Lance...will he stick to his truth?

[Dave B]

It has been mentioned that USADA might/will call Lance to testify in the case against Johan. Ok, so if this does happen and they ask questions about JB directing the doping, helping to set it up, overseeing the doping and further questions along those lines, does Lance admit to anything?

I get that he has and most likely will deny all of this, but he is on a new level of suspicion if USADA already has this proof he did dope even if he refuses to admit it.

That is purjury if he continues to deny is it not? If USADA does not contain actual proof or enough eye witnesses to verify this does Lance take the 5th, does he continue to deny?

I am fascinated with where his stance will be as he has always maintanined his innocence. Man, just think about what the conversations he is having with lawyers etc.

Stuff just blows my mind that he has to have so many angles covered. he must exhausted at the end of each day dealing with this mess.

[Tony T]

Does the USADA have subpoena powers? If not, why would he testify?

[Elefantino]

Lance doesn't have to say anything or do anything. It's his right.

The USADA folks took away all his wins. It's their right.

[christian]

He will decline to appear. USADA have no binding subpoena power.

[Vientomas]

Does the USADA have subpoena powers? If not, why would he testify?

One Court's opinion:

Matter of Petry Holding Inc. v Rural Media Group Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 50919(U) Decided on April 25, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County

AAA Rule 31(d) states that "[a]n arbitrator or other person authorized by law to subpoena witnesses or documents may do so upon the request of any party or independently." Id.
"[T]here is no question that arbitrators, who are entrusted with deciding an increasing number of disputes in our society, are among those who are statutorily authorized to issue subpoenas, whether ad testificandum or duces tecum." In the Matter of Reuters Limited v. Dow Jones Telerate, Inc.,231 AD2d 337, 341 (1st Dep't 1997). CPLR § 7505 provides that "[a]n arbitrator and any attorney of record in the arbitration proceeding has the power to issue subpoenas."

[BumbleBeeDave]

Their not being a US court of law is a double-edged sword. I'm guessing that they do not have subpoena power and could not compel him to testify.

As a regulatory organization that he is subject to as part of his UCI racing license, their lever to force testimony is probably only based on possibly sanctioning any rider who refuses--and they have already sanctioned him based on his refusal to have his own hearing. Presumably he would have testified and denied at that proceeding.

Perhaps a lawyer would chime in here, but I imagine he could and will tell them to go pound sand if he is asked to testify.

Besides, if he did show up and testify and deny all, you can bet that USADA will have a dozen others who rode or worked for JB who will testify otherwise. The whole affair with his denial pitted against many, MANY others admitting would just heighten the untruth of those denials and subtract in a very public way from whatever measures he's taking to preserve his image with the general public. He has nothing to gain by showing up and much to lose.

BBD

[Dave B]

ok this is all good stuff. thanks.

So if he doesn't show does that further incriminate him in the court of public opinion...if there could possibly be anyone left on the edge of that fence.

[G-Reg]

Lance will do what most benefits Lance.

Nothing more, nothinig less.

If he sees some gain in throwing JB under a bus, he would tie him, buy a bus (using LAF money), drive it over him and back it over him again for good measure.

He would then use the bus purchase as a tax right off on his personal income return and deny the whole event and start claiming to have never known the man.

His minion would take it as gospel.

[Tony T]

ok this is all good stuff. thanks.

So if he doesn't show does that further incriminate him in the court of public opinion...if there could possibly be anyone left on the edge of that fence.

No, anyone on the fence will still be on the fence if he is called to testify and declines.

[Elefantino]

No, anyone on the fence will still be on the fence if he is called to testify and declines.
No one can be on the fence anymore. There is no fence.

If anyone says they're on the fence, their nose will grow.

[malcolm]

Lance will do what most benefits Lance.

Nothing more, nothinig less.

If he sees some gain in throwing JB under a bus, he would tie him, buy a bus (using LAF money), drive it over him and back it over him again for good measure.

He would then use the bus purchase as a tax right off on his personal income return and deny the whole event and start claiming to have never known the man.

His minion would take it as gospel.

Not calling you out, but I hear this all the time. I think most humans act in their own best interest most of the time. I know we celebrate examples of the opposite and there are many, but we are a selfish and self interested species at our very nature. That's why we celebrate and are awed by an act of selflessness, because in the grand scheme of things it's unusual.
Lance is just like most humans, except the lies he is caught up in are bigger and in the spotlight because he is bigger and more powerful.

[Tony T]

No one can be on the fence anymore. There is no fence.

If anyone says they're on the fence, their nose will grow.

I didn't say anyone was on the fence.

