Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[ansimi]

I sort of understand the possible PR value of his motion but does it actually affect or stall anything legally? Will there actually be some sort of investigation into the "leaks"?

 

[Race Radio]

I sort of understand the possible PR value of his motion but does it actually affect or stall anything legally? Will there actually be some sort of investigation into the "leaks"?

There will be no investigation. I have read the complaint, it is a joke.

They tried the same thing in the Bonds/Balco case. When it came to trial nothing was mentioned.

It is just a legal tactic by someone who is desperate

 

[Race Radio]

Yeah, but while witnesses in front of a grand jury are not legally obligated to maintain secrecy, witnesses are not informed whether they themselves are potential targets of a GJ investigation, most of the time it is in their interest to keep their mouths shut.

Federal grand jurors, grand jury court reporters and the prosecutors running the federal grand jury are under a strict duty to keep any “matter occurring before the grand jury” a secret. This duty is codified in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rule of federal grand jury secrecy does not apply to federal grand jury witnesses . If you are a federal grand jury witness, you have the right to tell the whole world about your grand jury testimony. But some federal prosecutors attach cover letters to grand jury subpoenas, informing the witness that revealing the contents, or even the existence, of the subpoena “may impede” a criminal investigation.

Why would a George Hincapie leak to the press-but it has been widely reported that he testified. In addition, some federal grand juries have waiting rooms where multiple witnesses are invited to wait until they are called. In these situations, each witness is told, in effect, that the other witnesses waiting with him have been summoned to appear “before the grand jury.”

All BS tactics from the prosecution to try the case in the court of public opinion. Completely unethical and completely consistent with their past behavior. cf. Roger Clemens

So you are saying that those witnesses who spoke with press did nothing wrong....got it, glad we agree.

 

[theeradicator]

Have you guys been paying attention?

How many times have we heard "according to an unnamed source close to the investigation"?

Many times.
Many many times.

That term has been used by 60 Minutes, Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press.

Lots of examples of leaks.
And this is SERIOUS.
We are talking about taking away a father's liberty.
No room for half-arsed leaks.

Is it possible to have a mistrial before the trial even begins lol?

But I thought it was all lies, why do you believe there were any actual leaks in the first place.

 

[davestoller]

Neither you, nor I, know who did in fact leak to the press. That the leaks happened is indisputable, and definitely not the norm in grand jusy investigations. That would be the point of the investigation LA's lawyers are requesting, right? To find out who leaked? You are merely assuming it is the witnesses.

Most involved believe it is the prosecution, as Novitzky has done repeatedly in past cases.

The witnesses may of course be liable for interfering with an investigation of they were instructed not to speak in public abut the investigation.


You read the motion, exactly what was wrong with it?

 

[mewmewmew13]

It is not surprising that some of the witnesses have leaked some news. I don't believe that leaks are coming from actual legal team or investigators, as Lance and his morons would have you believe.

This does seem like a big smokescreen but what else would a bunch of attorneys do when it looks like things are not going positively in their direction. The louder the defense the more they must be worried...

Glad to see you weigh in so promptly RR.

 

[D-Queued]

Neither you, nor I, know who did in fact leak to the press. That the leaks happened is indisputable, and definitely not the norm in grand jusy investigations. That would be the point of the investigation LA's lawyers are requesting, right? To find out who leaked? You are merely assuming it is the witnesses.

Most involved believe it is the prosecution, as Novitzky has done repeatedly in past cases.

The witnesses may of course be liable for interfering with an investigation of they were instructed not to speak in public abut the investigation.


You read the motion, exactly what was wrong with it?

Ahem.

Some of us watched 60 minutes. You might be able to still view a webcast.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Most involved believe it is the prosecution, as Novitzky has done repeatedly in past cases.

Nobody thinks it is the prosecution. Lance's lawyers are trying to deflect

You make the claim that Novitzky has done this repeatedly in past cases....

Ok, give us three examples. Should be easy if he done it so many times

Thanks

 

[BillytheKid]

There will be no investigation. I have read the complaint, it is a joke.

They tried the same thing in the Bonds/Balco case. When it came to trial nothing was mentioned.

It is just a legal tactic by someone who is desperate

IF the "unnamed" source is from of the prosecution, the defense, or grand jurors, that's illegal. Grand jury investigations are sealed to protect a potential defendant from attempts by the prosecution to sway public opinion.

This happens in high profile cases all the time though, because journalists almost always have been able to protect their sources under the guarantee of "freedom of the press" rights in the First Amendment. So Race Radio is right, they'll probably won't get anywhere with it unless they can prove "who" the source is.

The privacy complaint is also a joke since Armstrong is a VERY public figure and has very little protection in that regard since he put himself in the public limelight.

