• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

At least we now know who is NOT the unidentified former USPS rider. . .

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 18, 2010
171
0
0
galaxy1 said:
nonsense. what are they going to get jail time for? "i can't remember" or "i didn't see anything" has worked as a defense for much weightier crimes than these guys are accused of.
If you say I didn't see anything and you did that's perjury.

"I can't remember" won't be accepted as a credible answer to a question like "did you dope?" did you see Lance dope? Go directly to jail until you remember better. If they grant you immunity and you don't cooperate they can throw you directly in the slammer until you become more talkative. Check out the legal thread for details.

This is not the UCI. The Feds are a whole different ball game. Lance always had the benefit of being the 900lb. gorilla in the room that everyone was afraid to cross. It's Novitzky with the law behind him who is in that role now. The Feds don't give a crap about who's who in cycling they just want a conviction of the big fish at the end of the investigation.
 
Jan 27, 2010
167
0
0
...which is exactly why they won't be going after the small fry for dubious perjury charges.

saying "i didn't dope or notice anything suspicious" is a legitimate defense and sufficient for most, i think.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
galaxy1 said:
...which is exactly why they won't be going after the small fry for dubious perjury charges.

saying "i didn't dope or notice anything suspicious" is a legitimate defense and sufficient for most, i think.
Didn't work for Tammy Thomas who was not a big name in Balco - and it won't work here either.
 
Jul 18, 2010
171
0
0
galaxy1 said:
...which is exactly why they won't be going after the small fry for dubious perjury charges.

saying "i didn't dope or notice anything suspicious" is a legitimate defense and sufficient for most, i think.
Absolutely not the case. The Feds would never solve any crime without cooperating witnesses. How do they get everyone to cooperate? By crucifying and making an example of anyone who doesn't. They will absolutely make sure anyone who blows them off, lies or stonewalls them knows they will be seeing the inside of a jail cell. It's the only way they can continue to be effective at their job. A prosecutor without convictions is like a cyclist without wins. No career future.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
I know we discussed some of this in the legal thread, but since this has come up again, I'm going to respond here. I'm sure that some of the other lawyers may have their own thoughts on this, or may disagree with me, but that said, I will respond with my thoughts:

henryg said:
If you say I didn't see anything and you did that's perjury. .
Not necessarily. How do you prove I saw what you say I saw? It's very difficult to prove someone else's perception. You really can't prove it just with your own countervailing testimony, and this would seem to be an instance where the proof of what was "seen" would have to be demonstrated by sufficient independent corroborating evidence. But merely lining two witnesses up, with one saying "I saw X" and the other saying "I didn't see X" probably doesn't establish the likelihood of "X", any more than it establishes which of them is telling the truth and which lying...at least not without taking into consideration many other factors, such as credibility and the weight to be given to one person's testimony over the others. Perjury is simply defined, but not very often employed, Tammy Thomas' case notwithstanding.

henryg said:
"I can't remember" won't be accepted as a credible answer to a question like "did you dope?" did you see Lance dope? Go directly to jail until you remember better. If they grant you immunity and you don't cooperate they can throw you directly in the slammer until you become more talkative. Check out the legal thread for details.
As a general proposition, someone testifying before a GJ won't go to jail, at least not immediately, for providing an answer to a question, even a wilfully false or seemingly evasive answer. A witness can go to jail for refusing to answer when there is no possibility of self-incrimination. Thus, immunity is granted to a witness who refuses to testify based on assertion of his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if the prosecution determines that without the witness' testimony, the criminal charge can't otherwise be made out or probable cause established. The grant of immunity relieves the witness from the threat of criminal prosecution only not for any consequences that might later flow from a later civil suit (or potentially even some other independent prosecution which doesn't depend on the witness' testimony after a grant of immunity, since the immunity granted in federal GJ is "use immunity" which doesn't completely preclude later prosecution if there's other independent evidence to support a criminal charge against the witness).

If after being granted immunity, the witness then refuses to testify ("I refuse to answer that question") the witness may be held in contempt, and one of the possible punishments is incarceration until the witness decides to answer. IMHO, and based on my experience, it is extremely rare for anyone called before a GJ (or testifying in open court before a judge or jury) to get thrown in jail for contempt for actually answering a question with "I don't recall" or "I can't remember" (unless there's more to it, like the witness is doing something else or acting in a contemptuous manner towards the court or GJ, or otherwise disrupting the proceedings).

If a witness were to so testify before a GJ ("I don't recall"), it would be the job of the prosecutor to use whatever means available to refresh the witness' recollection so that the witness is then placed in a position of essentially being forced to remember or admit that he does know. Either the prosecutor is successful in that endeavor to refresh recollection or not, but a contempt charge for providing an answer of "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" really actually is in most circumstances within the range of acceptable answers (setting aside whether it's really true or not for the sake of discussion), and proving it's actually false really depends on the context of the facts, the question and the case. If the witness' recollection is refreshed, and he then changes his testimony on the stand (e.g., so that he provides an answer like "Yes, oh now I recall...I saw "X"), a later prosecution for perjury would be unlikely and IMHO would not occur.

And BTW, I also agree with you that an answer of "I don't remember" to a specific question of a particular witness "Did you dope?" is not likely to be an acceptable answer--although theoretically it's possible that someone might not remember...but very unlikely. If asked that specific question, I would think most cyclist/witnesses would answer in one of four ways (assuming no prior grant of immunity):

(a) "Yes," in which case there may or may not be consequences, both criminally and/or with the UCI/WADA/USADA from such an admission;

(b) "No", in which case the witness is either telling the truth or lying, but either way "No" is an acceptable answer--and, if the answer is false and proven to be so, and material, it could lead to a later perjury charge; or,

(c) "I don't know" or "I can't recall"-- see above; or,

(d) "I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me" or some variation of language which invokes the right to avoid self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment-- If this is the response, then see above if immunity is granted. If there is no immunity given to the witness, then the answer stands, and there's not much else that can be said or done about it.

And just to keep it simple, I don't disagree that where a witness testifies before a GJ or in open court "I didn't do X" and there is later sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness lied, i.e., that the witness in fact "did X", that person could be charged with perjury.
 
Jun 12, 2010
43
0
0
LKing25 said:
Who is the betting money on? Im assuming its an American so im going to go for Christian Van De Velde.
I'd bet on Marty Jemison, second choice would be Chann McRae.
 
Apr 9, 2009
942
0
0
THISISIT said:
I'd bet on Marty Jemison, second choice would be Chann McRae.
Jemison??? The guy who punched Prentice Stephen in the face three years ago for his comments about doping?? Not gonna happen.
 
Jun 26, 2009
13
0
0
Someone who retired relatively young and accused Armstrong almost immediately after retiring is Andy Hampsten.
 
Jul 6, 2010
99
0
0
BVB6BVB said:
Someone who retired relatively young and accused Armstrong almost immediately after retiring is Andy Hampsten.
Any source for that?
All I can remember is Hampsten writing an open letter to support LeMond circa 2004. IIRC, the letter was all about defending LeMond for speaking up, but no accusation (direct at least) of Armstrong.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS