Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Anonymous]

Witness statements – Hearsay. Otherwise, those made at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdict(s).
Cortisone positives - The question is EPO, not germane.
EPO positives – Not enough information
Circumstantial evidence – Hearsay. Otherwise, those presented at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdicts.
Blood values irregular – Not enough information, lack of expertise
Working with a doping doctor – Not a crime, at best speaks to credibility
All his rivals doping – Hearsay, lack of evidence
His admittance that he doped in the hospital room using EPO - Hearsay
His admittance to Greg Lemond, Emma and Mike Anderson, that 'everyone uses EPO'. – Hearsay, lack of evidence. Otherwise, those made at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdict(s).
Blood booster Activogen found in USP bins – Circumstantial with no substantive links to accused.

Hearesay –statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement).

The bottom line is, I don’t know the whole story. And quite honestly, I don’t care enough to find out. For me, there is no profit in this knowledge.

Would you fanboys PLEASE learn the meaning of that word, please! See, you even quoted the definition and you STILL are not smart enough to know you used it wrong. Betsy ACTUALLY HEARD what she testified to, as did her husband. Dang. And someone who is DISPOSED is DISPOSED because then their statements will not be HEARSAY. I get so sick of that particular ignorance.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Lol...could you possibly be more patronising?

Not trying to be patronizing - just seemed that some people, understandably so, do not understand what hearsay is - just wanted to be sure everyone was using the same definition.

 

[Digger]

Not trying to be patronizing - just seemed that some people, understandably so, do not understand what hearsay is - just wanted to be sure everyone was using the same definition.

An awful lot of very educated people on this forum....

 

[red_flanders]

Do you have evidence, no matter how slight, for any of them?
I have no evidence for or against.

Then I would suggest that this is a line of discussion that is pointless, except to plant doubt where none exists.

Do you believe any of them to be true, likely, or even remotely plausible? Yes, 1, 2 , & 3 are reasonable rationale.

I think we agree that they are possible, but literally anything is possible. I assume by "rationale" you mean they are rational possibilities (correct me if I'm wrong), and I agree, anything they are rational possibilities, but that's not what I asked. As I've said, anything is possible. It is on the person bringing up the alternate theories to show they are plausible.

Is it fair that you concede that they are not "true", "likely" or "remotely plausible", since not one shred of evidence for them exists, and that Ashendon, who is an expert in the field has provided extensive evidence that it's extremely implausible if not impossible that the samples were spiked?

Do you think any of this happened?
Since they were conducting research on the test method, it is not unreasonable to think that they incorporated validation methodologies.

Why is it reasonable? No evidence suggests that they did. Ashendon's comments logically pre-empt this possibility unless some cogent discussion of how he is wrong exists. None does.

Why? I remember reading some where that WADA claimed that the test methods they used were validated.

Are any tests not "validated" which are in use? Point being, tests are validated then implemented and used. It in no way means that they were validated during the same process or using the same samples as in the '99 samples. Since it would go completely against lab practice, and Ashendon specifically points out how it could not be done, this argument does not hold water for me.

Do you think the analysis of the samples strongly suggests:
1) EPO use – using civil law standards (preponderance of the evidence) - yes. Using criminal law standards (beyond a reasonable doubt) – insufficient data.

There is no court here. I simply asked if the evidence strongly suggests one or the other. I'll take this as a yes.

2) Tampering – Possible, not probable.

Anything is possible. I'll take that as a no.

Thanks for answering. You say later you don't care. Then I wonder why you've taken so much time to present and defend these theories. I think you do care, and are frustrated that the facts are overwhelmingly against what you're suggesting. I could be wrong, but that's what I think.

 

[python]

Exactly - or another way of putting it.

Betsy Andreu hears Lance admit to taking PED's - if her husband comes in and says he heard his wife say she heard Lance took PED's that would be hearsay.

However both Betsy and Frankie gave sworn depositions to hearing the admission - which of course is not hearsay.

and everyone can see them reaffirming their deposition about armstrong admitting his doping - in a cbs piece available on line. how can that be called hearsay!

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Exactly - or another way of putting it.

