Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    wrm
    Reputation: Data_God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57

    7 Solid Counts of Perjury

    1. That Dr Ferrari never prescribed, administered or suggested any kind of a drug or doping program for Lance Armstrong.

    2. That there was nothing in Lance Armstrong’s dealings with Dr Ferrari that would suggest that Dr Ferrari was encouraging other athletes to use performance enhancing drugs.

    3 That Lance Armstrong had not had any professional relationship with Dr. Ferrari since October 1, 2004.

    4 That Lance Armstrong never violated the rules of the UCI or the Tour de France in connection with the Tour de France in 2001, 2002, 2003 or 2004.

    5 That Lance Armstrong had never taken any performance enhancing drug in connection with his cycling career.

    6 That Lance Armstrong never had any knowledge of Tyler Hamilton using illegal substances when he was Armstrong’s team-mate.

    7 That Tyler Hamilton did not dope while he was on Lance Armstrong’s team

  2. #2
    Have good, get give
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    963
    I ain't no lawyer, but #3 on this is the only one that really looks to be "solid".
    babyarm

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: jswilson64's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    335
    Given that the Federal prosecutor dropped the case, I wouldn't bet on any of these being proven in a court of law.

    Also, see Roger Clemens' trial and outcome- no US assistant district attorney wants another fiasco like that on their resume.

  4. #4
    12 strings, no waiting
    Reputation: mohair_chair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    20,885
    Quote Originally Posted by culdeus View Post
    I ain't no lawyer, but #3 on this is the only one that really looks to be "solid".
    Agreed. Lying isn't perjury unless it was done under oath with the penalty of perjury, and I'm guessing Armstrong didn't give sworn testimony on most of those things. To my recollection, the only sworn testimony he ever gave was in the SCA case, and I'll bet no one ever asked him questions about Hamilton, for instance.

  5. #5
    wrm
    Reputation: Data_God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    Actually Mr. Armstrong did make these statements "Under Oath" and the transcript is available.

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: SicBith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by Data_God View Post
    Actually Mr. Armstrong did make these statements "Under Oath" and the transcript is available.
    I think the SCA case was a civil case.
    Set=DbOg

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,850
    Quote Originally Posted by SicBith View Post
    I think the SCA case was a civil case.
    So what if it was a civil case. Every witness that takes the stand takes an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc. Lying on the stand in a criminal or civil trial, or even while under oath for a deposition in a criminal or civil trial, is considered perjury.

    Signing your tax return and intentionally lying on it, is perjury without you even uttering a word.

    Let's not forget that the criminal case against Lance at the federal level was not just for perjury, but I believe it also had aspects of racketeering and money laundering in it too.
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Modified by unknown from Bovard's original quote<o:p></o:p>

    Bikes:
    Colnago C50 ST01 - 2008 Campy Record 10 - Zipp 303
    Colnago Cristallo NS03 - 2007 Campy Record 10 - Custom Wheels
    Colnago Oval Krono LX4 - 2008 Campy Record 10 - Zipp 808/disk
    Colnago Arte bare aluminum - 2007 Campy Record 10 - Zipp 404
    Colnago Arte NS03 - unbuilt
    Bianchi FG Lite Liqui - 2008 Record - Zipp 202

  8. #8
    You Phillip mah census
    Reputation: sir duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,219
    Quote Originally Posted by mohair_chair View Post
    Agreed. Lying isn't perjury unless it was done under oath with the penalty of perjury, and I'm guessing Armstrong didn't give sworn testimony on most of those things. To my recollection, the only sworn testimony he ever gave was in the SCA case, and I'll bet no one ever asked him questions about Hamilton, for instance.
    Easy enough to find out, the entire SCA deposition made by Lance is over at Youtube, as I recall Hamilton's name isn't brought up. If you haven't seen it, you should. To say Lance is evasive and has a very selective memory is putting it mildly. I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed in-depth on this forum. It gives a far amount of insight into how Armstrong thinks and operates.
    There ain't no sanity clause... (Chico Marx)

    I accidentally..a burrito. (Old Fuji)

    Norman Wisdom, Johnny, Joey, Dee Dee, good times... (Phil Oakey)

  9. #9
    12 strings, no waiting
    Reputation: mohair_chair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    20,885
    Quote Originally Posted by sir duke View Post
    To say Lance is evasive and has a very selective memory is putting it mildly. I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed in-depth on this forum. It gives a far amount of insight into how Armstrong thinks and operates.
    I'm guessing you haven't read a lot of depositions. He's a hostile witness in this case, and anyone in the same situation who has a decent lawyer will get the same instructions: stick with yes or no answers, and don't volunteer anything. If you don't know the answer or can't be precise, don't guess. Just say "I don't know" or "I don't recall."

