• 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!

So who will sing?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
MacRoadie said:
No offense, but why are we still struggling with a disconnect between direct, first-person eyewitness testimony and "hard evidence"?

You get a few guys who said they were there, and saw this that and the other, regarding doping...with at least one of those guys a proven liar.

And you get a few guys who said they were there, and saw nothing at minimum, or admitted to some doping exclusively on their own.

That is a big problem for Nowinsky without some hard evidence.
 
scribe said:
You get a few guys who said they were there, and saw this that and the other, regarding doping...with at least one of those guys a proven liar.

And you get a few guys who said they were there, and saw nothing at minimum, or admitted to some doping exclusively on their own.

That is a big problem for Nowinsky without some hard evidence.

I don't disagree one bit. That is a perfectly reasonable scenario, if you can balance out the testimony on both sides of the coin. Are there guys lining up to say they never saw Armstrong dope, and they can verify this correlating to the same times and locations testified to by the prosecution's witnesses? Tough call.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
MacRoadie said:
I don't disagree one bit. That is a perfectly reasonable scenario, if you can balance out the testimony on both sides of the coin. Are there guys lining up to say they never saw Armstrong dope, and they can verify this correlating to the same times and locations testified to by the prosecution's witnesses? Tough call.

I am pretty good at lying, but I don't know if I could hold a straight story for a couple or more days of testimony and questioning. But at the end of the day, you can simply admit to some doping, say you got it from Landis himself (gotta admit this makes me chuckle), and declare to not have seen Lance or most of the other guys doping themselves...much less in seedy hotel rooms and broken down buses.

If Nowitsky fails to get an avalanche of guys testifying the same stories without any defection, and if he fails to connect the purchasing of doping related materials in a way that implicates the ownership/management of the team or Armstrong himself as the target, I don't think this thing will leave the GJ.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
scribe said:
I am pretty good at lying, but I don't know if I could hold a straight story for a couple or more days of testimony and questioning. But at the end of the day, you can simply admit to some doping, say you got it from Landis himself (gotta admit this makes me chuckle), and declare to not have seen Lance or most of the other guys doping themselves...much less in seedy hotel rooms and broken down buses.

If Nowitsky fails to get an avalanche of guys testifying the same stories without any defection, and if he fails to connect the purchasing of doping related materials in a way that implicates the ownership/management of the team or Armstrong himself as the target, I don't think this thing will leave the GJ.
Drip...drip....drip....

I do like how peoples position is slowly changing..... you wrote this earlier.
"You get a few guys who said they were there, and saw this that and the other, regarding doping...with at least one of those guys a proven liar."
...so we are up to a "few guys'?

So these "few guys" admit to doping, but all on their own - do you not think the next question will be, how did you pay for the products? How much? From who? When?
What happens when they cannot back-up their story?
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Drip...drip....drip....

I do like how peoples position is slowly changing..... you wrote this earlier.
"You get a few guys who said they were there, and saw this that and the other, regarding doping...with at least one of those guys a proven liar."
...so we are up to a "few guys'?

So these "few guys" admit to doping, but all on their own - do you not think the next question will be, how did you pay for the products? How much? From who? When?
What happens when they cannot back-up their story?

"I got all my stuff from Floyd Landis. He used to take a few hundred bucks for a little of this, and a little of that"
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
scribe said:
"I got all my stuff from Floyd Landis. He used to take a few hundred bucks for a little of this, and a little of that"
So, people are now going to admit they took PED's - and got them from Floyd???? ........So they are going to admit their guilt - and then lie......this is new.


"When did he give you the products? Where did he give you the products? How much was paid? How was the payment made?"

"At this point I will remind you of the consequences of lying to a Federal Officer."
 
scribe said:
But at the end of the day, you can simply admit to some doping, say you got it from Landis himself

So what do you do about the lie you had been telling "all day" (whatever you were saying prior to the end-of-the-day revelation that Landis did it)? You said it, it's out there. It doesn't just disappear.

Prosecutors don't really go for the whole "changing story mid-stream" idea, especially when there was no reason not to tell "the truth" all along.

