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

[Tim_sleepless]

the relevant comparison is his 2004 and 2005 peaks vs. the Landis allegation. By comparison, the Landis allegation barely registers. For relative popularity, try Lance Armstrong and Kim Kardashian:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=Lanc...ashian&ctab=0&geo=us&geor=all&date=all&sort=0

False Alternatives.

Not as popular as in 1994/1995, or as Kim Kardashian <> "forgotten"

 

[JRTinMA]

No, no, no. Squeaky clean implies argyle. My guess it is either CVV or JV himself.

JV is a doper so how can he be squeaky clean. CVV would be great, rode the tour twice with Postal and he has been on other notoriously doped up teams. He has seen a lot I'm sure.

 

[Muerdago11]

Just two witnesses are needed to prove perjury. Physical evidence is not needed.

This is untrue. Perjury could be proven any number of ways. (I'm not sure where you got this 2 witness rule but if it exists in any jurisdiction it means "at least two witnesses" not only 2) No one can be automatically convicted of a crime simply because two people say he did it! There need be no witnesses at all--as in a case where the defendant said under oath that he never doped then a blood test came to light showing the opposite. Even if there are two witnesses, perjury isn't proven until the jury renders a verdict. Perjury is a criminal offense and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the witnesses are not believable or are shown to be dishonest, self serving, etc. etc. then reasonable doubt is introduced and the jury may acquit. This is true no matter the number of witnesses. A witness like Hamilton or Landis would be a joke in my opinion. Even a law student could rip them apart. Unless they have a smoking gun, I doubt that there will even be an indictment nevermind a conviction.

 

[Tim_sleepless]

This is untrue. Perjury could be proven any number of ways. (I'm not sure where you got this 2 witness rule but if it exists in any jurisdiction it means "at least two witnesses" not only 2) No one can be automatically convicted of a crime simply because two people say he did it! There need be no witnesses at all--as in a case where the defendant said under oath that he never doped then a blood test came to light showing the opposite. Even if there are two witnesses, perjury isn't proven until the jury renders a verdict. Perjury is a criminal offense and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the witnesses are not believable or are shown to be dishonest, self serving, etc. etc. then reasonable doubt is introduced and the jury may acquit. This is true no matter the number of witnesses. A witness like Hamilton or Landis would be a joke in my opinion. Even a law student could rip them apart. Unless they have a smoking gun, I doubt that there will even be an indictment nevermind a conviction.

Eh?? The fact that just two witnesses are needed to prove perjury isn't untrue, or inconsistent with anything above. It doesn't mean that you can't use more than 2, or that Perjury can't be proven in different ways, or that those two may not be sufficient if they aren't credible.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

This is untrue. Perjury could be proven any number of ways. (I'm not sure where you got this 2 witness rule but if it exists in any jurisdiction it means "at least two witnesses" not only 2) No one can be automatically convicted of a crime simply because two people say he did it! There need be no witnesses at all--as in a case where the defendant said under oath that he never doped then a blood test came to light showing the opposite. Even if there are two witnesses, perjury isn't proven until the jury renders a verdict. Perjury is a criminal offense and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the witnesses are not believable or are shown to be dishonest, self serving, etc. etc. then reasonable doubt is introduced and the jury may acquit. This is true no matter the number of witnesses. A witness like Hamilton or Landis would be a joke in my opinion. Even a law student could rip them apart. Unless they have a smoking gun, I doubt that there will even be an indictment nevermind a conviction.

Great. The truthful testimonies of guys who have doped and have lied about it, but have no reason to lie today won't be believed over the "integrity" of a guy who has doped, has lied about it and is still lying about it, because he wants to stay out of jail....and the reason is that they got caught doing what he has also done, deeds that in some cases they actually did together.

What a crock of sh*t.

 

[python]

indictment is as sure as armstrong=texas.

99% probable given the common us statistics. the question is what charge ?

then expect a loooooong trial where texas lawyers will play for time to trigger a sol.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

This is untrue. Perjury could be proven any number of ways. (I'm not sure where you got this 2 witness rule but if it exists in any jurisdiction it means "at least two witnesses" not only 2) No one can be automatically convicted of a crime simply because two people say he did it! There need be no witnesses at all--as in a case where the defendant said under oath that he never doped then a blood test came to light showing the opposite. Even if there are two witnesses, perjury isn't proven until the jury renders a verdict. Perjury is a criminal offense and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the witnesses are not believable or are shown to be dishonest, self serving, etc. etc. then reasonable doubt is introduced and the jury may acquit. This is true no matter the number of witnesses. A witness like Hamilton or Landis would be a joke in my opinion. Even a law student could rip them apart. Unless they have a smoking gun, I doubt that there will even be an indictment nevermind a conviction.