[laupsi]

Not calling you out, but I hear this all the time. I think most humans act in their own best interest most of the time. I know we celebrate examples of the opposite and there are many, but we are a selfish and self interested species at our very nature. That's why we celebrate and are awed by an act of selflessness, because in the grand scheme of things it's unusual.
Lance is just like most humans, except the lies he is caught up in are bigger and in the spotlight because he is bigger and more powerful.

better not to go down this "road" again, eh?

[Tony T]

ok this is all good stuff. thanks.


If the USADA cannot compel Lance to testify, then they would be stupid to ask him to testify. They do not want his testimony, as he has denied doping.

So, if the USADA does ask Lance to testify knowing he will decline, this would raises serious concerns about whether its real interest is charging Johan or if it is acting according to less noble motives.

[Dave B]

If the USADA cannot compel Lance to testify, then they would be stupid to ask him to testify. They do not want his testimony, as he has denied doping.

So, if the USADA does ask Lance to testify knowing he will decline, this would just add fuel to the fire that the “USADA’s conduct raises serious concerns about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.”

But you have to agree their intent was always a bit biased towards Lance. Yeah they want to clean up racing, but trying to catch a fish as big as Lance goes a heck of a long way to re-establishing credibility or at least scaring lesser fish to clean their **** up.

They ask him, he denies citing whatever reason he wants and it gives USADA more ammunition (at least on the surface) to validate their findings. Agree or not with their tactics, but I can imagine they will do what it takes to take him down. Don't you think Tygart is just waiting to deliver this report and show the public the corruption in so many places he has discovered.


Side note. If Tygart is able to prove, convince, etc that there is corruption at every level...*** happens next? I mean dismantle the entire collective. To be replaced by another ________ fill in the blank________?

Sorry that almost sounded like a political thread. ;)

[Tony T]

But you have to agree their intent was always a bit biased towards Lance. Yeah they want to clean up racing, but trying to catch a fish as big as Lance goes a heck of a long way to re-establishing credibility or at least scaring lesser fish to clean their **** up.

The USADA has already ruled against him.
Continuing after him now would not help their credibility.

[Z3c]

I won't matter once the USADA info becomes public; bus tire marks for everyone. The interesting thing will be to see if JB says doping was LA's idea or v/v. Some may remember that at the time it was supposedly JB who approached LA and said he could help him win the Tour..

JB had some amazing occasional days on the bike..hmm

Integrity amongst thieves? We'll see in due time.

[christian]

JB will not testify. He's keeping mum so he can stay on the team payroll for another month. Come early November, he'll decline to appear in front of USADA as well. Then he'll be sacked by the team, but somehow taken care of. Etc.

And UCI will be hoping this all blows over.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Sorry that almost sounded like a political thread. ;)

You just can't help it. After all, you ARE "Mr. President!" :p

BBD

[PQJ]

I didn't say anyone was on the fence.

Funny, you've been a fence sitter before and now there's nobody on it. Inquiring minds would like to know: which side of the fence are you on, the he doped side or the he didn't dope side?

[cfox]

I'm prepared to be underwhelmed by the stuff that comes out of the USADA report. I'm wondering what could be more damaging than all of the very unflattering stuff in TYler's book. I'm happy to be wrong, though.

[Tony T]

Funny, you've been a fence sitter before and now there's nobody on it. Inquiring minds would like to know: which side of the fence are you on, the he doped side or the he didn't dope side?

Do you enjoy starting fights to close threads?
I'll help you -- Go **** yourself.

[54ny77]

80's hair.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tfv-tYvxFyA/UCmD6J4bvxI/AAAAAAAACuA/CN_SZV9azB8/s1600/Lance%2BArmstrong%2B1991.jpg

I'm wondering what could be more damaging than all of the very unflattering stuff in TYler's book.

[malcolm]

better not to go down this "road" again, eh?

thanks, I often need a personal moderator, you're hired

[Dave B]

I'm prepared to be underwhelmed by the stuff that comes out of the USADA report. I'm wondering what could be more damaging than all of the very unflattering stuff in TYler's book. I'm happy to be wrong, though.

I was thinking this, but my best guess is that there are people we have not heard of/from. Tyler wasn't always with Lance and even states himself that Lance did some things that simply were for Lance. Things that just made him even better then the stuff, "we were all taking."

I think of it this way. Instead of havnig 10 people saying this happened I have 100. Seems even more credible. Lance hires the best lawyers to find any way to win. USADA would be aware of this and want their findings bullet proof. atmo

[Dave B]

Do you enjoy starting fights to close threads?
I'll help you -- Go **** yourself.

come on bro you are contributing to this thread and make some good points. I like your take on stuff as it is a pretty strong point of view.

