:


> No, I think he had it right if you consider Keker & Van Nest's palmares.


It's better then 97%?

Once charges are filed Kekker job is to try to get as good a deal as possible for Armstrong. That means 2-3 years of tearing apart the case then a plea deal. There is no way this does not end up with a guilty verdict or plea


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It's better then 97%?
> 
> Once charges are filed Kekker job is to try to get as good a deal as possible for Armstrong. That means 2-3 years of tearing apart the case then a plea deal. There is no way this does not end up with a guilty verdict or plea


These dream teams aren't necessarily good at winning cases. They are champions at billable hours. Any good honest lawyer would have told Pharmaceuticalstrong to take a deal but there's no money in that.:lol:

The OJ dream team actually sucked. It's just that the prosecution was worse. It's not going to happen in this case. Seeing that Marion Jones got 6 months for copping a plea, I'll put the over/under on LA at 5 years.. It doesn't look good for him.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Usually in these things it is the nature of the judge that the parties draw that will be more likely to determine who outmanuevers whom. No idea if the bench in this district is considered good for the govt or not.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I think the OJ case was more unique than Armstrong will be.
OJ had the whole of the black people behind him based on race alone. On top of that, a lot of the younger white folks were also siding with OJ too simply because they hated the Los Angeles cops. OJ already won the court of public opinion.

And then on top of all this, the LA cops were corrupted themselves, fixing/planting evidence.

The prosecutors had no chance from the get-go. Anything they presented would be seen as corrupted evidence gathered by the cops.

Armstrong doesn't have the same draw as OJ (football versus cycling). However, Armstrong does have lots of business partners that would most definitely do not want to see the "Armstrong" brand go away, eg, Trek, Livestrong, etc. I would not be surprised if his business associates would pay for his dream team "whatever it takes" amount to try to set him free. Government will need some serious money to out slug the dream team.

This will be interesting to watch.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Mulowe said:


> Innocent or not guilty are different things.


How is that?
is there any way to misinterpret "Innocent until proven guilty"?

I must add, the amount Armstrong spends on lawyers is irrelevant. In context of his worth: how many of you would spend a relatively small % of your net worth to defend yourself against accusations that could lead to court proceedings, regardless whether accusations are valid or not?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

:lol:


Mulowe said:


> Innocent or not guilty are different things.
> The outcome with world class lawyers is that the probability of not guilty is increased.
> OJ trial as evidence of that.
> However if a person is truly 100% innocent the need is still there but the dream team is not as nessecary don't you think ?





55x11 said:


> How is that?
> is there any way to misinterpret "Innocent until proven guilty"?


Obviously there is because you're doing it. So therefore, because Simpson was found to be Not Guilty in Court, you believe that he did not kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman?

Innocent; the presumption of innocence; innocent until proven guilty; is a mental construction which is almost meaningless outside of a court of law, and actually is almost meaningless in court.

Most people want to believe that the Police/Authorities are properly doing their jobs. Why would a person be held without bail, or brought into court with leg irons and their hands shackled to their waist, by 6 Federal Marshalls, if they are presumed innocent? Anyone with brain waves would have to presume that the defendent is guilty despite anything the Judge may say. You ever spend time in jail? It's not pleasant. Obviously, to most thinking people, if a person is found Not Guilty, and is actually innocent, but has been held in jail waiting for a trial, and during the trial, a grave injustice has taken place.




55x11 said:


> I *must* add, the amount Armstrong spends on lawyers is irrelevant. In context of his worth: how many of you would spend a relatively small % of your net worth to defend yourself against accusations that could lead to court proceedings, regardless whether accusations are valid or not?


"You must add?" :lol: It's not relevant in court but it is relevant to our discussion.

I think the reason you "must" add this bit of silliness is that you are seeking to keep delusions alive.

Ned, I see you contributed more meaningless piffle. So if Armstrong told the truth he might be wrongly convicted?


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

*take*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Assume the dream team you are referring to is Doug Miller/Jeff Novitzky? Miller's office has the highest conviction rate in the nation, 97%.


a look at who the "fred team" has had it's charges in previous cases reduced or completely dismissed!

$ buys court decisions.

or just folow Exxon's team (Valdez case and current case) and see how much they have ever really paid out..:blush2:


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Innocent" as far as courts are concerned is precisely the same as "not guilty". After his first trial OJ Simpson was nothing but "innocent" in the eyes of the court, because, very simply, he was NOT found guilty.

As far as yours or mine opinion is concerned, anything goes, obviously (duh!) - no need to spell out anything. Someone could be found guilty of a crime, but someone else can consider them innocent, not guilty, your pick. I could consider Unabomber and Ted Bundy innocent, and it will be irrelevant.

You are quite wrong to *assume* something based on my post - I do think Armstrong doped, by the way. And it does look very likely that he will have to at very least admit to something, even though I doubt he will ever see the inside of the prison cell.

But just because he decided to hire lawyers to represent himself, by itself, does not mean anything in regards to his guilt. If I was accused of a serious crime, I would lawyer up very quickly too, and so would you, hopefully. The idea that people who have nothing to hide should never engage legal services is ludicrous. 

The mere fact that you are trying to split hairs between "innocent" and "not guilty" and bring up lawyering up as some sort of "smoking gun" evidence is rather distracting from the actual facts relevant to the case in point.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

55x11 said:


> "Innocent" as far as courts are concerned is precisely the same as "not guilty". After his first trial OJ Simpson was nothing but "innocent" in the eyes of the court, because, very simply, he was NOT found guilty..


But we are not the court here. The issues regarding Armstrong's cheating and fraud have morphed from, he didn't, to, there's no evidence, to the case won't hold up, to it can't be legally proven in a court and even if you can, so what if he did. The constant moving of the goal posts is absurd.

. 



