By: TheRaceRadio

TheRaceRadio — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 04:57:22 +0000

Anna, you need to follow me and my sockpuppets on http://www.cyclingnews.com more closely. You do not seem to understand all the work I have done exposing Lance Armstrong.

By: vitaly gashpar

vitaly gashpar — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:27:17 +0000

This article is a beautiful example of why law cannot be painted in broad strokes. I’m sorry, but there are so many legal an factual misstatements, that I feel I have to straighten some of this out.
1. “Then the USADA can ask a civil court to issue a subpoena ordering him to appear or face arrest.” USADA would still have to have a judge take jurisdiction of the case, preferably in a locale where the court can exercise its jurisdiction on Armstrong. However, even if a subpoena is issued, that won’t result in an arrest in the true sense of the word. The sheriff simply brings the witness to court. That, however, doesn’t force the witness’ mouth open.
2. “Of course I expect a barrage of complaints about the USADA harassing Mr. Armstrong if called to testify against Mr. Bruyneel, but I don’t think any of them will pass judicial muster.” I don’t think you can make a blanket statement like that. There is a very sound legal argument for not having him testify. There are 26 affidavits on file attesting to JB’s conduct. Armstrong was never listed as on of the witnesses when JB was originally charged. It is very simple to make the argument that Armstrong’s testimony would be cumulative and redundant. Which is probably the case.
3. The whole Fifth Amendment deal. As you state, this is not a criminal matter, and you correctly point out that a witness can plead the Fifth so as not to incriminate himself. However, nothing Armstrong did (at least nothing that was listed in the 1000 pages) is criminal under U.S. law. So he CANNOT plead the Fifth amendment to refuse to answer. As far as the permissive inference you mentioned, that only applies if the defendant in a civil case takes the 5th, not a witness. Can you even fathom the legal abuses if the latter was true?
4. “Doping is fraud and fraud is a crime.” – NO! Only certain types of fraud are criminal, and all of those are statutorily enumerated. The type of fraud you are referring to here is promissory fraud, which has never been criminal (at least not in the U.S. since 1789).
5. There is one instance in which Armstrong can actually get himself in trouble on the stand if he testifies, but you barely glaze over this issue which I see as dominant here. As you mentioned, Armstrong testified under oath in SCA. This was in CA where the statute of limitations on perjury is 4 years. The subsequent contradicting statements in a separate matter may act to trigger the perjury statute because they would be inconsistent statements under oath. I haven’t done much research into the statutory framework, but SOL tolling and revival would be my main concerns for Armstrong, not most of what you listed above.

Comments on: Will Lance Armstrong plead the Fifth?

By: TheRaceRadio

By: vitaly gashpar