Lance v. USADA--Legal Subthread

[Turner29]

Ha.

FYI, I uploaded those docs less then 30 minutes ago......they have already been viewed by 500 people

Good work!

 

[Turner29]

Yes. Not only have they not blinked, LA's remaining knad is in Tygarts vise and Travis keeps turning it tighter and tighter.

This is no longer death by 1000 cuts.

I can't imagine how uncomfortable LA is nowadays.

Keep in mind Lance Armstrong is a sociopath. As such, he does not feel discomfort. In his mind, he "passed" every doping test. That is all that matters in his mind -- using EPO is not doping, as long as a some threshold limit is not crossed. If the Hct limit is 50%, 49.99 is fine, not matter what was done to attain such.

He feels no embarrassment, no guilt. Just anger.

 

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind Lance Armstrong is a sociopath. As such, he does not feel discomfort. In his mind, he "passed" every doping test. That is all that matters in his mind -- using EPO is not doping, as long as a some threshold limit is not crossed. If the Hct limit is 50%, 49.99 is fine, not matter what was done to attain such.

He feels no embarrassment, no guilt. Just anger.

Perhaps. He's also smart enough to know he's in a world of ****... and he is acting and making mistakes accordingly.

He's smart enough to know his world as he knows it is going down the toilet and there's nothing he can now to to clog it.

He knows.

 

[Turner29]

Perhaps. He's also smart enough to know he's in a world of ****... and he is acting and making mistakes accordingly.

He's smart enough to know his world as he knows it is going down the toilet and there's nothing he can now to to clog it.

He knows.

Intelligence has no bearing. Sociopaths don't view things the same way as normal people. All he knows is anger and fight.

 

[Deagol]

Ha.

FYI, I uploaded those docs less then 30 minutes ago......they have already been viewed by 500 people

I've linked to them in another forum. Great job ....

 

[rhubroma]

The only thing Pharmstrong can do is try and get this bogged down in the morass of litigation, mount a defamatory campaign against USADA and garnish political support from the Republican Party. All of which he is attempting, which is naturally appalling.

Hopfully it all fails and he is stripped of everything, though with all his money and connections the outcome remains uncertain.

 

[Turner29]

At least one Republican, John McCain, has taken a shot at him.

 

[rhubroma]

At least one Republican, John McCain, has taken a shot at him.

Yes, though he's still working that angle.

 

[Turner29]

Yes, though he's still working that angle.

And a Democrat Representative against him. Unless he can pull out some serious cards one Senator and one Representative trumps (pun intended) one Representative.

 

[rhubroma]

And a Democrat Representative against him. Unless he can pull out some serious cards one Senator and one Representative trumps (pun intended) one Representative.

It's horrific though how the lobby system works in the country.

 

[Turner29]

It's horrific though how the lobby system works in the country.

They have legalized bribary.

 

[MarkvW]

They have legalized bribary.

Oh to long for the good old days of . . . NEVER.

 

[Turner29]

Oh to long for the good old days of . . . NEVER.

Exactly......

 

[TexPat]

Are lawyers allowed to lie during a deposition?

For example, if opposing counsel said to a witness during a sworn deposition that "no endurance athlete would use anabolic steroids" knowing full well that the statement is an outright falsehood, is it allowed?

Thanks

 

[Cerberus]

Are lawyers allowed to lie during a deposition?

For example, if opposing counsel said to a witness during a sworn deposition that "no endurance athlete would use anabolic steroids" knowing full well that the statement is an outright falsehood, is it allowed?

Thanks

I'm not a lawyer, but they're definitely not allowed to lie. The trick is proving it's a lie, even if you prove it's false that doesn't prove they didn't believe it?

I will now leave the scene to someone who might actually know something about the issue that they didn't learn from a TV-series.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Are lawyers allowed to lie during a deposition?

For example, if opposing counsel said to a witness during a sworn deposition that "no endurance athlete would use anabolic steroids" knowing full well that the statement is an outright falsehood, is it allowed?

Thanks

The problem with the exact statement you use being a "lie" is that it is opinion that it is impossible to enter the mind of the attorney and know if he did or did not believe his statement, irrespective of the ridiculousness of it. And because of attorney/client privilege, it is unlikely you would ever know exactly what he does or does not know about about his client's true actions. So, while an attorney may not lie, functionally proving they did is virtually impossible for a statement like that.

 

[Turner29]

I'm not a lawyer, but they're definitely not allowed to lie. The trick is proving it's a lie, even if you prove it's false that doesn't prove they didn't believe it?

I will now leave the scene to someone who might actually know something about the issue that they didn't learn from a TV-series.

I am not a lawyer although I have been heavily involved with the legal system and arbitration as plaintiff against a former employer, a case I won. Thus, I would like a lawyer's take on this question.

The best answer that I have, other than as explained above that a lie by a lawyer would be difficult to prove, is that lawyers often use wording like "on or about" and "believe or has reason to believe" instead of definite statements. Therefore, an "incorrect" statement would not be a lie; rather, it would be simply an incorrect "belief".

 

[MarkvW]

Can find the motion to dismiss here:
http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2012/0720/armstrong_motion_to_dismiss.pdf

 

[veganrob]

They did their homework.
If Lance had them as his attorneys he might have a shot.

This just keeps getting better.

 

[Turner29]

Finally:

"The present deadline for Armstrong to choose arbitration expires on August 13, 2012."

(See page 8 of http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2012/0720/armstrong_motion_to_dismiss.pdf)

 

[Deagol]

Footnote #17, Page 6: “Mr. Tygart’s willingness to provide an affidavit helpful to Armstrong’s efforts in the SCA arbitration negates the repeated assertions in his exhibits that USADA somehow has a long-standing ‘vendetta’ against him”

 

[MarkvW]

Looks like Lance's only hope is getting the Amateur Sports Act repealed by Congress.

Yo! Sensenbrenner! Get on that, will you please!

 

[MarkvW]

Are lawyers allowed to lie during a deposition?

For example, if opposing counsel said to a witness during a sworn deposition that "no endurance athlete would use anabolic steroids" knowing full well that the statement is an outright falsehood, is it allowed?

Thanks

What the lawyer says during a deposition isn't evidence. It is all for show--usually jerk statements like that are (improperly) made to fluster the witness or the lawyer asking the questions, or sometimes to (very improperly) sneak a direction to the client/witness.

Lawyers for deposition witnesses, who are behaving properly, are supposed to keep their mouths shut unless they are making an objection to a question.

So, to answer your question: Nobody cares about the truth or falsity of what a lawyer says during the deposition. They only care if the lawyer gets too obnoxious, to the point where it interferes with getting good answers from the witness.

 

[Jack (6 ch)]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-07-18/lance-armstrong-usada/56322272/1

Excuse me for butting in. I read that article too (just come back from the US) and it caused me concern that Armstrong is seeking the injunction on jurisdiction in Texas (home ground potentially advantageous to him). Am I right to be concerned?

 

[Kennf1]

Excuse me for butting in. I read that article too (just come back from the US) and it caused me concern that Armstrong is seeking the injunction on jurisdiction in Texas (home ground potentially advantageous to him). Am I right to be concerned?

Since it's in federal court, it's much less of a concern, and this particular judge has already shown he is not overly impressed with Armstrong's star power.