55x11 said:


> The mere fact that you are trying to split hairs between "innocent" and "not guilty" and bring up lawyering up as some sort of "smoking gun" evidence is rather distracting from the actual facts relevant to the case in point.


There is a wide gulf between innocent and not guilty. Innocent is you didn't do the crime. Not guilty is a legal finding. 

The fact is that Armstrong is guilty here. He's hired the spin meister lawyers to obfuscate and lie, and that if he was innocent he'd most likely have no need for lawyers. No one is claiming that Armstrong hiring lawyers is a "smoking gun." That's a straw man created by you. There are 3 possibilities here. Armstrong is innocent, not likely, bordering on beyond all doubt guilty. Second, Armstrong is conscious of his guilt and needs representation to save his reputation and hide. Three, he's delusional and/or a sociopath and will do whatever he has to do to slash and burn his way out of this.

My guess is that the people of the United States are going to stop him, and unless he flips on some bigger fish, (are there any?) he's going to prison. See Marion Jones. And Armstrong is a lot more arrogant and vindictive than she ever was, and that's saying alot. 

I'm really enjoying the Armstrong witch hunt claims. Do you subscribe to that?


----------



## MYMOJO34 (Aug 18, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> The fact is that Armstrong is guilty here.



No that is an opinion, possibly a correct one - but it is not necessarily fact.

"fact" requires proof. None of us here have that proof. All we have is opinions based on what limited info we possess.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

MYMOJO34 said:


> No that is an opinion, possibly a correct one - but it is not necessarily fact.
> 
> "fact" requires proof. None of us here have that proof. All we have is opinions based on what limited info we possess.


Almost any criminal in prison can hide behind that kind of statement.

By that standard, only events that you personally witness are facts.

I'll go with the legal standard. The evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt he's Guilty.:idea:

Next we'll have a debate about what constitutes proof.


----------



## MYMOJO34 (Aug 18, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> Almost any criminal in prison can hide behind that kind of statement.
> 
> By that standard, only events that you personally witness are facts.
> 
> ...


The evidence indicates that in the five years since he retired no one has been able to present a strong enough burden of proof to get a conviction. This is the only solid _*indisputable*_ fact that either you or I are in possession of.

Anything beyond that is opinion.

For the record, I dont really care one way or the other. Maybe he did. *shrug* I just think its hilarious how worked people get about it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MYMOJO34 said:


> The evidence indicates that in the five years since he retired no one has been able to present a strong enough burden of proof to get a conviction. This is the only solid _*indisputable*_ fact that either you or I are in possession of.
> 
> Anything beyond that is opinion.
> 
> For the record, I dont really care one way or the other. Maybe he did. *shrug* I just think its hilarious how worked people get about it.


You cared enough to post :thumbsup:

Multiple positives tests, multiple direct witnesses testimonies, bags of drugs dumped. Hard to pretend there is no proof of doping. Certainly some of the other charges could be harder, but doping?


----------



## letitsnow (Jul 9, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> He's hired the spin meister lawyers to obfuscate and lie, and that if he was innocent he'd most likely have no need for lawyers.


LA needs these lawyers because the other side is just as guilty of lying/spinning things in their favor.


----------



## Mulowe (Jul 17, 2003)

letitsnow said:


> LA needs these lawyers because the other side is just as guilty of lying/spinning things in their favor.


Please outline the lies


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Let's clarify a misnomer about attorneys in the US, these so called dream team lawyers aren't any more intelligent or capable than the average bum attorney, what they are is better connected which is the true basis of the legal system. Most lawyers I've encountered are extremely lacking in ethics and ingenuity, I guess that is the case when you make your living lying though...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Mulowe said:


> Please outline the lies


Maybe he is talking about Fabiani?


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> I think the OJ case was more unique than Armstrong will be.
> OJ had the whole of the black people behind him based on race alone. On top of that, a lot of the younger white folks were also siding with OJ too simply because they hated the Los Angeles cops. OJ already won the court of public opinion.
> 
> And then on top of all this, the LA cops were corrupted themselves, fixing/planting evidence.
> ...


I think you will find that Armstrong's business partners, being the shareholders & directors in Tailwind Sports, are on the Fed's list to be indicted along with Armstrong.

I think they would be more concerned about #1 than Mr Armstrong. 

Poor guys. Contributed to Tailwind Sports only so they could have rides with LA and preferable course seating. 

Other than Knaggs and Stapleton the poor guys were probably oblivious to US Postal tax evasion and money laundering to fund the team drug program. But ignorance of the law and not making yourself aware of the facts as a director are not a defense.


----------



## letitsnow (Jul 9, 2011)

Mulowe said:


> Please outline the lies


There are only a few people that could do that, and none of them are on RBR.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

letitsnow said:


> There are only a few people that could do that, and none of them are on RBR.


Ohh, a guessing game. 

Christmas is coming. Maybe you are saying Santa knows?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

letitsnow said:


> LA needs these lawyers because the other side is just as guilty of lying/spinning things in their favor.


You're talking about the witch hunt!:idea:

I believe Betsy Andreu is behind it all!


----------



## Mulowe (Jul 17, 2003)

*That's it*

It's that liberal media to blame 
And all that gotcha journalism spreading those silly lies
That's the ticket !


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

It is nice to see they have moved on from blaming it all on a French Conspiracy.:thumbsup:


----------



## letitsnow (Jul 9, 2011)

We all know that Santa doesn't exist - I'm talking about the Easter Bunny.

It will be interesting to see how this goes...


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Don't fool yourself. The French are just pawns. The hacking mastermind, Floyd Landis, is the one pulling the strings.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Alaska Mike said:


> Don't fool yourself. The French are just pawns. The hacking mastermind, Floyd Landis, is the one pulling the strings.


Well Mennonites are known for their skill with computers.

