Another U.S. Postal Rider confirms systematic doping within team - N.Y. Times

[hiero2]

. . .
OJ was guilty, but by standards that are there to protect the innocent, he was found not guilty because the jury felt that burden of proof was not met. Most people who believe in these protections also understand that guilty people will go unpunished sometimes in an effort to ensure that innocent ones are not found guilty. (hey, even that is obviously imperfect, but you cannot blame a girl for trying) So, as someone who has a vocation in the field, don't preach to me in an idealistic manner. You and I both know better. Regardless of whether or not he is found guilty of anything, he is a doping cheat who has harmed others and used sick people to shield himself. . .

Another never-ending thread. But the bit above is well worth repeating, because NOBODY values their innocence so much as the person who IS innocent.

Which is another way of saying that we often, in our thoughts, condemn those who are not guilty, because we have emotional reasons, or rationalized ones, and we believe them to be guilty - unfairly. It is often the case that they wear shoes we would willingly wear, had we walked their same path. History shows us this is the human way.

That said, I believe that OJ is guilty, as is Lance, and the rest of the peloton for the doping "decade and a half". But I also have to just feel sorry for people who've had to go there - just look at the photo of Tammy Thomas in "Babes on Bikes" and tell me you don't feel some pity that someone could so outrage their body in a desire to improve and win.

But, believing they are guilty, and stoning them to death, are two different things.

 

[sub240]

I think its Vaughters

Maybe so. Most of the information on these news sites is not exactly the whole story.

 

[buckwheat]

Another never-ending thread. But the bit above is well worth repeating, because NOBODY values their innocence so much as the person who IS innocent.

Which is another way of saying that we often, in our thoughts, condemn those who are not guilty, because we have emotional reasons, or rationalized ones, and we believe them to be guilty - unfairly. It is often the case that they wear shoes we would willingly wear, had we walked their same path. History shows us this is the human way.

That said, I believe that OJ is guilty, as is Lance, and the rest of the peloton for the doping "decade and a half". But I also have to just feel sorry for people who've had to go there - just look at the photo of Tammy Thomas in "Babes on Bikes" and tell me you don't feel some pity that someone could so outrage their body in a desire to improve and win.

But, believing they are guilty, and stoning them to death, are two different things.

A little hysterical, no?

Nice disconnected leap.

What's the greatest sanction ever for a doping offense or related "crime?"

 

[sub240]

What's the greatest sanction ever for a doping offense or related "crime?"

death by stones!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A little hysterical, no?

Nice disconnected leap.

What's the greatest sanction ever for a doping offense or related "crime?"

They cut off your hands of course.

Surely you have heard someone riding their bike going... "Look at me, no hands"...
(but it makes wearing yellow braclets really hard though...)

 

[thehog]

From 2007......

In the aftermath of the positive test, who did you turn to for advice? Who'd you talk to?

Not a lot of people, the only person that really could relate was Lance (Armstrong), and he called me in the beginning, after a couple of my press conferences and told me to shut up basically.

So I listened. No, what he said was, "listen you can't win. No matter what you say now it's not gonna come out the way you want it to come out so just don't talk."

And … in the weeks after, I'd speak with him probably once a week because he's been through the same kind of accusations and he's one person that actually can relate to the exact same thing.

Otherwise, you know, I've lawyers trying to help and I've experts trying to deal with the science part but as far as my personal experience is concerned there's not a lot of people that can, can relate.

Because I … went from … being relatively unknown to being … known for something negative. I never really even got used to dealing with the cameras in a positive way.

And that part was, part of my … reasons for making so many mistakes in the beginning, I just wasn’t used to the way that to, to the way you should deal with the press to get your point across, not to try to change the story, but to say it in a clear way that's understandable.

And … I don't know, hopefully I'm learning. You'll have to let me know after you edit this.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/landis.html

 

[theswordsman]

Zabriskie said he hasn't been contacted by investigators. I hope he's really wrong about the 5 year effect. The link also has a source saying investigators wanted Bahati's cell phone and home computer.

Zabriskie said Sunday he had not been contacted by federal authorities and also said he was not the unidentified cyclist who was quoted in the New York Times last week as having seen Armstrong illegally dope.

Asked if he would cooperate if he were asked to testify to the grand jury, Zabriskie said, "That's my understanding of the law. I'd have to, right?"

He said he couldn't comment any further on the federal probe, although he did say cycling would be fine no matter what happened.

"In five years," he said, "this will just be another [doping] investigation."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/08/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20100809/2

 

[FrankDrack]

Keeping Information Confidential

Hopefully some of the members with more knowledge can help me better understand the grand jury process.

I am trying to understand how much flexibility the feds have in dealing with a potential witness. I have a basic understanding of the proffer process, and know that there are different types of immunity, but does anyone have knowledge concerning how much authority/flexibly the feds have toward keeping information confidential from other agencies?

I understand that if a grand jury witness is call to testify at a subsequent trial the information becomes public but are the feds offering any “background only” deals to witnesses.

