Big George testified he and lance supplied each other with EPO

[datalore]

"Did Armstrong dope?"

There is absolutely no incentive for Hincapie to answer that question for the press.

 

[Benotti69]

"Did you testify that you saw Armstrong dope?" vs "Did Armstrong dope?"

The former may not be something Hincapie can comment on, but the latter is. If he was asked in the GJ to state his full name, that doesn't mean he's barred from answering that question outside the GJ.

The answer is Hamilton. He talked to the GJ and talked to 60mins! There is no problem with Hincapie saying he doped with EPO and saw Armstrong do it!

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

There is absolutely no incentive for Hincapie to answer that question for the press.

Of course not, if the answer was "yes." That's the whole point -- his lack of denial makes it obvious what the answer was.

 

[Benotti69]

There is absolutely no incentive for Hincapie to answer that question for the press.

There is actually, as it would appear those who doped then came clean felt as if a huge burden was lifted.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

There is absolutely no incentive for Hincapie to answer that question for the press.

There is no incentive if the answer is in the positive. If it's in the negative, there is every incentive for him to do so.

 

[Andynonomous]

BS

If Hincapie isn't authorized to comment on anything that was said during the investigation, that means that he can't deny or confirm any statement about what he said about Lance (e.g., he can't say that he didn't out Lance).

He can't confirm he said it, but he sure as hell can deny it (because it didn't happen, and you CAN comment on something that didn't happen in the GJ).

 

[MarkvW]

"Did you testify that you saw Armstrong dope?" vs "Did Armstrong dope?"

The former may not be something Hincapie can comment on, but the latter is. If he was asked in the GJ to state his full name, that doesn't mean he's barred from answering that question outside the GJ.

The First Amendment lets Mr. Hincapie talk about whatever he wants to talk about. There is no legal bar. The gov't would prefer he didn't talk, but they can't, and won't, muzzle him.

 

[datalore]

He can't confirm he said it, but he sure as hell can deny it (because it didn't happen, and you CAN comment on something that didn't happen in the GJ).

He can deny it, but that doesn't mean it is in his best interest to do so. If he wants to give the impression that he's cooperating with the investigation, it's best to keep his mouth shut. Saying that he did not out Lance during the investigation implies that he was given the opportunity to do so. That would be commenting on something that happened in the GJ.

 

[Cervelo77]

He can't confirm he said it, but he sure as hell can deny it (because it didn't happen, and you CAN comment on something that didn't happen in the GJ).

Or it could simply be that his lawyer told him it's in his best interests to not make any public comments about what he said in, you know, sworn testimony in an ongoing investigation.

I love the speculation though.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Or it could simply be that his lawyer told him it's in his best interests to not make any public comments about what he said in, you know, sworn testimony in an ongoing investigation.

I love the speculation though.

That's interesting speculation, but again, the point is that if his answer to the question whether he and Armstrong doped is "no", then it should be very much in his interest to state that publicly. You know, for "the future of the sport, what it's done to clean itself up."

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

He can deny it, but that doesn't mean it is in his best interest to do so. If he wants to give the impression that he's cooperating with the investigation, it's best to keep his mouth shut. Saying that he did not out Lance during the investigation implies that he was given the opportunity to do so. That would be commenting on something that happened in the GJ.

Are you deliberately missing the point? If so, I won't waste more time trying to explain the obvious to you.

Hincapie cares about his career. If Lance were truly clean and blameless, he'd be the first to say "Lance and I never took drugs" and have no need to mention what he told the Grand Jury. He can do exactly what Hamilton did.

But he's not saying anything close to that, and you can probably guess why.

 

[datalore]

Are you deliberately missing the point? If so, I won't waste more time trying to explain the obvious to you.

Hincapie cares about his career. If Lance were truly clean and blameless, he'd be the first to say "Lance and I never took drugs" and have no need to mention what he told the Grand Jury. He can do exactly what Hamilton did.

But he's not saying anything close to that, and you can probably guess why.

It would be fine for Hincapie to deny that he himself never doped, but I don't think that's the primary issue here. How the hell could he claim that Lance never did drugs?

 

[Benotti69]

It would be fine for Hincapie to deny that he himself never doped, but I don't think that's the primary issue here. How the hell could he claim that Lance never did drugs?

He could claim that "he never saw Armstrong take dope", if it was true

 

[Merckx index]

facts4lance has now put something up about GH:

In its unpardonable zeal to smear Lance Armstrong, CBS has also attacked the reputation of George Hincapie. We are confident that the statements attributed to Hincapie are inaccurate and that the reports of his testimony are unreliable. George Hincapie and his counsel have publicly said that they did not reveal any aspects of his testimony. The only others with access to Hincapie’s testimony — government investigators and prosecutors — have likewise assured us that they are not the source of the information attributed by CBS to Hincapie. CBS’s reporting on this subject has been replete with broken promises, false assurances, and selective reliance on witnesses upon whom no reputable journalist would rely. This latest alleged revelation is no more reliable than CBS’s earlier claims.

 

[Kennf1]

It would be fine for Hincapie to deny that he himself never doped, but I don't think that's the primary issue here. How the hell could he claim that Lance never did drugs?

Forget about Lance for the moment. The story in the press is that he and Lance doped (and yes I understand the other part of the story about testifying). No innocent person in his position would stay silent instead of saying that it's an outright lie. When the Floyd accusations first broke, he had a similar non-response (as did Leipheimer and Dave Z), before he testified, and probably before the feds had turned their sites on Armstrong.

Hincapie has trained, raced, and hung out with Lance since the very early Postal days. He could easily claim that Lance never did drugs, if it were true.

 

[Benotti69]

facts4lance has now put something up about GH:

i cant imagine that the Feds would comment to Fabiani. They have made no comments so far about the investigation why comment to Fabiani about a person interviewed by the GJ?

 

[GotDropped]

facts4lance has now put something up about GH:

They are concentrating on HOW it got leaked and not WHAT Hincapie has said. Tell us George, is what the leak contains a lie?

 

[Benotti69]

Forget about Lance for the moment. The story in the press is that he and Lance doped (and yes I understand the other part of the story about testifying). No innocent person in his position would stay silent instead of saying that it's an outright lie. When the Floyd accusations first broke, he had a similar non-response (as did Leipheimer and Dave Z), before he testified, and probably before the feds had turned their sites on Armstrong.

Hincapie has trained, raced, and hung out with Lance since the very early Postal days. He could easily claim that Lance never did drugs, if it were true.

it aint! Period. Check youtube for some of BIG George racing up the last Alp of the day in the TdF with Armsstrong on his wheel.

 

[datalore]

Forget about Lance for the moment. The story in the press is that he and Lance doped (and yes I understand the other part of the story about testifying). No innocent person in his position would stay silent instead of saying that it's an outright lie. When the Floyd accusations first broke, he had a similar non-response (as did Leipheimer and Dave Z), before he testified, and probably before the feds had turned their sites on Armstrong.

Hincapie has trained, raced, and hung out with Lance since the very early Postal days. He could easily claim that Lance never did drugs, if it were true.

I'm not claiming that the lack of an outright denial is meaningless. I'm just acknowledging that Hincapie's participation in a federal investigation necessarily complicates our interpretation of his response. As for Lance, the most Hincapie can claim is that he either saw or did not see Lance doping. In this case, a positive testimony provides much stronger evidence than a negative one.

 

[Kennf1]

In this case, a positive testimony provides much stronger evidence than a negative one.

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Which is why the statement "I saw Lance do drugs" should carry more weight than someone saying "I never saw Lance do drugs."

 

[hektoren]

They are concentrating on HOW it got leaked and not WHAT Hincapie has said. Tell us George, is what the leak contains a lie?

I bet the people at 60 minutes are sensitive to the fact that they can't serve info from the GJ-proceedings without jeopardizing the entire process.
My bet is they've got info from a confidante of Big George, a person he has revealed the truth to, a person he has told that he spilled the beans in the hearing. Any factual detailed info from the proceedings would be the facts4lance-guys' wet dream. Keep on dreaming!

 

[MarkvW]

Or it could simply be that his lawyer told him it's in his best interests to not make any public comments about what he said in, you know, sworn testimony in an ongoing investigation.

I love the speculation though.

His lawyer definitely advised him to remain quiet. Nothing good can happen if George makes a doping statement, so why talk? This is blatantly obvious.

This, of course, begs the question: Why did Tyler talk? He's probably not as economically vulnerable as George (probably not making much money and no cycling career to defend) and it appears that he felt an emotional need to come clean.

That's my speculation.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

facts4lance has now put something up about GH:

Must be the same "official" sources who had them believing that Tyler had negotiated a deal to keep his gold medal in exchange for cooperation.

2 words for the pro-LA crowd;

you

lose

 

[D-Queued]

facts4lance has now put something up about GH:

In its unpardonable zeal to smear Lance Armstrong...

LOL

What about Lance Armstrong's unpardonable zeal to:
- defraud the sport of cycling
- defraud the victims of cancer
- defraud Thrift Drug & SCA
- Victimize countless people
- Steal from cycling, cancer patients and their families
- etc.

Dave.

 

[hfer07]

After the 60 minutes segment- there is no doubt that Hincapie has already cut a deal with the GJ in exchange for immunity-and since he and Hamilton have opted for that route-I ask who's next to expose the facts?