Betsy Andreu hears Lance admit to taking PED's - if her husband comes in and says he heard his wife say she heard Lance took PED's that would be hearsay.

However both Betsy and Frankie gave sworn depositions to hearing the admission - which of course is not hearsay.

The testimony by Betsy was of a hearsay statement - admissible since it was claimed to be made by a party to the lawsuit

The testimony of Frankie Andreu would also be as to a hearsay statement, but would likely be admissible as a prior consistent statement by Betsy.

Both statements would be hearsay, both would likely be admissible, both would be subject to claims of inaccuracy by the opposing party and there would likely be a trial about whether the primary witness, Betsy, had a bias against LA (I really have no idea if there is one or not).

 

[Anonymous]

Not trying to be patronizing - just seemed that some people, understandably so, do not understand what hearsay is - just wanted to be sure everyone was using the same definition.

No, most of us who are actually familiar with the whole story understand EXACTLY what hearsay means. It is chamois sniffing fanboys who always throw out the term in reference to direct testimony of events Betsy and Frankie witnessed who use it incorrectly. Dang.

As to the pseudo science guy doing all of the obfuscatory tap dance, I think we have another BPC sock puppet.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Not trying to be patronizing - just seemed that some people, understandably so, do not understand what hearsay is - just wanted to be sure everyone was using the same definition.

Most are.
It's amazing how often the distinction is made, around here.
Ah, I see TFF has cleared up the same point.

 

[red_flanders]

and everyone can see them reaffirming their deposition about armstrong admitting his doping - in a cbs piece available on line. how can that be called hearsay!

I think people mean heresy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

 

[Anonymous]

The testimony by Betsy was of a hearsay statement - admissible since it as claimed to be made by a party to the lawsuit

Wrong

The testimony of Frankie Andreu would also be as to a hearsay statement, but would likely be admissible as a prior consistent statement by Betsy.

Incorrect

Both statements would be hearsay, both would likely be admissible, both would be subject to claims of inaccuracy by the opposing party and there would likely be a trial about whether the primary witness, Betsy, had a bias against LA (I really have no idea if there is one or not).

Both were deposed and their statements were therefore NOT HEARSAY. They didn't testify to anything someone else said. The testified to what THEY THEMSELVES WITNESSED. Dang, if you are a lawyer, you suck.

They weren't "likely admissible." The were direct testimony and BOTH would have testified in court had the case NOT BEEN DECIDED ON A MATTER OF CONTRACT LAW.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

An awful lot of very educated people on this forum....

I agree - lots of education broad range of expertise to call on - I am sure there are many equally aware of the legal definitions as well, but I noticed some are not (not their fault either).

 

[Anonymous]

I think people mean heresy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

Okay THAT IS FREAKING HILARIOUS!!!

 

[Anonymous]

I agree - lots of education broad range of expertise to call on - I am sure there are many equally aware of the legal definitions as well, but I noticed some are not (not their fault either).

Yea, you being the most glaring example.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Wrong

Incorrect

Both were deposed and their statements were therefore NOT HEARSAY. They didn't testify to anything someone else said. The testified to what THEY THEMSELVES WITNESSED. Dang, if you are a lawyer, you suck.

They weren't "likely admissible." The were direct testimony and BOTH would have testified in court had the case NOT BEEN DECIDED ON A MATTER OF CONTRACT LAW.

Sorry - go back to the definition again (not trying to be arrogant or patronizing) - What Betsy testified to was hearsay - that LA told her he took PEDs - LA made an out of court statement and when Betsy testified to it she testified to a hearsay statement (out of court statement for entered into evidence for the truth of the matter) - as I indicated earlier, her testimony about this hearsay statement would be admissible.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree - lots of education broad range of expertise to call on - I am sure there are many equally aware of the legal definitions as well, but I noticed some are not (not their fault either).

Here, its called edumikation, get some: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay+rule

See, they were DEPOSED. http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/deposition

Its sworn testimony, not hearsay. Dang.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry - go back to the definition again (not trying to be arrogant or patronizing) - What Betsy testified to was hearsay - that LA told her he took PEDs - LA made an out of court statement and when Betsy testified to it she testified to a hearsay statement (out our court statement for entered into evidence for the truth of the matter) - as I indicated earlier, her testimony about this hearsay statement would be admissible.

