Is landis getting quality help ? WhoÂ’s on his team ?

[Colm.Murphy]

Really small point of order - but it puts a question mark over the 'cyclismag' claim that it has a source close to GL.

James Di Boise was not Lemonds attorney in the 'USADA v Landis' case, he was represented by Bruce Manning/Chris Madel .
They were also involved at the start of the Trek case but were replaced by James Di Boise who appears a lot more determined than GL's previous counsel.

Interesting. Also worth noting is it is from a French online cycling news site. Quite a few oddities to this one.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Interesting. Also worth noting is it is from a French online cycling news site. Quite a few oddities to this one.

Actually it is now being confirmed here by Lionel Birnie on CyclingWeekly.

Some quotes from the article:

Mark Handfelt of WSGR told CW: "The allegations regarding Mr Landis's motivations and current health are completely false and seem to be made in a manner as so to interfere with Mr Landis's professional opportunities, just as they were when made by Mr Armstrong against Mr Lemond."

But he added that he could not go into the specific nature of the representation the firm is providing Landis
......

However, CW understands that this does not mean Lemond is paying for Landis's legal representation.

And finally some confirmation that I have been awaiting:

"And Cycling Weekly has been able to confirm that Landis is co-operating with Jeff Novitzky".

 

[Tubeless]

Greg is not involved and is not picking up the tab. Wilson Sonsini is one of the best firms out there and Diboise knows the Armstrong legal team's tactics better then anyone. It is a smart choice for Landis.

The reality is this is moving rapidly from "Landis vs. Armstrong" to "Armstrong vs. USDA/USADA/IRS" Even Lance is not stupid enough to go after Greg or Floyd, that can only end bad for him

This is not a contingency case for the lawyers. So someone is assisting Landis financially, as he's known to be broke. Dr Kay?

The old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" may form some strange alliances in this case. Sharing legal counsel is not unusual. Who paid for Kristin Armstrong's counsel in the LeMond vs. Trek case? While the answer is logical, that was not ever settled or admitted, as I recall it.

 

[Race Radio]

This is not a contingency case for the lawyers. So someone is assisting Landis financially, as he's known to be broke. Dr Kay?

The old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" may form some strange alliances in this case. Sharing legal counsel is not unusual. Who paid for Kristin Armstrong's counsel in the LeMond vs. Trek case? While the answer is logical, that was not ever settled or admitted, as I recall it.

While Floyd may be broke he still has some very rich friends for whom Floyd's legal bills are a drop in the bucket.

 

[buckwheat]

wada, usada, fda and other regulating and official agencies are not in a position to 'help' floyd. they can only suck info out of him for their own benefit.

he needs a fully functional multi purpose team to help him to drive home his message and defend against armstrongs lawyers who no question can destroy him.

is greg in the loop ?

no question? In whose mind? What are douchebag's lawyers going to do? Assassinate Floyd?

Isn't FL destroyed financially already? The best thing that could happen to him would be for the douchebag to go after him. I guess you're unaware that the truth is a total defense.

You don't think some law firm that wanted to make a name for itself would defend FL?

 

[python]

This is not a contingency case for the lawyers. So someone is assisting Landis financially, as he's known to be broke. Dr Kay?

The old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" may form some strange alliances in this case. Sharing legal counsel is not unusual. Who paid for Kristin Armstrong's counsel in the LeMond vs. Trek case? While the answer is logical, that was not ever settled or admitted, as I recall it.

someone for sure. i guess at this point it's not important who exactly. it could be a group of people who don't want to be known yet or it could be one person.
i just hope baker is not among them.

i feel good that greg's former attorney will represent flandis.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here and speculating James Di Boise and his firm are not being paid by LeMond, at all. It's more likely they are happy to work with Floyd believing he is in the right and will "win", which will elevate the firm's status. Otherwise, I'm sure as someone said, Floyd probably still has enough friends with deep pockets to help out. Especially if they now truly believe in him.

The only thing that the LeMond-Di Boise connection has is that it would imply to me that Greg and Floyd possibly talked at some point in the last two weeks. But you never know.

As to the OP, there's no doubt Floyd hired a bunch of jackals and vultures the first time around. But he didn't have the truth on his side to begin with during the USADA and CAS hearings. This time it seems very likely he does.

 

[mikkemus23]

I know, this is not a case against Armstrong only - but it is no dout that to clean up cycling, he has to go down. No more double standards.

So far LA has, among the big masses, gotten away with spinning lies about witnesses beeing mentally ill, bitter etc.

So it would be nice if Ladis or any other could produce some hard evidence, say a picture or something, something that just cant be spun.

Anyway, it is not like LA is a suspect of a crime for the time beeing, as I understand? Anyone who knows if that is likely to happen? Will he be interrogated? And will it be as a witness or a suspect?

 

[Animal]

That's that picture of the refrigerated panniers that we keep hearing about. Someone (a lawyer) must have that.

 

[blackcat]

That's that picture of the refrigerated panniers that we keep hearing about. Someone (a lawyer) must have that.

I dont reckon they exist. Apocryphal. Meme multiplier.

 

[mikkemus23]

But - The 6 positives/Ashenden + Flandis and many others statement about LA doping, should be enough evidence if it goes to trial.

Fladis`s lawyer should publicly offer LA to let all his samples going back to 99 be retestet to prove his innocense

What could he say?

 

[R.0.t.O]

But - The 6 positives/Ashenden + Flandis and many others statement about LA doping, should be enough evidence if it goes to trial.

