WSJ Part 2

1…45679

Comments

  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    Interview with Landis on American television. He doesn't look like he is lying about Armstrong to me...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyfbcVn4qJ8
  • paulcuthbert
    paulcuthbert Posts: 1,016
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Interview with Landis on American television. He doesn't look like he is lying about Armstrong to me...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyfbcVn4qJ8

    He wouldn't, to you
    The most painful climb in Northern Ireland http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6776_124247198694_548863694_2335754_8016178_n.jpg
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    paulcuthbert wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Interview with Landis on American television. He doesn't look like he is lying about Armstrong to me...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyfbcVn4qJ8
    He wouldn't, to you
    If you think that he looks like he is lying, please go ahead and point out the tell-tale signs...
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    BikingBernie wrote:
    paulcuthbert wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Interview with Landis on American television. He doesn't look like he is lying about Armstrong to me...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyfbcVn4qJ8
    He wouldn't, to you
    If you think that he looks like he is lying, please go ahead and point out the tell-tale signs...

    I think he looks just like when he told us he didn't dope.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    dennisn wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    paulcuthbert wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Interview with Landis on American television. He doesn't look like he is lying about Armstrong to me...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyfbcVn4qJ8
    He wouldn't, to you
    If you think that he looks like he is lying, please go ahead and point out the tell-tale signs...

    I think he looks just like when he told us he didn't dope.


    :lol::lol::lol::lol:
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • jonnycon
    jonnycon Posts: 116
    Pollys Bott wrote:
    jonnycon wrote:
    any evidence whatsoever that isn't anecdotal or from the mouths of already convicted dopers (not worth the paper it's written on) that will convict LA ?

    Eh? So if David Millar gives an interview in which he details how he took EPO yet beat the testing system none of it is credible? If Roberto Heras and Tyler Hamilton stand up in a courtroom and testify that USPS were on an EPO programme then that doesn't count as evidence? If Alejandro Valverde and Ivan Basso spill the beans about Dr Fuentes you wouldn't believe them?

    It doesn't matter what I believe or anyone else. The question is whether there is any evidence other than allegations from convicted dopers. You can point fingers and level accusations forever and a day unless they are corroborated by physical evidence (if there is any) then this will go precisely nowhere. If I stand up and proclaim myself a doper then its on me, if I point the finger at someone else you should reasonably expect me to produce some evidence of it. Is there any ?
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    jonnycon wrote:
    It doesn't matter what I believe or anyone else. The question is whether there is any evidence other than allegations from convicted dopers. You can point fingers and level accusations forever and a day unless they are corroborated by physical evidence (if there is any) then this will go precisely nowhere. If I stand up and proclaim myself a doper then its on me, if I point the finger at someone else you should reasonably expect me to produce some evidence of it. Is there any ?
    Plenty. (The tests showing Epo in Armstrong's 1999 Tour samples, for example, which many acknowledged experts would stand up and strongly argue are, scientifically speaking, perfectly valid). Beyond that, there is ample 'circumstantial' evidence and it looks like credible witnesses are already corroborating what Landis has said. Eye witness testimony is itself evidence. People have been convicted of murder on less evidence than stands against Armstrong, even when that evidence has been purely 'circumstantial'.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    jonnycon wrote:
    Pollys Bott wrote:
    jonnycon wrote:
    any evidence whatsoever that isn't anecdotal or from the mouths of already convicted dopers (not worth the paper it's written on) that will convict LA ?

    Eh? So if David Millar gives an interview in which he details how he took EPO yet beat the testing system none of it is credible? If Roberto Heras and Tyler Hamilton stand up in a courtroom and testify that USPS were on an EPO programme then that doesn't count as evidence? If Alejandro Valverde and Ivan Basso spill the beans about Dr Fuentes you wouldn't believe them?

    It doesn't matter what I believe or anyone else. The question is whether there is any evidence other than allegations from convicted dopers. You can point fingers and level accusations forever and a day unless they are corroborated by physical evidence (if there is any) then this will go precisely nowhere. If I stand up and proclaim myself a doper then its on me, if I point the finger at someone else you should reasonably expect me to produce some evidence of it. Is there any ?


    I'm not sold on this being about whether or not someone doped. With the exception of BB and his followers, who want LA taken down for doping, I don't think "The Authorities"
    are all that concerned about a yes or no answer from him about whether he did, didn't, or can't remember. "They" are looking at a bit more serious charges than whether someone doped at a bike race. While, obviously, doping is a serious transgression of "the biking code"(or something like that) for BB and some others on this site, I don't see it as any kind of case that would result in any punishment and therefore nothing that "The Authorities" will really pursue. I'm guessing that IF this thing goes to trial whether anyone did / didn't dope may not even be allowed to be introduced as evidence. But that's only how I see it. And remember that I'm an idiot according to more than a few people.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm guessing that IF this thing goes to trial whether anyone did / didn't dope may not even be allowed to be introduced as evidence.
    Out of interest, if a charge were brought relating to something like fraudulently using public funds to pay for a doping program, how on Earth do you think it could progress without it first being established that doping actually went on?
  • pollys_bott
    pollys_bott Posts: 1,012
    jonnycon wrote:
    It doesn't matter what I believe or anyone else. The question is whether there is any evidence other than allegations from convicted dopers. You can point fingers and level accusations forever and a day unless they are corroborated by physical evidence (if there is any) then this will go precisely nowhere. If I stand up and proclaim myself a doper then its on me, if I point the finger at someone else you should reasonably expect me to produce some evidence of it. Is there any ?

    Oh come on. Of course it matters what people believe - isn't that how trial by jury works? I don't quite get your beef with evidence from 'convicted dopers': so a rider who has just come back from a doping ban and his clean as a whistle team mate both see their team leader having a blood transfusion on a rest day, and when they're both questioned about it under oath you think that only one of their eye-witness accounts will be believed? Hypothetical situation: if ten people swear under oath that someone did something and the defendant swears that he didn't, and the circumstantial evidence weighs heavily in favour of the ten then you would expect a conviction, no? Balance of probability I think it's called :lol:

    Just check out any of BB's links for evidence... :wink:

    Dennis - can people plead the Fifth Amendment in pre-Grand Jury questioning?
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    BikingBernie wrote:
    jonnycon wrote:
    It doesn't matter what I believe or anyone else. The question is whether there is any evidence other than allegations from convicted dopers. You can point fingers and level accusations forever and a day unless they are corroborated by physical evidence (if there is any) then this will go precisely nowhere. If I stand up and proclaim myself a doper then its on me, if I point the finger at someone else you should reasonably expect me to produce some evidence of it. Is there any ?
    Plenty. (The tests showing Epo in Armstrong's 1999 Tour samples, for example, which many acknowledged experts would stand up and strongly argue are, scientifically speaking, perfectly valid). Beyond that, there is ample 'circumstantial' evidence and it looks like credible witnesses are already corroborating what Landis has said. Eye witness testimony is itself evidence. People have been convicted of murder on less evidence than stands against Armstrong, even when that evidence has been purely 'circumstantial'.

    Given that your raison d'être is LA being found guilty of anything doping related if it doesnt come to pass man you are gonna be devastated. Thats what happens when you fling your life and soul into something and it doesnt come off .
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Given that your raison d'être is LA being found guilty of anything doping related if it doesnt come to pass man you are gonna be devastated. Thats what happens when you fling your life and soul into something and it doesnt come off .

    You could say the same for someone who pretty obsessively only posts on the same subject too - you're going to find it pretty difficult to take the 'objective' view when your man is shown to be a complete fraud. I'll now sit back and await your typical riposte - attacking the poster, not the subject.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    BikingBernie wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm guessing that IF this thing goes to trial whether anyone did / didn't dope may not even be allowed to be introduced as evidence.
    Out of interest, if a charge were brought relating to something like fraudulently using public funds to pay for a doping program, how on Earth do you think it could progress without it first being established that doping actually went on?

    I'm trying to think like a lawyer. Actual doping by any particular person doesn't have anything to do with using public funds blah, blah, blah..... Just sounds like an arguement a lawyer would use. It wouldn't surprise me. Judges are picky about what they will admit as evidence depending on what crime is alleged to have taken place. As an example. Wasn't it the OJ case where testimony about him allegedly beating his wife was not allowed in his muder trial? I could be wrong and thinking about something else.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Pollys Bott wrote:
    jonnycon wrote:
    It doesn't matter what I believe or anyone else. The question is whether there is any evidence other than allegations from convicted dopers. You can point fingers and level accusations forever and a day unless they are corroborated by physical evidence (if there is any) then this will go precisely nowhere. If I stand up and proclaim myself a doper then its on me, if I point the finger at someone else you should reasonably expect me to produce some evidence of it. Is there any ?



    Dennis - can people plead the Fifth Amendment in pre-Grand Jury questioning?

    Don't know. Not a lawyer. I would think you could plead the 5th, as it protects you from incriminating yourself. Just not sure. Whoops, just re-read that and caught your PRE-GRAND JURY question. Not sure what PRE-Grand Jury means. To be honest I haven't been "hauled in for questioning" all that much. :wink:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Monty Dog wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Given that your raison d'être is LA being found guilty of anything doping related if it doesnt come to pass man you are gonna be devastated. Thats what happens when you fling your life and soul into something and it doesnt come off .

    You could say the same for someone who pretty obsessively only posts on the same subject too - you're going to find it pretty difficult to take the 'objective' view when your man is shown to be a complete fraud. I'll now sit back and await your typical riposte - attacking the poster, not the subject.