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    417
    Lying isn't perjury unless it was done under oath

    does this apply to any elected leader who lies after they swore under oath ?

  11. #11
    Get me to In&Out
    Reputation: spookyload's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,540
    Am I missing the obvious here? The Gov looked at the evidence it had and determined it didn'thave enough EVIDENCE to pursue it. Unlike USADA who can take statements from people and put a case together at their discretion, a US court actually requires evidence, which is something they obviously didn't have enough of or they would have pursued the case after years of investigating it. (wow...nice run on sentence).
    Cyclists really need to learn a little Rule #5.

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: roddjbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    472
    Quote Originally Posted by spookyload View Post
    Am I missing the obvious here? The Gov looked at the evidence it had and determined it didn'thave enough EVIDENCE to pursue it. Unlike USADA who can take statements from people and put a case together at their discretion, a US court actually requires evidence, which is something they obviously didn't have enough of or they would have pursued the case after years of investigating it. (wow...nice run on sentence).
    Isn't it quite obvious that eyewitness testimony is "EVIDENCE"?
    "It never gets easier, you just go faster" - Greg LeMond

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: mpre53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by roddjbrown View Post
    Isn't it quite obvious that eyewitness testimony is "EVIDENCE"?
    The "Gov" puts people in Leavenworth for life on the testimony of a single eyewitness.

    Just bear in mind that his vote counts the same as yours and mine. Any wonder why I'm grateful for my wife's dual citizenship?

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: ultimobici's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jswilson64 View Post
    Given that the Federal prosecutor dropped the case, I wouldn't bet on any of these being proven in a court of law.

    Also, see Roger Clemens' trial and outcome- no US assistant district attorney wants another fiasco like that on their resume.
    Nothing to stop it being resurrected AFAIK. I'd be surprised if Birotte survives the fallout from his closing the Federal Investigation.

  15. #15
    Get me to In&Out
    Reputation: spookyload's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by roddjbrown View Post
    Isn't it quite obvious that eyewitness testimony is "EVIDENCE"?
    Apparently it isn't. They spent millions on an investigation with the same evidence that USADA based its ruling on. There wasn't enough legitamate evidence to take the case to trial the first time, so now you assume the same documents they have will be strong enough to take it to trial because USADA made on ruling on the info they gave to them?
    Cyclists really need to learn a little Rule #5.

  16. #16
    You Phillip mah census
    Reputation: sir duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,219
    Quote Originally Posted by mohair_chair View Post
    I'm guessing you haven't read a lot of depositions. He's a hostile witness in this case, and anyone in the same situation who has a decent lawyer will get the same instructions: stick with yes or no answers, and don't volunteer anything. If you don't know the answer or can't be precise, don't guess. Just say "I don't know" or "I don't recall."
    Good guess, I haven't read a lot of depositions, but he's able to do more than 'yes' or 'no' when it suits him. He contradicts himself too. At first he states he's shocked at Lemond's ranting during their phone conversation as he thought Lemond was a 'friend'. Later on he clearly states that he and Lemond were not close. I'm guessing you haven't viewed his deposition.
    There ain't no sanity clause... (Chico Marx)

    I accidentally..a burrito. (Old Fuji)

    Norman Wisdom, Johnny, Joey, Dee Dee, good times... (Phil Oakey)

  17. #17
    wrm
    Reputation: Data_God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by spookyload View Post
    Apparently it isn't. They spent millions on an investigation with the same evidence that USADA based its ruling on. There wasn't enough legitamate evidence to take the case to trial the first time, so now you assume the same documents they have will be strong enough to take it to trial because USADA made on ruling on the info they gave to them?
    Hilarious. Apparently you aren't aware that the Federal Investigation was *not* dropped due to lack of evidence. The suspension of the investigation came from higher ups who, most likely, caved to political pressure from LA or his Legal team.

