SpartacusRox said:
Vulnerability may add to credibility in an episode of Boston legal but not in real life.
Landis has no credibility as a witness and Armstrong's legal team will wipe the floor with him as a reliable witness.
As I have said, the fact that Armstrong has never OFFICIALLY tested positive for anything is a major strength for the defence. The 99 samples will not be admissable and even if they call expert testimony on the matter all the defence have to do is call Scholten, van der Venn and Vrijman as counter witnesses.
When you get these guys giving evidence that:
"the LNDD, and WADA, to an undefined extent in cooperation with the French Ministry, have behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing and, in certain instances, even in violation of applicable legislation" (para. 1.25).
Where do you think that will leave the prosecution in relation to the 1999 samples? The defense only have to raise a valid doubt, they don't have to disprove anything. Bye bye 99 sample evidence, such as it was.
Wow - the credibility card again.
If Floyd's credibility is such an issue then,
why did USADA get the FDA involved?
why did they assign their best investigator to this?
why have 2 Federal Prosecutors been assigned to the case?
why are people and documents being subpoenaed?
why is there a grand jury being called?
why did Armstrong assign a Los Angeles attorney?
..........all this for what, the rantings of a crazy person with no credibility?
As for the 99 samples -I doubt they will ever be used.
Aside from integrity, legal, SOL etc - even if it was 'proved' LA took EPO in 99 he could say it was a one off, or not a team issue.
This investigation is not about catching a doper - the investigation is about uncovering the network and its finances behind the various companies involved in US cycling.