Armstrong claims to have been tested over 500 times

[Realist]

Well you obviously know that admissible evidence has to be relevant but not all relevant evidence is admissible. I have already made my views around the French tests clear. Why don't you just wait and see if things ever get that far.
Plus I never claimed "deep legal knowledge" and I certainly do not have that of the US Justice system. Having said that, the Laws of Evidence are reasonably generic across western justice systems.

Under Rule 401:

Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Under Rule 402:

Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless in conflict with the constitution or an act of congress or another provision of the rules.

Under Rule 403:

Unless its prejudicial effect is greater than it's probative value (I'm paraphrasing... will mislead the jury)





So, the French tests:

Will almost certainly be admitted through expert testimony.

Relevant? Yes, if LA disputes having taken or possessed EPO, so this becomes an issue of fact at trial. They are definitely relevant. Thus the presumption is of admissibility and it will be up to the defense to object.

Rule 403 exclusions? Probably not. The defense can raise the chain of custody issues after it is admitted. Unless they have concrete reasons to suggest the chain of custody is problematic, there is no way they will get up on unfair prejudice or misleading the jury.

My bet: There will be rule 403 objections to preserve the possibility of getting evidence excluded on appeal. The evidence will be admitted, if this all goes to trial.


'I think I know a bit, having been a prosecutor...'

turns into

'I never claimed "deep legal knowledge" '


I believe that you are a lawyer because you constantly shift the goalposts, never admit fault, and move on to the next talking point without blinking or apologizing as soon as you're shown to be incorrect. There is a Texan who needs your skills right now.

 

[Race Radio]

Under Rule 401:

Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Under Rule 402:

Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless in conflict with the constitution or an act of congress or another provision of the rules.

Under Rule 403:

Unless its prejudicial effect is greater than it's probative value (I'm paraphrasing... will mislead the jury)





So, the French tests:

Will almost certainly be admitted through expert testimony.

Relevant? Yes, if LA disputes having taken or possessed EPO, so this becomes an issue of fact at trial. They are definitely relevant. Thus the presumption is of admissibility and it will be up to the defense to object.

Rule 403 exclusions? Probably not. The defense can raise the chain of custody issues after it is admitted. Unless they have concrete reasons to suggest the chain of custody is problematic, there is no way they will get up on unfair prejudice or misleading the jury.

My bet: There will be rule 403 objections to preserve the possibility of getting evidence excluded on appeal. The evidence will be admitted, if this all goes to trial.


'I think I know a bit, having been a prosecutor...'

turns into

'I never claimed "deep legal knowledge" '


I believe that you are a lawyer because you constantly shift the goalposts, never admit fault, and move on to the next talking point without blinking or apologizing as soon as you're shown to be incorrect. There is a Texan who needs your skills right now.

Ooops, Spartacus is running back to Tim Herman for updated talking points.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Do you take us for fools?

Claims you are some sort of prosecutor, followed by refuting the idea you have "deep legal knowledge", seriously, you must take us for fools.

You've failed in this discussion.

Colm, I have always taken you for a fool, but hey thats just my opinion.

I was referring to "deep legal knowledge" concerning US Federal Corruption Law. I was just being honest about that. I do not see how that can be construed as a fail, but hey you are the guy who say's that Floyd's lies do not matter...quite sad really.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Ooops, Spartacus is running back to Tim Herman for updated talking points.

Nice cut and paste. I am sorry but your whole argument flounders on the first point. They will not be admissible, as you will see if this ever reaches a hearing.

 

[Race Radio]

Nice cut and paste.

What Cut and Paste? Are you drinking again?

 

[SpartacusRox]

You actually do not raise valid points. You make broad, generic statements like:

Firstly because they had already been tested once and found by the lab to be okay.
Secondly, because the rules do not allow for historical retesting of samples
Thirdly because in a civil case the standard of proof is far lower than that required of the prosecution in a criminal case.
Fourthly and leading on from that, the defense would have a field day with raising issues of the possibility of tampering with the evidence.
Fifthly: The US investigators have no jurisdictional access to the samples.
Sixth: for reasons I have already spoken to, the French would not release them.

...and you are roundly addressed on them, and then avoid direct questions elsewhere.

With your last post, you seem to be in full retreat from your previous posturing. Why?

Firstly i was not 'roundly addressed' on them unless byl roundly addressed meaning people saying "i disagree with you" or that I know nothing etc etc. I don't generally respond to such posts because what can i say? I have made my point and they obviously disagree. Thats fine but I am not getting into intense speculative arguments here.

Full retreat? Not at all I just acknowledged some of the points the poster made. Unlike others such as yourself I am happy to accept that my opinion is only my opinion and others make vaild points. For example if someone responds to me by saying things like: "if all Lance's previous teammates give evidence against him he will go down", what can I say in response other than "yes he probably will". How is that a retreat? I merely answered an obviously loaded question.

Finally I don't read every single reply to my posts, nor do i answer the ones I consider unworthy of a response. I wouldn't want to be accused of trolling now would I by the forum intelligentsia.

 

[Cordon Bleu]

SpartacusRox:

Why woudl the '99 samples be inadmissable? Please explain. For the record, I was a prosecutor for 3 years, criminal defense for 5. Would the tests not pass the Daubert test?

 

[MacRoadie]

SpartacusRox:

Why woudl the '99 samples be inadmissable? Please explain. For the record, I was a prosecutor for 3 years, criminal defense for 5. Would the tests not pass the Daubert test?

Well, Daubert applies to expert witness testimony (been down THAT road a few times), so I suppose it would, but in conjunction with a Kelly-Frye test as well: Kelly-Frye on the validity of the tests themselves, and Daubert on the expert testimony supporting the conclusions made using the tests.

 

[Race Radio]

SpartacusRox:

Why woudl the '99 samples be inadmissable? Please explain. For the record, I was a prosecutor for 3 years, criminal defense for 5. Would the tests not pass the Daubert test?

Don't be surprised if Spartacus deems your post "unworthy of a response". Details can be a bit of a challenge when he is in this state.

 

[SpartacusRox]

SpartacusRox:

Why woudl the '99 samples be inadmissable? Please explain. For the record, I was a prosecutor for 3 years, criminal defense for 5. Would the tests not pass the Daubert test?

No I don't think it will. IF the 99 tests are put forward in evidence by the prosecution I would imagine the Judges assessment would be made in pretrial submissions. I think the defence argument would be quite strong around the procedural validity issue. But like I said, that is only my opinion.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Don't be surprised if Spartacus deems your post "unworthy of a response". Details can be a bit of a challenge when he is in this state.

Ha ha nice one Race, good to see you are on form today.