    I do however, feel that because the burden of proof requirement is so much higher in a criminal case the chances of finding him guilty would have been harder. But the USADA reasoned paper did not have any information from the Federal Depositions. And thus we really do not know what was testified to in front of the Grand Jury. So we only know what the lead investigator has said. "He had a very strong case".

    A "fly in the ointment" here is the Teams initial sponsor..... US Postal. That's Federal Money. AKA "our Tax Dollars" and I think that getting Mr. Armstrong under oath would really be interesting. And this could be just the leverage needed to accomplish that end.

    There are many others that need to fall in order to clean up USA Cycling.

    Bill

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: mpre53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Data_God View Post
    Hilarious. Apparently you aren't aware that the Federal Investigation was *not* dropped due to lack of evidence. The suspension of the investigation came from higher ups who, most likely, caved to political pressure from LA or his Legal team.

    I do however, feel that because the burden of proof requirement is so much higher in a criminal case the chances of finding him guilty would have been harder. But the USADA reasoned paper did not have any information from the Federal Depositions. And thus we really do not know what was testified to in front of the Grand Jury. So we only know what the lead investigator has said. "He had a very strong case".

    A "fly in the ointment" here is the Teams initial sponsor..... US Postal. That's Federal Money. AKA "our Tax Dollars" and I think that getting Mr. Armstrong under oath would really be interesting. And this could be just the leverage needed to accomplish that end.

    There are many others that need to fall in order to clean up USA Cycling.

    Bill
    There's no way that they can get him under oath in a criminal investigation. If he's the target of the investigation, he would never be given the automatic immunity that a witness receives in the grand jury. His lawyers would never allow him to testify under a waiver of immunity. And if he was charged, he would have the right to testify at his trial, but chances are that his lawyers would advise him not to.

  19. #19
    Ya, what ATP said...!
    Reputation: Fogdweller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,194
    Quote Originally Posted by spookyload View Post
    Apparently it isn't. They spent millions on an investigation with the same evidence that USADA based its ruling on. There wasn't enough legitamate evidence to take the case to trial the first time, so now you assume the same documents they have will be strong enough to take it to trial because USADA made on ruling on the info they gave to them?
    I read that Tygart and Co never received the fed body of evidence and had to do their own research and interviews.

    "The American (meaning Tygart) continued by explaining that USADA did not receive any information from the federal investigation into Armstrong's former team, US Postal, even though this had initially been planned. The fraud investigation was filed last February. "
    Last edited by Fogdweller; 10-13-2012 at 06:34 PM.

  20. #20
    Get me to In&Out
    Reputation: spookyload's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Data_God View Post
    Hilarious. Apparently you aren't aware that the Federal Investigation was *not* dropped due to lack of evidence. The suspension of the investigation came from higher ups who, most likely, caved to political pressure from LA or his Legal team.

    Bill
    Is this fact or commentary? If it is fact, please provide a link showing this.
    Cyclists really need to learn a little Rule #5.

  21. #21
    I'm interesting.
    Reputation: superjesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by spookyload View Post
    Is this fact or commentary? If it is fact, please provide a link showing this.
    It has to be commentary. The Fed case was dropped without reason, leaving the curious minded free to speculate.
    "This thread gives me hope that the human race will render itself extinct in my lifetime...." PlatyPius
    "You're not a real cyclist unless you spend money needlessly....." ZoSoSwiM
    "Power is power and it has to be paid for." Alex_Simmons/RST

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: mpre53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by superjesus View Post
    It has to be commentary. The Fed case was dropped without reason, leaving the curious minded free to speculate.
    Exactly. It's just as much commentary to speculate that it was dropped because they didn't have enough "legitimate" evidence..

  23. #23
    You Phillip mah census
    Reputation: sir duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,219
    Quote Originally Posted by spookyload View Post
    Apparently it isn't. They spent millions on an investigation with the same evidence that USADA based its ruling on. There wasn't enough legitamate evidence to take the case to trial the first time, so now you assume the same documents they have will be strong enough to take it to trial because USADA made on ruling on the info they gave to them?

    Heaven preserve us from armchair lawyers...
    There ain't no sanity clause... (Chico Marx)

    I accidentally..a burrito. (Old Fuji)

    Norman Wisdom, Johnny, Joey, Dee Dee, good times... (Phil Oakey)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sea Otter Classic

Hot Deals

Contest


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook