Floyd to be charged with fraud

Page 46 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
MarkvW said:
No defendant can be compelled to be a witness against himself. If the defendant chooses to be a witness, then he has the same perjury risk as any other witness.
Don't bother. We're just talking to Dr HogDiggerati.
 
BotanyBay said:
If he is taking synthetic testosterone to get back to baseline levels due to past abuse (one possible scenario), that's still cheating. And that's still lying. If the testosterone was synthetic (which it was), he was cheating and lying. Even if his T-use did not produce enhanced recovery or performance.
So speaking hypothetically for a moment and using the theory you presented;

What you’re saying is he didn’t actually take testosterone before the stage in question? Thus defending himself of the positive control was legitimate in your eyes? And in your given scenario he wasn’t actually lying?

Just trying to reach some clarity from the statements you made. I think it might help me understand your line of thinking a little better.
 

Dr_Lexus

BANNED
May 1, 2012
49
1
0
MarkvW said:
No defendant can be compelled to be a witness against himself. If the defendant chooses to be a witness, then he has the same perjury risk as any other witness.
You didn't answer my question. Does anybody directly answer questions around here?
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
thehog said:
What you’re saying is he didn’t actually take testosterone before the stage in question?
Sure he did. He would have to. Every day. When people chronically abuse hormones, the body often stops producing it naturally (sometimes permanently). Even if not taken for a performance/recovery effect , they'd still need to take it daily (just to be at a baseline level). Take too much, and the testers will want to have a look as to what kind of testosterone they're dealing with.

Look no further than the broken leg of Marco Pantani as an example. Pantani was such a regular (daily) abuser of EPO, his hematocrit CRASHED after being deprived of his daily dose. He almost died just from that.

thehog said:
Thus defending himself of the positive control was legitimate in your eyes? And in your given scenario he wasn’t actually lying?
No. Perhaps he felt that a "daily maintenance dose" was (legitimate in his eyes), even though done with a synthetic. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where a past doper "quit" doping per-se, but was saddled with the consequences of ever having done it in the first place.

But to have a synthetic in his system, he'd need a T-U-E (which he didnt have).

If this scenario (which is totally possible) were true, then yes, I would still consider Floyd a liar. Lying and lying-by-omission are fruit of the same tree.
 

Dr_Lexus

BANNED
May 1, 2012
49
1
0
BotanyBay said:
If a subject / defendant testifies (either in a grand jury room or during a trial) and he committs perjury, then of course he can be charged with perjury. This is partially why so few defendants actually testify at their own trials.
This also is not an answer to my question
 

Dr_Lexus

BANNED
May 1, 2012
49
1
0
Let mtry to ask my question more clearly:

If a defendant pleads not guilty, setting aside the issue that this was not a real court, and is found guilty can they later be charged with perjury as well?
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr_Lexus said:
I'm new here and was just wondering why even if a person were guilty they shouldn't be allowed to defend themself?
Of course they should be given that right. And in the USA, they have that right. But any decent attorney will tell you that it is financially costly to adequately defend oneself against the U.S. government. Just ask Lance about that.

Dr_Lexus said:
If a person denies a crime and is convicted are they then charged with perjury as well?
That depends on where the denial takes place. If they deny it under oath, and the prosecutor can PROVE they are lying, then they can very likely be charged with perjury at a later date. Sometimes the prosecutors don't bother, especially when the defendant ends up convicted anyway. That decision is at the discretion of the US Atty.
 

Dr_Lexus

BANNED
May 1, 2012
49
1
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
Dr_Lexus, you are apparently new here. Why don't you try being a bit less aggressive in your posting? Otherwise the mods might get the impression that you are here merely to make trouble, or possibly to troll.



Susan
I asked a very straight forward question and got several non answers. If asking questions and not accepting obfuscation is aggressive then please accept my apologies.
 
Dr_Lexus said:
Let mtry to ask my question more clearly:

If a defendant pleads not guilty, setting aside the issue that this was not a real court, and is found guilty can they later be charged with perjury as well?
It has been a long time since I worked with lawyers, but as I recall, pleading not guilty and then being found guilty is not perjury.

And what do you mean by "not a real court"? It doesn't have to be a big fancy federal court, for example. You can commit perjury anytime you lie under oath, whether it is before the Supreme Court or a legal sporting hearing.

Susan
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr_Lexus said:
Let mtry to ask my question more clearly:

If a defendant pleads not guilty, setting aside the issue that this was not a real court, and is found guilty can they later be charged with perjury as well?
Yes, if the defendent testifies under oath. But if he/she does the denial through his/her defense attorney's ARGUMENTS, then no perjury takes place.

One must testify personally under oath for it to be considered perjury. Did they not teach basic U.S. government in your Amish school? What about after you left the faith?
 

Dr_Lexus

BANNED
May 1, 2012
49
1
0
BotanyBay said:
Of course they should be given that right. And in the USA, they have that right. But any decent attorney will tell you that it is financially costly to adequately defend oneself against the U.S. government. Just ask Lance about that.



That depends on where the denial takes place. If they deny it under oath, and the prosecutor can PROVE they are lying, then they can very likely be charged with perjury at a later date. Sometimes the prosecutors don't bother, especially when the defendant ends up convicted anyway. That decision is at the discretion of the US Atty.
That's what I was wondering. I didn't know that. So Floyd should certainly be charged with purgery as well since CAS found him to have used Testosterone.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
It has been a long time since I worked with lawyers, but as I recall, pleading not guilty and then being found guilty is not perjury.

And what do you mean by "not a real court"? It doesn't have to be a big fancy federal court, for example. You can commit perjury anytime you lie under oath, whether it is before the Supreme Court or a legal sporting hearing.