Incorrect. By your definition, confessions could not be used in a court of law because the police officer would be accused of "hearsay." You just think you know what you are talking about. You don't. If a witness would have said "I heard Betsy say she heard Lance tell his doctor he used PED's" THAT is hearsay. What Betsy did was give direct testimony. You really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Anonymous]

I mean, I realize you really believe you know what you are talking about, but you don't. Just type the words "I was wrong, I didn't know what I was talking about" and move on.

 

[Digger]

I agree - lots of education broad range of expertise to call on - I am sure there are many equally aware of the legal definitions as well, but I noticed some are not (not their fault either).

Pot, kettle and black.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Both were deposed and their statements were therefore NOT HEARSAY. They didn't testify to anything someone else said. The testified to what THEY THEMSELVES WITNESSED. Dang, if you are a lawyer, you suck.

They weren't "likely admissible." The were direct testimony and BOTH would have testified in court had the case NOT BEEN DECIDED ON A MATTER OF CONTRACT LAW.

With comments like the above I certainly am tempted to be patronizing - if you have an expertise I would be willing to actually read you comments in the field carefully before claiming that "you suck". As an aside, my personal favorite insult (from a weekly newspaper editor) was when I was called a "pedantic pri**" > of course I do not agree with the insult but it does have a certain amount of flare.

But, I digress - the testimony of Frankie and Besty itself was not hearsay since it was made in court - the subject matter of the testimony about the statement Betsy testified she heard LA make - that is hearsay by definition, admissible, potentially compelling, but about a hearsay statement.

Your reaction is what I have been finding entertaining on this site - because you view my clarification as to the definition of hearsay as somehow defending LA you attack the definition and the poster.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Incorrect. By your definition, confessions could not be used in a court of law because the police officer would be accused of "hearsay." You just think you know what you are talking about. You don't. If a witness would have said "I heard Betsy say she heard Lance tell his doctor he used PED's" THAT is hearsay. What Betsy did was give direct testimony. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Go back to the definition of hearsay - a confession is hearsay (unless testified to in court ~ happens but not very often). It is also admissible under several exceptions to the hearsay rule in California.

 

[Anonymous]

With comments like the above I certain am tempted to be patronizing - if you have an expertise I would be willing to actually read you comments in the field carefully before claiming that "you suck". As an aside, my personal favorite insult (from a weekly newspaper editor) was when I was called a "pedantic pri**" > of course I do not agree with the insult but it does have a certain amount of flare.

But, I digress - the testimony of Frankie and Besty itself was not hearsay since it was made in court - the subject matter of the testimony about the statement Betsy testified she heard LA make - that is hearsay by definition, admissible, potentially compelling, but about a hearsay statement.

Your reaction is what I have been finding entertaining on this site - because you view my clarification as to the definition of hearsay as somehow defending LA you attack the definition and the poster.

All I can tell you is to read the legal definition again and admit that because Mr Armstrong was available for testimony, they did not introduce hearsay. They introduced testimony as to what they heard and did so under oath.

What I find funny is that you claim expertise:

hearsay rule n. the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her. However, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as: a) a statement by the opposing party in the lawsuit which is inconsistent with what he/she has said in court (called an "admission against interest"); b) business entries made in the regular course of business, when a qualified witness can identify the records and tell how they were kept; c) official government records which can be shown to be properly kept; d) a writing about an event made close to the time it occurred, which may be used during trial to refresh a witness' memory about the event; e) a "learned treatise" which means historical works, scientific books, published art works, maps and charts; f) judgments in other cases; g) a spontaneous excited or startled utterance ("oh, God, the bus hit the little girl"); h) contemporaneous statement which explains the meaning of conduct if the conduct was ambiguous; i) a statement which explains a person's state of mind at the time of an event; j) a statement which explains a person's future intentions ("I plan to....") if that person's state of mind is in question; k) prior testimony, such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the witness is not available (including being dead); l) a declaration by the opposing party in the lawsuit which was contrary to his/her best interest if the party is not available at trial (this differs from an admission against interest which is admissible in trial if it differs from testimony at trial); m) a dying declaration by a person believing he/she is dying; n) a statement made about one's mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available---most often applied if the declarant is dead ("my back hurts horribly," and then dies); o) a statement about one's own will when the person is not available; p) other exceptions based on a judge's discretion that the hearsay testimony in the circumstances must be reliable. (See: hearsay, admission against interest, dying declaration)

