USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[JMBeaushrimp]

Sweet Dancing Moses!

Good thing another thread was started, just to make sure everything gets more bogged down...

Go back and read RR's earliest post on this thread, or please stop ****ing in the wind.

This thread is actually becoming a disservice to anyone looking for legit non-MSM info to the case at hand.

Forget the trolls, the non-LA cycling fans are making this far too complicated for anyone to try to visit the clinic and get some real information.

Stop the conjecture, and shut the f*ck up!

Mods: please help! The curious shouldn't have to wade through thousands of posts of people saying what they think/wish should happen.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You know, no one can win for losing with you. I could have done exactly what you just did, but then I would have been faced with a torrent of messages, "Hey, stop clogging up the thread"..."Take it to the Legal Thread"... or "Hey, you're an a##hole, so stop being so pedantic"...or "you're just an intern for Livestrong, you schmuck and we don't want to hear what you say anyway [Ignore button being pushed].

So instead, I kept it short and sweet.

And what do I get? A lecture from you.

Just stop it. Ok? Really, just stop it.

In all honesty, from the tenor of your post to Krebs, it seemed to me that you convoluted what he said to lecture him on something that in actuality he was not wrong about. If I misread that, or you took "eyewitness" to mean simply someone who was testifying about what they heard someone say that Armstrong said, then fine. Like I said, I really am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you do make it hard. Things like that make it seem as though you are trying to discredit things that do not deserve to be discredited. At this point, I will admit to having a hair trigger with you as I have almost never seen you post anything that did not have a positive slant (even if slight) toward Armstrong. That is just how I read it.

I didn't "lecture." I pointed out a reasoned reading of Krebs post, what I saw as a clear distortion of what he wrote, and what was certainly NOT correct based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. That isn't being "pedantic." That is providing a reasonable reading of a the rules of evidence based on what we are told are the operative facts. If you are going to proffer opinions on legal matters, and those opinions have glaring flaws, expect them to be addressed. I know mine are when I am incorrect.

 

[Arnout]

Think the Clinic would have missed that?

All over it...

You never know

 

[thehog]

You never know

We predict things before they happen

 

[Arnout]

That's why I like the Sky thread.

 

[ManInFull]

Hearsay evidence is not admissable evidence at law as the prosecution or defense have no opportunity to cross examine the direct witness who was the origin of the hearsay.

Except in narrow circumstances where the direct witness made deathbed declarations in the belief he or she was about to die.

Are you implying that the direct conversations and activities that would be described from Lance's ex-teammates and associates are hearsay? I think not.

 

[QuickStepper]

In all honesty, from the tenor of your post to Krebs, it seemed to me that you convoluted what he said to lecture him on something that in actuality he was not wrong about. If I misread that, or you took "eyewitness" to mean simply someone who was testifying about what they heard someone say that Armstrong said, then fine. Like I said, I really am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you do make it hard. Things like that make it seem as though you are trying to discredit things that do not deserve to be discredited. At this point, I will admit to having a hair trigger with you as I have almost never seen you post anything that did not have a positive slant (even if slight) toward Armstrong. That is just how I read it.

I didn't "lecture." I pointed out a reasoned reading of Krebs post, what I saw as a clear distortion of what he wrote, and what was certainly NOT correct based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. That isn't being "pedantic." That is providing a reasonable reading of a the rules of evidence based on what we are told are the operative facts. If you are going to proffer opinions on legal matters, and those opinions have glaring flaws, expect them to be addressed. I know mine are when I am incorrect.

Yeah, whatever.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Oops. Forgot to take my "crazy pills".

Ignore the cranky Shrimp in the corner...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yeah, whatever.

Look, I just tried to leave an opening to you and that is your response? Okay. Then let me be less diplomatic. If you are going to proffer legal knowledge, don't post crap that shows you are distorting things that 2L's are capable of getting right. The fact is that 801(d)(2)(A) is operative here based on the facts we do know, so a supposedly seasoned attorney such as yourself shouldn't make such rookie mistakes. Sorry for your loss.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The doctor's had a full blood profile. Logic would suggest they may have seen an indicator in the sampling or why not ask: "have you ever had chicken pox?" The fact that they would inquire when someone already had cancer tells volumes, don't you think?

