what evidence can landis rely on ?

[python]

ok, we had the news, the opinions and the counter opinions and denials.

just about everyone accused by landis already publicly denied everything.

armstrong said he wnot sue but it does not mean the accusation that he doped will not wind up in a court room or an antidoping tribunal.

there, in a court room, judges and arbitrators will not take anyone's word without some solid backing or serious credibility. hardly anyone will dispute that flandid's credibility is seriously marred by his 2006 denials.

what else does he have to bring into the court room besides his word and the diaries he said he kept ?

what else can federal investigators throw at armstrong to put him away ?

what can usada use, in addition to floyd the witness to suspend armstrong for doping ?

so far i don't see much.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

ok, we had the news, the opinions and the counter opinions and denials.

just about everyone accused by landis already publicly denied everything.

armstrong said he wnot sue but it does not mean the accusation that he doped will not wind up in a court room or an antidoping tribunal.

there, in a court room, judges and arbitrators will not take anyone's word without some solid backing or serious credibility. hardly anyone will dispute that flandid's credibility is seriously marred by his 2006 denials.

what else does he have to bring into the court room besides his word and the diaries he said he kept ?

what else can federal investigators throw at armstrong to put him away ?

what can usada use, in addition to floyd the witness to suspend armstrong for doping ?

so far i don't see much.

I think the only reason this affair could end up in court is due to some solid evidence. The big boys don't chase their tails in these matters. Whether it exists remains to be seen, and we'll only see it in court.

Whilst testimony is evidence, you're right that FL is an unreliable witness whose present allegations add up to perjury if true. Expect the others to be subpoened as well: Betsy, Frankie, Anna, JV et al if nothing else. Some of them have been destroyed publically by Lance Inc., but the courtroom is another arena that LA doesn't control: witness his and Trek's caving to settle OOC with GL.

If there's substance to the claims, we might just find out this time. If there isn't, we might just have to leave LA alone.

 

[Ferminal]

If it ends up in a court room, it means all the usual suspects will be back in the stand.

 

[python]

I think the only reason this affair could end up in court is due to some solid evidence. The big boys don't chase their tails in these matters. Whether it exists remains to be seen, and we'll only see it in court.

Whilst testimony is evidence, you're right that FL is an unreliable witness whose present allegations add up to perjury if true. Expect the others to be subpoened as well: Betsy, Frankie, Anna, JV et al if nothing else. Some of them have been destroyed publically by Lance Inc., but the courtroom is another arena that LA doesn't control: witness his and Trek's caving to settle OOC with GL.

If there's substance to the claims, we might just find out this time. If there isn't, we might just have to leave LA alone.

i agree. if anyone was unclear on my personal position i’m certainly the one who’s been a long standing disbeliever in texas miracles and flandis’s denials.

but what prompted me to start the thread was the nbc sports poll i stumbled on accidentally.

to say that i was knocked out by the voting results is an understatement. my son gave me a ‘look’ with ouch when he heard a loud slap i involuntarily delivered to the top of my head.

of the 30 000+ voters, 65% answered they believe Armstrong vs. landis.

then i thought gees what would it take to turn this ignorance around

what facts could be produced to stick a conviction once and for ever ?

as it turns out, not much again

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The question is this - in the infamous IM conversation, it was mentioned that Landis took photos, so maybe he has those, along with the training/doping diaries.

The main evidence - if the dam breaks - will be the evidence from other people in USP/Disco, Vaughters etc

 

[Jonathan]

Actually, Landis does not need to have evidence - his testimony can be the basis for an investigation that uncovers evidence. This is what happened with Manzano, and it resulted in operacion Puerto.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

i agree. if anyone was unclear on my personal position i’m certainly the one who’s been a long standing disbeliever in texas miracles and flandis’s denials.

but what prompted me to start the thread was the nbc sports poll i stumbled on accidentally.

to say that i was knocked out by the voting results is an understatement. my son gave me a ‘look’ with ouch when he heard a loud slap i involuntarily delivered to the top of my head.

of the 30 000+ voters, 65% answered they believe Armstrong vs. landis.

then i thought gees what would it take to turn this ignorance around

what facts could be produced to stick a conviction once and for ever ?

as it turns out, not much again

http://nbcsports.newsvine.com/_ques...mstrong-used-drugs-during-his-tour-win-streak

Here it´s 52% who think Epo-Lance did dope. I think it always depends on how the question is made.