Susan
Guilt / innocense has nothing to do with it. In the USA, these are the only factors:

1) Where did you make the statement? In Court? Under Oath?

2) Was the statement false (and can we prove that it was false)?
 

Dr_Lexus

BANNED
May 1, 2012
49
1
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
It has been a long time since I worked with lawyers, but as I recall, pleading not guilty and then being found guilty is not perjury.

And what do you mean by "not a real court"? It doesn't have to be a big fancy federal court, for example. You can commit perjury anytime you lie under oath, whether it is before the Supreme Court or a legal sporting hearing.

Susan
Arbitration in the US is most certainly not a court. Otherwise the lemond incident would have been a crime.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr_Lexus said:
That's what I was wondering. I didn't know that. So Floyd should certainly be charged with purgery as well since CAS found him to have used Testosterone.
No. The CAS is not an American justice system court. That's essentially a private civil arbitration, not a real "court" per-se. Perhaps it is bad that they even use the name "Court" as it is not criminally binding.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr_Lexus said:
Arbitration in the US is most certainly not a court. Otherwise the lemond incident would have been a crime.
There are elements of the Lemond incident that most certainly COULD be considered a crime. Coercion, for example. Coercion is illegal in the USA. A felony.

Coercion ( /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
That virtually never happens, though. Just about everyone charged with a crime denies it and pleads not guilty. Those found guilty are extremely rarely, if ever, charged with perjury.

susan
It is rare. Depends on how badly the prosecutors want to punish the defendant.
 

Dr_Lexus

BANNED
May 1, 2012
49
1
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
That virtually never happens, though. Just about everyone charged with a crime denies it and pleads not guilty. Those found guilty are extremely rarely, if ever, charged with perjury.

susan
So if Floyd is charged by the Feds it seems that the testosterone case will need to be retried in front of a real jury since nobody had any risk in lying in those arbitrations. Not Floyd and not the lab technicians and not USADA's lawyers who were the ones who wrote the WADA code.
 

Dr_Lexus

BANNED
May 1, 2012
49
1
0
BotanyBay said:
There are elements of the Lemond incident that most certainly COULD be considered a crime. Coercion, for example. Coercion is illegal in the USA. A felony.
In what sense was it criminal coercion? Lemond himself testified (it's in the transcripts) that he contacted the government and would have Will prosecuted. It never happened so it's safe to assume that no crime took place.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr_Lexus said:
So if Floyd is charged by the Feds it seems that the testosterone case will need to be retried in front of a real jury since nobody had any risk in lying in those arbitrations.
Perhaps. They couldn't do this to Armstrong, because the statute of limitations on those '99 samples would have expired. But there is nothing saying that they couldn't do the same thing for Floyd's 2006 samples.

They wouldn't go after him for the testosterone use itself, but rather for lying about it and then later defrauding people via the FFF.

And I have maintained that I believe Floyd is indeed lying about the testosterone, as he's been careful to avoid such a scenario about. My guess is that the feds have found a way to prove the fraud (or they're checking to see if they CAN).

And remember, the FFF situation is (effectively) an entirely different situation than Floyd's accusations against others. It has legs of its own. Sad, but probably true.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr_Lexus said:
In what sense was it criminal coercion? Lemond himself testified (it's in the transcripts) that he contacted the government and would have Will prosecuted. It never happened so it's safe to assume that no crime took place.
Lemond has no idea what person made the phone call, and neither do you. Just because Floyd tried to "manage" that perception doesn't mean he has actually achieved it. Everyone knows that Will volunteered to be the "Fall guy" on that one. Floyd wasn't back at the bar. He was part of it.

And just because they never chose to prosecute Floyd for coercion back THEN, does not mean that (once they understand the greater context of who Floyd really is) they won't choose to do so now.

It was coercion because it was intended to intimidate Lemond into not providing any more damaging testimony against Floyd. Please do not enter into a hair-splitting contest on this, as your posting conduct is being watched closely.
 

Dr_Lexus

BANNED
May 1, 2012
49
1
0
BotanyBay said:
Perhaps. They couldn't do this to Armstrong, because the statute of limitations on those '99 samples would have expired. But there is nothing saying that they couldn't do the same thing for Floyd's 2006 samples.

They wouldn't go after him for the testosterone use itself, but rather for lying about it and then later defrauding people via the FFF.

And I have maintained that I believe Floyd is indeed lying about the testosterone, as he's been careful to avoid such a scenario about. My guess is that the feds have found a way to prove the fraud (or they're checking to see if they CAN).

And remember, the FFF situation is (effectively) an entirely different situation than Floyd's accusations against others. It has legs of its own. Sad, but probably true.
I agree. Certainly alleged crime is exclusive to the other accusations. I just wonder if the Feds will have the burden to prove the CAS/USADA verdict within their theory.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr_Lexus said:
I agree. Certainly alleged crime is exclusive to the other accusations. I just wonder if the Feds will have the burden to prove the CAS/USADA verdict within their theory.
They might have an admission from him that the CAS/USADA situation was actually true, or perhaps (via their own investigation) they later were able to prove it in an entirely different manner. The US Govt has deep pockets and when they want, they can find out a LOT of stuff. From what I understand, USADA was almost bankrupted in pressing the Floyd case. They might not have been able to dig-up the same stuff (regardless of the eventual outcome)

Otherwise, yeah, they'd have to re-try the same issue.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Dr_Lexus said:
Long time lurker on these forums.

Don't know too much about Floyd Landis. His religious background always interested me though.
I know that redemption is important to the Amish and that is why I think Floyd is telling the truth.

Floyd knows that risking the wrath of God is a dangerous thing to do.

Just my thoughts though.

Floyd is Amish? News to me,,, maybe not breaking news,,,, but news none the less.

Let’s leave God out of it please?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS