AP on Novitsky

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-09-16-08-11

On Aug 9, 1:38*pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories..._DOPING_INVEST...

It'll be interesting to hear if anyone uses this excuse for what
others said about doping......."could have been a misconstrued comment
that was made as a joke and overheard incorrectly by others."

Phil H

On 8/9/2010 7:25 PM, Phil H wrote:
On Aug 9, 1:38 pm, "B. wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories..._DOPING_INVEST...

It'll be interesting to hear if anyone uses this excuse for what
others said about doping......."could have been a misconstrued comment
that was made as a joke and overheard incorrectly by others."

Phil H

How do you misconstrue a blood bag in a refrigerator or in a cooler on
the back of a motorcycle? Just curious...............:-)

How do you misconstrue a blood bag in a refrigerator or in a cooler on
the back of a motorcycle? Just curious...............:-)

This blood bag, refrigerator, and motorcycle walk into a bar, and the
bartender says ....

On Aug 9, 4:59*pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
On 8/9/2010 7:25 PM, Phil H wrote:

On Aug 9, 1:38 pm, "B. *wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories..._DOPING_INVEST....

It'll be interesting to hear if anyone uses this excuse for what
others said about doping......."could have been a misconstrued comment
that was made as a joke and overheard incorrectly by others."

Phil H

How do you misconstrue a blood bag in a refrigerator or in a cooler on
the back of a motorcycle? Just curious...............:-)

Oh come on, I'm sure you can think of plenty of comments where this
would apply.
For example, the so-called admission by Lance to his doctor.....an
almost perfect fit.

Phil H

I recall a Seinfeld episode where Kramer was storing blood in Newman's
meat freezer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzsUDS59EOw

Why didn't Tyler use the old '3 pints of kramer' as a defense?

On Aug 9, 9:33*pm, Phil H wrote:
On Aug 9, 4:59*pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:

On 8/9/2010 7:25 PM, Phil H wrote:

On Aug 9, 1:38 pm, "B. *wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories..._DOPING_INVEST....

It'll be interesting to hear if anyone uses this excuse for what
others said about doping......."could have been a misconstrued comment
that was made as a joke and overheard incorrectly by others."

Phil H

How do you misconstrue a blood bag in a refrigerator or in a cooler on
the back of a motorcycle? Just curious...............:-)

Oh come on, I'm sure you can think of plenty of comments where this
would apply.
For example, the so-called admission by Lance to his doctor.....an
almost perfect fit.

Phil H

Whether Lance doped when he was with Subaru-Montgomery, Motorola or
Cofidis doesn't mean **** and is of no probative value whatsoever in a
federal district court lawsuit, so who cares what Betty Andreu says.
Frankie Andreu has corroborated Betty but has gone a step further by
admitting to doping during the 1999 and 2000 USPS seasons in
preparation for and/or during those TdF campaigns (I don't recall
exactly what he said).

In my view, if Frankie says during this investigation that he
personally witnessed Lance doping or can help make a strong
circumstantial case that Lance doped, then maybe, just maybe Novitsky
can make a claim against Lance or Tailwind based on some federal law,
criminal or civil. Same goes any other teammate of Lance during the
USPS years, no so much for Landis and Hamilton unless they can be
corroborated. Lance did testify under oath in the insurance case, so
he could be prosecuted for perjury under the law of the state where
the deposition was conducted if it can be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that he lied under oath.

The bottom line is that cases can be based and often are solely based
on circumstantial evidence essentially by connecting the dots based on
inferences. That's harder to do in criminal cases, but watch a civil
forfeiture case involving a drug dealer and you can see what I mean.

On 8/10/2010 11:54 AM, LawBoy01 wrote:
On Aug 9, 9:33 pm, Phil wrote:
On Aug 9, 4:59 pm, "B. wrote:

On 8/9/2010 7:25 PM, Phil H wrote:

On Aug 9, 1:38 pm, "B. wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories..._DOPING_INVEST...

It'll be interesting to hear if anyone uses this excuse for what
others said about doping......."could have been a misconstrued comment
that was made as a joke and overheard incorrectly by others."

Phil H

How do you misconstrue a blood bag in a refrigerator or in a cooler on
the back of a motorcycle? Just curious...............:-)

Oh come on, I'm sure you can think of plenty of comments where this
would apply.
For example, the so-called admission by Lance to his doctor.....an
almost perfect fit.

Phil H

Whether Lance doped when he was with Subaru-Montgomery, Motorola or
Cofidis doesn't mean **** and is of no probative value whatsoever in a
federal district court lawsuit, so who cares what Betty Andreu says.
Frankie Andreu has corroborated Betty but has gone a step further by
admitting to doping during the 1999 and 2000 USPS seasons in
preparation for and/or during those TdF campaigns (I don't recall
exactly what he said).

In my view, if Frankie says during this investigation that he
personally witnessed Lance doping or can help make a strong
circumstantial case that Lance doped, then maybe, just maybe Novitsky
can make a claim against Lance or Tailwind based on some federal law,
criminal or civil. Same goes any other teammate of Lance during the
USPS years, no so much for Landis and Hamilton unless they can be
corroborated. Lance did testify under oath in the insurance case, so
he could be prosecuted for perjury under the law of the state where
the deposition was conducted if it can be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that he lied under oath.

The bottom line is that cases can be based and often are solely based
on circumstantial evidence essentially by connecting the dots based on
inferences. That's harder to do in criminal cases, but watch a civil
forfeiture case involving a drug dealer and you can see what I mean.









Armstrong has said under oath that he has NEVER doped. Can you say
"perjury?" Can you say "perjury in furtherance of a conspiracy to
defraud?" You did go to law school right? Was it in Texas? ABA approved?

On Aug 10, 11:19 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:

Armstrong has said under oath that he has NEVER doped. Can you say
"perjury?"

I can say "perjury," but saying "perjury" and proving it are two
entirely different matters. More to the point, subjective disbelief
of what Lance said is not enough to prove perjury. Even Landis saying
that he personally witnessed Lance dope is no slam dunk, if only
because Landis is an admitted to perjury and fraud, meaning that the
reliability/probative value of Landis' "I was lying then but I'm
telling the truth now" testimony is about as good as the testimony of
a criminal co-conspirator (Landis) with a prior conviction that is
admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 609 and 403 and/or has
admitted to a FRE 609/403 crime and/or has been given use/
transactional immunity for his testimony against the defendant on
trial (Lance).

Investigatons of perjury that are based on swearing matches have a
better chance of resulting in an indictment, plea or conviction when
we are talking about comparing the testimony of someone like Andy
Pettitte (who when put under oath admitted to his own failures instead
of lying under oath and then saying, "yeah, I did it, but so did Roger
Clemens") on the one hand, and the testimony of Roger Clemens (whose
testimony is challenged by an admitted PED pusher in Brian McNamee and
Andy Pettitte).

In my view, Lance's biggest risk is not being the next Barry Bonds
(booooo!) or Rafael Palmeiro (hahaha). My bet is that Lance is never
convicted or found guilty of anything, civil or criminal. In the long
run, people probably just won't care even though they may be reminded
of Pete Rose when they hear Lance deny that he doped.

Can you say "perjury in furtherance of a conspiracy to
defraud?" You did go to law school right? Was it in Texas? ABA approved?

You're putting the cart before the horse. If the fraud has occurred
before perjury, the perjury wouldn't promote the fraud - it would be
the concealment of past acts. We all know that the SCA bonus was for
six consecutive victories from 1999-2004. Your "perjury in furtherance
of a conspiracy" charge would only hold water if, for example:

(1) SCA sought to prove that Lance doped after the 2003 TdF based on
doping that allegedly occurred from 1999-2003 seasons;
(2) Lance lies to the panel of arbitrators about doping, for purposes
of illustration, in the 2000 TdF but isn't immediately caught in the
lie;
(3) Lance beats SCA in that arbiration;
(4) Lance then goes on to win the 2004 TdF;
(5) SCA has no newly discovered evidence , i.e. no previously known or
adjudicated evidence of doping from 1999-2003 and no evidence at all
of doping in 2004;
(6) SCA pays the bonus after it gets the arbitrator's award in Lance's
favor; and
(7) SCA doesn't come up with proof that Lance perjured himself in 2003
during the arbitration until after it paid out the bonus sometime in
2005 or 2006.

Putting aside the fact that the SCA contract didn't have a "no doping"
clause, my scenario shows that how Lance's alleged perjury allowed him
to profit from a future event and/or that Lance's purported perjury
deprived SCA of the future right to hold Lance to his end of the
bargain. And that only speaks to "perjury in furtherance" and not to
the conspiracy part.

In order to prove a conspiracy, there needs to be proof of a
conspiracy. Who besides Lance had a stake in the outcome of the SCA
arbitration? You would need to show at least two people acting in
concert to deprive SCA of its legal rights.

If you're saying that Lance's testimony in the SCA lawsuit deprived
the federal government (by and through the USPS) of its rights, that's
a different story. The contract between Tailwind and the USPS would
have to specify or at least define acts of fraud because no federal
statute speaks directly to this issue and the common law is not very
helpful (I've been searching for fun and haven't found anything mail
fraud or false claims act stuff that's any where near on point - you
can try yourself). Moving past that hurdle, a prosecutor still would
need proof of how Lance's allegedly perjured testimony in the SCA
arbitration "furthered a conspiracy to defraud" the government. Can
do that, however, because the USPS/Tailwind deal ended in 2004, and
Lance didn't testify until November 30, 2005 (http://www.scribd.com/
doc/31833754/Lance-Armstrong-Testimony) by which time USPS had already
paid out everything it owed Tailwind. A prosecutor would still have
problems with establishing a conspiracy and establishing Lance's
financial interest in Tailwind.

Anyway, I spent my lunch hour discussing this because this is fun to
and interests me, and also because I enjoy poking holes in your
lustful quest for Lance's blood. I suspect that you may have to live
with ****ing on Lance's leg.