In any case, according to the NYT the investigators claim not to need Landis's testimony to nail Lance.

You should also think about juries impressions of peopl's character.

By all accounts Tyler is one of those genuine nice guys that people can't fail to like. If the jury see that his history might be irrelevant. a heartfelt confession, his struggle with depression, losing his wife....it could all turn him into a star witness.

Lance will likely display his true sociopathic bullying "personality" on the stand, and it's possible the jury will dislike him. He can't get Nike to pre-package a commercial of his testimony

I met a guy the other day who lived in Austin for a while. I asked what people there thought about Lance. His reply was priceless.

"Half the people love him, the other half dislike him"

Q - "why do half dislike him?"

"They've met him"

 

[oldschoolnik]

I met a guy the other day who lived in Austin for a while. I asked what people there thought about Lance. His reply was priceless.

"Half the people love him, the other half dislike him"

Q - "why do half dislike him?"

"They've met him"

- This is pretty funny.

 

[Animal]

then expect a loooooong trial where texas lawyers will play for time to trigger a sol.

I don't understand that, could you explain what "triggering a sol" means?

 

[Anonymous]

Geez. Mellow out guys. I just went down the list that someone else posted here of names of possible riders who might be the unnamed source in the NYT article and came across a picture of Maori-man. Go take a pill. Or go for a ride. You'll feel better. Or not. Whatever....

I wrote that at 12:26 am...I don't know about you, but I don't usually ride at 12:26am. I have, but I was already in bed at that point and didn't want to get out of my warm, comfy sheets. Why is it that all you guys who are fans of Armstrong throw out the "go for a ride" barb? I mean, from the number of Trek's on craigslist, I would suggest that maybe you should ask some of your brethren to give a little turn of the pedals...

 

[kurtinsc]

In any case, according to the NYT the investigators claim not to need Landis's testimony to nail Lance.

You should also think about juries impressions of peopl's character.

By all accounts Tyler is one of those genuine nice guys that people can't fail to like. If the jury see that his history might be irrelevant. a heartfelt confession, his struggle with depression, losing his wife....it could all turn him into a star witness.

Lance will likely display his true sociopathic bullying "personality" on the stand, and it's possible the jury will dislike him. He can't get Nike to pre-package a commercial of his testimony

I met a guy the other day who lived in Austin for a while. I asked what people there thought about Lance. His reply was priceless.

"Half the people love him, the other half dislike him"

Q - "why do half dislike him?"

"They've met him"

This is odd... because in terms of public persona it's backwards.

Hamilton always came across as very aloof/shy with media interviews during his riding days, where as Lance always came across confident and engaging.

That has nothing to do with their real personalities... I'm aware of how Lance is really a jerk and can believe Hamilton is really a nice guy. I just wonder in a court setting which side would be more visible... the public facade each ended up putting forward to the media... or the actual personalities their beer drinking buddies know.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

I wrote that at 12:26 am...I don't know about you, but I don't usually ride at 12:26am. I have, but I was already in bed at that point and didn't want to get out of my warm, comfy sheets. Why is it that all you guys who are fans of Armstrong throw out the "go for a ride" barb? I mean, from the number of Trek's on craigslist, I would suggest that maybe you should ask some of your brethren to give a little turn of the pedals...

Yeah it's hilarious.....the Trek riding weekend warriors who ride 4 hrs a week on the big ring at 25km/h, and don't enter races cos they're "racing against themselves" are always the ones who tell the "haters" to go out and ride.

I gather everyone who doubts Lance is a lazy jealous fatty who isn't mentally strong enough to train.

Nike and Trek have a lot to answer for!

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I don't understand that, could you explain what "triggering a sol" means?

sol = statute of limitations

 

[Anonymous]

I don't understand that, could you explain what "triggering a sol" means?

sol = statute of limitations

Phewww...I thought someone was talking about an act similar to a Rusty Trombone or something...

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Phewww...I thought someone was talking about an act similar to a Rusty Trombone or something...

Rusty trombone - lmao!

 

[Barrus]

indictment is as sure as armstrong=texas.

