Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

[Benotti69]

I'll bet your wrong and that UCI will dispute any samples from 99 used to determine or contribute to determining non-analytical positive. Let's wait and see...

The UCI are about to have their a$$e$ handed to them on a plate by an unemployed Journalist in December.

They will not dispute anything is case they dig the hole deeper. Saugy has talked to USADA. They have many expert scientific witnesses to give their expert opinions on the '99 samples.

If this stuff was not gonna standup why did Armstrong not defend himself against it?

Imagine if the almighty powerful Armstrong cannot defend himslef against it what a blubbering mess McQuaid is gonna be like. He will put his head between his legs and kiss his **** goodbye.

 

[Robert21]

If this stuff was not gonna standup why did Armstrong not defend himself against it?

Especially given that at the CAS Armstrong could have chosen one of the three people to sit on the panel and would have had to agree with USADA on the second, so only one person hearing the case would have been potentially 'hostile'.

 

[thirteen]

https://twitter.com/nyvelocity/status/252240300574142464

thank you, Ferminal! that was a lovely birthday present

 

[thirteen]

Another rider recalls a telephone call from George Hincapie, a teammate of Armstrong’s in all seven Tour wins, saying he had been stopped by US Customs while returning from Europe and that EPO had been found in his luggage. He lied that it was prescribed medication and they accepted this story.

lolwut...?

totally believable.

before the restrictions on carrying liquids, i used travel back and forth with vials that contained liquid for allergy shots (when i first started, i needed to shoot myself up with the allergens every week and, later on, once a month) in a thermos filled with ice in my carry-on luggage.

depending on when i was travelling, sometimes i needed to take the vial with me and it was critical that i keep it cool. the only concern anyone had when they saw it was what i was going to do with the needle. (i explained that's why i carried it in a double plastic baggie and that, when home, i would put in the proper used needle dispenser and/or bring it to my doctor's office to sipose of it properly.

at all times, i carried the doctor's prescription of what was in the vials but, at no point, was anybody interested in looking at it.

 

[Benotti69]

totally believable.

before the restrictions on carrying liquids, i used travel back and forth with vials that contained liquid for allergy shots (when i first started, i needed to shoot myself up with the allergens every week and, later on, once a month) in a thermos filled with ice in my carry-on luggage.

depending on when i was travelling, sometimes i needed to take the vial with me and it was critical that i keep it cool. the only concern anyone had when they saw it was what i was going to do with the needle. (i explained that's why i carried it in a double plastic baggie and that, when home, i would put in the proper used needle dispenser and/or bring it to my doctor's office to sipose of it properly.

at all times, i carried the doctor's prescription of what was in the vials but, at no point, was anybody interested in looking at it.

You could've got a job as a courier for lots of teams

 

[Race Radio]

old story and a non-starter.

Do you figure if you keep writing this it will suddenly become true?

 

[Race Radio]

Walsh piece in the Times

http://www.scribd.com/doc/108440794/Walsh-ST

Easier to understand why Lance's lawyer, Tim Herman, would not allow his wife to answer any doping questions

http://www.scribd.com/doc/108467970/k-Armstrong-Dep

 

[Benotti69]

Our actions really do speak louder than our words

nyvelocity ‏@nyvelocity

One woman won't let her husband dope, the other hands out drugs to his teammates. Guess which one blogs about religion, parenting, ethics?

 

[thehog]

Our actions really do speak louder than our words

Redemption from the devil!

 

[Race Radio]

One rider tells a story from the 1998 world championship at Valkenburg in Holland when cortisone pills, wrapped in tin foil, were given to the Postal riders on the US national team for the road race. According to the rider’s affidavit, the pills were wrapped in the foil and handed out by Kristin Armstrong, the champion’s former wife. “Kristin is rolling the joints,” one rider joked at the time.

USPS riders at the Worlds that year were JV, VDV, and Dylan Casey

 

[ChewbaccaD]

'Two riders are believed to have given affidavits that Armstrong told them he had a positive test swept under the carpet at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland and another has sworn that Armstrong told him he could use his influence with UCI to circumvent cycling’s anti-doping laws'

Why bother repeating this old story over and over? This has been deemed meaningless as hearsay with regards to any investigation or hearing. If USADA puts that in their report, they just guarantee that UCI will contest it.

Only to someone who doesn't know the Rules of Evidence. I can quote from the section if you want (801(d)(2)), but prior statements made by an opposing party are NOT hearsay. Don't pretend to understand things you don't.

 

[LeLanternRouge]

Only to someone who doesn't know the Rules of Evidence. I can quote from the section if you want (801(d)(2)), but prior statements made by an opposing party are NOT hearsay. Don't pretend to understand things you don't.

Even if it were hearsay, it could still be admitted as a well-established exception to the hearsay rule that the evidence is adduced not for the truth of its contents, but for the fact that it was said.

To break this down simply:

- It is of considerably little importance whether Armstrong did in fact wield influence over the UCI to make a positive test go away. This need not be proven.

- It is of considerably significant importance that Armstrong, by his own words, betrayed the belief that he held such influence.

This is evidence of his state of mind: not only does he tacitly admit to doping, but also to his desire to use political means to suppress the truth.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Even if it were hearsay, it could still be admitted as a well-established exception to the hearsay rule that the evidence is adduced not for the truth of its contents, but for the fact that it was said.

To break this down simply:

- It is of considerably little importance whether Armstrong did in fact wield influence over the UCI to make a positive test go away. This need not be proven.

- It is of considerably significant importance that Armstrong, by his own words, betrayed the belief that he held such influence.

