Floyd Lawyers - Offense or Defense?

[Polish]

Is Floyd going to go on offense and sue Lance for calling him a genius?

Does Floyd have to go on defense and worry about the FDA or IRS turning on him? Is Novitsky automatically on Floyd's side?

Does Floyd have to be prepared to defend EVERY detail and accusation he made in the e-mails or else be sued himself?

Just what is Floyd's case?
What kind of tasks are his lawyers doing?
Sitting with Floyd as he talks to Novitsky...
Sitting with Floyd as he talks to LeMond...
Can Novitsky tape phone conversations like Greg?

 

[scribe]

If I took the position of most everyone you mention in op in answering these questions, you wouldn't know if I was telling the truth or not.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Is Floyd going to go on offense and sue Lance for calling him a genius?

Does Floyd have to go on defense and worry about the FDA or IRS turning on him? Is Novitsky automatically on Floyd's side?

Does Floyd have to be prepared to defend EVERY detail and accusation he made in the e-mails or else be sued himself?

Just what is Floyd's case?
What kind of tasks are his lawyers doing?
Sitting with Floyd as he talks to Novitsky...
Sitting with Floyd as he talks to LeMond...
Can Novitsky tape phone conversations like Greg?

The article in the NY Daily news states the new counsel are advisors.

I doubt Lance, or anyone accused, would undertake suing Floyd, especially now given his current counsel.

I doubt Landis is worried about the agencies he is cooperating with turning on him. If he has signed as a Federal Witness, that means there is much more happening that would indicate progress past what is publicly known.

I don't think Floyd has a "case". I think the Feds have a case against Tailwind and owners for defrauding the USPS.

I would think that the Feds could get access to wiretaps by bringing their request to a US Attorney for approval as part of an ongoing investigation. To me, the time directly before, during and after the story breaking seem like a natural focus for "listening in". I would believe the conversations taking place during that time would be of high interest to the Feds.

At some point, this becomes criminal investigation 101. It follows a charted path, standard procedure. They do what they do and follow where the evidence leads, then file a charge that they think they can indict and prosecute. As in the past, none of this happens in quick fashion.

 

[MacRoadie]

At some point, this becomes criminal investigation 101. It follows a charted path, standard procedure. They do what they do and follow where the evidence leads, then file a charge that they think they can indict and prosecute. As in the past, none of this happens in quick fashion.

Silly, silly man.

Everyone knows if it's not posted on the http://www.forum.cyclingnews.com forums, on http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack, or tweeted by @lancearmstrong, then it doesn't really exist.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Silly, silly man.

Everyone knows if it's not posted on the http://www.forum.cyclingnews.com forums, on http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack, or tweeted by @lancearmstrong, then it doesn't really exist.

Exactly. What kind of cough medicine am I on!

To think, nay, DARE think, this could actually come to pass.

I am sure several burly men with yellow armbands will soon be knocking on my door...

 

[falcon]

U.S. law is not dictated by what you know, it is what you can prove.
That will be the onus of the Landis team.

 

[Mr.DNA]

U.S. law is not dictated by what you know, it is what you can prove.
That will be the onus of the Landis team.

Since when is that the onus of the witness?

 

[autologous]

U.S. law is not dictated by what you know, it is what you can prove.
That will be the onus of the Landis team.

Onus of the Landis team?

Landis made some accusations, the feds apparently think there is something to it, and are investigating. That is, looking for proof. If the feds want to bring any charges, then the onus of proof is on the feds, not the Landis team.

 

[pedaling squares]

Floyd Landis is neither offence nor defense in any criminal process. He is a witness. His role is simply to provide information to the investigators and to present testimony if/when required. To use another aged sporting analogy, he is standing on the sidelines and doesn't get to handle the ball.

As for any civil process, why sue Armstrong for suggesting that Landis is mentally unstable? I doubt Landis can establish that Armstrong's comments to the media had any serious deleterious effect on his income, livelihood, or reputation. There seems to be no return, and it doesn't seem to be the focus of Landis's attention right now.

