International arrest warrant issued against Landis

[dbrower]

Embarrassed?

Aren't you just a little bit embarrassed by your boy?

Yes, I wish he were less naive, and better able to hold his tongue, but I don't know that either would really improve his situation any. I've also told him numerous times that if he did do the testosterone doping, he was a f---ing idiot for fighting it.

I'm also embarrassed by my kids and my own stupidity often enough that I write such things off as "human" and move on, usually.

On those looking at legal issues, it is not clear that Landis and/or Baker were ever "properly served". My understanding is that the "summons" came in email, with no followup. I do not know if that is correct procedure under the relevant treaties, or even if it is sufficient in France. It is often the case that ignoring an improper service is correct, because to engage and contest it formally might be to accept jurisdiction.

The poster who observed that there are proper procedures to follow to arrange international appearance, and that the investigation seems not to have done them. But they have managed to get the first words on various things related to Landis in public through the mouthpiece of M. Bordry, who has demonstrated an elusive relationship with clear statements of fact himself.

I wouldn't begin to suggest there isn't deception and duplicity going on here, and I'm pretty sure it isn't one-sided.

I am also very wary of closely parsing stories based on dubious translations of legal representations passed on by deadline-driven reporters from statements made by agenda wielding sources. I know that the open case involves hacking, and that (proper or improper) summons was issued to Landis and Baker; that Baker's original response seems to be answered by whoever received his response with an escalation to a warrant in Nov.; And Landis's disregard has escalated into (proper or improperly served) warrant in January. Whether this equates to "charges of hacking" in seems very slippery because of reporting and translation vagaries.
For example, "Charged with failure to appear for questioning when summoned in a hacking case" might have been truncated at many stages to "Charged in a hacking case."

In any case, failure to follow service procedure and treaty requirements makes one wonder if, in addition to slowly (and cheaply) pursuing the case, there are other goals of gettingn some publicity during times of budgetary crisis, making life difficult for both of them, and discouraging them from going to France, or the EU generally. Sounds like a win-win-win for Bordry.

-dB

 

[patricknd]

Source for the claim that Baker was involved in paying Quiros/Kargus, please?
I have only heard the first part, that Baker emailed the documents out later.

thanks,
-dB

i agree, i'd like to see the source on payment. my memory certainly isn't the best, but i remember the link to baker being the documents being sent from his ip address. i don't recall seeing any reports that link him to the payments, other that forum gossip.

 

[Race Radio]

Yes, I wish he were less naive, and better able to hold his tongue, but I don't know that either would really improve his situation any. I've also told him numerous times that if he did do the testosterone doping, he was a f---ing idiot for fighting it.

I'm also embarrassed by my kids and my own stupidity often enough that I write such things off as "human" and move on, usually.

On those looking at legal issues, it is not clear that Landis and/or Baker were ever "properly served". My understanding is that the "summons" came in email, with no followup. I do not know if that is correct procedure under the relevant treaties, or even if it is sufficient in France. It is often the case that ignoring an improper service is correct, because to engage and contest it formally might be to accept jurisdiction.

The poster who observed that there are proper procedures to follow to arrange international appearance, and that the investigation seems not to have done them. But they have managed to get the first words on various things related to Landis in public through the mouthpiece of M. Bordry, who has demonstrated an elusive relationship with clear statements of fact himself.

I wouldn't begin to suggest there isn't deception and duplicity going on here, and I'm pretty sure it isn't one-sided.

I am also very wary of closely parsing stories based on dubious translations of legal representations passed on by deadline-driven reporters from statements made by agenda wielding sources. I know that the open case involves hacking, and that (proper or improper) summons was issued to Landis and Baker; that Baker's original response seems to be answered by whoever received his response with an escalation to a warrant in Nov.; And Landis's disregard has escalated into (proper or improperly served) warrant in January. Whether this equates to "charges of hacking" in seems very slippery because of reporting and translation vagaries.
For example, "Charged with failure to appear for questioning when summoned in a hacking case" might have been truncated at many stages to "Charged in a hacking case."

In any case, failure to follow service procedure and treaty requirements makes one wonder if, in addition to slowly (and cheaply) pursuing the case, there are other goals of gettingn some publicity during times of budgetary crisis, making life difficult for both of them, and discouraging them from going to France, or the EU generally. Sounds like a win-win-win for Bordry.

-dB

Really? Your fall back is that he might not properly served? Why does this not surprise me considering you have spent the last 4 years trying to blow as much smoke around this case as possible.