Having said all that, the use of unnamed sources use to be almost unheard of after the age of Yellow Journalism which peaked around 1895-98. I don't like their use. It seems they are drifting back into common use.

You may be too young to remember the saying "don't believe everything you read."

Unnamed source? Disregard it.

Let the Grand Jury do there work as is intended.

Athletes aren't the only ones who cheat.

 

[BillytheKid]

Nobody thinks it is the prosecution. Lance's lawyers are trying to deflect

You make the claim that Novitzky has done this repeatedly in past cases....

Ok, give us three examples. Should be easy if he done it so many times

Thanks

I think VN had something on this being a Novitsky pattern in Balco/Bonds.
But as said, he would not be the first.

 

[Polish]

I remember one of the many leaks a while back by an "unnamed source close to the investigation" that discussed GJ Witnessess crying during their testimonies waawaa.

Multiple witnessess could not hold back their tears boohoo.

That struck me as odd.

How did THAT get leaked?

 

[Race Radio]

I think VN had something on this being a Novitsky pattern in Balco/Bonds.
But as said, he would not be the first.

If it is a pattern then it should be easy to provide an example...so far nobody has, just press releases from defendants and their lawyers.

 

[Race Radio]

I remember one of the many leaks a while back by an "unnamed source close to the investigation" that discussed GJ Witnessess crying during their testimonies waawaa.

Multiple witnessess could not hold back their tears boohoo.

That struck me as odd.

How did THAT get leaked?

Got a link?

It appears to have come from her own lawyer...

Bienert, who was not in the room with his client, said “it was an emotional day” for his client

 

[davestoller]

Nobody thinks it is the prosecution. Lance's lawyers are trying to deflect

You make the claim that Novitzky has done this repeatedly in past cases....

Ok, give us three examples. Should be easy if he done it so many times

Thanks

Its public record. Look it up yourself. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals


Susan Ilston, the highly regarded district judge in the Bonds perjury case, is one of four federal judges who have condemned the tactics and questioned the candor of the indefatigable IRS agent Novitzky, according to a recent appellate decision.

The January 24, 2008, decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, concerning Novitzky’s extension of a warrant for 10 BALCO-related Major League players into a bold grab for the drug-testing records of about 100 players, has brought into greater focus starkly opposing judicial views on the aggressive methods of BALCO prosecutors and investigators.
In December 2004, Ilston quashed the subpoenas served on the labs doing the testing for Major League Baseball, ruling that the government’s conduct was unreasonable and constituted harassment.

“I think the government has displayed … a callous disregard for constitutional rights,” she said in open court. “I think it’s a seizure beyond what was authorized by the search warrant, therefore it violates the Fourth Amendment.”

Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas noted that Novitzky appeared to have intentionally deceived the court, charging that the agent’s affidavit for a search warrant “did not disclose that a grand jury subpoena had been issued for the same material and that a motion to quash the subpoena was pending in the same district.”

 

[Race Radio]

Babble

Keep trying. Nothing in there about leaks.

Let us know when you find something

 

[Polish]

I remember one of the many leaks a while back by an "unnamed source close to the investigation" that discussed GJ Witnessess crying during their testimonies waawaa.

Multiple witnessess could not hold back their tears boohoo.

That struck me as odd.

How did THAT get leaked?

Maybe The WSJ was tapping phone lines - they ARE owned by SKY news after all.
Maybe it was a "murdoch" thing?

Maybe the WSJ illegally overheard the FEDs mocking the weenie cyclists crying on the witness stands waa.

That would not be the FEDs fault.
That would be the media's fault.
And illegal.
Maybe THAT should be still be investigated too.

 

[davestoller]

Keep trying. Nothing in there about leaks.

Let us know when you find something

You are either being intentionally obtuse or are really really stupid. The entire case was about leaks, as every living human sentient being knows:

But before Novitzky led the illegal search April 8, 2004, no list of players who had tested positive existed. Novitzky snatched a computer database and key that included all the results of the league-wide anonymous survey testing. The separately held key was designed to prevent lab techs and others from breaching privacy.

“This was just a spreadsheet,” said Elliot Peters, an attorney representing the Major League baseball players’ association. “The government created a list, which it tried to disseminate.”

Peters said he believes Novitzky created the list, which in turn invited the criminal leaks. “I have a hard time not believing that once Novitzky put together the list, people in the government weren’t chatting about who was on the list,” Peters said.

MLB has contested the list’s accuracy, claiming only 96 positive tests were recorded by the union in 2003, not the widely reported 104 positives. Both the Players Association and MLB have stated that 13 results were inconclusive, including that of Boston Red Sox slugger David Ortiz(notes), who The New York Times recently asserted had tested positive for steroids in 2003.

