Armstrong investigation

On 6/20/2011 1:31 AM, Randall wrote:
My guess is that the prosecution will try to prove that Lance was
aware that there was doping taking place. They will also try and prove
that Lance played a role in managing the US Postal team. Thereby
proving proving that Lance was complicit in committing fraud.

There has to be loss or damage, by definition. If LANCE dopes and dopes
and dopes and dopes and thereby provides greater value to USPS, it
cannot be fraud.

F

On Jun 20, 1:41*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:

If/when Armstrong testfies before the GJ (has he yet?)
he will know that he's very exposed and will have to be
very careful about what he says.
Danger #1 is that he is compelled to admit he used PEDs
(which is not a crime, remember) and this is used as evidence
to try him for fraud. *I think the whole fraud angle is likely
to embarrass LANCE but unlikely to convict him.
Danger #2 is that he is compelled to admit he used PEDs
and they try him for perjury in testimony in the SCA case
(even though his testimony was ultimately irrelevant, it
may be considered material).

Fredmaster Ben
not a lawyer, but I passed some guy in a Velolaw
jersey this morning

What ****ing planet are you people from?

What makes you think we're all from the same planet?

You're a talking (sometimes thinking) chimp, so it's possible that
you're from my planet's future, or past. If you're from my future, I
am really really sad that Dr. Kevorkian isn't around to help me.

R

"Fred Flintstein" wrote in message
...
On 6/20/2011 1:31 AM, Randall wrote:
My guess is that the prosecution will try to prove that Lance was
aware that there was doping taking place. They will also try and
prove
that Lance played a role in managing the US Postal team. Thereby
proving proving that Lance was complicit in committing fraud.

There has to be loss or damage, by definition. If LANCE dopes and
dopes
and dopes and dopes and thereby provides greater value to USPS, it
cannot be fraud.

F

But it could be a violation of a "morals" clause, if one was written
into the contract. Typically that would be triggered during the actual
contract though; I doubt anyone was writing contracts that said
something like "We'll pay you $10 this year provided you stay out of
trouble for the next 5 years after the contract payments have ceased."

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On 6/20/2011 9:18 AM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 6/20/2011 1:31 AM, Randall wrote:
My guess is that the prosecution will try to prove that Lance was
aware that there was doping taking place. They will also try and prove
that Lance played a role in managing the US Postal team. Thereby
proving proving that Lance was complicit in committing fraud.

There has to be loss or damage, by definition. If LANCE dopes and dopes
and dopes and dopes and thereby provides greater value to USPS, it
cannot be fraud.

F

Common law/statutory civil fraud is a bit different from major fraud
against the US Government. See 18 USC 47 (1031), Moron.

Sec. 1031. Major fraud against the United States

(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme
or artifice with the intent--
(1) to defraud the United States; or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises,

in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with
the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in
which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of
the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such
property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the
applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than
$1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.