If all stay together (Simeoni, Lemond, the Andreus, Landis, O´Reilly, Anderson, Bassons, Kimmage, Walsh, Ex-Wifes/Girlfriends) who were hurt by Pharmstrong, i think his PR won´t work anymore. He can´t say anymore it´s kind of a conspiracy. The hope is one big WSJ-Journalist brings up the complete story and interviews all LA´s victims. Then the myth is finally destroyed. We would not need courtrooms etc.

Or when Epo-Lance starts his political career, his (hopefully smart) opponent will bring all the dirty stuff up. That´s another chance to wake up America (at least Texas).

 

[scribe]

Regarding the polls running about, it's one of things that will actually tilt worse in favor of LA as people learn more about FLs dodginess this past few years. Very few Americans will ever try to understand the pervasive level of doping in cycling.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

At least in germany this guy is (almost) "dead". Since the Epo-positives came out, it´s repeated every now and then in the big newspapers. His approval-rate over here is less than 40% since 2005. That gives hope, that other countries wake up too.

 

[la.margna]

http://nbcsports.newsvine.com/_ques...mstrong-used-drugs-during-his-tour-win-streak


Or when Epo-Lance starts his political career, his (hopefully smart) opponent will bring all the dirty stuff up. That´s another chance to wake up America (at least Texas).

You say it. If Pharmstrong rides and makes money on his livestrong.com biz, I don't care, although it does not make me happy. But the real danger is when THE CANCER OF CYCLING starts his political career. Let's hope for Texas and America, it will never materialize...

 

[Love the Scenery]

His own words

The US federal government has in the past used athletes' own words as evidence against them. Baseball player Barry Bonds and track athlete Marion Jones, for example--both subjects of federal investigation--have been prosecuted for perjury, not doping. It's a crime to lie under oath. So, as long as they can get the athlete to testify under oath, the athlete must tell the truth. Otherwise, they can be sent to jail or fined for lying, not just for doping.

One way this can happen is a congressional inquiry. US congressional committees have subpoena power. They can call witnesses to testify before them under oath, with the threat of perjury charges if they lie. This is what caught so many baseball players. Mark McGwire, for example, refused to answer questions, making it obvious that he had doped but at least protecting himself from future perjury charges. In contrast, Barry Bonds denied everything and has been aggressively prosecuted by the federal government, ruining his career and reputation.

So, basically, they don't need evidence, they just need to call LA in front of a congressional committee on doping. Put him under oath and ask him the questions directly. LA will then have three options:
(1) Admit to doping.
(2) Refuse to answer questions
(3) Refuse to admit doping.

Here's where it gets interesting. Let's say he really did dope, but he doesn't admit it. At that point any evidence of his past doping becomes evidence that he perjured himself under oath, a federal crime.

I strongly suspect that, if he is called upon to testify under oath, LA would neither lie nor refuse to answer questions.

 

[scribe]

You think congress will call livestrong in front of them to discuss blood doping in hopes of putting him in jail and create an excuse for the French to strip him of his wins?

Sorry for the cynicism, but this stuff is geting a little wistful. You gotta admit.

 

[Boeing]

Is Landis stupid enough to allegedly "blackmail" with only his word behind him.

He just might be


I was talking about this last night, as everyone was. The question I have is how deep can this go? Is it perhaps so complex and the pockets so deep that time is just not there to dig? The pharmaceutical Lobby on Washington itself has proven impenetrable...

The other question I have is where did all the dope come from? Who designed the masking? If this is all true we are talking about a level of masking that is years ahead of testing.....At this alleged level and the time line given there has to be a systematic process designed to keep current as in research and development. Can Landis point anyone in that direction is another question?

