• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Big George testified he and lance supplied each other with EPO

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 16, 2011
38
0
0
Visit site
As I gladly witness the US pro cyclists' omerta crumble I'm left to wonder if most of the doping problem could be resolved if the Spanish, Italian and Belgium feds were willing to genuinely investigate, prosecute, and punish their own. The same could be said for the Australian, British, etc.,. Since 1990 when I started closely following cycling only the French, and later the Germans, have ever been engaged in finding and prosecuting the dirty cheats. The Americans are now joining the good fight.
 
VeloMaster - do you know...is it true that when a person is giving testimony (or a deposition, not sure what it is called in this case) during a GJ investigation that they do not get to have legal representation? That it is just them answering the questions?
For example, GH and TH would have been on their own answering all those GJ questions?

Also, when this finally goes to GJ court and the prosecution is presenting their case - do all of the witnesses they interviewed (GH, TH, etc) have to appear in court to give their statements/testimony to the GJ jurors?

Thanks in advance...Jul

edit - I think MarkvW answered my legal rep question. I should have read more closely.
 
some more on US grand jury system

Yes, as Mark noted, witnesses called before the grand jury may have lawyers but the lawyer may not accompany them into the jury room where then testify. In other words, it's just the witness, the grand jurors (in my experience 21 were chosen and at least 16 were required for a quorum), and the prosecutor.

The prosecutor controls the hearing but the jurors may -- and do -- direct questions to the witness as well. If the witness wants legal advice, he has to request a consultation, step outside the jury room, and then speak to his lawyer in private, before returning.

As to the second part of your question, the grand jury hearing and the court trial are not directly connected. A GJ votes to indict at the request of the prosecutor, and then the case goes to a different trial court system and a different jury. There, the classic "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies; rules of evidence and procedure are different; and a lawyer may be present and may speak at all times.

Generally, important witnesses, in this case TH and GH, would be called to testify in the trial phase. Prosecutors would have their grand jury statements and can use them to catch any changes in what they said at that time. But the trial jury will generally hear the witness again in live court, and not rely on grand jury testimony or transcripts.

If this goes to trial, we could expect someone like TH to be a primary witness for the state prosecution against any defendant.
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
Visit site
nighttrain said:
As I gladly witness the US pro cyclists' omerta crumble I'm left to wonder if most of the doping problem could be resolved if the Spanish, Italian and Belgium feds were willing to genuinely investigate, prosecute, and punish their own. The same could be said for the Australian, British, etc.,. Since 1990 when I started closely following cycling only the French, and later the Germans, have ever been engaged in finding and prosecuting the dirty cheats. The Americans are now joining the good fight.


The responsibility for doping control MUST BE GIVEN TO AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROMOTING ANY SPORT !


We have seen with Contador that national organizations have a conflict of interest (protecting the homeboy "heroes" to protect national pride, and sanctioning them if they get caught doping). We have seen as well that the ICU (as well as other sporting institutions - ITF, FIFA, IOC,...) has a conflict of interests (promoting the riders and sanctioning riders).
 
Feb 16, 2011
38
0
0
Visit site
Andynonomous said:
The responsibility for doping control MUST BE GIVEN TO AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROMOTING ANY SPORT !


We have seen with Contador that national organizations have a conflict of interest (protecting the homeboy "heroes" to protect national pride, and sanctioning them if they get caught doping). We have seen as well that the ICU (as well as other sporting institutions - ITF, FIFA, IOC,...) has a conflict of interests (promoting the riders and sanctioning riders).


In sporting terms, you are correct. But lying to an International Sporting Organization will not result in a prison term. Such jurisdiction only applies to National Police Bureaus and Courts. Landis and Hamilton vigorously lied to the IOC/UCI/WADA. When facing US Federal Investigators and probable prison time, they suddenly became very willing to tell the truth. My point is Spain, Italy and Belgium are the primary cycling nations of the world yet the decades long silence from their federal crime bureaus is defining.
 
Andynonomous said:
The responsibility for doping control MUST BE GIVEN TO AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROMOTING ANY SPORT !


We have seen with Contador that national organizations have a conflict of interest (protecting the homeboy "heroes" to protect national pride, and sanctioning them if they get caught doping). We have seen as well that the ICU (as well as other sporting institutions - ITF, FIFA, IOC,...) has a conflict of interests (promoting the riders and sanctioning riders).

It is the lesson that Cycling should have learned long ago, back when it was the reason for creating WADA in the first place.

Dave.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
VeloMaster said:
I hope that helps.

it did.

kudos for clarity !

if i may, i'd compare a grand jury passing an indictment to failing a doping screening tests.

both require a slightly lesser criteria than the NEXT phase (criminal trial follows gj just as the test confirmation follows screening).
 
MacRoadie said:
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.


Wow, thanks for stating my point for me in other words. As I said, his client isn't a defendent. Why? Because he already struck a deal based out of fear of being a target of charges.

The only thing they have going for them is catching them in a lie. That just requires the person to say something differently from what they told the GJ originally. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with the truth.

Do you understand that you can lie to the Grand Jury, after you struck a deal to tell the truth? Who cares if somebody else says the complete opposite, as long as you don't tell a different story ever, and there are no facts to support it otherwise, there is no lie/charges to be brought up on lying to the GJ? Can you follow that?

The lie involves telling a different story or having overwhelming evidence that contradicts your GJ testimony. You can lie, and say it is the truth, knowing that there is nothing to support for/against what you say.

This is the entire case against LA. They can't get him on lying except some other people saying they have a different account of situations. It is hearsay. Not a recording/video and clear evidence of it happening. So now they move to the grand conspiracy, tax evation, swindling the US government, international intrigue and blah...blah..

Also, see Velomaster's reply to the 5th. As I said, why wouldn't he plea the fifth? Because he isn't a target and already threatened then offered a deal to testify against LA. He can say whatever he wants and never need to plea the 5th since he is already NOT a target, they want the big fish, Lance. Not any body else.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,020
0
0
Visit site
zigmeister said:
This is the entire case against LA. They can't get him on lying except some other people saying they have a different account of situations. It is hearsay. Not a recording/video and clear evidence of it happening. So now they move to the grand conspiracy, tax evation, swindling the US government, international intrigue and blah...blah..

It's not Hearsay if they testify that they saw someone do something. That's Eye Witness account. Hearsay is them saying that so and so told them they saw somone do something.

People can get the death penalty based on eye witness account in some states. that's hearsay btw because i'm working off knowledge someone else told me once
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Visit site
zigmeister said:
Wow, thanks for stating my point for me in other words. As I said, his client isn't a defendent. Why? Because he already struck a deal based out of fear of being a target of charges.

The only thing they have going for them is catching them in a lie. That just requires the person to say something differently from what they told the GJ originally. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with the truth.

Do you understand that you can lie to the Grand Jury, after you struck a deal to tell the truth? Who cares if somebody else says the complete opposite, as long as you don't tell a different story ever, and there are no facts to support it otherwise, there is no lie/charges to be brought up on lying to the GJ? Can you follow that?

The lie involves telling a different story or having overwhelming evidence that contradicts your GJ testimony. You can lie, and say it is the truth, knowing that there is nothing to support for/against what you say.

This is the entire case against LA. They can't get him on lying except some other people saying they have a different account of situations. It is hearsay. Not a recording/video and clear evidence of it happening. So now they move to the grand conspiracy, tax evation, swindling the US government, international intrigue and blah...blah..

Also, see Velomaster's reply to the 5th. As I said, why wouldn't he plea the fifth? Because he isn't a target and already threatened then offered a deal to testify against LA. He can say whatever he wants and never need to plea the 5th since he is already NOT a target, they want the big fish, Lance. Not any body else.
Just out of curiosity, why is it so important to you that Hamilton be lying?
 
zigmeister said:
Wow, thanks for stating my point for me in other words. As I said, his client isn't a defendent. Why? Because he already struck a deal based out of fear of being a target of charges.

The only thing they have going for them is catching them in a lie. That just requires the person to say something differently from what they told the GJ originally. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with the truth.

Do you understand that you can lie to the Grand Jury, after you struck a deal to tell the truth? Who cares if somebody else says the complete opposite, as long as you don't tell a different story ever, and there are no facts to support it otherwise, there is no lie/charges to be brought up on lying to the GJ? Can you follow that?

The lie involves telling a different story or having overwhelming evidence that contradicts your GJ testimony. You can lie, and say it is the truth, knowing that there is nothing to support for/against what you say.

This is the entire case against LA. They can't get him on lying except some other people saying they have a different account of situations. It is hearsay. Not a recording/video and clear evidence of it happening. So now they move to the grand conspiracy, tax evation, swindling the US government, international intrigue and blah...blah..

Also, see Velomaster's reply to the 5th. As I said, why wouldn't he plea the fifth? Because he isn't a target and already threatened then offered a deal to testify against LA. He can say whatever he wants and never need to plea the 5th since he is already NOT a target, they want the big fish, Lance. Not any body else.

This poster knows "the entire case against LA." That's really impressive, given the secrecy of GJ proceedings.

Would you please share your knowledge of the investigation, because nobody else here knows "the entire case against LA."
 
Kender said:
It's not Hearsay if they testify that they saw someone do something. That's Eye Witness account. Hearsay is them saying that so and so told them they saw somone do something.

People can get the death penalty based on eye witness account in some states. that's hearsay btw because i'm working off knowledge someone else told me once

Not exactly. If you told me that you saw Lance Armstrong inject himself with EPO, I could use that statement to prove that you're not blind without fear of a hearsay objection.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
zigmeister said:
Wow, thanks for stating my point for me in other words. As I said, his client isn't a defendent. Why? Because he already struck a deal based out of fear of being a target of charges.

The only thing they have going for them is catching them in a lie. That just requires the person to say something differently from what they told the GJ originally. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with the truth.

Do you understand that you can lie to the Grand Jury, after you struck a deal to tell the truth? Who cares if somebody else says the complete opposite, as long as you don't tell a different story ever, and there are no facts to support it otherwise, there is no lie/charges to be brought up on lying to the GJ? Can you follow that?

The lie involves telling a different story or having overwhelming evidence that contradicts your GJ testimony. You can lie, and say it is the truth, knowing that there is nothing to support for/against what you say.

This is the entire case against LA. They can't get him on lying except some other people saying they have a different account of situations. It is hearsay. Not a recording/video and clear evidence of it happening. So now they move to the grand conspiracy, tax evation, swindling the US government, international intrigue and blah...blah..

Also, see Velomaster's reply to the 5th. As I said, why wouldn't he plea the fifth? Because he isn't a target and already threatened then offered a deal to testify against LA. He can say whatever he wants and never need to plea the 5th since he is already NOT a target, they want the big fish, Lance. Not any body else.

Lance, like his honesty and character; very small in this entire episode. He may be the catalytic media ingredient but he is just part of the meat in this McNugget.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
with a Grand Jury typically you are not 'striking a deal' to deal the truth. Granting someone immunity removes the 5th amendment move (protecting someone from self-incrimination). It is a way to compel someone to testify. Neither Hamilton nor Hincapie look to have been particularly eager to testify. As someone pointed out, if Hamilton wanted to profit by writing a book, he would have just written the book and skipped the Grand Jury step...
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
mastersracer said:
with a Grand Jury typically you are not 'striking a deal' to deal the truth. Granting someone immunity removes the 5th amendment move (protecting someone from self-incrimination). It is a way to compel someone to testify. Neither Hamilton nor Hincapie look to have been particularly eager to testify. As someone pointed out, if Hamilton wanted to profit by writing a book, he would have just written the book and skipped the Grand Jury step...

...and hopefully the book will start at the beginning with USA Cycling. US Postal is the early middle of his tale.
 
MarkvW said:
This poster knows "the entire case against LA." That's really impressive, given the secrecy of GJ proceedings.

Would you please share your knowledge of the investigation, because nobody else here knows "the entire case against LA."

No, that was a response you are quoting to the other poster about GJ testimony.

I had another reply where this entire situation that George has testified as seeing Lance inject EPO has no basis, it is rumour.

What you quoted was a simple point I made to another person that anybody can claim they are telling the truth to a GJ, never change your story, and it can completely contradict somebody's else testimony that they claim is the truth. And, it could even be a lie entirely, by either party.

But, if you story never changes, nobody can ever say one person is lying. And, the government can't ever go back and say, hey, we are going after you for lying to us. Hence, they have immunity, make their claims, never change the story and go on about their lives with no fear of prosection or lying to a GJ, unless they are stupid and slip up.
 
zigmeister said:
No, that was a response you are quoting to the other poster about GJ testimony.

I had another reply where this entire situation that George has testified as seeing Lance inject EPO has no basis, it is rumour.

What you quoted was a simple point I made to another person that anybody can claim they are telling the truth to a GJ, never change your story, and it can completely contradict somebody's else testimony that they claim is the truth. And, it could even be a lie entirely, by either party.

But, if you story never changes, nobody can ever say one person is lying. And, the government can't ever go back and say, hey, we are going after you for lying to us. Hence, they have immunity, make their claims, never change the story and go on about their lives with no fear of prosection or lying to a GJ, unless they are stupid and slip up.

You implied your knowledge of the "entire case" in post 433. You told this forum what that entire case was. I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that you do not know what the government's case is.

I don't understand your criticism of a case that you don't know . . .
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Now to the one and only important Question:
Will Armstrong be indicted?

Since i am from germany i don´t know much about the US-Law, but i found out that a bare majority vote by the GJ will be enough. Even if 23 hillbillies are in the GJ, i think chances are good. Wherever i look (Businessinsider, espn, adv.-journal, etc.) the Question if people believe he doped is yes in between 62 and 82%. So it looks good, right? And if he´s indicted, his repuatation forever will be spoiled, because everything will come to light.

Am i too optimistic here?
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Now to the one and only important Question:
Will Armstrong be indicted?

Since i am from germany i don´t know much about the US-Law, but i found out that a bare majority vote by the GJ will be enough. Even if 23 hillbillies are in the GJ, i think chances are good. Wherever i look (Businessinsider, espn, adv.-journal, etc.) the Question if people believe he doped is yes in between 62 and 82%. So it looks good, right? And if he´s indicted, his repuatation forever will be spoiled, because everything will come to light.

Am i too optimistic here?

Yes.

Lance's chances are likely much lower than that. You need to turn the fanboy filter down a notch. ;)

Dave.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
But isn´t it so, that Armstrongs attorneys had a say who´s in the GJ? If so, be sure some real fanboys are in it. That would make it a close call.

Otherwise, once Armstrong is indicted, there should be no need for Novitsky to make a deal, right? I mean Armstrong will be up for grabs for the jury, because the media will influence them into the right direction :D