ETA: I know you didn't mean the "end of the day" figuratively, but if you set out to provide disingenuous testimony (ok, you're gonna lie), and arrive at the decision to perjure yourself WRT Landis and your own doping (and at the same time accusing Landis of committing a felony), you'd best be prepared to have every square inch of that testimony gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Quite frankly, I doubt these guys are that accomplished at lying at the federal grand jury level.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
So, people are now going to admit they took PED's - and got them from Floyd???? ........So they are going to admit their guilt - and then lie......this is new.


"When did he give you the products? Where did he give you the products? How much was paid? How was the payment made?"

"At this point I will remind you of the consequences of lying to a Federal Officer."

"Yeah. Floyd is a real bad dude. I didn't really want to take it, but I felt pressure. He said everyone was doing it."
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
MacRoadie said:
So what do you do about the lie you had been telling "all day" (whatever you were saying prior to the end-of-the-day revelation that Landis did it)? You said it, it's out there. It doesn't just disappear.

Prosecutors don't really go for the whole "changing story mid-stream" idea, especially when there was no reason not to tell "the truth" all along.

ETA: I know you didn't mean the "end of the day" figuratively, but if you set out to provide disingenuous testimony (ok, you're gonna lie), and arrive at the decision to perjure yourself WRT Landis and your own doping (and at the same time accusing Landis of committing a felony), you'd best be prepared to have every square inch of that testimony gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Quite frankly, I doubt these guys are that accomplished at lying at the federal grand jury level.

More figuratively, that expression.

As far as the rest of the testimony? If I was George Hincapie, and had a line to protect and other interests that clashed with Nowinsky's professional ambition, it isn't a stretch to say that I cannot remember everything that was done and said over a 20 year career. I'd focus my truthful admittance to things done in the 90's, when it was truly tolerated by cycling authorities. I'd probably lie my *** off regarding things done at Postal this past decade....if, of course, Floyd's allegations are substantively correct.
 
Oct 26, 2009
654
0
0
Visit site
scribe said:
You get a few guys who said they were there, and saw this that and the other, regarding doping...with at least one of those guys a proven liar.

And you get a few guys who said they were there, and saw nothing at minimum, or admitted to some doping exclusively on their own.

That is a big problem for Nowinsky without some hard evidence.

Yes, you just accurately summed up the entire issue. Where's the compelling evidence?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
scribe said:
"Yeah. Floyd is a real bad dude. I didn't really want to take it, but I felt pressure. He said everyone was doing it."
I will repeat the question -

"When did he give you the products? Where did he give you the products? How much was paid? How was the payment made?"

"At this point I will remind you of the consequences of lying to a Federal Officer
"
_______________

Do you seriously think someone is going to admit their PED use and then try and tie Floyd for it?

This is not a he said she said - this is 'they said' you said - do you think those who are subpoenaed are going to risk going to jail or risk having Novisky trawl through their finances to try and point a finger at Floyd???
 
scribe said:
I'd focus my truthful admittance to things done in the 90's, when it was truly tolerated by cycling authorities. I'd probably lie my *** off regarding things done at Postal this past decade....if, of course, Floyd's allegations are substantively correct.

Again, not trying to cherry-pick your post, but how in the name of God do you sell seasoned federal investigators and prosecutors on the premise that your selective memory functions better the further back in time you go (the 1990's rather than the 2000's)?
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
I will repeat the question -

"When did he give you the products? Where did he give you the products? How much was paid? How was the payment made?"

"At this point I will remind you of the consequences of lying to a Federal Officer
"
_______________

Do you seriously think someone is going to admit their PED use and then try and tie Floyd for it?

This is not a he said she said - this is 'they said' you said - do you think those who are subpoenaed are going to risk going to jail or risk having Novisky trawl through their finances to try and point a finger at Floyd???

"Yes sir.

I recall once or twice, during the lead up to the tour in 2004. Floyd gave me some of them patches in Spain. He said it would help me recover.

He said he needed a few hundred bucks. I can't remember how much. I gave it to him over a couple of different weeks."

If I was Hincapie, I would risk jail if it meant the career I had worked for, while Landis (and whoever else) doped - got caught - and sold out for possibly more profit, was threatening to derail that effort. Regarding the jail time, the perjury has to be proven. A lie does not automatically lead to a conviction. I'd think very carefully about who I was around and admit to certain things behind closed doors, knowing full well that Novitsky needs something substantial to pursue a criminal trial, in public.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
MacRoadie said:
Again, not trying to cherry-pick your post, but how in the name of God do you sell seasoned federal investigators and prosecutors on the premise that your selective memory functions better the further back in time you go (the 1990's rather than the 2000's)?
LOL!