The next stage in the saga may not be about players who cheated but about lawyers, prosecutors or court officers who broke the law. Identifying suspects is likely where the federal agents assigned to this as yet unannounced investigation will begin.

This has nothing to do with the integrity of the game. It goes to the integrity of our federal justice system. If caught, the leakers likely would go to jail. Sacramento lawyer Troy Ellerman was sentenced to 30 months in jail for leaking sealed BALCO court files to the San Francisco Chronicle in 2004 and was released in January after serving 16 months.

“It’s a pretty serious crime,” Peters said. “Just about any federal judge would give a criminal defendant much more time for violating a court’s sealing order than they would for someone using a steroid.”

 

[thehog]

Maybe The WSJ was tapping phone lines - they ARE owned by SKY news after all.

WSJ is not owned by Sky. Its owned by News Limited.

If you’re going to run about saying the facts are not straight when you can't even get your own detail right. Its makes you look silly.

 

[D-Queued]

You are either being intentionally obtuse or are really really stupid. The entire case was about leaks, as every living human sentient being knows:

But before Novitzky led the illegal search April 8, 2004, no list of players who had tested positive existed. Novitzky snatched a computer database and key that included all the results of the league-wide anonymous survey testing. The separately held key was designed to prevent lab techs and others from breaching privacy.

“This was just a spreadsheet,” said Elliot Peters, an attorney representing the Major League baseball players’ association. “The government created a list, which it tried to disseminate.”

Peters said he believes Novitzky created the list, which in turn invited the criminal leaks. “I have a hard time not believing that once Novitzky put together the list, people in the government weren’t chatting about who was on the list,” Peters said.

MLB has contested the list’s accuracy, claiming only 96 positive tests were recorded by the union in 2003, not the widely reported 104 positives. Both the Players Association and MLB have stated that 13 results were inconclusive, including that of Boston Red Sox slugger David Ortiz(notes), who The New York Times recently asserted had tested positive for steroids in 2003.

The next stage in the saga may not be about players who cheated but about lawyers, prosecutors or court officers who broke the law. Identifying suspects is likely where the federal agents assigned to this as yet unannounced investigation will begin.

This has nothing to do with the integrity of the game. It goes to the integrity of our federal justice system. If caught, the leakers likely would go to jail. Sacramento lawyer Troy Ellerman was sentenced to 30 months in jail for leaking sealed BALCO court files to the San Francisco Chronicle in 2004 and was released in January after serving 16 months.

“It’s a pretty serious crime,” Peters said. “Just about any federal judge would give a criminal defendant much more time for violating a court’s sealing order than they would for someone using a steroid.”

Just about every sentient human being?

Fail.

Citing Peters' PR motivated beliefs, rather than facts.

Double Fail.

Ellerman was the lawyer for key BALCO defendants

Triple Fail.

Yer out!

Dave.

 

[Topangarider]

Plenty of mentions of "officials" who are "familiar" with the case. Raceradio, I'm no LA fan (understatement) but it's a joke to think there have not been leaks. Do you think a source is going to allow him/herself to be identified as "a government official investigating LA but willing to violate grand jury secrecy laws states that....".
We all know how both sides play this game

 

[Boeing]

Dear Lance, If you questioned the timing of Flandis and Hamilton, is it fair to question yours today? You just couldn't stay away from Le Tour

 

[goober]

WSJ is not owned by Sky. Its owned by News Limited.

If you’re going to run about saying the facts are not straight when you can't even get your own detail right. Its makes you look silly.

Classic example of pot calling the kettle black. LMAO

 

[JRTinMA]

WSJ is not owned by Sky. Its owned by News Limited.

If you’re going to run about saying the facts are not straight when you can't even get your own detail right. Its makes you look silly.

WSJ is published by DJC which is owned by News Corp which is owned by Murdoch. FFS you can't even get the facts straight let alone your predictions.

 

[thehog]

WSJ is published by DJC which is owned by News Corp which is owned by Murdoch. FFS you can't even get the facts straight let alone your predictions.

The knife cuts deep.

I'm still right. Its owned by News Limited and not Sky as the poster had suggested.

Nice Google effort but I'm still right!

Yay for theHog!!!!!

 

[Race Radio]

Plenty of mentions of "officials" who are "familiar" with the case. Raceradio, I'm no LA fan (understatement) but it's a joke to think there have not been leaks. Do you think a source is going to allow him/herself to be identified as "a government official investigating LA but willing to violate grand jury secrecy laws states that....".
We all know how both sides play this game

You forget that this is an international case. A large portion of the complaint deals with silly stuff like where the meeting with Interpol took place. Italian and French officials are great sources.