Lance Armstrong cheated per ex teammate

[scottie]

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...ory?id=6658817

Tyler Hamilton's lawyers on Monday formally notified federal authorities about a weekend incident they consider to be "aggressive contact" initiated by Lance Armstrong, saying it is up to those authorities to decide whether it constitutes witness tampering.

Hamilton, 40, who testified behind closed doors before a federal grand jury hearing evidence against Armstrong and others last summer, made specific doping allegations against the seven-time Tour de France winner on CBS' "60 Minutes" last month.

The two cyclists crossed paths at an Aspen, Colo., restaurant Saturday night, said Hamilton attorney Chris Manderson. He said Hamilton told him Armstrong repeatedly asked how much he had been paid to do the television interview, and added that his legal team would "(expletive) destroy you," "tear you apart on the witness stand," and "make your life a living (expletive) hell."

[smokymountainrain]

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...ory?id=6658817

Armstrong seems like a fine, upstanding, individual. I find it extremely hard to believe he would use performance enhancing drugs in order to simply win a few bike races.

[Babs]

Armstrong seems like a fine, upstanding, individual. I find it extremely hard to believe he would use performance enhancing drugs in order to simply win a few bike races.

Or that he would attempt to intimidate anyone who might testify.

[Eddie]

I understand that there is an intimidation factor.

But is it really witness tampering to tell someone that your attorney is going to go after their story when they are on the stand?

I mean - if you are there to testify against someone, shouldn't you expect that their attorney is going to do their best to catch you in any lie or destroy your credibility?

It just seems like if you were really tampering with a witness there would be more to it. But I suppose if Hamilton has skeletons to hide that he doesn't want bring brought to light and which he knows Lance is aware of - this could come across as much more threatening/intimidating.

[smokymountainrain]

I understand that there is an intimidation factor.

But is it really witness tampering to tell someone that your attorney is going to go after their story when they are on the stand?

I mean - if you are there to testify against someone, shouldn't you expect that their attorney is going to do their best to catch you in any lie or destroy your credibility?

It just seems like if you were really tampering with a witness there would be more to it. But I suppose if Hamilton has skeletons to hide that he doesn't want bring brought to light and which he knows Lance is aware of - this could come across as much more threatening/intimidating.

Perhaps only I see it this way, but assuming the story is true, telling Hamilton his team will make Hamilton's life "a living hell", goes a little beyond just going after his story, catching him in a lie or destroying his credibility. In my opinion, such a threat is the dictionary definition of intimidation - I don't know the law so I can't speak to what it means in terms of witness tampering, but common sense tells me that kind of threat could be fairly serious.

[Eddie]

Perhaps only I see it this way, but assuming the story is true, telling Hamilton his team will make Hamilton's life "a living hell", goes a little beyond just going after his story, catching him in a lie or destroying his credibility.

Yea - I can see that upon re-reading the quote. Reading through it quick, I interpreted:

"(expletive) destroy you," "tear you apart on the witness stand," and "make your life a living (expletive) hell."

as referring to Hamilton testifying and what would happen on the witness stand - since that is the one place mentioned by name. But I can see how it would also be taken as not entirely referring to his testifying but also to life in general.

[RC Vikings]

Lemond, Hamilton, Landis, Andreu. If I was someone who wanted to stay in the cycling industry I would just shut up and go about my business.

[CJF]

Armstrong seems like a fine, upstanding, individual. I find it extremely hard to believe he would use performance enhancing drugs in order to simply win a few bike races.

I think Lance Armstrong is as dirty as Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa. I'm also not an attorney. If I were Lance Armstrong's attorney I think I would be thrilled by this. Only Hamilton is telling the story of a confrontation and witnesses are backing Armstrong. If this plays out discrediting Hamliton just became that much easier. This seems like it puts the prosecution in a tough spot. Let it go and Armstrong's legal team kills him on cross or pursue and risk having your star witness be made to look like a fool before the actual trial. If Hamilton is telling the truth, this added charge means nothing in the grand scheme.

[myboynoah]

Lemond, Hamilton, Landis, Andreu. If I was someone who wanted to stay in the cycling industry I would just shut up and go about my business.

Exactly, because LA will destroy your career possibilities otherwise.