Hamilton discusses ground rules of possibly giving evidence

[Cal_Joe]

This is the Clinic. If Jack Webb had come here then he would have cried himself to sleep.

Hamilton should slam Armstrong

Jack Webb never cried in his entire life, and The Clinic could never have made him cry. Jack is testosterone personified (no clinic pun intended).

I, on the other hand, sometimes weep for humanity as expressed by the posts in this forum.

 

[Maxiton]

[. . .] If he doesn't just crumble and give them everything in exchange for immunity he's insane. How long can crumbling take?

Well, the thing is, they're after Armstrong/Bruyneel/Wiesel(sp?)/Ochowicz. Hamilton they could care less about, except for what he can give them, or help give them, i.e., all of the above. So I expect they'll accommodate him in any way they can. Any special dietary needs, Mr. Hamilton?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Any special dietary needs, Mr. Hamilton?

 

[dbrower]

The attorney is Hamilton's legal agent. In newspaper parlance, his talking with prosecutors is the same as Hamilton talking to them, just not in person. The headline is, in news terms, correct. When an attorney/lackey for Joe Zillionaire makes an offer to buy some small country, say Havenistan, you can be sure the headlines will be "Zillionaire offers to buy Havenistan" or "Zillionaire buys Havenistan" or "Zillionaire to Havenistan: Sell out"

That there are intermediaries involved will not be in the headline, and the tense about the transaction may become muddied.

-dB

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Well, the thing is, they're after Armstrong/Bruyneel/Wiesel(sp?)/Ochowicz.........

They might get them too. "this investigation is more like a white-collar, corporate investigation, the source said."

 

[python]

time gap btwn hamilton & flander

am i the only one who noticed a time gap between hamilton time on usps and flandis' ?

Hamilton rode alongside Armstrong at U.S. Postal Service in his first three Tour victories

im counting:1999, 2000, 2001

earlier it was reported flandis was a teammate from 2002 to 2005.

is this disconnect significant ?

 

[Benotti69]

am i the only one who noticed a time gap between hamilton time on usps and flandis' ?


im counting:1999, 2000, 2001

earlier it was reported flandis was a teammate from 2002 to 2005.

is this disconnect significant ?

might be significant in the fact that they are setting out to prove that the goal of LA/JB/Weisel/Ochowitz was to cheat and dope from day 1 and Hamilton will confirm that what Landis said happened 2002-2005 was happening previously in 99-01.

 

[Big GMaC]

am i the only one who noticed a time gap between hamilton time on usps and flandis' ?


im counting:1999, 2000, 2001

earlier it was reported flandis was a teammate from 2002 to 2005.

is this disconnect significant ?

well his collaboration would give them a longer timescale with which to look at Armstong and the USPS teams dealings re: doping, appropraiton of funds, federal money etc.

As he was there from the start it gives more of a picture.

edit: beaten

 

[clearhop]

Can anyone tell me if Hamilton is a, erm, how do i put this without being flamed for all enternity, credible witness than Landis?

Before the shouting starts - I only mean that as Landis doesn't have the most stable background to this, so whilst the media is talking about it a lot, they are often doing it under the "but there are questions to how credible a witness Landis makes", "he's used to lying" style of writing.

Would Hamilton be the difference here or would we need someone like Hincapie to come out? Who need's to be the person talking about it is the question i guess?

Any thoughts?

 

[python]

well his collaboration would give them a longer timescale with which to look at Armstong and the USPS teams dealings re: doping, appropraiton of funds, federal money etc.

As he was there from the start it gives more of a picture.

edit: beaten

understand.

but having been on the usps at different times makes whatever hamilton would say not directly supportive of flandis's specific accusations, i mean like he could not collaborate bus transfusions, fridge blood storage etc.

yeah, he sure can add to the picture of systematic, team-wide doping during the entire period of armstrong's roll, 1999-2005.

that's why novi urgently needs to speak to hinc who was there all along.

 

[Benotti69]

Can anyone tell me if Hamilton is a, erm, how do i put this without being flamed for all enternity, credible witness than Landis?

Before the shouting starts - I only mean that as Landis doesn't have the most stable background to this, so whilst the media is talking about it a lot, they are often doing it under the "but there are questions to how credible a witness Landis makes", "he's used to lying" style of writing.

Would Hamilton be the difference here or would we need someone like Hincapie to come out? Who need's to be the person talking about it is the question i guess?

Any thoughts?

Landis only lacks credibility if what he is saying is untrue, but everyone in cycling who can put 1 and 1 together knows that Landis hit the bullseye with his revelations* and that anyone in cycling try to deny the credibility of Landis is trying to save the omerta or is incredibly, gullible, stupid, blind or a combination of all.

