• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

International arrest warrant issued against Landis

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Visit site
MacRoadie said:
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? :confused:

yes you do, but i'm looking at it from the standpoint of a possible prosecution. that's why i wondered if rr had seen something concrete on some of these questions. feeling that you know what happened is one thing, getting a conviction can be a tougher nut to crack.
 
Jun 18, 2009
281
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
It is obvious you have been embarrassed multiple times here, but that is your fault not mine.....and it certainly is not my daughters.

I don't have a problem being embarrassed. I mean, you should see me dance.

What I have a problem with is being wrong. And I ain't been wrong yet. Actually, I ain't been embarrassed on this board either.
 
LOL. Good old Trust But Never Verify has showed up. It is like the O.J. defense team still selling O.J.'s innocence years after the trial. Trust But Never Verify's search for the real doperz continues.

After the utter embarrassment that the FLandis trial was, you would think that those who encouraged him to destroy his life would fade away or spend their time hiding under a rock; but, no, they are still out there, still pitching their propaganda and half truths.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Floyd is on Larry King right now. Painful to watch.

We never used any documents not obtained through discovery. (?)

"These big words, Indictment, warrant"

Papp is now a "Star Witness"

He says over and over he could not hack the LNDD.....um, we know that, that is why a professional hacker was hired.

Considering that Landis lied about receiving his Hct numbers from the UCI, why should we believe he has not received the warrant?

Keep digging that hole deeper Floyd.
 
Race Radio said:
Floyd is on Larry King right now. Painful to watch.

We never used any documents not obtained through discovery. (?)

"These big words, Indictment, warrant"

Papp is now a "Star Witness"

He says over and over he could not hack the LNDD.....um, we know that, that is why a professional hacker was hired.

Considering that Landis lied about receiving his Hct numbers from the UCI, why should we believe he has not received the warrant?

Keep digging that hole deeper Floyd.

Yeah - agreed- and if memory serves me right when making the decision, the court (or the arbitrator or whomever) did not rely on Papp's testimony so who cares.

I will say though, Floyd was slightly more eloquent on Larry King than he usually is on Twitter.

Same ole SSDD ;)
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
patricknd said:
yes you do, but i'm looking at it from the standpoint of a possible prosecution. that's why i wondered if rr had seen something concrete on some of these questions. feeling that you know what happened is one thing, getting a conviction can be a tougher nut to crack.

It is a valid question. So far it has been reported that Quiros has said he was paid $3,000 by Kargas to hack the lab. Shortly afterward Arnie was sending out modified copies of the hacked documents. Surely this is not a coincidence.

Quiros has also said that the clients who hired him, were "Anglo Saxon", i.e. English speaking.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
RTMcFadden said:
I don't have a problem being embarrassed. I mean, you should see me dance.

What I have a problem with is being wrong. And I ain't been wrong yet. Actually, I ain't been embarrassed on this board either.

There is no need to highjack this thread pointing out how absurd your "EPO false positives" claims were.

Most would agree that your inference that is was OK to hack the LNDD network in order to get files that were not part of discovery is wrong
 
Jun 18, 2009
281
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
There is no need to highjack this thread pointing out how absurd your "EPO false positives" claims were.

Most would agree that your inference that is was OK to hack the LNDD network in order to get files that were not part of discovery is wrong

Absurd = Alpha1-ACT

I did not infer that it was OK. I simply asked why the documents were not provided in the first place. If they were important enough to present during the trial, they were important enough to request, and important enough that they should have been provided.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
RTMcFadden said:
Absurd = Alpha1-ACT

I did not infer that it was OK. I simply asked why the documents were not provided in the first place. If they were important enough to present during the trial, they were important enough to request, and important enough that they should have been provided.

You wrote

That way, he wouldn't have had to use the impoperly obtained documents.

Most would see that as a justification of the hacking.

Just because Landis and his team thought the request was "important" does not mean it was. The judge did not think so and either did Floyd's lawyers or they would have had a great case for obstruction.

There are approved processes for that should be followed in discovery. Hacking is not one of them
 
Jun 18, 2009
281
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You wrote



Most would see that as a justification of the hacking.

Just because Landis and his team thought the request was "important" does not mean it was. The judge did not think so and either did Floyd's lawyers or they would have had a great case for obstruction.

There are approved processes for that should be followed in discovery. Hacking is not one of them

And you know that because? So the judge didn't think it was important enough to have, but he let it be presented at trail?
 
patricknd said:
yes you do, but i'm looking at it from the standpoint of a possible prosecution. that's why i wondered if rr had seen something concrete on some of these questions. feeling that you know what happened is one thing, getting a conviction can be a tougher nut to crack.

I don't disagree. I was suggesting that it would be disingenuous to believe or for Arnie to argue he didn't know the documents were stolen.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
RTMcFadden said:
And you know that because?

Did he allow the expanded discovery? No.

As part of their overall strategy to outspend the ADA's Landis' legal team requested extremely broad discovery. They were granted some, but not all.

What they were not granted they paid a hacker to get. It did them no good, they lost. Twice.
 
Jun 18, 2009
281
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Did he allow the expanded discovery? No.