Thanks for playing, but the dishonesty here is that "hearsay" is inadmissible except for specific circumstances in a legal forum. The people who use this word do so to cast doubt on the testimony of Betsy. No she didn't see the drug taking. She did hear him admit his PED usage to a doctor. Now riddle me this: Is the testimony of a police officer who heard a confession of guilt "hearsay?"

You are parsing your words now in an effort to cover the fact that you labeled something Hearsay (which is not admissible under most circumstances) that was not. There is a difference between legally admissible statements and "hearsay" by legal definition. You are using a definition of "hearsay" that is not legally relevant because the testimony was not legally considered "hearsay" by the court. There ARE two definitions at work here, and you know full well that you are using one that isn't germane to the discussion at hand, that being the legal validity of Betsy's statement.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

All I can tell you is to read the legal definition again and admit that because Mr Armstrong was available for testimony, they did not introduce hearsay. They introduced testimony as to what they heard and did so under oath.

What I find funny is that you claim expertise:

hearsay rule n. the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her. However, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as: a) a statement by the opposing party in the lawsuit which is inconsistent with what he/she has said in court (called an "admission against interest"); b) business entries made in the regular course of business, when a qualified witness can identify the records and tell how they were kept; c) official government records which can be shown to be properly kept; d) a writing about an event made close to the time it occurred, which may be used during trial to refresh a witness' memory about the event; e) a "learned treatise" which means historical works, scientific books, published art works, maps and charts; f) judgments in other cases; g) a spontaneous excited or startled utterance ("oh, God, the bus hit the little girl"); h) contemporaneous statement which explains the meaning of conduct if the conduct was ambiguous; i) a statement which explains a person's state of mind at the time of an event; j) a statement which explains a person's future intentions ("I plan to....") if that person's state of mind is in question; k) prior testimony, such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the witness is not available (including being dead); l) a declaration by the opposing party in the lawsuit which was contrary to his/her best interest if the party is not available at trial (this differs from an admission against interest which is admissible in trial if it differs from testimony at trial); m) a dying declaration by a person believing he/she is dying; n) a statement made about one's mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available---most often applied if the declarant is dead ("my back hurts horribly," and then dies); o) a statement about one's own will when the person is not available; p) other exceptions based on a judge's discretion that the hearsay testimony in the circumstances must be reliable. (See: hearsay, admission against interest, dying declaration)

You might want to read what you post

 

[Anonymous]

Go back to the definition of hearsay - a confession is hearsay (unless testified to in court ~ happens but not very often). It is also admissible under several exceptions to the hearsay rule in California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law
"However, most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

My reading is that IF the defendant is not available for testimony, then the statement is HEARSAY. If they are available for testimony, then the statement is NOT HEARSAY. If you can provide legal precedent that says otherwise, please cite the case.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You are parsing your words now in an effort to cover the fact that you labeled something Hearsay (which is not admissible under most circumstances) that was not. There is a difference between legally admissible statements and "hearsay" by legal definition. You are using a definition of "hearsay" that is not legally relevant because the testimony was not legally considered "hearsay" by the court. There ARE two definitions at work here, and you know full well that you are using one that isn't germane to the discussion at hand, that being the legal validity of Betsy's statement.

Go back and read my posts - you seem to have missed that I stated very clearly Betsy testimony would be admissible - what she testified about is admissible hearsay. Again, you seem to attack, without basic knowledge on a particular subject, just because you think I am claiming that Armstrong did not use PEDs (again, another assumption on your part).

Of course you can continue since I am not working or riding today - I still find you fairly entertaining

 

[Anonymous]

You might want to read what you post

You might want to read what I post, because those are THE EXCEPTIONS to the hearsay rule and therefore make the evidence what? Say it with me: "NOT HEARSAY!" Thanks for playing