"Pure hearsay and innuendo..."

paulcuthbert

... is what Phil Liggett thinks of the allegations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8sU_tNqGgg

BikingBernie

The meme: Floyd has no proof/it’s all circumstantial evidence

...the assertion that Floyd’s accusations alone are circumstantial is not true. In the United States judicial system (both civil and criminal) and within the framework of a WADA-approved anti-doping hearing, an eyewitness account is considered direct evidence, not circumstantial, hearsay or any other form.

With the exception of the alleged payoff for a positive test by Armstrong in the 2001 Tour de Suisse (which was before Landis joined the Postal team, in 2002), Floyd is not saying he heard about these things or was told by someone about them; he’s saying he saw them directly and participated in them directly. That’s direct evidence.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderrepor ... -evidence/

andyp

paulcuthbert wrote:

... is what Phil Liggett thinks of the allegations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8sU_tNqGgg

I'm shocked. :shock:

Pross

Yeah, who'd have expected Liggett to side with Lance hey?

luckao

"Terrific bike race"... right.

Kléber

It would be hearsay and innuendo if some third party was describing Landis's behaviour. The fact that Landis is himself saying this, plus has annotated training diaries, suggests Liggett is just sticking his head in the sand.

For what it's worth I met Liggett a while back at Heathrow and he's not quite the believer some might think, he needs to be a cheerleader because of his employer. Now you might say that makes him a shifty sort but what I'm saying is that in private, sometimes people talk more freely...

Bakunin

Did it really matter?

Phil's credibility is similar to Floyd's.

With Bob Roll, Phil and Paul -- the sound hasn't been on when watching Versus for years.

jimmythecuckoo

I have met him a few times and he certainly isnt naive as to the issues the sport has.

jim one

I think his body language is very interesting. He becomes very defensive and shifty and crossing his arms at the mention of "Landis", like someone who feels under threat.

If only he would stop his Lance worshipping it was cringey watching the tour last year.

paulcuthbert

Kléber wrote:

For what it's worth I met Liggett a while back at Heathrow and he's not quite the believer some might think, he needs to be a cheerleader because of his employer. Now you might say that makes him a shifty sort but what I'm saying is that in private, sometimes people talk more freely...

Juicy! Care to divulge???

dennisn

BikingBernie wrote:

The meme: Floyd has no proof/it’s all circumstantial evidence

...the assertion that Floyd’s accusations alone are circumstantial is not true. In the United States judicial system (both civil and criminal) and within the framework of a WADA-approved anti-doping hearing, an eyewitness account is considered direct evidence, not circumstantial, hearsay or any other form.

With the exception of the alleged payoff for a positive test by Armstrong in the 2001 Tour de Suisse (which was before Landis joined the Postal team, in 2002), Floyd is not saying he heard about these things or was told by someone about them; he’s saying he saw them directly and participated in them directly. That’s direct evidence.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderrepor ... -evidence/

Yes, it is evidence. However, a judge or jury is NOT compelled to believe it. Landis did testify that he was innocent to various entities and they chose NOT to believe him.

Kléber

paulcuthbert wrote:

Juicy! Care to divulge???

It's not really juicy at all, it's more that like anyone who has been in the sport for sometime, he knows what happens and where the balance of probability lies.

William H

Kléber wrote:

For what it's worth I met Liggett a while back at Heathrow and he's not quite the believer some might think, he needs to be a cheerleader because of his employer. Now you might say that makes him a shifty sort but what I'm saying is that in private, sometimes people talk more freely...

Now, this is an excellent example of hearsay

BikingBernie

William H wrote:

Kléber wrote:

For what it's worth I met Liggett a while back at Heathrow and he's not quite the believer some might think, he needs to be a cheerleader because of his employer. Now you might say that makes him a shifty sort but what I'm saying is that in private, sometimes people talk more freely...

Now, this is an excellent example of hearsay

To be hearsay wouldn't Kleber have to be reporting on what someone else said to him about a meeting they had had with Liggett?