Don't let yourself be wond up.

I may not always agree with you, but your strong opinions are good to think about.

[Dave B]

You just can't help it. After all, you ARE "Mr. President!" :p

BBD

This is true.

Plus I will be able to pardon all of you in the end! :banana:

[Tony T]

come on bro you are contributing to this thread and make some good points. I like your take on stuff as it is a pretty strong point of view.

Don't let yourself be wond up.

I may not always agree with you, but your strong opinions are good to think about.

You're right, I apologize to the thread for sinking to his level.

[PQJ]

Do you enjoy starting fights to close threads?
I'll help you -- Go **** yourself.

Not sure why you have such a hard on for me. I wasn't trying to start a fight and the question was asked in good faith (as were similar questions in the past which you were unable to answer). I'll remind you that personal attacks are not tolerated and might subject you to a time out or outright ban (the latter might be in order given your numerous, unprovoked attacks on me). Govern yourself accordingly, as they say.

PS: Your non-answer speaks volumes, by the way. As usual.

PPS: I thought you were going to 'ignore' me. Does that make you a liar as well?

[gone]

I wasn't trying to start a fight

your numerous, unprovoked attacks on me

Does that make you a liar as well?

Yep, you're the victim allright.

[laupsi]

thanks, I often need a personal moderator, you're hired

no moderator necessary, just didn't want things to go, well, you know... oh well :confused:

[malcolm]

no moderator necessary, just didn't want things to go, well, you know... oh well :confused:

I'm joking man. It's kinda like a sore in your mouth, you're really tired of it but just can't help sticking your tongue on it. I just can't help responding to these Lance threads. I thought I'd convinced myself I didn't care.

[PQJ]

Yep, you're the victim allright.

No, Greg. Tony has repeatedly refused to answer what is at its core a very simple question. The question was and has always been asked in good faith. Tony apparently has a hard time with it and would appear to not like the fact that his inconsitent positions are being pointed out. Of course, Tony is free to change his mind, and if he was once a genuine fence sitter, he has now indicated he is one no longer. If Tony interprets my line of questioning as provocation, that's his problem; for Tony's benefit, I'll say it again: I'm not trying to provoke him but am genuinely interested in whether there is anyone who could be said to have some knowledge of the available facts and who believes that Armstrong was clean.

Tony doesn't seem able to disagree with me without being insulting; I haven't and will not respond in kind.

Tony did once say he will be ignoring me. Since he didn't, that makes him a fool, or a liar, or both.

It was not and is not my intent to derail this thread. Out of respect for the OP, I'll refrain from participating on this any longer. Hopefully Tony's derailment of the thread won't lead to a lockdown; I'm a big boy and can handle Tony's clownish, a$$hole behavior.

[gone]

Tony doesn't seem able to disagree with me without being insulting; I haven't and will not respond in kind.

So what is it about calling someone a fool, an a$$hole, a liar and a clown that you wouldn't find insulting?

[William]

One warning, then I start laying down time outs for certain individuals.

Play nice people.




William

[PQJ]

So what is it about calling someone a fool, an a$$hole, a liar and a clown that you wouldn't find insulting?

Yes, that last clause was misplaced; it should've read "; until now I haven't responded in kind." Consider it so amended.

[Tony T]

One warning, then I start laying down time outs for certain individuals.

Play nice people.

William

Yup, another thread ruined. My fault for allowing myself to be baited.
I'm outta this one. It was good while it lasted.

Tony

[Vientomas]

Back on topic:

USADA arbitration is governed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Rules - correct?

AAA Rule-31 Evidence states:

(a) The parties may offer such evidence as is relevant and material to the dispute and
shall produce such evidence as the arbitrator may deem necessary to an understanding
and determination of the dispute. Conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be
necessary. All evidence shall be taken in the presence of all of the arbitrators and all of
the parties, except where any of the parties is absent, in default or has waived the
right to be present.
(b) The arbitrator shall determine the admissibility, relevance, and materiality of the
evidence offered and may exclude evidence deemed by the arbitrator to be
cumulative or irrelevant.
(c) The arbitrator shall take into account applicable principles of legal privilege, such as
those involving the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and client.
(d) An arbitrator or other person authorized by law to subpoena witnesses or documents may do so upon the request of any party or independently.

Therefore, it appears the Arbitrators may compel witnesses to attend via subpoena at the request of the Parties, or at their own behest.

The interesting question to me is: If a subpoena is ignored, what is the sanction, and who would impose such sanction?

[laupsi]

The whole tone of this thread and the countless others just like prove what a controversial and totally consuming issue this is. All of us are more than avid cyclists, we truly care about the sport and the individuals that define it.

I believe LA swept most of us, if not all, into a frenzy when he came back to the sport after his cancer treatment and "kicked @$$". The adjustments that have been made, not only to the sport as a whole, but to us as individuals has been deeply profound, whether we choose to admit or not. This is evident w/in the threads and their vitriol relating to this topic.

I would like to project that we are generally unaware of what's "bothering us" at this juncture. Perhaps we're embarrased that we do care and we choose to defend ourselves by stating that we're either apathetic or that others are too swayed in their opinions about the topic and their opinions are therefore unworthy.

Regardless, it might not be a bad idea to think about the motivating factors compelling us to continue w/such threads. More consideration and truthfulness should lend to cleaner debate and less regret.

I for one admit that I remain intrigued by the fall out of LA. l openly admit, I do care and I do have strong opinions about the fate of our sport and the folks who shape that fate, especially LA. Like it or not LA is an icon that cannot be ignored. He's just not worthy of diminishing our zeal for the sport and how we choose to keep it.

[BumbleBeeDave]

The interesting question to me is: If a subpoena is ignored, what is the sanction, and who would impose such sanction?

. . . that if Lance is subpoenaed as part of this process we will find out. He will ignore it, issue more press releases that try to paint him as a victim of vendetta, and if he does eventually show up will give either protest answers or such evasive answers as to make them useless. But I'm betting he just says the legal equivalent of "Eff you."

BBD

[bigboyblue]

If I were Lance I would be longing for those days (and in my case, even the hair!)

[Z3c]

. . . that if Lance is subpoenaed as part of this process we will find out. He will ignore it, issue more press releases that try to paint him as a victim of vendetta, and if he does eventually show up will give either protest answers or such evasive answers as to make them useless. But I'm betting he just says the legal equivalent of "Eff you."

BBD

Wow Kreskin, you can predict the past..

[merlincustom1]

The OP's questions when starting this thread have been hijacked by ad hominem attacks by Forum members. It's human nature, but it doesn't say much for us as humans. I remember Jane Goodall's horror at discovering that chimpanzees committed "murder" among their own species; she'd hoped that they would have been less like us in that regard, but given that they were so much like us in other areas, she wasn't really surprised.

On topic, it's interesting to speculate whether USADA will subpoena Lance. He was originally a defendant, and had he entered into arbitration it's likely he would have denied doping had he testified in his own defense. The bigger question is whether he would have testified at all in his own case, or if he would have asserted his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Feds dropped the investigation, but I think that statute of limitations is still alive, with the possiblity that the Feds might still seek an indictment in the future. If so, he's at risk and could assert the 5th if he were compelled to testify in Johan's case. It would be a ballsy move for USADA to subpoena him, however; sort of a legal game of "chicken." If he asserts the 5th he looks guilty. If he testifies he's open to a potential perjury prosecution if everything breaks USADA's way at the Bruyneel arbitration. I agree with others who've said Bruyneel will fold before trial and is hanging on as long as he can for the $150K a month in salary.

[54ny77]

Will squish all rumors & innuendo like flabberhamen.

http://www.omdoubleg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/lance-armstrong-doping2a.jpg

[TMB]

I don't know why I came back here today to look at things, but I did.

Regardless, this will be my last post here.

I find it interesting the things are said in this thread and some I see from the last few days.

Very interesting.

I expressed my opinion in one of these endless Armstrong threads - I think in August. I then started to get PM's making me very aware of what someone thought of my views.

I made the mistake of asking the staff here if that was what the PM system was designed for. The response was that a review of my posts indicated that my posts and opinions were deemed to be "hurtful" to the feelings of others and I was invited to keep my opinions to myself.

I have not posted here since then.

I did, however, receive another PM after that where the sender told me he/she hoped that I got to experience Cancer.

Nice.


I see the admonishment to keep one's opinions private does not extend to all members of this forum.

Even nicer.

If a mod reads this - just delete my account. I no longer need it here.

[laupsi]

[QUOTE=TMB;1216221]


I did, however, receive another PM after that where the sender told me he/she hoped that I got to experience Cancer.

QUOTE]

TRULY UNBELIEVABLE!!!

[William]

And on that fun note I'm locking this up. The Prez started this out with good intentions but a pissing match ensued. Every one go for a ride!

Feel free to start another "Lance" thread, just try to keep it respectful toward each other.




William