As for defending against any civil/criminal action, I highly doubt the government is coming after Floyd Landis. Whistleblowers are not usually devoured, it makes it hard to solicit information in future. I don't know if he committed any perjury in his doping case, whether or not his testimony was sworn and whether or not he denied any drugs other than synthetic testosterone are unknown to me. Nowitzky is not on Landis's side nor against him. He is merely an investigator, independent of any witness. His role is to attempt to uncover evidence of any criminal act and present a case to the prosecutors. Landis will be one of potentially many witnesses.

Can Nowitzky tape phone conversations? Well no doubt the laws of California and other states have provisions for interception of private communications, either unknown to both parties or with one party consent. Not all offences are relevant to this invasion of privacy in my country (not sure about Cali), but if there is trafficking or a conspiracy to import/distribute a controlled substance then it will likely be applicable.

What kind of tasks are Landis's lawyers doing? Probably reviewing all matters that could prove damaging to their client and providing advice and/or taking necessary steps to protect him. And probably (hopefully!) nothing to do with the federal investigation outside of advising their client.

 

[flicker]

If Floyd is telling the truth and he is broke it would be idiotic to sue him. If Floyd is telling the truth what can you take from a man at the end of his rope, with no earning potential. If he writes a book about the problem in cycling do you think it would sell many copies. I do not see him riding pro ever again unless he goes to France and straightens out his problem there. Being a federal witness is not a career.

 

[turtlesoup]

seems the most reasonable thing to do is look at the monetary reports of the USPS and of Lance at the time to see if any strange transactions occurred or money disappeared.

 

[scribe]

Since when is that the onus of the witness?

It's not gonna take a miracle to demonstrate he is not very credible.

 

[SpeedWay]

It's not gonna take a miracle to demonstrate he is not very credible.

Or deserves to be called a "whistleblower". Good honest people have lost much to wear that badge while "rats" and "snitches" have gained a lot when they have nothing more to lose. Everytime he's referred to as a "whistleblower" a real "whistleblower" is disrespected. Although it doesn't surprise me that real "whistleblowers" get disrespected a lot around here if it helps make their boy more credible.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Or deserves to be called a "whistleblower". Good honest people have lost much to wear that badge while "rats" and "snitches" have gained a lot when they have nothing more to lose. Everytime he's referred to as a "whistleblower" a real "whistleblower" is disrespected. Although it doesn't surprise me that real "whistleblowers" get disrespected a lot around here if it helps make their boy more credible.

I chose that term as it has a legal ramification and is accurate. The conditions under which the proverbial "whistle" is "blown" widely vary. At the heart of them all, a previously hidden truth is revealed and justice can move forward.

If you would like to use a different descriptor, have at it.

 

[Polish]

Or deserves to be called a "whistleblower". Good honest people have lost much to wear that badge while "rats" and "snitches" have gained a lot when they have nothing more to lose. Everytime he's referred to as a "whistleblower" a real "whistleblower" is disrespected. Although it doesn't surprise me that real "whistleblowers" get disrespected a lot around here if it helps make their boy more credible.

+1 SpeedWay

Mr Natapoff agrees with you too:

“We’ve lost the great line in our minds between people who come forward to make a sport or a community better and criminals who do it for leniency or self-serving ways,” said Alexandra Natapoff, a “snitching” expert and law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “This is a huge loss for society. We need people to come forward in communities and schools. But the government, in giving criminals leniency in exchange for information, has tainted the way we see citizen witnesses.”
http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-59...yYWlzZXMtcXVlc3Rpb24td2hpc3RsZS1ibG93ZXItb3Iv


But I read in VeloNews that Floyd has denied he is trying to get a payoff from the any WhistleBlowers Incentives. Maybe his lawyers will change his mind.
.
,
.

 

[xmoonx]

Two areas of interest to Federal investigators would be; "Tailwind and owners for defrauding the USPS" and "trafficking or a conspiracy to import/distribute a controlled substance".
LA or whomever injecting there eyeballs or packing there asses with patches is of state and local interest.
Doing the later and winning the TDF etc. would be of interest to WADA, IOC, UCI, and be grounds for reopening an insurance case against LA.