I heard that most hacking groups were Mennonite, or Russian, or something like that


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

worst_shot_ever said:


> I would do the same. The stakes are immense, however strong he may arguably believe the facts are in his favor. So I don't think you can draw a conclusion about Lance's consciousness of guilt from his mere decision to gird his loins with the best white collar defense team he can obtain. (On the other hand, when OC defendants claim actual innocence then show up with known OC-paid lawyers, that's usually pretty amusing.)
> 
> Some of the figures here are very solid picks, but Luskin in particular I've seen in action, and he is brilliant.


Patton Boggs | Professionals | Robert Luskin

Lance Armstrong: '60 Minutes' Unfair Doping Allegations - The Daily Beast

In a letter to Fager, two of Armstrong’s lawyers, *Robert Luskin* and Ted Herman, said that 60 Minutes was engaged in “disgraceful journalism” and “a serious breach of the most fundamental journalistic principles.”

CBS' Fager said that after every conversation with *Armstrong’s lawyers*, “they would guess who it was in our story and try to* assassinate their character*. They would say, ‘If so-and-so’s in it, we’re not going to participate.’… They just want to tear that person apart in public.”

Luskin said in an interview that he had repeatedly informed CBS that “if you want us to respond meaningfully beyond a simple denial, you need to tell us who the witnesses are.” He said some of the allegations were nearly 15 years old and that some of the accusers could be “people in the *Lance-hater category* who have made sworn statements at odds with what they’re telling 60 Minutes now.”

Without the names of the witnesses, said Luskin, “we’re not going to set him up for an ambush.”​
Successfully represented Rove too! Sounds like Lance found himself a guy who is just as much of a scumbag as he is.

He's brilliant the way Lance is a once in a lifetime talent!

I like how he's invoking the "Lance-hater" defense, which employs character assassination. It's been reported that the attorney and client have been holding hands at candlelit dinners!

Luskin will also get high marks from the idolaters on this forum for sure.

Brilliant!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> I'm really enjoying the Armstrong witch hunt claims. Do you subscribe to that?


Hunters usually enjoy claims of "hunting". I'm thinking that, with your conclusive evidence of guilt, you should file suit against Armstrong on behalf of the American public. Your certain victory will make you a hero among all who find winning distasteful. 

I'm curious. Exactly what is it that drives the desire to find guilt or innocence prior to any trial? Is it your belief that being found guilty or innocent by a group of x-spurts on the internet should supersede the legal system? Is there anyone under investigation for any crime that you're not certain about guilt or innocence prior to the trial?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

SwiftSolo said:


> Hunters usually enjoy claims of "hunting."


Huh? WTF are you talking about? Hunting usually involves tracking and stalking. In the Armstrong case all that is required is opening one's eyes.




SwiftSolo said:


> I'm thinking that, with your conclusive evidence of guilt, you should file suit against Armstrong on behalf of the American public.


No need my friend! My taxpayer dollars are at work in the U.S. v Lance Armstrong! In the State of the Union in 2003 GWB stated that we have to root out these PED using frauds like LA because we need good examples for the "chidren." You don't hate America, do you?

Please don't think too hard. You might get injured. 



SwiftSolo said:


> Your certain victory will make you a hero among all who find winning distasteful.


Are you suggesting that Americans don't have a sense of fair play? I support the United States of America in the apprehension and prosecution of criminals. Truth, Justice, and the American Way!



SwiftSolo said:


> I'm curious. Exactly what is it that drives the desire to find guilt or innocence prior to any trial? Is it your belief that being found guilty or innocent by a group of x-spurts on the internet should supersede the legal system?


Per chance, have you read "Curious George?" As a very small child I absolutely loved that book! The cool thing with the Armstrong crimes is that even average, everyday, plainspoken, American people such as myself don't have to look too hard to find the truth.

I think I understand your question now. :idea: You're asking that even though it's obvious to anyone, even a fool, that Armstrong is guilty, should my opinion and that of my fellow doping forum participants be enough to imprison Armstrong. My answer; no, I believe in the American justice system. You don't?




SwiftSolo said:


> Is there anyone under investigation for any crime that you're not certain about guilt or innocence prior to the trial?


Yes, I'm uncertain about the guilt of most under investigation. Armstrong isn't one of them for obvious reasons which have been clouded by your love and affection? "Love is Blindness."

Quick questions to you? Is your bond to Armstrong your shared atheism? When one moves into their golden years they may need a GOD in human form, someone to worship perhaps?

Good luck in your belief system!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SwiftSolo said:


> Hunters usually enjoy claims of "hunting". I'm thinking that, with your conclusive evidence of guilt, you should file suit against Armstrong on behalf of the American public. Your certain victory will make *you a hero among all who find winning distasteful. *
> 
> I'm curious. Exactly what is it that drives the desire to find guilt or innocence prior to any trial? Is it your belief that being found guilty or innocent by a group of x-spurts on the internet should supersede the legal system? Is there anyone under investigation for any crime that you're not certain about guilt or innocence prior to the trial?


:thumbsup: Comedy gold! Yup, anyone that questions the myth hates winning and loves cancer. 

It appears you are confused as to how the US legal system works. It is the Fed's job to file charges for crimes like trafficking, tax evasion, money laundering, etc. This is an internet forum. Nobody here can send Lance to prison. 

You are welcome to suspend rational thought and ignore the mountain of evidence that but that does not mean the rest of us have to.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> Quick questions to you? Is your bond to Armstrong your shared atheism? When one moves into their golden years they may need a GOD in human form, someone to worship perhaps?
> 
> Good luck in your belief system!


On a sidenote, let's not be quick to associate atheism to LA! I'm from a Buddhist family but really think of myself as an atheist when it comes to categorizing my religious view. That's because Buddhism's sense of god is quite different from the Western (Christianity-Judiasm-Islam) sense of the word.

