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.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
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.
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.
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.
thehog said:What you’re saying is he didn’t actually take testosterone before the stage in question?
thehog said:Thus defending himself of the positive control was legitimate in your eyes? And in your given scenario he wasn’t actually lying?
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.
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?
Dr_Lexus said:If a person denies a crime and is convicted are they then charged with perjury as well?
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
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?
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?
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.
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.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
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.
Dr_Lexus said:Arbitration in the US is most certainly not a court. Otherwise the lemond incident would have been a crime.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.