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

For what it's worth I met Liggett a while back at Heathrow and he's not quite the believer some might think, he needs to be a cheerleader because of his employer. Now you might say that makes him a shifty sort but what I'm saying is that in private, sometimes people talk more freely...

I remember when LA announced his comeback speaking to a few people at the time and the UCI weren't exactly jumping up and down with excitement at Lance returning.

dennisn

I was on a murder trial jury once. The prosecution called, as witnesses, some of the defendants gang members, who all said, yes he did it. Not all the jury members believed that these witnesses were telling the truth. Some felt that they would say anything to get a plea bargain. Long story short the man was not convicted because of his gang members testimony. He was however convicted on the rest of the evidence.
Moral of the story - just because evidence is presented doesn't mean it's true or false or will even be believed. The whole trial was an eye opener for me. Most interesting.

iainf72

Dennis - Can you tell the truth now please. The trial was abandoned when the other jurors complained about having "the human acid trip" on the jury with them, wasn't it?

dennisn

BikingBernie wrote:

William H wrote:

Kléber wrote:

For what it's worth I met Liggett a while back at Heathrow and he's not quite the believer some might think, he needs to be a cheerleader because of his employer. Now you might say that makes him a shifty sort but what I'm saying is that in private, sometimes people talk more freely...

Now, this is an excellent example of hearsay

To be hearsay wouldn't Kleber have to be reporting on what someone else said to him about a meeting they had had with Liggett?

Think you have a point there BB.

58585

That reply is painful to watch.
I would like a nice Gordon Brown moment when the mic isn't turned off....
A lot of respect could be gained by an honest reply, acknowledging that there was at least a possibility of organised doping at US postal. For sure Landis has a case of sour grapes but that doesn't mean he is lying now.
People should realise that it was easy to lie about being clean as he himself says he has no guilt what so ever about cheating. Coming out and telling the truth (if that's what he is telling) is the difficult bit.

dennisn

58585 wrote:

That reply is painful to watch.
I would like a nice Gordon Brown moment when the mic isn't turned off....
A lot of respect could be gained by an honest reply, acknowledging that there was at least a possibility of organised doping at US postal. For sure Landis has a case of sour grapes but that doesn't mean he is lying now.
People should realise that it was easy to lie about being clean as he himself says he has no guilt what so ever about cheating. Coming out and telling the truth (if that's what he is telling) is the difficult bit.

What reply? From whom? About what? Or am I just too stupid to understand? Don't answer that last one.

58585

[quote="What reply? From whom? About what? Or am I just too stupid to understand? Don't answer that last one.[/quote]

Mr Liggett's reply to the question about Mr Landis allegations.

dennisn

58585 wrote:

That reply is painful to watch.
I would like a nice Gordon Brown moment when the mic isn't turned off....
A lot of respect could be gained by an honest reply, acknowledging that there was at least a possibility of organised doping at US postal. For sure Landis has a case of sour grapes but that doesn't mean he is lying now.

I'm thinking two things are wrong with what you say.
1st. you don't know whether he was being honest or not. You think you know.
2nd. Saying something like "Sure, there is a possibilty that doping occured on US Postal"
is probably very close to slander(whether right or wrong) and to say it would have most likely invited lawsuits. If he had said something about you or I that we felt damaged our reputations we would be right there with a lawsuit. It's sort of like the newspapers
printing some wild story about someone and that someone turns around and sues for big money because the paper couldn't prove the story.

greasedscotsman

I think he needs a bigger microphone

mididoctors

Kléber wrote:

For what it's worth I met Liggett a while back at Heathrow and he's not quite the believer some might think, he needs to be a cheerleader because of his employer. Now you might say that makes him a shifty sort but what I'm saying is that in private, sometimes people talk more freely...

Makes it worse in my book..he is an influential voice in a system designed to make money (via fraud?) that is applying pressure THROUGH him to protect the image of someone they have a vested financial interest as being seen to be clean

and he knows it!

his cheer leader status is not something he needs to maintain because if he doesn't he will starve to death

the argument "if it wasn't me then it would be someone else" doesn't really work for me either

he is in an influential position to do something about this.. and he is using that influence to protect people

jimmythecuckoo

We can only imagine Paul Sherwen's stand point...

iainf72

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

We can only imagine Paul Sherwen's stand point...