Personally, I can't stand a winner who gets there by cheating. I'm sure had LA didn't win a thing and is not as famous as he is, nobody would care. But you are virtually the face of US cycling and you cheated, well.. that's gonna perk a lot of interests.

Furthermore, those government lawyers who take on high profile cases are themselves ambitious people looking to use their wins as political stepping stones. 

Will be interesting to see how this play out. But I don't expect a spectacular fireworks ending, instead I expect a backdoor plea bargain of some type though that nobody except the cycling crowds would know about.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> On a *sidenote, let's not be quick to associate atheism to LA!* I'm from a Buddhist family but really think of myself as an atheist when it comes to categorizing my religious view. That's because Buddhism's sense of god is quite different from the Western (Christianity-Judiasm-Islam) sense of the word.
> 
> Personally, I can't stand a winner who gets there by cheating. I'm sure had LA didn't win a thing and is not as famous as he is, nobody would care. But you are virtually the face of US cycling and you cheated, well.. that's gonna perk a lot of interests.
> 
> ...


I was just tweaking him because he's made no secret on these forums that he's politically aligned with those that are always shouting from the rooftops about how devout they are even though he is an atheist..

All of the evidence would lead to the conclusion there is no deity. This is where Faith comes in.

Ironic that all the evidence points to Armstrong's guilt but that hasn't stopped SS from hoping against hope that his god is innocent.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Chris-X said:


> Patton Boggs | Professionals | Robert Luskin
> 
> Lance Armstrong: '60 Minutes' Unfair Doping Allegations - The Daily Beast
> 
> ...


I don't understand your process of reasoning. Lawyers are hired to represent the interests of their clients. And what CBS has characterized with the inflamatory term, "character assassination," a lawyer would simply call impeachment -- the engine of truth, as the Supreme Court puts it. Especially here, where there is little room for dispute that both Landis and Hamilton come with significant credibility problems, of course Lance's lawyers would seek to drive that point home with the producers of a broadcast featuring allegations made by Landis and Hamilton.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

worst_shot_ever said:


> I don't understand your process of reasoning. Lawyers are hired to represent the interests of their clients. And what CBS has characterized with the inflamatory term, "character assassination," a lawyer would simply call impeachment -- the engine of truth, as the Supreme Court puts it. Especially here, where there is little room for dispute that both Landis and Hamilton come with significant credibility problems, of course Lance's lawyers would seek to drive that point home with the producers of a broadcast featuring allegations made by Landis and Hamilton.


Certainly Landis and Hamilton have issues....but do Levi, Hincapie, and VDV?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

worst_shot_ever said:


> I don't understand your process of reasoning. Lawyers are hired to represent the interests of their clients. And what CBS has characterized with the inflamatory term, "character assassination," a lawyer would simply call impeachment -- the engine of truth, as the Supreme Court puts it. Especially here, where there is little room for dispute that both Landis and Hamilton come with significant credibility problems, of course Lance's lawyers would seek to drive that point home with the producers of a broadcast featuring allegations made by Landis and Hamilton.


Attorneys are required to take on any client who approaches them? I didn't know that.


Lance's lackeys have a way with "impeachment." They were going to "impeach" 60 minutes sources the same way LeMond, Bassons, Simeoni, Kimmage, Walsh, Mike Anderson, the Andreu's were "impeached."

Actually, Landis and Hamilton have more credibility than the SCOTUS does at this point in time, and Hincapie's corroboration was included in the 60 Minutes report. How's his credibility? 

"One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." 

John Paul Stevens, Bush v Gore dissent​
Also, please show me the "disgraceful journalism." Odd how Luskin didn't detail what was so "disgraceful" about it.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

Chris-X said:


> Attorneys are required to take on any client who approaches them? I didn't know that.
> 
> 
> Lance's lackeys have a way with "impeachment." They were going to "impeach" 60 minutes sources the same way LeMond, Bassons, Simeoni, Kimmage, Walsh, Mike Anderson, the Andreu's were "impeached."
> ...


Landis may not be your ideal witness but as far as the Fed investigators are concerned he has provided impeccable starting points to a trail of money that was allegedly used by Armstrong & Bruyneel to fund the Posties' doping program.

Landis relayed Bruyneel had informed that 60 of the 120 team issue Trek bikes were sold at the beginning of the season to fund the doping program. The balance were maintained in top condition to sell at season's end for the program. These facts have been corroborated relating to the sale of bikes.

LA had 7 bikes, from memory, and they would fetch $20,000 each.

The Feds have been to Trek. Trek have admitted they were aware those bikes were being sold in European bike shops and on Ebay but stopped the practice in 2007. Bikes then must be passed down to junior teams.

It is very easy for the Feds to pick up the trail of the money from the Ebay sales and from the bike shops into a final bank account. The estimated 360 individual bike sales over 3 years (2002-2004) is a lot of money flow transactions. The outgoing activities of that bank account and its operators would be an explosive disclosure in a trial.

The reported cooperation of Swiss banks with Fed investigators would not be music to the embattled LA camp.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Good points*

I agree. This is what I was responding to.



worst_shot_ever said:


> I don't understand your process of reasoning. Lawyers are hired to represent the interests of their clients. And what CBS has characterized with the inflamatory term, "character assassination," a lawyer would simply call impeachment -- the engine of truth, as the Supreme Court puts it. *Especially here, where there is little room for dispute that both Landis and Hamilton come with significant credibility problems, of course Lance's lawyers would seek to drive that point home with the producers of a broadcast featuring allegations made by Landis and Hamilton*.


I guess there is some room for dispute, eh?



Veloflash said:


> Landis may not be your ideal witness but as far as the Fed investigators are concerned he has provided impeccable starting points to a trail of money that was allegedly used by Armstrong & Bruyneel to fund the Posties' doping program.
> 
> Landis relayed Bruyneel had informed that 60 of the 120 team issue Trek bikes were sold at the beginning of the season to fund the doping program. The balance were maintained in top condition to sell at season's end for the program. These facts have been corroborated relating to the sale of bikes.
> 
> ...


Thanks!


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> But we are not the court here. The issues regarding Armstrong's cheating and fraud have morphed from, he didn't, to, there's no evidence, to the case won't hold up, to it can't be legally proven in a court and even if you can, so what if he did. The constant moving of the goal posts is absurd.
> 
> .
> 
> ...


I was talking about legal definitions. Personal opinions of guilt and court outcomes can obviously differ, not sure why you would spend so much time explaining this. 

It's clear to most people paying any attention that Armstrong is very, very likely guilty of doping. 

I am amused, however, that you immediately paint me as Armstrong defender for pointing out that in court of law one is innocent till proven guilty (even if they, gasp!, - use lawyers).

However, the story about the size or the money spent on legal team is boring, predictable and irrelevant. Considering what is at stake for Armstrong, it would be stupidity for him NOT to get all the legal strategies he can get. I am not sure what, if anything, this proves. Plenty of innocent defenders use lawyers, often expensive ones. Big deal.

The real juicy scandal is the testimony some of the other (non-tainted) riders gave grand jury, paper and bank transaction trails, suppressed positives etc. - not the size of Armstrong's legal team. I haven't heard much development since early summer, probably not since 60-minute Hamilton interview. When will the other shoe fall?

By the way, Marion Jones didn't go to prison for doping. It was for lying and check fraud.

Somehow I really doubt Armstrong sees 1 day in prison, I would be shocked if it happened. His team will find a way to plead it out somehow.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> Attorneys are required to take on any client who approaches them? I didn't know that.


Are you really surprised some lawyer agrees to be hired by Armstrong, and then does what they are hired to do? 
Are you really suggesting that no lawyer should agree to defend Armstrong - on ethical (ha!) grounds? 

Do you realize that there are lawyers who represent mass murderers and rapists, and still do the best job at defending their clients? 

Either you are not very familiar with US legal system or you have a very, very naive view of the world.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

55x11 said:


> The real juicy scandal is the testimony some of the other (non-tainted) riders gave grand jury, paper and bank transaction trails, suppressed positives etc. - not the size of Armstrong's legal team. I haven't heard much development since early summer, probably not since 60-minute Hamilton interview. When will the other shoe fall?
> 
> By the way, Marion Jones didn't go to prison for doping. It was for lying and check fraud.
> 
> Somehow I really doubt Armstrong sees 1 day in prison, I would be shocked if it happened. His team will find a way to plead it out somehow.


It appears that BMC does not care what Hincapie told the Feds and USADA. No surprise, Rhys, LeLange, and Och, have ignored doping for years and besides Hincapie is likely riding clean these days.

Levi is another story. When it comes out that he has been systematically doping for a decade you have to wonder what the response of his new team, that is paying him $1,000,000 per year, will be? Add to this the fact Dekker is talking to WADA right now about doping on Rabo and people's view of Levi could change. 

Armstrong has been surrounded by a group of enablers for a decade. Who will be the first non-rider to flip? Jogi has already flipped, detailing how Armstrong flew around the world on private jets with drugs. 

I see 2-3 years of smoke and mirrors from Armstrong's legal team as they try to weaken the Feds case. Eventually they will work a deal that includes minimal prison time.....and giving up some victories.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*God help us!*



55x11 said:


> Are you really surprised some lawyer agrees to be hired by Armstrong, and then does what they are hired to do?


Nope. You have a reading comprehension issue apparently.



55x11 said:


> Are you really suggesting that no lawyer should agree to defend Armstrong - on ethical (ha!) grounds?


Again, read what I wrote. It was in response to other posters labeling Armstrong's defense team a "dream" team, and Luskin as "brilliant."

I apologize to you if it wasn't clear that just because Armstrong seeks legal council, whoever he approaches is not obliged to represent him.



55x11 said:


> Do you realize that there are lawyers who represent mass murderers and rapists, and still do the best job at defending their clients?


No kidding! There is also a clear line between a zealous defense and fabricating $hit. Oh, I forgot, Pharmstrong is represented by the Mark Fabricator amongst other skells.

Again, you're creating a whole narrative out of my assertion that attorneys can and do turn down clients they believe are guilty. 



55x11 said:


> Either you are not very familiar with US legal system or you have a very, very naive view of the world.


Take a deep breath. It helps calm the hysteria.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Because I'm encountering density..*



55x11 said:


> I was talking about legal definitions. Personal opinions of guilt and court outcomes can obviously differ, not sure why you would spend so much time explaining this.
> 
> It's clear to most people paying any attention that Armstrong is very, very likely guilty of doping.
> 
> ...


Did I paint you as an Armstrong defender? I will say that you continually make meaningless distinctions on an internet forum which superficially accrue to Armstrong's benefit. One of those is that Armstrong is technically innocent under the law as we speak. Thanks for providing that info. I'm sure you've enlightened people who thought that Armstrong had already been convicted.

Also thanks for letting the unwashed masses know that in this great land of ours, you are "innocent" until proven guilty. 


Re Marion Jones.....
Ooooh, you're right! It was for *lying about doping.* Good effing grief. Another meaningless point. They didn't get her for lying about what she had for lunch, did they?

The New York Times > Member Center > We're Sorry

She was to plead guilty to one count of making false statements to federal agents about her use of performance-enhancing drugs and one count of making false statements to federal agents in connection with a separate check-fraud case, said two lawyers connected with the case.​
What is noteworthy about the lawyers that Armstrong has retained is that they historically have mitigated the damage to their clients, not by being transparent and telling the truth, but by obfuscating and confusing the issues to "win" their cases.

