tug benson
Survived the Tour O the borders 2013
- Location
- Alloa
oprah is a weird looking women
Lance Armstrong interview airings & discussions.
- Thread starter Radchenister
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
Can someone give me a dummy's guide to the statute of limitations? Or, in other words, has LA only confessed to stuff he won't risk going to jail for?
The statute of limitations basically places a time limit on when you can bring a civil or criminal proceedings for an offending act. The rationale behind it is that essentially if too much time elapses witness evidence and other material evidence becomes unreliable. From Googling it seems potential perjury charges normally have a limitation of 3 years in the US
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
Cheers, rliu. So he could just about have got away with admitting doping in 2009 but not 2010?
Andrew_P
In between here and there
This was an opening gambit, a come and get me I have lots to tell (maybe) - on my own terms to the USADA.
He clearly regretted not taking the keep 5, and take two years ban to 'fess up early doors. He now wants to open negotiations, the confession to taking PEDS was just that not much else in detail if he had given the detail then he had played all his cards.
This was never ever going to be cleansing of the soul interview, it was a sales pitch (not that good either, it didn't offer nor imply that he could hand the UCI on a plate) Clearly a no-no question was anything to do with Bruyneel, I think even someone with very little research would have pieced together that connection... eh (eh in my best Dutch accent)
He clearly regretted not taking the keep 5, and take two years ban to 'fess up early doors. He now wants to open negotiations, the confession to taking PEDS was just that not much else in detail if he had given the detail then he had played all his cards.
This was never ever going to be cleansing of the soul interview, it was a sales pitch (not that good either, it didn't offer nor imply that he could hand the UCI on a plate) Clearly a no-no question was anything to do with Bruyneel, I think even someone with very little research would have pieced together that connection... eh (eh in my best Dutch accent)
I would imagine that's his reasoning, as the USADA report relates to the USPS and Discovery Channel years so it is unlikely enough witnesses would come forward about his doping in 2009 and 2010, particularly given the coloured past of the people involved with Astana and Radioshack
Mr Haematocrit
msg me on kik for android
- Location
- Out of the saddle
Really? - I felt that was was he was trying to present, he was trying to come across as a caring father and family man. It seemed calculated as did his emotional reaction when talking about this.
This is the same family man who walked out on his wife when a sniff of Sheryl Crow came along.. If he cared about family, he should name the people who assisted him.. Knud Jensen, Tom Simpson and others who died from doping were someone's son, brother, friend and family.
Lance needs to remember this a not only needs to ensure that no rider dies unnecessarily in the future but he needs to set the correct example to his children.
Sadly In terms of the Interview I felt his children were no different to EPO used in the tours in as much as they were nothing more than a means to get the result Lance desired
This is becoming ridiculous in deciding which chat show host people would prefer.
Russell Harty, Parky, Mrs Merton?
Armstrong should be talking to WADA, USADA or even the UCI before he does the late night sofas.
just jim
Guest
Woss, you ranker.
It's worth remembering the doping isn't illegal in the USA (hence USADA being able to punish Armstrong - it's not a criminal matter so need for courts). He wouldn't face criminal prosecution or jail time for a simple admission of doping. He might if he used illegal substances though, but even then the charge would be possession rather than using.
Lying under oath is illegal though - it's perjury and is subject to statute of limitations. Armstrong's legal team would have made sure he didn't come remotely close to crossing that line. Armstrong claims not to have doped in the come back years (despite blood analysis suggesting otherwise) and part of the reason for not owning up to that period MAY may have been something to do with the statute of limitations. I obviously don't know since I'm don't know what his legal team would have advised. It's also possible he was telling the truth.
However, this is a guy that's been lying for the last 15 years, right up to a few weeks ago. So I'm not going to start believing him now. His confessions are not motivated by remorse. He wants back into triathlon and competition, he wants his old life back. He doesn't accept he's done wrong and seems not to understand the notion of punishment.
StuAff
Silencing his legs regularly
- Location
- Portsmouth
Opinions seem to differ as to whether LA is completely immune or not from perjury charges (not least from his own lawyers- if it was clear he'd be safe admitting doping during the comeback, he'd have done it). Jeff Tillotson, lawyer for SCA Promotions (and who will be asking for their $12m back) thought the statute applied. The claim he didn't dope during the comeback almost certainly risks charges at least being considered for that period. And perjury regarding earlier testimony could still be a legal option if it was considered that LA (and others) actively prevented the discovery of relevant information. Ongoing actions to continue a cover-up (for example) would in any case extend the time period in which charges could be brought. But that's only one more of the potential legal threats. The Sunday Times has already started proceedings to get its 2006 libel settlement back. The DoJ still has the option to join (more likely take over) the Landis lawsuit and the Los Angeles US Attorney's Office may resume its investigation. And if either or both of those parties get involved, they will most definitely find a way to make their cases.
In short: He's anything but safe.
Andrew_P
In between here and there
I would say he knows almost exactly what the financial cost will be, and was prepared and capable of paying it. From the outside the only risk he could not factor was the FBI and perjury, but knowing his personality he probably had that base covered. All the other costs are his stake money on a gamble on getting a reduced ban, even with the sublimal message of being happy if he was able to run the Chicago marathon at 51 (ten year ban).