 

[Love the Scenery]

According to Juliet Macur of the New York Times:
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/sports/cycling/21cycling.html?ref=sports)

"Federal authorities have also taken interest in Landis’s e-mail messages. They want to talk to distributors, particularly trainers and doctors, who may have provided drugs. The federal agent Jeff Novitzky, who led the investigation in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroids case, has been briefed and has spoken with Landis, people with knowledge of the situation said. Landis has agreed to cooperate, they said."

[end quote]

This Novitzky guy probably doesn't care about Lance's faux patriotism. The days when all LA had to say is "France" to distract attention from the accusations are long gone. Armstrong is going to have to answer questions, and this time if he lies there will be consequences.

 

[sida-mot]

I do believe he is speaking the truth. Does he have any evidence? I hope he has but kind of doubt it. The guys he went after just seems to be able to walk away from anything.

Well what possible evidence could he have? Depends on how long he has been thinking about this. There could be recordings, emails, chat logs, text messages, hand written notes, people willing to back him up etc. He could have enough but then again he could have nada as well. Hard to say. Right now I don't know what to believe anymore.

I have no idea what he is like as a person. Is he the mad man some describes or is that image created by those that fears him and his evidence? Has he decided to clear his conscience or has he become so mad that some of this is just a figure of his imagination. I made up my mind after reading LA's statement. The way he pointed to some time line issues without going into detail why it was off and then speaking about Landis as a person instead of the actual statement. It just seems fishy.

 

[Race Radio]

There is evidence of the payoff. Sylvia Schenk, UCI board member and head of it ethics committee said:

"Since 1998 the UCI has done a lot to combat doping but everything is different where Armstrong is concerned," she said. "There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong. The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - to my knowledge $500,000."

There are also other witnesses

 

[buckwheat]

The US federal government has in the past used athletes' own words as evidence against them. Baseball player Barry Bonds and track athlete Marion Jones, for example--both subjects of federal investigation--have been prosecuted for perjury, not doping. It's a crime to lie under oath. So, as long as they can get the athlete to testify under oath, the athlete must tell the truth. Otherwise, they can be sent to jail or fined for lying, not just for doping.

One way this can happen is a congressional inquiry. US congressional committees have subpoena power. They can call witnesses to testify before them under oath, with the threat of perjury charges if they lie. This is what caught so many baseball players. Mark McGwire, for example, refused to answer questions, making it obvious that he had doped but at least protecting himself from future perjury charges. In contrast, Barry Bonds denied everything and has been aggressively prosecuted by the federal government, ruining his career and reputation.

So, basically, they don't need evidence, they just need to call LA in front of a congressional committee on doping. Put him under oath and ask him the questions directly. LA will then have three options:
(1) Admit to doping.
(2) Refuse to answer questions
(3) Refuse to admit doping.

Here's where it gets interesting. Let's say he really did dope, but he doesn't admit it. At that point any evidence of his past doping becomes evidence that he perjured himself under oath, a federal crime.

I strongly suspect that, if he is called upon to testify under oath, LA would neither lie nor refuse to answer questions.

I may be wrong but it doesn't even have to be questioning under oath. Lying to a law enforcement officer is enough for an obstruction charge.

Novitzky will be talking to Hamilton, Livingston, and Vaughters in addition to Landis and all the other former USPS riders he can,in addition to Armstrong. These witness statements are regarded as evidence to those doubters here like this Lazlo.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20040709.html

Anyone who knowingly interferes with the work of police officers, investigators, or government agencies can be charged. Someone can also be charged with obstruction of justice if they impair the efforts of a court trial. For example, threatening a juror or witness.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/obstruction+of+justice

Two types of cases arise under the Omnibus Clause: the concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; and the encouraging or rendering of false testimony. Actual obstruction is not needed as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. "Endeavor" has been defined by the courts as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent. The courts have consistently held that "endeavor" constitutes a lesser threshold of purposeful activity than a criminal "attempt."