Armstrong is clearly guilty here. That is the only thing that matters. Please tell me the import of the points you argue so strenuously. Most of them are so obvious they don't need to be stated or are Armstrong talking points.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

The best thing to do when being questioned by the feds about something that you may or may not have done is to plead the 5th with a 'no comment'.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

MikeBiker said:


> The best thing to do when being questioned by the feds about something that you may or may not have done is to plead the 5th with a 'no comment'.


What about if you make a huge income from positive pr. and you are absolutely innocent of the possible charges?


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

Chris-X said:


> What about if you make a huge income from positive pr. and you are absolutely innocent of the possible charges?


Is anyone being investigated ever absolutely innocent?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

MikeBiker said:


> Is anyone being investigated ever absolutely innocent?


Just getting back to this case, it seems that the Armstrong mythology rests on him being clean and the absolute statements he's made to that effect.

Therefore any equivocation on his part is damaging to his "brand."

He realizes this and that's why he's fighting so hard. 

IOW, he's either used PED's or he hasn't. That's an absolute. All of the other charges stem from his involvement with PED's. It's quite simple, despite all the efforts to obfuscate.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> .." even though it's obvious to anyone, even a fool, that Armstrong is guilty..


You win this one. It appears to be obvious to at least one fool. There's no denying that.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

MikeBiker said:


> The best thing to do when being questioned by the feds about something that you may or may not have done is to plead the 5th with a 'no comment'.


You can only plead the Fifth when your response may incriminate you.

In GJ proceedings all witnesses, except for the targets if subpoenaed, are granted immunity from prosecution on the condition they are truthful. So they cannot incriminate themselves with the truth and so cannot hide behind the Fifth.

Marion Jones and Barry Bonds were witnesses in the BALCO case - not targets. Their criminal indictments arose from not being truthful and in contempt of court while being witnesses with immunities.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Logically*



SwiftSolo said:


> Hunters usually enjoy claims of "hunting". I'm thinking that, with your conclusive evidence of guilt, you should file suit against Armstrong on behalf of the American public. Your certain victory will make you a hero among all who find winning distasteful.
> 
> I'm curious. Exactly what is it that drives the desire to find guilt or innocence prior to any trial? Is it your belief that being found guilty or innocent by a group of x-spurts on the internet should supersede the legal system? Is there anyone under investigation for any crime that you're not certain about guilt or innocence prior to the trial?





Chris-X said:


> Huh? WTF are you talking about? Hunting usually involves tracking and stalking. In the Armstrong case all that is required is opening one's eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





SwiftSolo said:


> You win this one. It appears to be obvious to at least one fool. There's no denying that.


challenged. 

You're the one who comes up with nonsense like this; *Your certain victory will make you a hero among all who find winning distasteful. *:lol:

Your holding out for LA is like the Japanese who were still fighting WWII 30 years after it had ended. I'm sorry for you that Armstrong has been exposed.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

Veloflash said:


> You can only plead the Fifth when your response may incriminate you.
> 
> In GJ proceedings all witnesses, except for the targets if subpoenaed, are granted immunity from prosecution on the condition they are truthful. So they cannot incriminate themselves with the truth and so cannot hide behind the Fifth.
> 
> Marion Jones and Barry Bonds were witnesses in the BALCO case - not targets. Their criminal indictments arose from not being truthful and in contempt of court while being witnesses with immunities.


Sure, confuse me with facts.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> challenged.
> 
> You're the one who comes up with nonsense like this; *Your certain victory will make you a hero among all who find winning distasteful. *:lol:
> 
> Your holding out for LA is like the Japanese who were still fighting WWII 30 years after it had ended. I'm sorry for you that Armstrong has been exposed.


LOL in the case of the Japanese, they had no idea the war had already ended. They were on remote atolls, not even islands, where communication was nonexistent. Armstrong supporters today have access to info.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> LOL in the case of the Japanese, they had no idea the war had already ended. They were on remote atolls, not even islands, where communication was nonexistent. Armstrong supporters today have access to info.


For whatever reasons, communication with the Armstrong supporters is nonexistant too.

You have any insight into that phenomenon?


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Chris-X said:


> I agree. This is what I was responding to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chris: No, there's not. Maybe those two admitted liars and cheats can be corroborated, but that is a different point then the one to which you are responding.

Dr. F: I agree. The credibility of Levi and several others who may be in a position to testify adversely to LA is pretty solid, at least from what is publicly known. The govenment will obviously seek to corroborate Floyd and Tyler with other credible witnesses and records. That said, and this may also be obvious, but if there is any critical claim in the case on which the jury (or grand jury) must rely solely on the testimony of TH or FL *without* corroboration, that will be problematic and the focus of the defense -- and thus the reason for all of this lengthy investigation into other sources of evidence.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

Veloflash said:


> Landis may not be your ideal witness but as far as the Fed investigators are concerned he has provided impeccable starting points to a trail of money that was allegedly used by Armstrong & Bruyneel to fund the Posties' doping program.
> 
> Landis relayed Bruyneel had informed that 60 of the 120 team issue Trek bikes were sold at the beginning of the season to fund the doping program. The balance were maintained in top condition to sell at season's end for the program. These facts have been corroborated relating to the sale of bikes.
> 
> ...


They also had a website called thepaceline.com (put this in your browser and see where it goes now) that they sold the bikes and gear on. I know, I bought some of their stuff.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Veloflash said:


> ... In GJ proceedings all witnesses, except for the targets if subpoenaed, are granted immunity from prosecution on the condition they are truthful. So they cannot incriminate themselves with the truth and so cannot hide behind the Fifth.