FOR THE RECORD: I graduated in May of 2001 from St. Mary's University
School of Law, an accredited law school in San Antonio, Texas.

On 8/10/2010 2:36 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
On Aug 10, 11:19 am, "B. wrote:

Armstrong has said under oath that he has NEVER doped. Can you say
"perjury?"

I can say "perjury," but saying "perjury" and proving it are two
entirely different matters. More to the point, subjective disbelief
of what Lance said is not enough to prove perjury. Even Landis saying
that he personally witnessed Lance dope is no slam dunk, if only
because Landis is an admitted to perjury and fraud, meaning that the
reliability/probative value of Landis' "I was lying then but I'm
telling the truth now" testimony is about as good as the testimony of
a criminal co-conspirator (Landis) with a prior conviction that is
admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 609 and 403 and/or has
admitted to a FRE 609/403 crime and/or has been given use/
transactional immunity for his testimony against the defendant on
trial (Lance).

Investigatons of perjury that are based on swearing matches have a
better chance of resulting in an indictment, plea or conviction when
we are talking about comparing the testimony of someone like Andy
Pettitte (who when put under oath admitted to his own failures instead
of lying under oath and then saying, "yeah, I did it, but so did Roger
Clemens") on the one hand, and the testimony of Roger Clemens (whose
testimony is challenged by an admitted PED pusher in Brian McNamee and
Andy Pettitte).

In my view, Lance's biggest risk is not being the next Barry Bonds
(booooo!) or Rafael Palmeiro (hahaha). My bet is that Lance is never
convicted or found guilty of anything, civil or criminal. In the long
run, people probably just won't care even though they may be reminded
of Pete Rose when they hear Lance deny that he doped.

Can you say "perjury in furtherance of a conspiracy to
defraud?" You did go to law school right? Was it in Texas? ABA approved?

You're putting the cart before the horse. If the fraud has occurred
before perjury, the perjury wouldn't promote the fraud - it would be
the concealment of past acts. We all know that the SCA bonus was for
six consecutive victories from 1999-2004. Your "perjury in furtherance
of a conspiracy" charge would only hold water if, for example:

(1) SCA sought to prove that Lance doped after the 2003 TdF based on
doping that allegedly occurred from 1999-2003 seasons;
(2) Lance lies to the panel of arbitrators about doping, for purposes
of illustration, in the 2000 TdF but isn't immediately caught in the
lie;
(3) Lance beats SCA in that arbiration;
(4) Lance then goes on to win the 2004 TdF;
(5) SCA has no newly discovered evidence , i.e. no previously known or
adjudicated evidence of doping from 1999-2003 and no evidence at all
of doping in 2004;
(6) SCA pays the bonus after it gets the arbitrator's award in Lance's
favor; and
(7) SCA doesn't come up with proof that Lance perjured himself in 2003
during the arbitration until after it paid out the bonus sometime in
2005 or 2006.

Putting aside the fact that the SCA contract didn't have a "no doping"
clause, my scenario shows that how Lance's alleged perjury allowed him
to profit from a future event and/or that Lance's purported perjury
deprived SCA of the future right to hold Lance to his end of the
bargain. And that only speaks to "perjury in furtherance" and not to
the conspiracy part.

In order to prove a conspiracy, there needs to be proof of a
conspiracy. Who besides Lance had a stake in the outcome of the SCA
arbitration? You would need to show at least two people acting in
concert to deprive SCA of its legal rights.

If you're saying that Lance's testimony in the SCA lawsuit deprived
the federal government (by and through the USPS) of its rights, that's
a different story. The contract between Tailwind and the USPS would
have to specify or at least define acts of fraud because no federal
statute speaks directly to this issue and the common law is not very
helpful (I've been searching for fun and haven't found anything mail
fraud or false claims act stuff that's any where near on point - you
can try yourself). Moving past that hurdle, a prosecutor still would
need proof of how Lance's allegedly perjured testimony in the SCA
arbitration "furthered a conspiracy to defraud" the government. Can
do that, however, because the USPS/Tailwind deal ended in 2004, and
Lance didn't testify until November 30, 2005 (http://www.scribd.com/
doc/31833754/Lance-Armstrong-Testimony) by which time USPS had already
paid out everything it owed Tailwind. A prosecutor would still have
problems with establishing a conspiracy and establishing Lance's
financial interest in Tailwind.

Anyway, I spent my lunch hour discussing this because this is fun to
and interests me, and also because I enjoy poking holes in your
lustful quest for Lance's blood. I suspect that you may have to live
with ****ing on Lance's leg.

FOR THE RECORD: I graduated in May of 2001 from St. Mary's University
School of Law, an accredited law school in San Antonio, Texas.

Interesting. I was accepted at St. Mary's in 1973 but decided to go to
law school in NYC instead a couple of years later.

Glad you enjoyed your lunch hour. You haven't poked any holes in any
argument I've made. You do well, though, at setting up straw men.