 

[Polish]

Two areas of interest to Federal investigators would be; "Tailwind and owners for defrauding the USPS" and "trafficking or a conspiracy to import/distribute a controlled substance".
LA or whomever injecting there eyeballs or packing there asses with patches is of state and local interest.
Doing the later and winning the TDF etc. would be of interest to WADA, IOC, UCI, and be grounds for reopening an insurance case against LA.

xmoonx, I understand what some say the Feds are interested in - but I was asking what Floyd and HIS Lawyers are interested in.

Sue Lance?
Get WhistleBlower Moola?
Protect Floyd from a class action suit?

 

[pedaling squares]

Or deserves to be called a "whistleblower". Good honest people have lost much to wear that badge while "rats" and "snitches" have gained a lot when they have nothing more to lose. Everytime he's referred to as a "whistleblower" a real "whistleblower" is disrespected. Although it doesn't surprise me that real "whistleblowers" get disrespected a lot around here if it helps make their boy more credible.

Someone who tells a truth about an illegal act that you want to hear is a whistleblower. Someone who tells a truth about an illegal act that you do not wish to hear is a rat. The difference is not that one serves others while the other serves only himself. The difference is in the particular bias of each person who listens.

 

[rikdewy]

Well, let's just say he's blowing a trumpet then..

I hope he plays the whole freakin orchestra!

What I do want to know is, since as many have stated that Floyd is broke, and he has the same Lemond lawyer team, is Greg picking up the tab. Has he said to Flandis, 'You just keep arcing up and blurt it all out and I've got your back bro'.

Maybe not in those words...

 

[flicker]

I do not want to troll or get off subject but can anyone here give me their opinion of what is in all this for Floyd. What is his payoff and what is he thinking?

 

[scribe]

No where to go with no money. So he went to shakedown those with the money, that he had the dirt on. They each called the other's bluff, so he went for it. At minimum, he stands a chance of a payday out of this. I'm betting he doesn't know what it is yet either. In a way, all his doors were closing, so this is just a shot at more options.

 

[Race Radio]

No where to go with no money. So he went to shakedown those with the money, that he had the dirt on. They each called the other's bluff, so he went for it. At minimum, he stands a chance of a payday out of this. I'm betting he doesn't know what it is yet either. In a way, all his doors were closing, so this is just a shot at more options.

Really? Got a link?

 

[flicker]

Really? Got a link?

This is just theoretical RR. I tend to agree with Scribe. Floyd has got to be grasping at straws. Another team he was with folded(Bahati.) Floyds team was not accepted into the ToC. That does not surprise me as Floyd needs to straighten things out in France. It is good Floyd cleared his plate though. In my opinion.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

This is just theoretical RR. I tend to agree with Scribe. Floyd has got to be grasping at straws. Another team he was with folded(Bahati.) Floyds team was not accepted into the ToC. That does not surprise me as Floyd needs to straighten things out in France. It is good Floyd cleared his plate though. In my opinion.

I fail to see how France had anything to do with the Tour of Cali. The reasons AEG cited, as part of the email dump on teamradioshack.com, was the overall team was inexperienced (though they seemed to be quite a solid line-up).

It is pretty easy to tell from his Q&A on ESPN and from the progression in the released emails that this was a long time coming. He clearly feels resentment as being singled out and effectively blackballed. It really seems like a guy who "tried" to do right by those who "enabled" him, and when they ultimately turned their back on him, betraying his loyalty to them and their secrets, it cracked him. So be it.

I have to believe that given Landis' previous style of going full bore with whatever he has undertaken, assisting whatever investigation(s) that might exist, he is savoring every minute of it.

 

[xmoonx]

xmoonx, I understand what some say the Feds are interested in - but I was asking what Floyd and HIS Lawyers are interested in.

Sue Lance?
Get WhistleBlower Moola?
Protect Floyd from a class action suit?

Indeed, sorry for going off topic.

I would have to say Defense then;protecting FL from class action suits or in the event he should try to publish a book (referencing the recent accusations)

The only reason for Offense (that I can see) would be akin to those cases made by for example:
1- Greg Strock and Erich Keitler against USA Cycling (Chris Carmichael).
2- The German Olympic athletes against their coaches.

I believe in both situations however the athletes were unknowingly injected with something that was misrepresented.