That's not true, at least not in federal grand jury practice. A witness certainly can be immunized, but it isn't self-effectuating. Rather, it requires the witness to assert his 5th A. right, and (assuming that assertion is not successfully challenged by the govt) then either a court order (statutory immunity) or the agreement of the government (letter immunity).


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

Mootsie said:


> They also had a website called thepaceline.com (put this in your browser and see where it goes now) that they sold the bikes and gear on. I know, I bought some of their stuff.


Gets re-directed to Livestrong/Radioshack.

Paceline was operating US Postal merchandising sales. Paceline is not Ebay. Bruyneel has admitted on CyclingNews that Discovery Channel Trek bikes were being sold on Ebay.

Here are some relative quotes from the Wall Street Journal article about the "The Case of the Missing Bikes"



> The next day, Mr. Landis said, he got a phone call from Mr. Bruyneel, who was angry that Mr. Landis had contacted the sponsors. According to Mr. Landis, Mr. Bruyneel told him that the money raised from equipment sales helped pay for doping.





> David Clinger, another teammate of Mr. Landis's on the 2002 U.S. Postal team, said he had heard that team bikes were resold, although he didn't know what the money was used for. "They sell the bikes online," Mr. Clinger said. "They can get $10,000 or $20,000, if the bike was ridden by Lance."





> Robert Burns, general counsel for Trek, said the company was aware that bikes meant for U.S. Postal riders were being sold, but said it didn't know what the money was used for. "Occasionally, you'd see a bike on the Internet somewhere where it would surprise us," said Mr. Burns, who recalled an instance where one of the team bikes was sold in a bike shop in Belgium. There wasn't much Trek could do to stop such sales. "Once that stuff goes to the director sportif and the mechanic of the team, it's in their possession," Mr. Burns said. He declined to comment about whether Trek had been contacted by investigators.





> About three years ago [note: 2007], Trek began writing into its contracts that the pro teams it sponsored had to pass the bike frames on to their junior teams. "We just got more specific about it," explained Mr. Burns. "We didn't want to see that stuff getting sold on the market. It should be going to a better use than that."


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

Veloflash said:


> Gets re-directed to Livestrong/Radioshack.
> 
> Paceline was operating US Postal merchandising sales. Paceline is not Ebay. Bruyneel has admitted on CyclingNews that Discovery Channel Trek bikes were being sold on Ebay.
> 
> Here are some relative quotes from the Wall Street Journal article about the "The Case of the Missing Bikes"


My point being that it wasn't just on eBay that they were selling the bikes. The shipping labels from paceline came from Tailwind, Lance's company. The team still owns the domain name, hence the redirect to Radioshack.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

worst_shot_ever said:


> That's not true, at least not in federal grand jury practice. A witness certainly can be immunized, but it isn't self-effectuating. Rather, it requires the witness to assert his 5th A. right, and (assuming that assertion is not successfully challenged by the govt) then either a court order (statutory immunity) or the agreement of the government (letter immunity).


If you look up the dictionary definition of "grant" as used by myself in "are *grant*ed immunity" it states:

_"To confer, give, or bestow. A gift of legal rights or privileges"_

It is an action of one party towards another party.. "Grant" does not mean that a witness can claim immunity but means it must e conferred, given or bestowed by another party (with authority).


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Mootsie said:


> My point being that it wasn't just on eBay that they were selling the bikes. The shipping labels from paceline came from Tailwind, Lance's company. The team still owns the domain name, hence the redirect to Radioshack.



What's also cool is the spin by Armstrong minions who accused LeMond of misusing his employee bike purchase benefit to then sell bikes for his own profit.:thumbsup:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> For whatever reasons, communication with the Armstrong supporters is nonexistant too.
> 
> You have any insight into that phenomenon?


Yes, what kind of lunatic doesn't develop his opinion regarding guilt from the enlightened losers on the internet?

Just so you'll have been told, I have no opinion either way until I hear the evidence from folks who are mentally stable.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yes, what kind of lunatic doesn't develop his opinion regarding guilt from the enlightened losers on the internet?
> 
> Just so you'll have been told, I have no opinion either way until I hear the evidence from folks who are mentally stable.


It is OK if we ignore the losers like Fabiani but develop an opinion based the statements of witness and the excellent coverage of the investigative reporters at SI, WSJ, and the NYT?


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Veloflash said:


> If you look up the dictionary definition of "grant" as used by myself in "are *grant*ed immunity" it states:
> 
> _"To confer, give, or bestow. A gift of legal rights or privileges"_
> 
> It is an action of one party towards another party.. "Grant" does not mean that a witness can claim immunity but means it must e conferred, given or bestowed by another party (with authority).


That's wonderful. But in fact, in response to a post suggesting people should invoke the 5th when dealing with the feds, you asserted that "_n GJ proceedings all witnesses, except for the targets if subpoenaed, are granted immunity from prosecution on the condition they are truthful. So they cannot incriminate themselves with the truth and so cannot hide behind the Fifth." That is incorrect. It is the rare such witness who receives immunity, and that would happen in any event only if the witness first invokes -- usually on a question by question basis in the GJ. Further, if a witness (or really a subject more likely) seeks to invoke, a prosecutor is going to wonder what it is about their testimony that implicates them and demand a proffer at the least before buying a pig in a poke and seeking to compel/immunize the witness blindly. Regardless, this is all pretty irrelevant to the current situation, as Lance will take a PR hit by invoking, and if he is truly a target, he is not going to be subpoenaed anyway (under DOJ policy). At most, he'll get a target letter inviting him to testify if he wishes (and he'd be a damned fool to accept that offer)._


----------



## letitsnow (Jul 9, 2011)

You people have too much free time...


