Big George testified he and lance supplied each other with EPO

[Hugh Januss]

I just had a thought.

If Hincapie did out Armstrong in the GJ, and
Hincapie is the most credible eye witness against Armstrong
then
Does Armstrong pressure Hincapie in some way ?


If Hincapie is the difference between a conviction for Armstrong or not, I can't see Armstrong not strong-arming George. Especially since
- Armstrong has access to him,
- Armstrong has a history of strong-arming people who threaten Lance,
- Armstrong would probably already know if Hincapie has outed him or not.

If George retracts his story in open court, he may set himself up for a perjury charge, but Armstrong may make it worthwhile to him (look at Anderson protecting Bonds).

It also possibly sets Lance up for a (or another, there's Stephanie) witness tampering charge.

 

[oldschoolnik]

Now that the dust has settled a bit, certain things are starting to bother me. I think it's great that 60 Minutes learned of Hincapie's testimony, and told us about it, because it kicks the public acceptance up a notch. But seeing the denials and non-reaction made it impossible for me to watch George race at ATOC. All he's done was get subpoenaed and tell the truth (hopefully the detailed truth) under oath, with apparent compensation in the form of immunity.

It's one thing if that stayed secret, but we now know that he used EPO during his seven years with Lance, and also supplied it to him on occasion, as well as receiving it. How are fans supposed to be able to watch the Tour de France knowing that a recently confessed doper will be riding the race as a kind of hero, appearing for the sixteenth time or whatever it is?

I know that some people here have said for years that there's no way a guy that big goes up mountains the way he did clean, and you were right, but before, he was just under suspicion like most guys. If he never used EPO, and he was asked about the 60 Minutes episode, he would have said he never used it, not that he couldn't discuss the investigation. Lots of people have made that connection. But in the interest of a clean sport, how can we sit quietly and watch the one guy we know confessed to authorities compete?

If he gave testimony that will help bring other criminals to justice, that's fine, give him immunity, and let him move on to a career in clothing or whatever. Don't expect us to watch him return to the scene of the crime and act as if nothing has happened.

I think many of us just assumed that everybody was using during that era but the truth is (and to quote the Pulp Fiction character) "personality goes a long way" - and Geoge has never said a bad word about anyone in his entire career even when he was justified to--- and so people actually like him--despite the fact that he used EPO like the rest of them - same with big Mig he just quietly did his epo, won his TDF's and went on with his life and he is universally liked - contrast that with LA who either destroyed, or seeked to destroy everyone who so much as questioned the myth or even under penalty of purjury - told the truth (Andreaus).

Anyway, that's why I can still watch GH and cheer him on.

 

[Maxiton]

I think many of us just assumed that everybody was using during that era but the truth is (and to quote the Pulp Fiction character) "personality goes a long way" - and Geoge has never said a bad word about anyone in his entire career even when he was justified to--- and so people actually like him--despite the fact that he used EPO like the rest of them - same with big Mig he just quietly did his epo, won his TDF's and went on with his life and he is universally liked - contrast that with LA who either destroyed, or seeked to destroy everyone who so much as questioned the myth or even under penalty of purjury - told the truth (Andreaus).

Anyway, that's why I can still watch GH and cheer him on.

I think that's exactly right, about all concerned, and I feel the same. An ESPN commentator recently opined that Armstrong's fraud was not so much the doping, it was the public persona he constructed and profited from and defended so mercilessly. Mistakes Mig was careful not to make.

 

[MarkvW]

I just had a thought.

If Hincapie did out Armstrong in the GJ, and
Hincapie is the most credible eye witness against Armstrong
then
Does Armstrong pressure Hincapie in some way ?


If Hincapie is the difference between a conviction for Armstrong or not, I can't see Armstrong not strong-arming George. Especially since
- Armstrong has access to him,
- Armstrong has a history of strong-arming people who threaten Lance,
- Armstrong would probably already know if Hincapie has outed him or not.

If George retracts his story in open court, he may set himself up for a perjury charge, but Armstrong may make it worthwhile to him (look at Anderson protecting Bonds).

No way. Tampering with a federal witness means jail. Intimidating a federal witness means more jail. Lance isn't even sure he will be indicted. Committing a felony in that circumstance would be mind-bogglingly stupid.

 

[thehog]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[MacRoadie]

Committing a felony in that circumstance would be mind-bogglingly stupid.

Well, we DO have facts4lance.com...

 

[VeloMaster]

GH and the GJ

I've served on a grand jury -- no, not THAT grand jury. I was a journalist for 30 years. And I race my bike and avidly follow the sport. So let me put this out there:

First, GJ testimony is secret under American law. Anyone breaking that secrecy, including prosecutors, the official recording secretary, grand jurors, are subject to stiff penalties, including jail time. However, a witness may tell others what he or she said before the jury and otherwise describe their experience. In reality, they rarely do so.

