Racelap said:
No really. I am no supporter of drug cheats, but the lack of legal process in which one organisation appoints itself prosecutor defence, judge and jury without any right to testing the evidence brings the sport into even further disrepute. It smells.
Any half way decent attorney could ride coach and horse through most of it if in federal court. Which is why they wont let you take it there, because all who have done so (like heras) in the past win. Not on technicalities, but because the evidence and presentation is simply not good enough.
Sparks did not say the process was good - indeed he had major reservations - he simply stated it was civil and that he could not intervene it - it was a contract that led to CAS.
I have seen someone I knew - Diane Modahl - ripped to shreds by this kangaroo justice, and it does not impress me at all. Ever since Butch reynolds, they have been determined to change the system to one which they control and win regardless which is why it is now just that.
Lance may be guilty as hell. He is still entitled to justice, and he will find none in this process.
Just simple questions about Hincapies testimony rip it to shreds.
So you are a convicted doping cheat correct? Yes.
And you got a zero sentence in order to testify against my client? No it was six months.
Six months AFTER you retired that is, so no sentence at all, in reality? No.
And you knew you were given this to testify against my clietn? Yes.
And because of that testimony you were also allowed to ride the TDF. Yes.
So you were doping before and after my client returned from cancer? Yes.
So my client did not introduce yo to doping or show you how? No.
And doping was endemic in that team before my client returned? Yes.
And you carried on dopiong after my client retired? Yes
So you were a serial doper regardless of my client...Well I suppose, put like that yes.
And you were given a deal to avoid sentence, by testifying against my client? Yes.
Did you ever actually see my client dope?
(and on the basis of the testimony in that affidavit the answer has to be ) No.
(I suspect if he could have said so he would have been forced to say so)
So you really have no evidence against my client at all. (smiles at jury)
Take the girona flat incident, you make so much of in your testimony? OK.
Did my client actually tell you to look for drugs. No but that is what I assumed..
Answer my question did my client ask you to look for drugs, specifically saying drugs.. You are under oath mr hincapie. No.
Did mr bruyneel ask you tol ook for drugs SPECIFICALLY. Well no?
Did you find any drugs? No.
So that entire incident is a red herring. Yes or No ? Y
You have no evidence it had anything to do with drugs? Other than your assumptions? Well No.
So your entire testimony is assumptions based on hearsay that you talked to my client abot drugs which were clealry prevalent, so cyclists talked about those things? ...yes.
So Mr Hincapie - I put it to you - the ONLY reason you are testifying is to avoid sentence for your own murky past. You have no evidence against my client...
Etc And so on...
NONE of the evidence is given any kind of test, take the girona flat.
Most of it is from people who cheated before and after they met lance.
From memory the only ones who said they saw him do it, have already lied under oath , which may not matter in the court of public opinion, or at CAS. It mattes in federal court.
But lance cannot win in CAS, because yet again they are judge jury and prosecution.
He may be as guilty as hell, and he should swing for it , if guilty, but it is still kangaroo justice.
And Novitsky I suspect knew, it may sound good in the court of public opinion , but the case was not guaranteed to win. Not enough physical evidence, or even eye witness testimony..