As part of their overall strategy to outspend the ADA's Landis' legal team requested extremely broad discovery. They were granted some, but not all.

What they were not granted they paid a hacker to get. It did them no good, they lost. Twice.

So, Landis' strategy was to spend as much money as necessary to win. The ADA's strategy was to to win. So, the ADA, being Prosecution, Judge and Jury, prevailed. How suprising.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RTMcFadden said:
So, Landis' strategy was to spend as much money as necessary to win. The ADA's strategy was to to win. So, the ADA, being Prosecution, Judge and Jury, prevailed. How suprising.

No, Landis, being a doping, lying, cheating bag of donkey vomit, lost because he used doping products and got caught. Dang, I would figure someone like you would have understood that before now.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
RTMcFadden said:
So, Landis' strategy was to spend as much money as necessary to win. The ADA's strategy was to to win. So, the ADA, being Prosecution, Judge and Jury, prevailed. How suprising.

Wrong again.

The ADA' are not CAS or AAA.

Landis' strategy was to get the ADA's to spend as much as possible in false hopes they would give up the case. This included demanding that people fly to NYC for bogus reasons and then canceling on them.

This is why CAS made Floyd pay court costs, because they felt he went out of his way to drive up costs.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
I used to like Floyd. I thought he was a card and a fun rider to watch. I bought his book and it was hogwash. With the new accusations of hacking I just can not stand the sight of Floyd. Hacking a secure website is just wrong...
 
Race Radio said:
Floyd is on Larry King right now. Painful to watch.
...
Keep digging that hole deeper Floyd.

It was an interview with little substance, typical for King, that just served as an opportunity for Landis to say he had never been contacted by the French. Landis and his doc should have been more forceful in making it clear that FLandis was apparently being sought for failure to appear for questioning and not for hacking.

FLandis needs new advisors. He should be positioning himself to leave open as many future options as possible. By again publicly, and needlessly I think, denying dope use he made it more difficult to come clean at a later date.
 
Race Radio said:
Thanks for proving my point.

The modification was more then just the logo and the printing

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

1. What is the source for that quotation?

2. How does that quotation prove a point different than mine? "Taken out of context" is not "modification"; It's "taken out of context", which is itself an unproven claim about the correct reading of the context.

-dB
 
Race Radio said:
It is a valid question. So far it has been reported that Quiros has said he was paid $3,000 by Kargas to hack the lab. Shortly afterward Arnie was sending out modified copies of the hacked documents. Surely this is not a coincidence.

Quiros has also said that the clients who hired him, were "Anglo Saxon", i.e. English speaking.

Correlation, not causation; there's no direct, demonstrated connection. Anglo Saxon rules in like 400 million people. There is certainly no coincidence with there having been a hack before many people were sent copies; no hack, no copies. We have Quiros confession. We don't know how it was planned or by who. There is nothing so far publically known connecting Baker to anything before the hack was done as far as I can see.

-dB
 
dbrower said:
1. What is the source for that quotation?

2. How does that quotation prove a point different than mine? "Taken out of context" is not "modification"; It's "taken out of context", which is itself an unproven claim about the correct reading of the context.

-dB

Hey, are you one of those folks who ran the Trust but Verify website?
 
Jun 18, 2009
281
0
0
Visit site
dbrower said:
1. What is the source for that quotation?

He's the source. At this point, it's obvious that he's got a dog in this fight.

He's working way too hard and he hasn't failed to provide spin on any of this posts on this thread. He's revealing subtle things that are not in the public domain. So either he's full of crap, or he's on the inside. Although, I don't think he's a lawyer, because he's gotten too much of the Criminal Procedure stuff wrong.
 
Ripper said:
Hey, are you one of those folks who ran the Trust but Verify website?

He's not just one of those folks, he is the big cheese himself, also known as Baghdad Brower, the Joseph Goebbels of the Landis defense. George W. Bush once said, "You cannot fool all the people all the time; but you can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." TBneverV took that to heart and spent years shovelling horsesh!t onto the masses, hoping that some of it would stick to a few of the more feeble minded.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
postmodern really, if he does not believe he doped, we must omit. thanks the late Johnnie Cochran.

"If it does not show up, it ain't doping".
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
It was an interview with little substance, typical for King, that just served as an opportunity for Landis to say he had never been contacted by the French. Landis and his doc should have been more forceful in making it clear that FLandis was apparently being sought for failure to appear for questioning and not for hacking.

FLandis needs new advisors. He should be positioning himself to leave open as many future options as possible. By again publicly, and needlessly I think, denying dope use he made it more difficult to come clean at a later date.
how many Playboy models has Larry King married? He is like the Hugh Hefner of broadcast journalism.
 
Aug 25, 2009
397
0
0
Visit site
RTMcFadden said:
He's the source. At this point, it's obvious that he's got a dog in this fight.

He's working way too hard and he hasn't failed to provide spin on any of this posts on this thread. He's revealing subtle things that are not in the public domain. So either he's full of crap, or he's on the inside. Although, I don't think he's a lawyer, because he's gotten too much of the Criminal Procedure stuff wrong.

I Suspect full of crap, but you never know. Certainly has a few issues with anger and aggression.