99% probable given the common us statistics. the question is what charge ?

then expect a loooooong trial where texas lawyers will play for time to trigger a sol.

But as soon as the indictment is issued does that not stop the statute of limitation from expiring? Not really well versed in this, but it would only be logical

 

[euphrades]

I bet it was Kevin Livingston!!!!

 

[python]

I don't understand that, could you explain what "triggering a sol" means?

But as soon as the indictment is issued does that not stop the statute of limitation from expiring? Not really well versed in this, but it would only be logical

as the moose animal )) already explained sol= statute of limitations.

barrus, good questions and i'm as confused about the sol as any one who's NOT a legal professional. my understanding was the clock starts on the date of committing the alleged crime. sure i could be wrong.

some sources say that defrauding government has 5 year limitation, other sources refer to 10 year limitation for perjury, yet other sources state that rico has no sol.

perhaps we need to ask the question in the legal thread.

 

[Publicus]

This is odd... because in terms of public persona it's backwards.

Hamilton always came across as very aloof/shy with media interviews during his riding days, where as Lance always came across confident and engaging.

That has nothing to do with their real personalities... I'm aware of how Lance is really a jerk and can believe Hamilton is really a nice guy. I just wonder in a court setting which side would be more visible... the public facade each ended up putting forward to the media... or the actual personalities their beer drinking buddies know.

If you are curious about how Armstrong will likely be under questioning, just read part of his deposition in the SCA case.

 

[Roland Rat]

Tell you what, it's certainly educational being a cyclist/cycling fan. First you become and expert in biochemistry and exercise physiology, then in the American legal system. What next? The inner workings of a federal state penitentiary?

 

[Kennf1]

That won't play well.

Smacks of running scared. Don't address the issues, just rant at the law enforcers and hope they go away?

That's some crap lawyering!

It's not lawyering, it's media management. You can bet there are morning conference calls every day between the lawyers and Public Strategies to discuss the news stories and interview talking points. I hate to think how many people are billing on this thing right now.

 

[Barrus]

as the moose animal )) already explained sol= statute of limitations.

barrus, good questions and i'm as confused about the sol as any one who's NOT a legal professional. my understanding was the clock starts on the date of committing the alleged crime. sure i could be wrong.

some sources say that defrauding government has 5 year limitation, other sources refer to 10 year limitation for perjury, yet other sources state that rico has no sol.

perhaps we need to ask the question in the legal thread.

As far as a quick westlaw search goes the statute of limitation is only concerned with the moment the charges are brought, so the moment the indictment is issued and the first (probably preliminary) hearing is held. Also it appears that the RICO act does not have a statute of limitation in it, but that the courts do follow general guidelines, however there does not appear to be a clear and strict rule, the courts have a large discretion in this aspect.

I could be completely wrong, but this is what a quick search has learned me

 

[Mach Schnell]

From the Landis email.

Thanks for the heads up ya'll
I should have specified EXCEPT Flandis. LAs lawyer would have a field day with the whole credibility thing.
Either way, cycling is going to get a couple of black eyes out of all of this.

 

[QuickStepper]

. . . Why is it that all you guys who are fans of Armstrong . . .

Where do you get that from? You conclude this based on the label that some other person posting here has tried to slap on me, because I remain a skeptic? How do you conclude that I'm a "fan of Armstrong?" Because one of my first posts here expressed the view that Greg Lemond is a buffoon? Because I expressed the opinion that Jeff Novitzky, the feared investigator, isn't as scary as some of the media have made him out to be, nor as successful in BALCO as many think? Because I don't think Doug Miller, the Asst. U.S. Atty., has enough courtroom experience or years in the service needed to reel in a big fish? Right now everyone here in this forum is on a feeding frenzy, making all sorts of interesting assumptions, ready to indict and convict someone of something. None of us knows what's really going to happen. Sure it's interesting and fun to speculate and predict what's actually being investigated; it's fun to bet on or predict who may be indicted and for what crimes. The possibilities are endless. Someone's likely going to get indicted for something, I agree. But who, and for what....those are the big unknowns. Predict and speculate all you want...but don't misread my prior postings and assume I'm something I'm not.

 

[Oldman]

Thanks for the heads up ya'll
I should have specified EXCEPT Flandis. LAs lawyer would have a field day with the whole credibility thing.
Either way, cycling is going to get a couple of black eyes out of all of this.

The eyes of the sport have been swollen shut for awhile. I don't think it can get any worse unless Oedipus-Tex makes it worse.