It's been fun playing dress up with you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
JRTinMA said:
Most of these guys facing the grand jury know that Novitsky was only able to get three convictions in BALCO to date and two of the three were perjury. That means they better get real forgetful or talk.

I disagree that Tyler talks, he still wants you to believe he won that gold medal and deserves it, he doesn't have a lot left and I say he protects that medal.

GH won't talk I'm guessing. Frankie probably will but don't forget what is going on in his head, he wants a DS role and to date he's a part time commentator or a 2nd tier network. He may think twice. Omerta is alive and well and he knows it.

JV will sing because he's a bit**. He and Riis are admitted dopers who are allowed to own teams. This is the core of what is wrong with cycling, dopers become owners.

I just hope that anybody who talks is banned. Tell the truth and be honorable and fix it but you're a doper now go away. I don't want to see another (ex)doper take anybody's results.

*** edited by mod ***
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
scribe said:
"Yes sir.

I recall once or twice, during the lead up to the tour in 2004. Floyd gave me some of them patches in Spain. He said it would help me recover.

He said he needed a few hundred bucks. I can't remember how much. I gave it to him over a couple of different weeks."

If I was Hincapie, I would risk jail if it meant the career I had worked for, while Landis (and whoever else) doped - got caught - and sold out for possibly more profit, was threatening to derail that effort. Regarding the jail time, the perjury has to be proven. A lie does not automatically lead to a conviction. I'd think very carefully about who I was around and admit to certain things behind closed doors, knowing full well that Novitsky needs something substantial to pursue a criminal trial, in public.

Hincapie is at the end of his career as a Pro - he will have banked all his earnings.
I don't believe his apparel business will suffer one way or the other - unless he gets convicted of fraud.
I doubt his loyalty will extend to doing a prison sentence - and yes, perjury has to be proven, but your ridiculous claims thusfar are lie's and would quite easily be proven.
 
Benotti69 said:
not sure how you can compare Vaughter's and Riis.

Vaughter's talks the anti doping message and his teams results certainly show that to me.

Riis aint sorry for what he did and his teams are still at it.

I believe the least introductory measure should be that convicted dopers before they are allowed back must provide DNA for future reference. But i believe all riders in the pro game should provide DNA.

The both admitted to doping. I would suggest one stays away from hating somebody because of success. I truly believe at times that is what drives the LA hate on this site. A doper is a doper is a doper. I really don't care if they were mediocre or not when they rode and managed. They should be out of the sport. Certainly a rider as recent as last year on JV's squad had people whispering the D word and his bad results this year seem to point that way as well. Maybe if all these people were out of the sport the whispers would stop.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
scribe said:
More figuratively, that expression.

As far as the rest of the testimony? If I was George Hincapie, and had a line to protect and other interests that clashed with Nowinsky's professional ambition, it isn't a stretch to say that I cannot remember everything that was done and said over a 20 year career. I'd focus my truthful admittance to things done in the 90's, when it was truly tolerated by cycling authorities. I'd probably lie my *** off regarding things done at Postal this past decade....if, of course, Floyd's allegations are substantively correct.

It wasn't Landis' team. It was JB and LA's team. You think prosecutors are going to buy the line that Landis was the dealer? I think you are posting wishful thinking.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
JRTinMA said:
The both admitted to doping. I would suggest one stays away from hating somebody because of success. I truly believe at times that is what drives the LA hate on this site. A doper is a doper is a doper. I really don't care if they were mediocre or not when they rode and managed. They should be out of the sport. Certainly a rider as recent as last year on JV's squad had people whispering the D word and his bad results this year seem to point that way as well. Maybe if all these people were out of the sport the whispers would stop.

...but no matter what, spare LA:rolleyes:
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
It wasn't Landis' team. It was JB and LA's team. You think prosecutors are going to buy the line that Landis was the dealer? I think you are posting wishful thinking.
I know. But I bust out laughing every time I type it out.