Arnie himself admitted he had been notified.

 

[Race Radio]

i agree, i'd like to see the source on payment. my memory certainly isn't the best, but i remember the link to baker being the documents being sent from his ip address. i don't recall seeing any reports that link him to the payments, other that forum gossip.

Quiros has said he was paid by Kargas to hack the lab. Shortly after the hack an email was sent from the LNDD server by someone using Arnie's IP address. Hacked, and modified, documents where then used by Arnie and sent out to media using Arnie's IP address.

While all evidence in the case has not been made public it does not take a rocket scientist to see the connection between the Arnie and the hacker.

 

[dbrower]

Quiros has said he was paid by Kargas to hack the lab. Shortly after the hack an email was sent from the LNDD server by someone using Arnie's IP address. Hacked, and modified, documents where then used by Arnie and sent out to media using Arnie's IP address.

While all evidence in the case has not been made public it does not take a rocket scientist to see the connection between the Arnie and the hacker.

Source, not paraphrase, of the claim that someone sent mail FROM an LNDD computer using Baker's IP address. I wouldn't doubt that he sent a copy TO them.

It's the kind of detail that has frequently been smudged by intention, reporting, or translation.

thanks,
-dB

 

[Race Radio]

It's the kind of detail that has frequently been smudged by intention, reporting, or translation.

thanks,
-dB

We know you are an expert in smudging by intention.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/latest-cycling-news-for-november-14-2006

Several e-mails, disguised as coming form the LNDD, were sent to sports institutions UCI, IOC, WADA amongst other recipients

The emails were sent using a LNDD employee's email address, Norman Crépin, but he has said that he did not send the emails and

the messages were written in poor French with apparently typical English-speaking errors, and lacked the signature of its director, Jacques de Ceaurritz. Moreover, the official logo of the laboratory had been badly re-created, including an error in the spelling of 'Châtenay-Malabry'

Instead of desperately searching for loopholes you might want to ask what Arnie was doing with the hacked documents

 

[dbrower]

Really? Your fall back is that he might not properly served? Why does this not surprise me considering you have spent the last 4 years trying to blow as much smoke around this case as possible.

Arnie himself admitted he had been notified.

Fallback for what? Puzzled.

Baker said he'd been send an email, and he responded by email, and the next step seems to have been issuance of a warrant in Nov. We do not know if there was any other response to Baker's response.

Proper service is proper service, and being compelled is being compelled by authority with jurisdiction. It's called "due process", and that's been my hobbyhorse. I like the ACLU too.

Oh, and for the record, my ONCE jersey was on sale, it's bright visible yellow, and the blind guy amuses me. I think one can be hard pressed to find a pro team of the era that does not have "a history" of one sort or another.

-dB

 

[patricknd]

Quiros has said he was paid by Kargas to hack the lab. Shortly after the hack an email was sent from the LNDD server by someone using Arnie's IP address. Hacked, and modified, documents where then used by Arnie and sent out to media using Arnie's IP address.

While all evidence in the case has not been made public it does not take a rocket scientist to see the connection between the Arnie and the hacker.

i know it doesn't take much to see the connection, but i want to know:
1. have they actually said anything about the money trail on the hiring of the hacker?
2. were the documents traced to baker's ip address pulled from the server by his computer, or were the traced documents only linked to his computer by the edited documents being sent the media?

news reports aren't always accurate, and i'm curious about what officials may have released.

it makes me wonder: will they be able to charge only for possesion of stolen documents, or the full bore theft of documnets, and will a trail to landis even be established? seems to me baker could be left holding the bag.

 

[dbrower]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/latest-cycling-news-for-november-14-2006



The emails were sent using a LNDD employee's email address, Norman Crépin, but he has said that he did not send the emails and

From the cyclingnews article:

"Several e-mails, disguised as coming form the LNDD,"

Meaning they did not come from the LNDD, so Baker was not on LNDD computers. That's my point.

What was he doing with them? He said he'd been sent them. How and when is unknown.

Maybe he did suborn the hack -- I haven't seen any information yet that makes such a connection that isn't marred by significant problems of interpretation.

I'll thank you in advance to stick to issues and avoid ad-hominem.

-dB

 

[RTMcFadden]

it makes me wonder: will they be able to charge only for possesion of stolen documents, or the full bore theft of documnets, and will a trail to landis even be established? seems to me baker could be left holding the bag.

Those are the same things I've been wondering all along. From what's been made public, they seem to have some things on Baker, but they haven't released any info regarding what they have on Landis.

 

[Race Radio]

Fallback for what? Puzzled.

Baker said he'd been send an email, and he responded by email, and the next step seems to have been issuance of a warrant in Nov. We do not know if there was any other response to Baker's response.

Proper service is proper service, and being compelled is being compelled by authority with jurisdiction. It's called "due process", and that's been my hobbyhorse. I like the ACLU too.

Oh, and for the record, my ONCE jersey was on sale, it's bright visible yellow, and the blind guy amuses me. I think one can be hard pressed to find a pro team of the era that does not have "a history" of one sort or another.

-dB

For the last 4 years you have tried blow as much smoke and confusion into the Landis case as possible. It is no surprise that instead of questioning HOW Arnie came into possession of the hacked documents, WHY he used modified versions of them at the trial, WHY Arnie sent modified versions of the documents from a hacked LNDD email address you question if he was notified correctly.

It is clear your goal is to confuse the conversation, not add to it.

 

[RTMcFadden]

I'll thank you in advance to stick to issues and avoid ad-hominem.

Boy, you're in for some disappointment. RR is one angry dude. At this point, I thinking Landis either kicked his dog or deflowered his daughter.

 

[dbrower]

it makes me wonder: will they be able to charge only for possesion of stolen documents, or the full bore theft of documnets, and will a trail to landis even be established? seems to me baker could be left holding the bag.

What is a charge of "possesion of stolen documents" ?

When they are copies? If they have been sent to you? Then all the reporters who got copies are/were also in posession of stolen documents.

I accept that French law may be different than US law, where short of trade secret, or official secret, there is only a possible tort of copyright infringement possible.

-dB

 

[RTMcFadden]

For the last 4 years you have tried blow as much smoke and confusion into the Landis case as possible. It is no surprise that instead of questioning HOW Arnie came into possession of the hacked documents, WHY he used modified versions of them at the trial, WHY Arnie sent modified versions of the documents from a hacked LNDD email address you question if he was notified correctly.

It is clear your goal is to confuse the conversation, not add to it.

Why, why, why. Why weren't the originals made available as part of discovery? That way, he wouldn't have had to use the impoperly obtained documents.

 

[Race Radio]

From the cyclingnews article:

"Several e-mails, disguised as coming form the LNDD,"

Meaning they did not come from the LNDD, so Baker was not on LNDD computers. That's my point.

What was he doing with them? He said he'd been sent them. How and when is unknown.

Maybe he did suborn the hack -- I haven't seen any information yet that makes such a connection that isn't marred by significant problems of interpretation.

I'll thank you in advance to stick to issues and avoid ad-hominem.

-dB

That is your translation.

The emails arrived from an LNDD email address, using a employee's email. After talking to the employee it was clear he did not send it. The disguise as I see it is someone sent an email from an LNDD employee's email account....that person was Arnie, not Norman Crépin.

 

[patricknd]

Boy, you're in for some disappointment. RR is one angry dude. At this point, I thinking Landis either kicked his dog or deflowered his daughter.

maybe he deflowered his dog. i'd be angry

 

[RTMcFadden]

maybe he deflowered his dog. i'd be angry

That's between Landis and the dog.

 

[patricknd]

What is a charge of "possesion of stolen documents" ?

When they are copies? If they have been sent to you? Then all the reporters who got copies are/were also in posession of stolen documents.

I accept that French law may be different than US law, where short of trade secret, or official secret, there is only a possible tort of copyright infringement possible.

-dB

good point, how do you prove they're stolen?

 

[Race Radio]

Why, why, why. Why weren't the originals made available as part of discovery? That way, he wouldn't have had to use the impoperly obtained documents.

Why did Arnie have to modify them if they were so important? If the documents were in fact important to the case then Landis would have an excellent case for an appeal. They were not and he did not

There is a well establish process for obtaining documents in discovery. Paying a hacker is not part of that process.

 

[Race Radio]

deflowered his daughter.

You are all class.

It is obvious you have been embarrassed multiple times here, but that is your fault not mine.....and it certainly is not my daughters.

 

[dbrower]

For the last 4 years you have tried blow as much smoke and confusion into the Landis case as possible. It is no surprise that instead of questioning HOW Arnie came into possession of the hacked documents, WHY he used modified versions of them at the trial, WHY Arnie sent modified versions of the documents from a hacked LNDD email address you question if he was notified correctly.

It is clear your goal is to confuse the conversation, not add to it.

I don't know HOW Baker got the documents. He claims to have been sent them.

I don't know WHAT was modified in the documents. This has not been revealed, to my knowledge. AFAIK, what was done was printing them on fake LNDD letterhead, and I don't know if that was done in paper copies sent, or by Baker. I don't know if there was substance changed -- which seems stupid, since such changes would be easily identified and verified. We may find out, or we may not.

WHY were they used at the trial? I don't recall that they were used.

I think I recall that during discovery, the Landis side asked "are these true?" and that their substance was admitted by the USADA side in some fashion as being correct -- the substance being that LNDD had made a number of mistakes that had resulted in AAF's being withdrawn after being sent to federations, and there being QC problems being looked at by WADA.

WHY did Baker send them (if he did) with bad attempts at redirection? I don't know. To let the recipients know they had dirty laundry that was coming to light? Seems like a bad idea to me from many perspectives.

WHY was a fake LNDD email address used? Perhaps to make it appear to be a leak from the inside. Also seems like a bad idea to me; whether that is illegal, I do not know.

Yes, I can see why the French would like to ask questions. Whether they (or anyone else) is entitled to answers, or is going to get any, are different questions.

What I am trying to clarify is what the correct factual questions might be, based on the facts as now known, without leaping to unfounded conclusions and starting from there.

-dB

 

[dbrower]

That is your translation.

The emails arrived from an LNDD email address, using a employee's email. After talking to the employee it was clear he did not send it. The disguise as I see it is someone sent an email from an LNDD employee's email account....that person was Arnie, not Norman Crépin.

An account is on a computer. A computer has an address. If it was baker's IP address, it was from Baker's computer, not from one in LNDD.

It is easy to make mail appear to be from "someone", and the source IP address is one of the things one looks at to find out what may have been going on.

The assertion is that Baker used Crepin's account on an LNDD computer. The facts known so far do not support that conclusion.

-dB

 

[Race Radio]

I don't know HOW Baker got the documents. He claims to have been sent them.

I don't know WHAT was modified in the documents. This has not been revealed, to my knowledge. AFAIK, what was done was printing them on fake LNDD letterhead, and I don't know if that was done in paper copies sent, or by Baker. I don't know if there was substance changed -- which seems stupid, since such changes would be easily identified and verified. We may find out, or we may not.

WHY were they used at the trial? I don't recall that they were used.

I think I recall that during discovery, the Landis side asked "are these true?" and that their substance was admitted by the USADA side in some fashion as being correct -- the substance being that LNDD had made a number of mistakes that had resulted in AAF's being withdrawn after being sent to federations, and there being QC problems being looked at by WADA.

WHY did Baker send them (if he did) with bad attempts at redirection? I don't know. To let the recipients know they had dirty laundry that was coming to light? Seems like a bad idea to me from many perspectives.

WHY was a fake LNDD email address used? Perhaps to make it appear to be a leak from the inside. Also seems like a bad idea to me; whether that is illegal, I do not know.

Yes, I can see why the French would like to ask questions. Whether they (or anyone else) is entitled to answers, or is going to get any, are different questions.

What I am trying to clarify is what the correct factual questions might be, based on the facts as now known, without leaping to unfounded conclusions and starting from there.

-dB

Thanks for proving my point.

The modification was more then just the logo and the printing

xcerpts of internal documents concerning rectifications that had been made during previous testing process, but taken out of context.

 

[MacRoadie]

good point, how do you prove they're stolen?

Well, if you've allegedly been asking for months and months through the appropriate channels for highly sensitive documents not intended for public consumption but for the very limited use of a small number of individuals or official organizations, and have been met with what you characterize as stonewalling, only to have said documents miraculously appear in your email inbox from an anonymous sender whom logic would dictate shouldn't have them in the first place (even you cant get them when you think you are entitled to them, remember?), you have to wonder how said sender came into possession of said documents.

Dont you?

 

[Race Radio]

An account is on a computer. A computer has an address. If it was baker's IP address, it was from Baker's computer, not from one in LNDD.

It is easy to make mail appear to be from "someone", and the source IP address is one of the things one looks at to find out what may have been going on.

The assertion is that Baker used Crepin's account on an LNDD computer. The facts known so far do not support that conclusion.

-dB

Nope.

Most mail servers have a web app as well. Instead of accessing via a VPN or directly on the LAN you can access the account via a web interface. Easy to do if you have a trojan horse that can get users passwords. It would be simple for Arnie to log on to the web app and send emails from Crepin's account. It would also be simple to see the IP address.