Yes, you can assert your 5th amendment rights in grand jury testimony. Some people here seem to have forgotten that.

I understand, but he was talking about bringing Lance in front of the Grand Jury. Presumably, Lance will not make the same mistakes Bonds made.

I understand they might not be the sharpest tools in the shed. But I've gotta believe that the doctors and the people running the team are at least above average.

I'm not contradicting myself. According to Tyler I don't think they were being discrete at all. Handing out white lunch bags with PED's in not being discrete. That would make it way to easy for someone to lose a bag etc. If they were being discrete, I'd image they would only have one trainer/doctor carry the PED's and give them to the cyclist personally.

Ultimately I have no idea. Tyler could be 100% telling the truth. If that's the case I'm absolutely amazed they didn't get caught in the act. They would have acted way to careless in my opinion.

Again, I'm 99% convinced Lance used PED's. I'm sure Tyler saw him take PED's etc. I just find the details to his story a little to Hollywood like. Like he wants a book deal or a movie.

I was under the impression that you lose your 5th Amendment Rights if you are granted immunity, which TY-Ty was. If granted immunity 9even limited immunity), I believe you have to answer the questions from a grand jury.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

>c) to plead the fifth and say nothing

True. Oliver North. But you have to refuse to answer any questions at all. If he answers a single question, the protection is lost. So he'd have no opportunity to tell his side of the story. And one of Lances' primary defenses is his sheer force of will and personality. He wouldn't be able to charm the jury out of an indictment with testimony of his 500 passed tests, etc.

I think if I was Lance I'd take the fifth and make them prove everything. I think we've yet to hear any evidence of fraud. Eyewitness accounts of Lance injecting himself with EPO aren't enough to charge Lance with anything.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

We all saw that Tyler was being somewhat protective of Lance in the 60 Minutes interview. He would say that everyone was doing it - not just Lance etc etc. You could tell he was wanting to be honest but defuse the severity of the truth.

I think what will be interesting to see is what happens when Lance lashes out at Tyler the way he did at Floyd, Andreu etc etc etc. I am guessing Tyler's loyalty will diminish further and he will unveil some very clear examples of LA's drug use. The same goes for Hincapie (probably even more so). With both these fellows being like brothers for so long to Lance, you know they have the stories to share.

I will also add that I hope the UCI goes down for this. What the hell were they thinking taking that much money from Lance???!!!! How stupid are these people?!?!?!

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

I think its ironic that supposedly the uci spent the money donated on a doping detction machine.

stupid all the way to the bank!

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Yes. It's insane that they would take money from a cyclist - the very people they are supposed to regulate. That's an insanely blatant conflict of interest and speaks to corruption regardless of whether or not the purpose of the money is ever truly known.

With both these fellows being like brothers for so long to Lance, you know they have the stories to share.

My sense is that people are way overestimating the level of the friendship between Pro Cyclists. I think that outside view is that these guys on a team are all best buddies training together, racing together all year long. They know one another well, but the reality is that they don't spend that much time training together and in reality they are hired help, mercenaries really, that are brought in for the big races, to support and help the team leader(s) on a given team.

Michael Barry's Book, "Inside the Postal Bus . . . ." touches on this a bit as have other stories that I have read elsewhere.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

For the billionth time, they're not investigating him for PED use. They're investigating him for fraud.

  
To:

regardless of whether or not the purpose of the money is ever truly known


Also raised at the SCA Promotions case was the issue of the donation made by Armstrong to the UCI to purchase anti-doping equipment. Armstrong said the donation was 'around $25,000'.

Earlier this year, Pat McQuaid, the president of the UCI, said that the donation was $100,000 and the money was used to purchase a Sysmex machine.
From the article:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/...d-sports-or-not.html

If your interested, here are some articles

http://hotair.com/...mstrong-sponsorship/

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/...d-sports-or-not.html

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/...-sysmex-machine.html

"suspicious" means that it will not be suspicious once we receive that bag of cash.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

I always love the logic that a rider who has doped and said they didn't is less credible than any other rider in particular. The flat out truth is that in a certain generation of top-level cyclists, conservatively 90% or more told the same lie. Some of those guys got caught, some didn't - they all lied and there is not a single one of them that is more or less credible than any other simply because they said they didn't dope. To me LA has no more credibility than Floyd or Tyler. He has the same motivation as every other athlete to lie about doping so there is no moral high-ground to be had in my opinion. In fact, it has been shown time and again that in the context of sport he was megalomaniacal and ruthless.

His credibility in a sporting sense has nothing to do with his good works outside of the sporting arena.

If Lance had never said a word about doping, never chastised those who were busted, or proclaimed his purity to anyone who would listen then I really wouldn't care about all this. Instead he lied flagrantly and often, fought to uphold the code of silence, and acted like the only good guy in the sport when others went down for the same things he was doing. He built his house of cards too tall, and I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to protect him from the wind.

Here may be an answer to Tyler's motivation
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/...dersoninterview.html
Thought this paragraph telling.

Have you interacted much with lawyers representing any of the other cyclists that have been linked to the investigation?
I have heard from Lance's lawyers from the very beginning. Before Tyler testified to the grand jury, Lance's lawyers...wanted to enter into a joint defense agreement. I told them, "I don't think my guy is a defendant."

As far as Floyd, I forgot as a whistle blower I think he can get a third of the settlement

Sure, but what specifically would they charge him with at this time base on what we've heard recently from Tyler? I've heard he signed a contract saying he wouldn't take PEDs. Fine, they have to prove that he did. Just because Tyler took PEDs doesn't mean Lance took them. I'm sure he did but I can't prove it. What other fraudulent activity did Lance personally commit?

Did you read the articles I posted to you? If he was part owner of tailwind, and he knew of doping, and postal gave tailwind 32 million???? Said it was a clean team, and knew from before 2001 and during it was not.???/ Get it

Based on the article you provided it wasn't clear whether Lance owned a piece of Tailwind or not. Even if he was a minority shareholder, that doesn't necessarily make him personally liable for Tailwind's actions. If he wasn't a director or part of the management team he wouldn't normally be liable.

Geez nevermind. I am not going to pull up every friggen article for you. You think that they cannot prove his involvment with tailwind.
I just gave you a couple of articles to answer your question. I do not work for Novitski to prove to you. If you do not get what they are charging him for, you never will. Lances lawyers should hire you, obviously you can defend the case

You seem to be getting worked up over this. It's not a big deal, just mild curiosity. He may well have had a controlling interest in Tailwind but you haven't shown any evidence to that effect. If I own shares in Boeing and they overcharge the government on a defense contract I'm not liable. Do you think Lance owned a bigger share of Tailwind?

I am not trying to show eveidence.If I could, the government would not be building a case. They would just read the thread. YOU asked why doping use could be a reason to charge. Yes, I am an idiot getting worked up. You do not get it. Obviously you never will Cheers :-)