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Thanks!*



worst_shot_ever said:


> That's wonderful. But in fact, in response to a post suggesting people should invoke the 5th when dealing with the feds, you asserted that "_n GJ proceedings all witnesses, except for the targets if subpoenaed, are granted immunity from prosecution on the condition they are truthful. So they cannot incriminate themselves with the truth and so cannot hide behind the Fifth." That is incorrect. It is the rare such witness who receives immunity, and that would happen in any event only if the witness first invokes -- usually on a question by question basis in the GJ. Further, if a witness (or really a subject more likely) seeks to invoke, a prosecutor is going to wonder what it is about their testimony that implicates them and demand a proffer at the least before buying a pig in a poke and seeking to compel/immunize the witness blindly. *Regardless, this is all pretty irrelevant to the current situation, as Lance will take a PR hit by invoking, *and if he is truly a target, he is not going to be subpoenaed anyway (under DOJ policy). *At most, he'll get a target letter inviting him to testify if he wishes (and he'd be a damned fool to accept that offer*)._


_

Great post!

To completely close the loop for the simple minded, he would be a fool because he is so obviously guilty of just about everything he is being accused of.

The lying geniuses he has arguing his case, may very well get a not guilty verdict for Armstrong, but that will be because ot the simplicity of the arbiters.

Swift Solo, do you have a residence in the SoCal area? Maybe you could get on the jury?_


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

worst_shot_ever said:


> Chris: No, there's not. Maybe those two admitted liars and cheats can be corroborated, but that is a different point then the one to which you are responding..


Probably the biggest and most fundamental lie laid down by lawyers. That some people are liars and can't be trusted, and others embody the truth and are unimpeachable. :lol:

Everybody lies, Judges, Attorneys, Police officers, jurors,,everybody. Judges sometimes even instruct juries of this FACT and admonish them that no one is to be trusted just because of their station in life.

To just sweep away the testimony of FL and TH because it can be demonstrated they've lied in the past is the simplistic argument of a child which a good prosecutor can and should destroy. It also negatively affects the defense, because it looks like the defense is trying to put one over.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

worst_shot_ever said:


> That's wonderful. But in fact, in response to a post suggesting people should invoke the 5th when dealing with the feds, you asserted that "_n GJ proceedings all witnesses, except for the targets if subpoenaed, are granted immunity from prosecution on the condition they are truthful. So they cannot incriminate themselves with the truth and so cannot hide behind the Fifth." *That is incorrect. It is the rare such witness who receives immunity, and that would happen in any event only if the witness first invokes -- usually on a question by question basis in the GJ*. Further, if a witness (or really a subject more likely) seeks to invoke, a prosecutor is going to wonder what it is about their testimony that implicates them and demand a proffer at the least before buying a pig in a poke and seeking to compel/immunize the witness blindly. Regardless, this is all pretty irrelevant to the current situation, as Lance will take a PR hit by invoking, and if he is truly a target, he is not going to be subpoenaed anyway (under DOJ policy). At most, he'll get a target letter inviting him to testify if he wishes (and he'd be a damned fool to accept that offer)._


_

You claim it is rare for a witness to receive immunity.

Tyler Hamilton on "60 Minutes" admitted to having been granted immunity.

BALCO case - same investigator - Jeff Novitzky - more than 30 elite athlete witnesses received immunity

Marion Jones & Tammy Thomas committed perjury even with the protection of immunity and received sentences. Telling the truth is the fundamental plank of a grant of immunity.




The lead federal agency on BALCO was the IRS; the Food & Drug Administration became involved when IRS agent Jeff Novitzky took a job with the FDA.

Click to expand...





More than 30 elite athletes were called to testify about BALCO. All, including Bonds, were given immunity from prosecution. As a result, they couldn’t cite their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying

Click to expand...

_


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Velo - Yeah, we agree on that stuff. Doesn't change my point, but as I said, my point wasn't related to any particular case, just to clarify federal grand jury practice generally -- one thing I actually know something about and can contribute. But it wasn't worth the candle, and I should have let it go. Mea culpa.

Chris Cross - Got it. You are brilliant, and Bob Luskin is a simpleton.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

worst_shot_ever said:


> Chris Cross - Got it. You are brilliant, and Bob Luskin is a simpleton.


It doesn't take much brilliance to argue the "hater" strategy, does it?

If brilliance is required to make the simple complex, I don't want it. 

With all of Luskin's supposed brilliance, you'd think he would be able to see Armstrong's guilt.

If he does know Armstrong is guilty, it makes the "hater" strategy even more odious.:thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Chris-X said:


> It doesn't take much brilliance to argue the "hater" strategy, does it?
> 
> If brilliance is required to make the simple complex, I don't want it.
> 
> ...


At this point Luskin does not know the whole story. He has not seen the charges or all the evidence. All he knows is what Lance and Stapleton tell him. 

When the charges and he is able to see the evidence his first words to lance will be something along the line of "Dude, you have some explaining to do" ......after that it will all be billable hours as he tries to find loopholes so he can get a better plea deal


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

55x11 said:


> Somehow I really doubt Armstrong sees 1 day in prison, I would be shocked if it happened.


so far so good on predictions front. Still didn't expect Feds would give up so easily. Especially after Hamilton interview.

Armstrong: 1, Novitzky&Feds: 0.

I wonder if this is the last we hear about it though.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

55x11 said:


> so far so good on predictions front. Still didn't expect Feds would give up so easily. Especially after Hamilton interview.
> 
> Armstrong: 1, Novitzky&Feds: 0.
> 
> I wonder if this is the last we hear about it though.



- Maybe that should read Feds: FAIL of EPIC proportions.

You're welcome for the European vacation Novitzky. You putz.

Sincerely, 
The Taxpayers


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Maybe that should read Feds: FAIL of EPIC proportions.
> 
> You're welcome for the European vacation Novitzky. You putz.
> 
> ...


what's telling is that they tried to bury the story by dumping it at 5PM on a Friday, before Superbowl. So they know how damaging it is to them.


----------