Second, whatever GH or anyone else told the GJ is recorded and preserved. As part of a grand jury last summer, we frequently reviewed such witness transcripts and were told each time that this was an official record. A later change in testimony by a witness, say in open court in a later trial phase, would mean perjury charges. Again, these are very serious because the whole legal system rests largely on sworn testimony.

Third, in a case with this many moving parts, it is often possible for for an experienced journalist, especially from a prestigious, powerful show like "60 Minutes," to seek and get confirmation of some sort that testimony from one witness, say TH, has been corroborated by another. In fact, it is much easier in a case like this when they already have (public) comment from a grand jury witness with which to work.

I can easily see someone from 60 Minutes approaching GH, a member of his legal team, the prosecutors, or investigators and saying... "Look, we know what TH told the grand jury" and at least coming away with an understanding that another witness had said much the same.

One can think of a lot of possible motives for someone taking that kind of risk.

Of course, we may never know what is really going on here. But I read GH's tweet and comments as what Washington likes to call "a non-denial denial." In other words, its not definitive in either direction.

We'll have to see how it plays out. If a case ever reaches open court, that is, if it's not dropped or settled by an admission of guilt as part of a plea bargain, then we will know what, if anything GH, said at the time.

 

[Cloxxki]

It's not a good time for witnesses to be riding by themselves on the roads these days. Hope they implement some safety. And I don't mean a gun in the jersey back pocket. Those don't dodge cars all to effectively.

 

[Andynonomous]

Paraoid much.

It's not a good time for witnesses to be riding by themselves on the roads these days. Hope they implement some safety. And I don't mean a gun in the jersey back pocket. Those don't dodge cars all to effectively.

See. Someone else is as paranoid as I am.

 

[zigmeister]

I've served on a grand jury -- no, not THAT grand jury. I was a journalist for 30 years. And I race my bike and avidly follow the sport. So let me put this out there:

First, GJ testimony is secret under American law. Anyone breaking that secrecy, including prosecutors, the official recording secretary, grand jurors, are subject to stiff penalties, including jail time. However, a witness may tell others what he or she said before the jury and otherwise describe their experience. In reality, they rarely do so.

Second, whatever GH or anyone else told the GJ is recorded and preserved. As part of a grand jury last summer, we frequently reviewed such witness transcripts and were told each time that this was an official record. A later change in testimony by a witness, say in open court in a later trial phase, would mean perjury charges. Again, these are very serious because the whole legal system rests largely on sworn testimony.

Third, in a case with this many moving parts, it is often possible for for an experienced journalist, especially from a prestigious, powerful show like "60 Minutes," to seek and get confirmation of some sort that testimony from one witness, say TH, has been corroborated by another. In fact, it is much easier in a case like this when they already have (public) comment from a grand jury witness with which to work.

I can easily see someone from 60 Minutes approaching GH, a member of his legal team, the prosecutors, or investigators and saying... "Look, we know what TH told the grand jury" and at least coming away with an understanding that another witness had said much the same.

One can think of a lot of possible motives for someone taking that kind of risk.

Of course, we may never know what is really going on here. But I read GH's tweet and comments as what Washington likes to call "a non-denial denial." In other words, its not definitive in either direction.

We'll have to see how it plays out. If a case ever reaches open court, that is, if it's not dropped or settled by an admission of guilt as part of a plea bargain, then we will know what, if anything GH, said at the time.

Whoah, wait one second. Stop thinking what I have requested now in many posts. Show us the evidence and proof of this "testimony in front of the grand jury." I kid of course. This is what I have asked. But, it isn't FACT George testified that LA did EPO and Test. Just some NYTime yellow journalist trying to get readership.

Of course it is supposed to be confidential by law. Yes, prosecutors could leak this out and risk legal issues to sources to get the court of public opinion going again. Surely that would never happen. Well, maybe, this is the US government.

Also, if George has nothing to fear, why can't he plea the 5th?? Why didn't Hamilton plea the 5th? You can plea the 5th in a Grand Jury no? But, since they were given deals of immunity likely, like Floyd/Hamilton have, they have no fear but to blab away and say whatever they like. They are just as complicit in this entire ordeal as LA. But, since he is the big fish, they are just coping a plea to help the government put together the giant conspiracy international fraud case. Since they have no actual doping evidence but hearsay by 4 people? That won't work out....so let's go after him for tax evation etc...

 

[woodburn]

Also, if George has nothing to fear, why can't he plea the 5th?? Why didn't Hamilton plea the 5th? You can plea the 5th in a Grand Jury no? But, since they were given deals of immunity likely, like Floyd/Hamilton have, they have no fear but to blab away and say whatever they like. They are just as complicit in this entire ordeal as LA. But, since he is the big fish, they are just coping a plea to help the government put together the giant conspiracy international fraud case. Since they have no actual doping evidence but hearsay by 4 people? That won't work out....so let's go after him for tax evation etc...