Fladis`s lawyer should publicly offer LA to let all his samples going back to 99 be retestet to prove his innocense

What could he say?

He would say the same as he has done before - that chain of custody and/or degradation over time would make any results invalid therefore he's not going to do it.

 

[python]

it’s obvious im not a lawyer but I see this case against texas as entirely a legal chess game. at least at this early stage.

i think that any evidence (old/new/circumstantial/ testing etc etc) is secondary to the legal maneuvering that must be taking place as we speak. i can almost sense a flow of letters and responses in the air.

everyone is playing for time now.

le tour de statute di limitation.

armstrong wants to extend the preliminary process and burry it in the legal quagmire. Usada and novitzky opposite want to set their foot in the legal door before 5 yeas (for FDA) and 8 years (for USADA) expire.

let’s face it if, after the 2010 tdf (provided armstrong committed any wrongdoing in 2005 but none since) novitzky will have to close his shop due to sol. same for usada - any sanctionable wrongdoing must take place on or after 2002).

flndis explicitly mention sol in his leaked email when reasoning about the timing of his revelations.

extending the sol will require special legal circumstances that may not exist yet.

thus armstrong will avoid suing till sol kicks in and the authorities need an actual official charge or a some kind of criminal trial/suit to suspend the sol and kick start the evidentiary machine review.

is that why we are seeing an aggressive litigator an the floyd's team ?

that’s my 2 legal cents fwiw.

 

[eleven]

But - The 6 positives/Ashenden + Flandis and many others statement about LA doping, should be enough evidence if it goes to trial.

It wasn't enough in past legal battles, why would it suddenly be enough now? The 6 positives would be very easy to assail.

 

[Big Doopie]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here and speculating James Di Boise and his firm are not being paid by LeMond, at all. It's more likely they are happy to work with Floyd believing he is in the right and will "win", which will elevate the firm's status.

+1.

i am sure that these lawyers have deep knowledge and belief about who is telling the truth here. it is not beyond even lawyers to want to do what is right.

 

[R.0.t.O]

It wasn't enough in past legal battles, why would it suddenly be enough now? The 6 positives would be very easy to assail.

+1 Never confuse 'enough to make it perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain' with 'enough to prove it in a court.'

The first standard of proof has been passed a long time ago, the last month's worth of stuff should now make it 'obvious even to anyone with almost no brain at all' but it's still going to be very difficult as I see it to get to the final sanctionable level of proof.

 

[mikkemus23]

It wasn't enough in past legal battles, why would it suddenly be enough now? The 6 positives would be very easy to assail.

Because LA`s payment in the SCA matter did not depend on whether he doped or not, and as dopintests per se, they were not valid. But in a criminal case, it might be different. Equalsfraud, possibly.

Ask Michael Ashenden if they are easy to assail, I think not

 

[python]

again, as i mentioned in the post about the game right now is not about sufficiency/insufficiency of ANY past or new doping evidence.

it's about statute of limitation.

once the process can start, we may see things we never saw before including the 99 samples.

 

[eleven]

Because LA`s payment in the SCA matter did not depend on whether he doped or not, and as dopintests per se, they were not valid. But in a criminal case, it might be different. Equalsfraud, possibly.

Ask Michael Ashenden if they are easy to assail, I think not

Regardless of how valid Ashenden might feel they are, as pieces of evidence in a trial they will be easily assailed. They were intentionally created to be anonymous, there is no guarantee of chain of custody, they are well beyond the SOL and the samples were not extracted for the purpose of identifying riders whose samples had adverse findings.

 

[python]

^ you are wrong.

99 samples will come handy once the trial starts. they are an excellent corroborating evidence. we need criminal trial - sca arbitration conclusions will be irrelevant to the new case.

we need to pass the sol.

 

[eleven]

^ you are wrong.

99 samples will come handy once the trial starts. they are an excellent corroborating evidence.

Well, now that you said I'm wrong I guess that settles it! Eh, well...anyway...

Can you explain what, exactly, they would corroborate in a case about 2005 or 2002 allegations?

 

[blackcat]

it goes to credulity

 

[python]

Well, now that you said I'm wrong I guess that settles it! Eh, well...anyway...

Can you explain what, exactly, they would corroborate in a case about 2005 or 2002 allegations?

im in the middle of watching CdD, so briefly, it depends on the type trial/investigation armstrong will find himself in.

he repeatedly and vehemently insisted he never doped, so the presence of epo in his 99 samples may prove important in evaluating his credibility regardless of the specific charge. if the fed goes after him on distribution/criminal doping facilitation charges or perjury any evidence corroborating his doping will come handy. the possibilities are numerous.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It was wondered aloud by the OP and others how Floyd could possibly afford a top legal team. I found this on the Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati site:

"In fiscal year 2009 alone, our attorneys and other professionals provided more than 35,000 hours of pro bono legal work nationwide."

"The State Bar of California has honored the firm's efforts with its President's Pro Bono Service Award (Large Firm Category)"

It's quite possible Floyd isn't spending a penny on them.

 

[centri]

But - The 6 positives/Ashenden + Flandis and many others statement about LA doping, should be enough evidence if it goes to trial.

Fladis`s lawyer should publicly offer LA to let all his samples going back to 99 be retestet to prove his innocense

What could he say?

He would say the same as he has done before - that chain of custody and/or degradation over time would make any results invalid therefore he's not going to do it.

(my bold on the first quote)

Yeah, people need to get their heads around this one. Testing those six samples is not a robust solution.