 

[Anonymous]

Hopefully some of the members with more knowledge can help me better understand the grand jury process.

I am trying to understand how much flexibility the feds have in dealing with a potential witness. I have a basic understanding of the proffer process, and know that there are different types of immunity, but does anyone have knowledge concerning how much authority/flexibly the feds have toward keeping information confidential from other agencies?

I understand that if a grand jury witness is call to testify at a subsequent trial the information becomes public but are the feds offering any “background only” deals to witnesses.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9234

Its amazing what you can find if you read thread titles.

 

[FrankDrack]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9234

Its amazing what you can find if you read thread titles.

I have read that thread, but couldn't find clear answers to my questions.

 

[MacRoadie]

I have read that thread, but couldn't find clear answers to my questions.

I think the point being made is that the "All Things Legal - The Law for Non-Lawyers" was set up and made a sticky for the explicit purpose of asking questions, which is why you were referred there.

Basically a place to post questions and answers on legal issues in a civil manner, with (hopefully) competent US attorneys answering the questions. It's not a place to debate the issues, but a place to learn more about the nuts and bolts. Statutes, applicable laws, evidentiary issues, etc.

Seems pretty straightforward. The question becomes why, after reading a Q&A thread specifically provided for your use in posing legal questions, and not finding a previously posted answer to your question, you chose not to ask your question there but ask it here....

 

[Anonymous]

I have read that thread, but couldn't find clear answers to my questions.

Then you need to click the links provided in the posts. It will tell you everything you need to know.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It's in there. Please be more thorough in your searches in the future.

Basically when called to a Grand Jury to testify you sit in a room with the jury, a law clerk who simply records everything, and prosecutors. There is no judge, and your attorney cannot be present. The prosecutors ask you questions until they feel they are finished.

Failing to appear for a Grand Jury can land you in jail. Greg Anderson has found himself in jail a few times for failing to testify or cooperate in the Balco scandal.

If you're planning on lying, you better be very good at not contradicting yourself. You also open yourself up to perjury charges if prosecutors can later summon enough contradictory evidence to show you were lying.

 

[Berzin]

What's the greatest sanction ever for a doping offense or related "crime?"

Staying married to Raimondus Rumsas.

 

[FrankDrack]

It's in there. Please be more thorough in your searches in the future.

Basically when called to a Grand Jury to testify you sit in a room with the jury, a law clerk who simply records everything, and prosecutors. There is no judge, and your attorney cannot be present. The prosecutors ask you questions until they feel they are finished.

Failing to appear for a Grand Jury can land you in jail. Greg Anderson has found himself in jail a few times for failing to testify or cooperate in the Balco scandal.

If you're planning on lying, you better be very good at not contradicting yourself. You also open yourself up to perjury charges if prosecutors can later summon enough contradictory evidence to show you were lying.

I don’t see my questions answered in there and nothing in your reply answers my questions. I completely understand the ramifications of failing to appear or lying to a grand jury.

I am asking about negotiations before a witness appears in front of the grand jury. Do the feds have the ability to offer complete confidentially to a rider?

If confidentially is available do you think riders would take advantage of it? I imagine that there are many past & present riders who would like to cooperate but are concerned about potential legal/non-legal implications.

 

[this_is_edie]

I don’t see my questions answered in there and nothing in your reply answers my questions. I completely understand the ramifications of failing to appear or lying to a grand jury.

I am asking about negotiations before a witness appears in front of the grand jury. Do the feds have the ability to offer complete confidentially to a rider?

If confidentially is available do you think riders would take advantage of it? I imagine that are many past & present riders would like to cooperate but are concerned about potential legal/non-legal implications.

Once again, please take your question to the appropriate thread which was pointed out to you multiple times.

 

[MacRoadie]

I don’t see my questions answered in there and nothing in your reply answers my questions. I completely understand the ramifications of failing to appear or lying to a grand jury.

I am asking about negotiations before a witness appears in front of the grand jury. Do the feds have the ability to offer complete confidentially to a rider?

If confidentially is available do you think riders would take advantage of it? I imagine that are many past & present riders would like to cooperate but are concerned about potential legal/non-legal implications.

Here's a thought. Why not try ASKING your questions there? Right there in the thread for questions. The thread for questions of a legal nature. Questions of a legal nature, which would include, by definition, the Grand Jury process...

 

[FrankDrack]

Here's a thought. Why not try ASKING your questions there? Right there in the thread for questions. The thread for questions of a legal nature. Questions of a legal nature, which would include, by definition, the Grand Jury process...

Happy to do so.

 

[MacRoadie]

Happy to do so.

Thank You.

 

[spetsa]

who do you people think you are? you have derailed the topic of the thread yourselves and you find the need to belittle others for doing the same in an innocent manner! The moderators should disallow this childish banter or change the name of the forum from CN to Egomaniac Self Righteousness. A handful of you surpass the one nut wonder in your arrogance. Start your own f'ing forum if you feel no one else is of your equal.