• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Presumption Of Innocence & Floyd's Rights

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Where do you think that will leave the prosecution in relation to the 1999 samples? The defence only have to raise a valid doubt, they don't have to disprove anything. Bye bye 99 sample evidence, such as it was.

If there were a case on doping, which there won't be, valid doubt might not be enough -- those tests-of-dubious-custody would be but one of many pieces of evidence presented. Then the jury would look at them all, and decide if there were "reasonable doubt". The totality of the evidence might still be convincing, even if there are shadows of doubt about individual pieces.

In any event, if there is a case is will not be about doping per-se, but about perjury or fraud. It can be hard to keep lies straight, especially if you don't know exactly what other people have said under oath. That is one of the tools of the secret Grand Jury process.

-dB
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
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.
 
Bob Sanders said:
He like everyone else to finish Top 5 or even Top 10 in the tour from Indurain on and probably before that has doped. I don't give a crap, take his tours away and the 2nd place guy who gets the title doped just as much. I want to watch mountain showdowns every July and enjoy the top riders dueling it out. Thats all I want from cycling. If it were up to me they would open up autologous transfusions under doctor's supervision with strict hemocrit monitoring and give us a real show.

I don't understand how there are fans on here that are so self-righteous to believe that a doper (ie all the top riders) have somehow personally wronged them to the point of anger.

lol i totally agree,sport is entertainment for me and i want to be entertained...i dont really give a crap who is doped,i wanna see show...thats why i m looking forward to ricco in GT

i wont stop watching a movie just because the lead actress has a boobjob:rolleyes:

sory for offtopic
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
saganftw said:
lol i totally agree,sport is entertainment for me and i want to be entertained...i dont really give a crap who is doped,i wanna see show...thats why i m looking forward to ricco in GT

i wont stop watching a movie just because the lead actress has a boobjob:rolleyes:

sory for offtopic

There's a lot more entertainment when human beings are pushing themselves to the limits and having to worry about those limits and cracking, then watching doped science experiments.
 
Jun 3, 2010
11
0
0
Visit site
SpartacusRox said:
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 defence only have to raise a valid doubt, they don't have to disprove anything. Bye bye 99 sample evidence, such as it was.

Admissability should not be confused with the weight of the evidence the trier of fact may or may not give to that evidence.

You have said multiple times that the '99 samples will not be admissable? Why not? I am looking for you to provide an explanation based on the FRE preferably.
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
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.

You are confusing cerdibility per se with credibility as a witness. Floyd has said enough that a prudent agency would look into the claims that he has made. They would be remiss not to, hence the investigation. The breadth of the investigation initially would have been determined by the claims he made. I need tro reiterate that this is not about the truth or otherwise of Floyds claims rather it is about his credibility as a witness in a court of law. Of himself he would have none. His credibility can be bolstered by supporting evidence in the form of other witness corroboration and/or circumstantial evidence or indeed documentray evidence.
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
Visit site
Cordon Bleu said:
Admissability should not be confused with the weight of the evidence the trier of fact may or may not give to that evidence.

You have said multiple times that the '99 samples will not be admissable? Why not? I am looking for you to provide an explanation based on the FRE preferably.

I think you are splitting hairs. Even if they were put forward by the prosecution as evidence it is doubtful that they would get past the first pre trial discussions for reasons i have already outlined.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
SpartacusRox said:
I think you are splitting hairs. Even if they were put forward by the prosecution as evidence it is doubtful that they would get past the first pre trial discussions for reasons i have already outlined.

Eh, Spartacus as I have mentioned before, even if evidence has unlawfully come into the hands of third parties who give it to the prosecutors, the prosecutors can still use it