 

[Laszlo]

what else does he have to bring into the court room besides his word and the diaries he said he kept ?

I would ask to have the ink on the diaries tested to ensure they weren't too fresh- remember the Hitler diaries brought their author a fair bit before they were found to be fruadulent. And if FL has been tweeting that he has been working on this since Dec. I have to ask why did it take so long ?

 

[palmerq]

There is evidence of the payoff. Sylvia Schenk, UCI board member and head of it ethics committee said:



There are also other witnesses

wasnt this for the uci to buy a new testing machine or something.... :S......... why would armstrong want them to improve their dope catching if he was cheating.........

 

[buckwheat]

I would ask to have the ink on the diaries tested to ensure they weren't too fresh- remember the Hitler diaries brought their author a fair bit before they were found to be fruadulent. And if FL has been tweeting that he has been working on this since Dec. I have to ask why did it take so long ?

It won't matter now. It's the proverbial federal case.

I'm sure Novitzky will bring up Marion Jones to the people like Hamilton and Vaughters who don't seem to want to cooperate.

Pharmstrong's days are numbered and you'll never see him ride in competition again.

I want to see these $hitheads lie to a federal agent.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

There is evidence of the payoff. Sylvia Schenk, UCI board member and head of it ethics committee said:



There are also other witnesses

wow, what an astonishingly loaded quote! If Ms Schenk's testimony is sought, one and one will start adding up to two. My eyes are spinning round in my head.

Where do you find this stuff RR? You're a veritable database on who said what.

 

[Race Radio]

I would ask to have the ink on the diaries tested to ensure they weren't too fresh- remember the Hitler diaries brought their author a fair bit before they were found to be fruadulent. And if FL has been tweeting that he has been working on this since Dec. I have to ask why did it take so long ?

 

[Love the Scenery]

I'm sure Novitzky will bring up Marion Jones to the people like Hamilton and Vaughters who don't seem to want to cooperate.

Pharmstrong's days are numbered and you'll never see him ride in competition again.

Buckwheat, you are right, thanks for pointing that out. In fact, there are two possible crimes here.
(1) Lying to a federal officer is a crime.
(2) Obstruction of justice is a crime. "Obstruction refers to the failure to comply with federal officers and to withhold information." Source:
how_to_talk_to_federal_agents.html

So, if a federal agent asks LA a question, he must tell the truth. If he does not tell the truth, he is subject to federal prosecution. Also, even withholding information is a crime. So, if they ask him for example about the distribution networks for PEDs, he must answer. However, we have to be careful about what to expect. Unless I'm much mistaken, LA's conversations with a federal officer will not be made public unless they are used to nab distributors and crooked doctors and thus are required to justify such things as search and arrest warrants. [I could be wrong there]

We'll see. Bottom line, now it's not about holding off WADA and UCI, it's about holding off the feds. That's a totally different thing. WADA and UCI can't arrest you or force you to testify truthfully. I strongly suspect that LA is going to have to tell the truth to the feds. Whether that comes out or not, we'll see.

And, yes, the fact that they already got Marion Jones for perjury, and she actually did prison time, greatly strengthens the feds' hands. Barry Bonds has been locked down by legal proceedings for years. At this point I think that athletes understand they need to tell the truth to the feds or there will be serious consequences.

 

[Love the Scenery]

By the way, all this cuts both ways. The instant Floyd Landis starts talking to federal agents, he is subject to charges of lying and obstruction if he fails to tell the truth.

 

[Black-Balled]

The question is this - in the infamous IM conversation, it was mentioned that Landis took photos, so maybe he has those, along with the training/doping diaries.

The main evidence - if the dam breaks - will be the evidence from other people in USP/Disco, Vaughters etc

What would photos show? LA on an IV? JB placing cartons of doping product in a box with a rider's name on it? The spin machine works in both directions.

I think the only truly irrefutable item would be would be a medical journal/ documentation of some sort that really laid out details of alleged programme(s).