This is evidence of his state of mind: not only does he tacitly admit to doping, but also to his desire to use political means to suppress the truth.

Dude, I understand the hearsay rule quite well. I don't need anything broken down simply or complexly. This isn't hearsay as defined by the statute. Thanks for the extra info, but if it isn't hearsay, it need not clear the hurdle you suggest.

 

[LeLanternRouge]

Dude, I understand the hearsay rule quite well. This isn't hearsay as defined by the statute. Thanks for the extra info, but if it isn't hearsay, it need not clear the hurdle you suggest.

Noted. It wasn't an attack against you, to be clear. I was merely pointing out that even if one accepts the inanity of declaring it hearsay as Armstrong supporters continue to do, it still doesn't render it inadmissible.

 

[veganrob]

The way I understand it is thus,
If Chewwi tells me that LLR knows jacksh1t, that is merely hearsay. However if LLR admits that to me himself, that is evidence.

I'll accept Chewwi's ruling on this

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The way I understand it is thus,
If Chewwi tells me that LLR knows jacksh1t, that is merely hearsay. However if LLR admits that to me himself, that is evidence.

I'll accept Chewwi's ruling on this

No, LLR is correct theoretically. He applies the principles he is explaining correctly. The issue is however that as you state in your last example, if LLR admits something to you, and LLR is a party to the proceeding in question, then his statement is not hearsay if introduced in court. It isn't just admissible hearsay; by definition in the statute, it isn't hearsay at all.

But LLR is correct in that if 801(d)(2) did not make the statement "not hearsay," it would be allowed (most probably, though a judge could exclude it under 403 if he deems the prejudicial value to substantially outweigh the probative value of the statement).

 

[LeLanternRouge]

No, LLR is correct theoretically. He applies the principles he is explaining correctly. The issue is however that as you state in your last example, if LLR admits something to you, and LLR is a party to the proceeding in question, then his statement is not hearsay if introduced in court. It isn't just admissible hearsay; by definition in the statute, it isn't hearsay at all.

But LLR is correct in that if 801(d)(2) did not make the statement "not hearsay," it would be allowed (most probably, though a judge could exclude it under 403 if he deems the prejudicial value to substantially outweigh the probative value of the statement).

We probably both come from common law jurisdictions, but not the same ones, as I am unfamiliar with sections you're quoting. But they are indeed essentially the same principles.

A tangential point is that there are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that the effect of a statement being hearsay is not as damning to its admissibility as people think. It's always a balancing act - prejudicial or probative? But it's not cut and dry.

 

[Racelap]

In another rider’s affidavit there is a story of Armstrong’s concern at scar tissue on his arm caused by injections of EPO as he was about to go for his medical test before the 1999 Tour. According to this rider, he asked O’Reilly for make-up so the scar could be concealed and that she had applied the make-up to Armstrong’s arm. This story was told in precisely the same detail by O’Reilly years earlier.

EPO injections are subcutaneous, no? It doesn't have to be taken in in a vein and the needles can be quite small. No scars or marks.

It's the transfusions that leave the scars.

 

[MarkvW]

We probably both come from common law jurisdictions, but not the same ones, as I am unfamiliar with sections you're quoting. But they are indeed essentially the same principles.

A tangential point is that there are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that the effect of a statement being hearsay is not as damning to its admissibility as people think. It's always a balancing act - prejudicial or probative? But it's not cut and dry.

Not so much important anyway. Evidence that is admissible under the Federal Rules would almost surely be admissible in an alternative dispute resolution proceeding. But evidence that is not admissible in an ADR proceeding might also be admissible, depending on the rules and on the arbitrator.

ADR proceedings relax the rules of evidence in order to make things cheaper for the litigants. Of course Lance Armstrong wanted more and more "due process" because he wanted to make it more and more expensive for his opponents to challenge him. That, apparently, was the only card he had left to play.

 

[PosterBill]

Any guesses as to Armstrong's final defense of the report?

I am guessing Armstrong will try and pick out some of the weaker arguments (no matter how few exist) and try and confuse the public with mis-direction. I think it will be impossible for him to deflect the headline grabbing stuff.

 

[MarkvW]

Any guesses as to Armstrong's final defense of the report?

I am guessing Armstrong will try and pick out some of the weaker arguments (no matter how few exist) and try and confuse the public with mis-direction. I think it will be impossible for him to deflect the headline grabbing stuff.

Everybody is lying!

 

[neineinei]

Any guesses as to Armstrong's final defense of the report?

I am guessing Armstrong will try and pick out some of the weaker arguments (no matter how few exist) and try and confuse the public with mis-direction. I think it will be impossible for him to deflect the headline grabbing stuff.

On August 23 he said: "Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances."

 

[Benotti69]

On August 23 he said: "Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances."

He wont address it like a man, but instead has been trying his damnedest to pull the rug out from under USADA by the his despicable political means.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

We probably both come from common law jurisdictions, but not the same ones, as I am unfamiliar with sections you're quoting. But they are indeed essentially the same principles.

A tangential point is that there are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that the effect of a statement being hearsay is not as damning to its admissibility as people think. It's always a balancing act - prejudicial or probative? But it's not cut and dry.

I'm quoting the Federal Rules, which would almost certainly be used in relation to any case involving Lance. Under the FRE, the statement isn't hearsay.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Any guesses as to Armstrong's final defense of the report?

I am guessing Armstrong will try and pick out some of the weaker arguments (no matter how few exist) and try and confuse the public with mis-direction. I think it will be impossible for him to deflect the headline grabbing stuff.

I think, as MarkvW said, "the whole world is lying and against me" is his last best option...