If you are given immunity and fail to testify, then you can be held in contempt of court and go to jail.

 

[Granville57]

But, since they were given deals of immunity likely, like Floyd/Hamilton have, they have no fear but to blab away and say whatever they like. They are just as complicit in this entire ordeal as LA. But, since he is the big fish, they are just coping a plea to help the government put together the giant conspiracy international fraud case. Since they have no actual doping evidence but hearsay by 4 people? That won't work out....so let's go after him for tax evation etc...

Nice try, but not even close.
Having fun are you?

 

[hfer07]

Also, if George has nothing to fear, why can't he plea the 5th?? Why didn't Hamilton plea the 5th? You can plea the 5th in a Grand Jury no? But, since they were given deals of immunity likely, like Floyd/Hamilton have, they have no fear but to blab away and say whatever they like. They are just as complicit in this entire ordeal as LA. But, since he is the big fish, they are just coping a plea to help the government put together the giant conspiracy international fraud case. Since they have no actual doping evidence but hearsay by 4 people? That won't work out....so let's go after him for tax evation etc...

Fanboys have become very creative lately & are coming up with "conspiracy theories" too...LOL

 

[mewmewmew13]

Zig don't you want to go on a vacation?

George testified in the GJ and this is a fact. He has not denied this or denied what he was purported to have testified.

 

[thehog]

Zig don't you want to go on a vacation?

George testified in the GJ and this is a fact. He has not denied this or denied what he was purported to have testified.

Grand Jury testimony is considered hearsay.

 

[mewmewmew13]

..lots of 'hearsay' coming out lately.

btw...does hearsay make a mess when it hits a fan?

 

[MacRoadie]

Also, if George has nothing to fear, why can't he plea the 5th?? Why didn't Hamilton plea the 5th? You can plea the 5th in a Grand Jury no? But, since they were given deals of immunity likely, like Floyd/Hamilton have, they have no fear but to blab away and say whatever they like. They are just as complicit in this entire ordeal as LA. But, since he is the big fish, they are just coping a plea to help the government put together the giant conspiracy international fraud case. Since they have no actual doping evidence but hearsay by 4 people? That won't work out....so let's go after him for tax evation etc...

Wow, at least you are earning your pay.

A grant of immunity serves to protect the witness from prosecution for any crimes they may admit to, or may be connected with as a result of their testimony. It is NOT immunity against committing perjury while providing that testimony.

This is going from stupid to pathetic.

 

[python]

help me here, american legal eagles.

is ziggie blowing yellow smoke ?

i was under the impression that (GH, TH, whoever...) could not have claimed the 5th during the preliminary/ fact finding/ discovery phase of the GJ process.

if so, the fed has had a real effective tool to get at TH and GH telling the truth.

 

[thehilrun]

Not sure where this should go, so if it needs to be moved, mods feel free.

As Hincapie is something of a local hero where I'm from and the US Pros are here this weekend, he granted an interview with the local news which aired on today's evening news. They talked about the heat, the races this weekend, and the recent allegations.

When asked point blank, "Did you dope, and did you help Lance dope?" he replied that he has "no interest, or um, a lot of people want to come after cycling and want to drag cycling through the mud [...] so I really can't comment on anything that I believe drags the sport through the mud."

Apparently there will be more to the interview on later news broadcasts tonight and I'll post up anything if people are interested.

 

[Allen H]

As Hincapie is something of a local hero where I'm from and the US Pros are here this weekend, he granted an interview with the local news which aired on today's evening news. They talked about the heat, the races this weekend, and the recent allegations.

When asked point blank, "Did you dope, and did you help Lance dope?" he replied that he has "no interest, or um, a lot of people want to come after cycling and want to drag cycling through the mud [...] so I really can't comment on anything that I believe drags the sport through the mud."

Again, that sounds alot like a Mark McGwire Congressional testimony non-answer answer. The only real difference being, George can't contradict his GJ testimony, if he gave any, so he's stuck being evasive until whatever actions from the GJ come out.

 

[VeloCity]

Also, if George has nothing to fear, why can't he plea the 5th?? Why didn't Hamilton plea the 5th? You can plea the 5th in a Grand Jury no? But, since they were given deals of immunity likely, like Floyd/Hamilton have, they have no fear but to blab away and say whatever they like. They are just as complicit in this entire ordeal as LA. But, since he is the big fish, they are just coping a plea to help the government put together the giant conspiracy international fraud case. Since they have no actual doping evidence but hearsay by 4 people? That won't work out....so let's go after him for tax evation etc...