*these are only revelations to those who believed in LA's myth and miracle comeback. if you read any of David Walsh's 2 books on this; "LA Confidential" and "From Lance to Landis", these are not revelatory statements from Landis, but widely known procedures in pro-cycling.

Hamilton can only add weight to what Landis has revealed. Credibility can easily be establised by the Feds and as we see they like Floyds credibility so far.

 

[hrotha]

Landis only lacks credibility if what he is saying is untrue, but everyone in cycling who can put 1 and 1 together knows that Landis hit the bullseye with his revelations* and that anyone in cycling try to deny the credibility of Landis is trying to save the omerta or is incredibly, gullible, stupid, blind or a combination of all.

*these are only revelations to those who believed in LA's myth and miracle comeback. if you read any of David Walsh's 2 books on this; "LA Confidential" and "From Lance to Landis", these are not revelatory statements from Landis, but widely known procedures in pro-cycling.

Hamilton can only add weight to what Landis has revealed. Credibility can easily be establised by the Feds and as we see they like Floyds credibility so far.

Landis is definitely telling the truth, at least most of it, but that doesn't mean he's credible as such. As you say, that's not a factor for the feds once the investagion is already under way and they've had a chance to corroborate his story in part or in whole, but it is important in the PR war. In that regard, Hamilton is more credible, even though for those who know what's actually going on in the cycling world you could argue he's less credible, since he hasn't come clean about his own doping and is still living the lie, unlike Landis.

edit: of course, the PR war is largely irrelevant at this point. If nothing weird happens and the investigation proceeds as it should, losing the PR war would just mean Armstrong is done for a bit sooner in the eyes of the public. PR will come in handy in a different way, when Armstrong tries to salvage what he can and survive the scandal.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Call up espn.

Yeah come on guys, if its not there just make it up!

 

[SpartacusRox]

Landis is definitely telling the truth, at least most of it, but that doesn't mean he's credible as such. As you say, that's not a factor for the feds once the investagion is already under way and they've had a chance to corroborate his story in part or in whole, but it is important in the PR war. In that regard, Hamilton is more credible, even though for those who know what's actually going on in the cycling world you could argue he's less credible, since he hasn't come clean about his own doping and is still living the lie, unlike Landis.

edit: of course, the PR war is largely irrelevant at this point. If nothing weird happens and the investigation proceeds as it should, losing the PR war would just mean Armstrong is done for a bit sooner in the eyes of the public. PR will come in handy in a different way, when Armstrong tries to salvage what he can and survive the scandal.

Point one is that Hamilton made add no weight whatsoever to what Landis has already said, other than acknowledging the doping issues within the sport in general. In fact I would be surprised if he did, why would he? Much more likely he will say that he has never seen doping practices within USPS etc and has never seen Lance in particular engage in doping practices. VdV, Hincape and DZ will most likely follow this line also. Also before someone brings it up, you cannot be sent to jail for either telling the truth about direct observation and it is almost impossible to prove a person saw something when they said they didn't.

Point two is that Landis's credibility will always be an issue for any prosecution simply because in his own right, he has none. His testimony will of course gain credibility if other witnesses support his statements. That support though would need to be very specific to Armstrong or whoever is the defendant in the event of a court case eventuating. Just support from other witnesses in relation to general allegations regarding cycling would have little bearing on a case against a specific defendant or defendants.

Point three is that there will be a lot of 'evidence' that will be inadmissable in any court process for a variety of reasons.

Point four is that I will be very surprised if any individual is charged with an offence from this investigation. Certainly from what has been divulged so far. Of course there will be stuff that hasn't been 'leaked' but personally I wouldn't speculate on the weight if any of that material.

 

[Anonymous]

Jack Webb never cried in his entire life, and The Clinic could never have made him cry. Jack is testosterone personified (no clinic pun intended).

I, on the other hand, sometimes weep for humanity as expressed by the posts in this forum.

So you were a drama geek in HS. It shows.

 

[alvynmcq]

Why would they all say that? Are you insinuating that Armstrong will intimidate them or bribe them?

Point one is that Hamilton made add no weight whatsoever to what Landis has already said, other than acknowledging the doping issues within the sport in general. In fact I would be surprised if he did, why would he? Much more likely he will say that he has never seen doping practices within USPS etc and has never seen Lance in particular engage in doping practices. VdV, Hincape and DZ will most likely follow this line also. Also before someone brings it up, you cannot be sent to jail for either telling the truth about direct observation and it is almost impossible to prove a person saw something when they said they didn't.

Point two is that Landis's credibility will always be an issue for any prosecution simply because in his own right, he has none. His testimony will of course gain credibility if other witnesses support his statements. That support though would need to be very specific to Armstrong or whoever is the defendant in the event of a court case eventuating. Just support from other witnesses in relation to general allegations regarding cycling would have little bearing on a case against a specific defendant or defendants.

Point three is that there will be a lot of 'evidence' that will be inadmissable in any court process for a variety of reasons.

Point four is that I will be very surprised if any individual is charged with an offence from this investigation. Certainly from what has been divulged so far. Of course there will be stuff that hasn't been 'leaked' but personally I wouldn't speculate on the weight if any of that material.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Why would they all say that? Are you insinuating that Armstrong will intimidate them or bribe them?

No, you are saying that. Nothing my post suggests that so it must just be your own twisted perception of what is reality.

 

[Anonymous]

Point one is that Hamilton made add no weight whatsoever to what Landis has already said, other than acknowledging the doping issues within the sport in general. In fact I would be surprised if he did, why would he? Much more likely he will say that he has never seen doping practices within USPS etc and has never seen Lance in particular engage in doping practices. VdV, Hincape and DZ will most likely follow this line also. Also before someone brings it up, you cannot be sent to jail for either telling the truth about direct observation and it is almost impossible to prove a person saw something when they said they didn't.

Point two is that Landis's credibility will always be an issue for any prosecution simply because in his own right, he has none. His testimony will of course gain credibility if other witnesses support his statements. That support though would need to be very specific to Armstrong or whoever is the defendant in the event of a court case eventuating. Just support from other witnesses in relation to general allegations regarding cycling would have little bearing on a case against a specific defendant or defendants.

Point three is that there will be a lot of 'evidence' that will be inadmissable in any court process for a variety of reasons.

Point four is that I will be very surprised if any individual is charged with an offence from this investigation. Certainly from what has been divulged so far. Of course there will be stuff that hasn't been 'leaked' but personally I wouldn't speculate on the weight if any of that material.

Amazing, I got a two-fer!

 

[alvynmcq]

Really? Tyler is going to talk about his doping and is going to claim he saw no doping at USPS? Tyler was at USPS before Armstrong and Bruyneel came along, pretty well placed to discuss the changes that occured when JB and the ONCE doctors joined the team. Or are you going to claim that didnt happen?

 

[tubularglue]

No, you are saying that. Nothing my post suggests that so it must just be your own twisted perception of what is reality.

your posts, like mine, are simply suggestions, conjecture, thoughts

You say laughter and I say larfter, You say after and I say arfter
Laughter, larfter after arfter, Let's call the whole thing off



will Hamilton clean house ?

 

[buckwheat]

understand.

but having been on the usps at different times makes whatever hamilton would say not directly supportive of flandis's specific accusations, i mean like he could not collaborate bus transfusions, fridge blood storage etc.

yeah, he sure can add to the picture of systematic, team-wide doping during the entire period of armstrong's roll, 1999-2005.

that's why novi urgently needs to speak to hinc who was there all along.

If LA thinks he can exploit a time gap between FL and TH, this trial will also be great for its comedic impact.

It won't come down to that anyway.

 

[Wolves-Lower]

Not to go "Full genius" here but a couple questions.

1) Hamilton has lost everything in cycling already, and a lifetime ban is in effect, so what does he gain by spilling?

2) What does he have to loose for not spilling as far as prosecution from this?
Immunity? Immuunity from what???

 

[Cloxxki]

Not to go "Full genius" here but a couple questions.

1) Hamilton has lost everything in cycling already, and a lifetime ban is in effect, so what does he gain by spilling?

2) What does he have to loose for not spilling as far as prosecution from this?
Immunity? Immuunity from what???

1) A "piece" of mind lost in lying.
2) Belief in his own accomplishments. Hard to hold on to the pride of being a champ, without the medal

 

[Cerberus]

Not to go "Full genius" here but a couple questions.

1) Hamilton has lost everything in cycling already, and a lifetime ban is in effect, so what does he gain by spilling?

2) What does he have to loose for not spilling as far as prosecution from this?
Immunity? Immuunity from what???

Well one thing he has to lose by not spilling is his freedom. If he cdenies knowledge of something he's later proven to have known he knew he can go to jail for obstruction of justice, even if he can't be charged with any of the original crimes.

 

[alvynmcq]

One thing Tyler might be thinking about is the sysmex machine that was used to analyse his blood and eventually ended up in him getting suspended, which we have all been led to believe was paid for by Armstrong. He will also confirm FL's accusations against Phonak.