He'll probably make up an african proverb to explain his position.

jimmythecuckoo

I suppose he could let us know if "Big" (you know who) is big for artificial reasons.

dennisn

mididoctors wrote:

Kléber wrote:

For what it's worth I met Liggett a while back at Heathrow and he's not quite the believer some might think, he needs to be a cheerleader because of his employer. Now you might say that makes him a shifty sort but what I'm saying is that in private, sometimes people talk more freely...

Makes it worse in my book..he is an influential voice in a system designed to make money (via fraud?) that is applying pressure THROUGH him to protect the image of someone they have a vested financial interest as being seen to be clean

and he knows it!

his cheer leader status is not something he needs to maintain because if he doesn't he will starve to death

the argument "if it wasn't me then it would be someone else" doesn't really work for me either

he is in an influential position to do something about this.. and he is using that influence to protect people

#1 It was an interview, he was not "under oath".
#2 He doesn't have to say anything simply because YOU think he should.
#3 He's a member of the media and even if he thought some dirty deed were true he would be a fool to spout off about it without proof and leave hmself and whomever he works for open to a slander lawsuit.
#4 He's allowed to cheer for or against whomever he wants. Just like you and I.

Monty Dog

To borrow another Sherwen phrase: "He's going to have to dig deep in that suitcase full of cash to get out of this one, or perhaps he gave it all to the UCI?"

mididoctors

dennisn wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

Kléber wrote:

For what it's worth I met Liggett a while back at Heathrow and he's not quite the believer some might think, he needs to be a cheerleader because of his employer. Now you might say that makes him a shifty sort but what I'm saying is that in private, sometimes people talk more freely...

Makes it worse in my book..he is an influential voice in a system designed to make money (via fraud?) that is applying pressure THROUGH him to protect the image of someone they have a vested financial interest as being seen to be clean

and he knows it!

his cheer leader status is not something he needs to maintain because if he doesn't he will starve to death

the argument "if it wasn't me then it would be someone else" doesn't really work for me either

he is in an influential position to do something about this.. and he is using that influence to protect people

#1 It was an interview, he was not "under oath".
#2 He doesn't have to say anything simply because YOU think he should.
#3 He's a member of the media and even if he thought some dirty deed were true he would be a fool to spout off about it without proof and leave hmself and whomever he works for open to a slander lawsuit.
#4 He's allowed to cheer for or against whomever he wants. Just like you and I.

you raise some interesting points except numbers;1, 2, 3 and 4 which are rubbish

dennisn

mididoctors wrote:

dennisn wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

Kléber wrote:

For what it's worth I met Liggett a while back at Heathrow and he's not quite the believer some might think, he needs to be a cheerleader because of his employer. Now you might say that makes him a shifty sort but what I'm saying is that in private, sometimes people talk more freely...

Makes it worse in my book..he is an influential voice in a system designed to make money (via fraud?) that is applying pressure THROUGH him to protect the image of someone they have a vested financial interest as being seen to be clean

and he knows it!

his cheer leader status is not something he needs to maintain because if he doesn't he will starve to death

the argument "if it wasn't me then it would be someone else" doesn't really work for me either

he is in an influential position to do something about this.. and he is using that influence to protect people

#1 It was an interview, he was not "under oath".
#2 He doesn't have to say anything simply because YOU think he should.
#3 He's a member of the media and even if he thought some dirty deed were true he would be a fool to spout off about it without proof and leave hmself and whomever he works for open to a slander lawsuit.
#4 He's allowed to cheer for or against whomever he wants. Just like you and I.

you raise some interesting points except numbers;1, 2, 3 and 4 which are rubbish

So he WAS under oath talking to that reporter? He HAS to say what YOU want him to?
The people he works for could care less what he says on television?? He must cheer for the person YOU want him to? I didn't know all that. Thanks for setting me straight. :? :?