Let's say you were in Tyler's shoes. The Feds approach you and say, hey, look, we know you were doping, we've got lots of stuff on you, we could charge you with a whole bunch of things, but we're after bigger fish here (which may or may not include Armstrong) so here's your choice - you can plead the 5th, but if you take that route, we'll just go after you anyway, or we'll grant you immunity if you just tell us what you know.

Think you'd have done anything differently? I highly doubt it.

 

[Red Lobster]

i was under the impression that (GH, TH, whoever...) could not have claimed the 5th during the preliminary/ fact finding/ discovery phase of the GJ process.

Law school was millenia ago for me, but my recollection is that you can plead the fifth when being questioned by any court, state or federal . . . I can't see why/how that right would be suspended for a grand jury proceeding.

 

[VeloMaster]

help me here, american legal eagles.

is ziggie blowing yellow smoke ?

i was under the impression that (GH, TH, whoever...) could not have claimed the 5th during the preliminary/ fact finding/ discovery phase of the GJ process.

if so, the fed has had a real effective tool to get at TH and GH telling the truth.

A witness before the GJ has to be informed before any questioning whether or not he or she is a target of the investigation at hand. If so, they have a Constitutional right to invoke the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination and need not answer any questions.

Other witnesses, that is those who are not targets, are sworn to tell the truth (although of course that doesn't mean they will do so). They cannot invoke any protection from the 5th amendment as they are not targets.
TH's lawyer says he told Wonderboy's legal team that "his guy" was not a defendant or target. If TH is not a target, then he must testify. The same would apply to GH.

Sometime, as in one case before me as a grand jury member, a witness was brought in under a special legal deal and agreed to testify without risk to himself.

For example, an accomplice in a bank robbery may give testimony about the actions of a target and not be prosecuted for anything that has to do with that particular case. If that witness later turns out to have lied, then the deal is off and prosecution for the crime as well as for perjury may follow.

For those interested, the legal theory of the GJ is to determine to the satisfaction of the community, as represented by the jurors, that a crime MAY have in fact been committed and to prevent the state from arbitrarily pursuing people it does not like for one reason or another.

The grand jurors hear the preliminary evidence from witnesses, the cops, forensic experts, etc. (although almost never from the target himself), and then must vote whether or not to vote to indict. The standard of proof the grand jurors must find under US law is less stringent than that in the trial phase.

No doubt, you've all heard, "beyond a reasonable doubt" in movies or in news stories, but that higher standard only applies for conviction in a criminal trial. Also grand juries do not require unanimous consent to indict, while a criminal trial in almost all cases requires unanimity.

As a result of this lesser standard, and for a host of social reasons, GJ's generally do produce indictments if/when prosecutors seek them, but they are also very powerful for collecting and compelling testimony.

I hope that helps.

 

[Granville57]

Apparently there will be more to the interview on later news broadcasts tonight and I'll post up anything if people are interested.

Yes. Please do, and thanks in advance. Any links to the local station?

I hope that helps.

Good info always does. Thanks for that, too.

 

[Oldman]

A witness before the GJ has to be informed before any questioning whether or not he or she is a target of the investigation at hand. If so, they have a Constitutional right to invoke the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination and need not answer any questions.

Other witnesses, that is those who are not targets, are sworn to tell the truth (although of course that doesn't mean they will do so). They cannot invoke any protection from the 5th amendment as they are not targets.
TH's lawyer says he told Wonderboy's legal team that "his guy" was not a defendant or target. If TH is not a target, then he must testify. The same would apply to GH.Sometime, as in one case before me as a grand jury member, a witness was brought in under a special legal deal and agreed to testify without risk to himself.

For example, an accomplice in a bank robbery may give testimony about the actions of a target and not be prosecuted for anything that has to do with that particular case. If that witness later turns out to have lied, then the deal is off and prosecution for the crime as well as for perjury may follow.

For those interested, the legal theory of the GJ is to determine to the satisfaction of the community, as represented by the jurors, that a crime MAY have in fact been committed and to prevent the state from arbitrarily pursuing people it does not like for one reason or another.

The grand jurors hear the preliminary evidence from witnesses, the cops, forensic experts, etc. (although almost never from the target himself), and then must vote whether or not to vote to indict. The standard of proof the grand jurors must find under US law is less stringent than that in the trial phase.

No doubt, you've all heard, "beyond a reasonable doubt" in movies or in news stories, but that higher standard only applies for conviction in a criminal trial. Also grand juries do not require unanimous consent to indict, while a criminal trial in almost all cases requires unanimity.

As a result of this lesser standard, and for a host of social reasons, GJ's generally do produce indictments if/when prosecutors seek them, but they are also very powerful for collecting and compelling testimony.

I hope that helps.

That statement would make most reasonable men suffer severe a*s pucker.