Just because they had tested Wonderboy's blood does not at all mean they would have tested for PED's. Apples and oranges testing.

And the inquiry about what drugs one takes is all about avoiding deadly drug combinations going forward.

All that said, I believe Wonderboy spelled it out for whomever the mysterious medical staff was at the time. Most people are very deferential to medical doctors and that guy was very likely not in liestrong mode at that moment.

 

[krebs303]

Other than spelling. I do believe I am correct.

 

[Velodude]

Are you implying that the direct conversations and activities that would be described from Lance's ex-teammates and associates are hearsay? I think not.

I would have expected that those 10+ fellow riders plus team personnel would have given direct non hearsay evidence to USADA.

USADA would have been more than aware that any hearsay evidence would be inadmissable.

 

[QuickStepper]

Look, I just tried to leave an opening to you and that is your response? Okay. Then let me be less diplomatic. If you are going to proffer legal knowledge, don't post crap that shows you are distorting things that 2L's are capable of getting right. The fact is that 801(d)(2)(A) is operative here based on the facts we do know, so a supposedly seasoned attorney such as yourself shouldn't make such rookie mistakes. Sorry for your loss.

Feel better now?

Really, just stop it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Feel better now?

Really, just stop it.

I'll stop the day you do because twice I have extended a partial olive branch, and twice you just kept on chugging. I won't offer it again, but I will certainly continue to point out the crap in your posts. You have a couple of options if you want me to stop:

1. Quit littering your posts with crap
2. Quit posting.

 

[Microchip]

Just because they had tested Wonderboy's blood does not at all mean they would have tested for PED's. Apples and oranges testing...

Exactly. They were testing for traces of orange juice, and found none.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Other than spelling. I do believe I am correct.

You definitely were correct. Quickstepper had to twist himself into a knot to pretend you said something that on its face completely consistent with what we know, was a pretty unambiguous term, and absolutely spot on. After doing that, he made an erroneous point regarding the law on the narrative HE CREATED. Obviously, saying "I was incorrect" is not in his vocabulary.

 

[QuickStepper]

Hearsay evidence is not admissable evidence at law as the prosecution or defense have no opportunity to cross examine the direct witness who was the origin of the hearsay.

Except in narrow circumstances where the direct witness made deathbed declarations in the belief he or she was about to die.

Yes. And in cases where the statement repeated in court is made by the Defendnat (in which case it's an admission); or in the case where the person making the statement can be expected to have made an otherwise reliable statement, as in an "excited utterance." Or in the case of a business record that is qualified as such. Etc.

There are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule. I didn't say USADA or its lawyers didn't know the difference. I merely tried to clarify and correct Krebs' statement that "eyewitness testimony" is not hearsay. It can be, depending on the context and what the subject of the statements made by the witness in court.

I also acknowledge that in my response to Krebs I made a misstatement. I should have said "not" hearsay in the first example. Unfortunately, I was editing the post so much (to make it as short as possible) that I must have left out the word "not" in the first sentence.

Sheesh.

 

[Race Radio]

Some world class toilet clogging going on in here

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

I also acknowledge that in my response to Krebs I made a misstatement. I should have said "not" hearsay in the first example. Unfortunately, I was editing the post so much (to make it as short as possible) that I must have left out the word "not" in the first sentence

Which I probably would have let pass if you hadn't pulled the "Grasshopper" BS as part of your post.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes. And in cases where the statement repeated in court is made by the Defendnat (in which case it's an admission); or in the case where the person making the statement can be expected to have made an otherwise reliable statement, as in an "excited utterance." Or in the case of a business record that is qualified as such. Etc.

There are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule. I didn't say USADA or its lawyers didn't know the difference. I merely tried to clarify and correct Krebs' statement that "eyewitness testimony" is not hearsay. It can be, depending on the context and what the subject of the statements made by the witness in court.

I also acknowledge that in my response to Krebs I made a misstatement. I should have said "not" hearsay in the first example. Unfortunately, I was editing the post so much (to make it as short as possible) that I must have left out the word "not" in the first sentence.

Sheesh.

No, you were wrong in your characterization of what an "eyewitness" is, as in your reading an "eyewitness" is someone who only heard what someone who was there said happened, when in reality, an "eyewitness" is a person who was actually there to hear the original statement or to see the actual event. I didn't hammer you on the fact that you failed to write "not" as I understood it was just an oversight. The part where you distorted what an "eyewitness" is was where I took issue. I still do considering that YOUR characterization is one INCONSISTENT with what we have been told to this point regarding the people who would have testified against Armstrong.

 

[python]

I'll stop the day you do because twice I have extended a partial olive branch, and twice you just kept on chugging. I won't offer it again, but I will certainly continue to point out the crap in your posts. You have a couple of options if you want me to stop:

1. Quit littering your posts with crap
2. Quit posting.

chuba, I appreciate the the law student delivered a very civil and to be perfectly honest uncomplicated lesson in common sense law to someone claiming to be too expensive for armstrong lawyers and more interestingly pouding his own chest each time a plain question was asked...that did not comport with Armstrong spin.

Prediction: when you are done with the studies, I am sure you will not have shortage of clients.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Ok, here is an overview.

Armstrong did not to contest a hearing, that doesn’t mean there won’t be a report about his case.

http://www.usada.org/files/pdfs/usada-protocol.pdf

“USADA shall publicly report the disposition of anti-doping matters no later than five business days after … (2) such hearing has been waived.”

Additionally “After an anti-doping rule violation has been established, USADA may comment upon any aspect of the case.”

They need to give this report, with instructions, to the UCI. The UCI then has a "Choice" to follow the instructions of USADA or to take it to CAS. I doubt they would take it to CAS as they would lose quickly. CAS does have a process in place to review and rule on cases rapidly, this would surely qualify.

I expect the UCI to strip Armstrong of all results from Aug 1998 till today. Armstrong has threaten to sue USADA if he is stripped....but who does he sue? It is actually the UCI that would do the stripping so perhaps he files a lawsuit against Travis?

So USADA can release all the evidence they like, the question is how and when. For now Bruyneel, Marti, and Celya all are facing arbitration, this may effect when USADA releases the evidence. They may also just dump it all into the public at the same time they give it to them.

I understand that Armstrong was on the phone with Bruyneel yesterday trying to get him to drop the arbitration. Johan has a lot more to lose as he will be unemployable if he is sanctioned. He does not have the cash that Wonderboy has.

Just a bump.

I'm waiting on the whiners to get it to CAS.

The legal eagles can p*ss all they want, but licenses were signed and argumentative methods were agreed too. All riders sign an overarching agreement.

If LA (or the UCI) is serious about fighting this, then it goes to CAS.

I look forward to arbitration...

 

[QuickStepper]

I'll stop the day you do because twice I have extended a partial olive branch, and twice you just kept on chugging. I won't offer it again, but I will certainly continue to point out the crap in your posts. You have a couple of options if you want me to stop:

1. Quit littering your posts with crap
2. Quit posting.

1. Nope.

2. Nope.

There's a third option. You can just stop responding to my posts,and I'll stop responding to your's. You can stop acting in a childish manner.

You can stop pretending that you dictate my options (or anyone else's) on this forum.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

1. Nope.

2. Nope.

There's a third option. You can just stop responding to my posts,and I'll stop responding to your's. You can stop acting in a childish manner.

You can stop pretending that you dictate my options (or anyone else's) on this forum.

If by "childish" you mean continuing to point out where a person claiming to be a seasoned attorney is getting easy things wrong, then no, I won't stop commenting.

But thanks for admitting that you will not stop putting "crap" into your posts. I knew you wouldn't before you admitted it...

 

[eyemgh]

There's a third option. You can just stop responding to my posts,and I'll stop responding to your's.

This is the best post I've read all day!

M