    OK MD. I'm admitting defeat in our big money wager. It seemed, at the time, that RS had a good team on paper and could have gotten someone up there. Oh well, that's why they call it gambling. PM me your address and I'll send you a crisp, clean 20.
  • pollys_bott
    pollys_bott Posts: 1,012
    dennisn wrote:
    Don't know. Not a lawyer. I would think you could plead the 5th, as it protects you from incriminating yourself. Just not sure. Whoops, just re-read that and caught your PRE-GRAND JURY question. Not sure what PRE-Grand Jury means. To be honest I haven't been "hauled in for questioning" all that much. :wink:

    Must be me mis-reading earlier posts of yours regarding the legal process - I thought you said people would be questioned under oath and then a judge would decide whether there was enough evidence to go to a Grand Jury. I'm specifically thinking of the former Mrs Armstrong - sure I read here somewhere that she was asked in trial whether LA doped and her lawyer advised her not to answer the question; I'm just curious as to whether she would have the 'get-out' clause of the Fifth were she 'hauled in for questioning' :wink:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Pollys Bott wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Don't know. Not a lawyer. I would think you could plead the 5th, as it protects you from incriminating yourself. Just not sure. Whoops, just re-read that and caught your PRE-GRAND JURY question. Not sure what PRE-Grand Jury means. To be honest I haven't been "hauled in for questioning" all that much. :wink:

    Must be me mis-reading earlier posts of yours regarding the legal process - I thought you said people would be questioned under oath and then a judge would decide whether there was enough evidence to go to a Grand Jury. I'm specifically thinking of the former Mrs Armstrong - sure I read here somewhere that she was asked in trial whether LA doped and her lawyer advised her not to answer the question; I'm just curious as to whether she would have the 'get-out' clause of the Fifth were she 'hauled in for questioning' :wink:

    Depending on the locale, EITHER a Judge OR a Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to bring the matter to trial. A Grand Jury(or Judge) is not a trial.
    As for Mrs. Ex LA, all I'm sure of is that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Monty Dog wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Given that your raison d'être is LA being found guilty of anything doping related if it doesnt come to pass man you are gonna be devastated. Thats what happens when you fling your life and soul into something and it doesnt come off .

    You could say the same for someone who pretty obsessively only posts on the same subject too - you're going to find it pretty difficult to take the 'objective' view when your man is shown to be a complete fraud. I'll now sit back and await your typical riposte - attacking the poster, not the subject.

    I dont think you know the meaning of objectivity when it comes to LA to be honest. You are full of vitriol and hatred towards him at the end of the day he is a professional cyclist who may or may not have cheated not some serial killer. At times a sense of perspective is hard to find round these parts. As for attacking the poster we saw ample evidence of that from you a week or so back when you got all personal. Now i couldnt give a monkeys about that but find it hugely ironic when someone like yourself accuses me of that yet quite likes to indulge in a bit of that himself.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • pollys_bott
    pollys_bott Posts: 1,012
    dennisn wrote:
    Depending on the locale, EITHER a Judge OR a Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to bring the matter to trial. A Grand Jury(or Judge) is not a trial.
    As for Mrs. Ex LA, all I'm sure of is that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.

    Thank you for clarifying... :)
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:

    Depending on the locale, EITHER a Judge OR a Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to bring the matter to trial. A Grand Jury(or Judge) is not a trial.
    As for Mrs. Ex LA, all I'm sure of is that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.

    She can be compelled to give evidence to the grand jury. Refusal to answer a question at a grand jury would result in the person being held in contempt of court. And lying would be perjury. And there will be no lawyer present.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • jonnycon
    jonnycon Posts: 116
    Pollys Bott wrote:
    jonnycon wrote:
    It doesn't matter what I believe or anyone else. The question is whether there is any evidence other than allegations from convicted dopers. You can point fingers and level accusations forever and a day unless they are corroborated by physical evidence (if there is any) then this will go precisely nowhere. If I stand up and proclaim myself a doper then its on me, if I point the finger at someone else you should reasonably expect me to produce some evidence of it. Is there any ?

    Oh come on. Of course it matters what people believe - isn't that how trial by jury works? I don't quite get your beef with evidence from 'convicted dopers': so a rider who has just come back from a doping ban and his clean as a whistle team mate both see their team leader having a blood transfusion on a rest day, and when they're both questioned about it under oath you think that only one of their eye-witness accounts will be believed? Hypothetical situation: if ten people swear under oath that someone did something and the defendant swears that he didn't, and the circumstantial evidence weighs heavily in favour of the ten then you would expect a conviction, no? Balance of probability I think it's called :lol:

    Just check out any of BB's links for evidence... :wink:

    Dennis - can people plead the Fifth Amendment in pre-Grand Jury questioning?

    In the UK the prosecution have prove something occured beyond all reasonable doubt all the defence have to show is that it didn't on the balance of probability but, beyond all reasonable doubt is rightly a very hard test to meet and is usually done so with a 'smoking gun', I don't know but I would think American law is similar. Before anything gets to the courts it has to be pretty robust. Circumstantial evidence is very good in some instances and is useful in supporting the hard facts but it would be a brave court indeed that allowed a convinction based on that alone. The dopers crawling out of the woodwork are already shown to be liars. Landis has lied to just about everyone, he has stolen money from his fans to fuel his defence, he has committed perjury, he is a caught and convicted doper, despite all this he approached the person he alleged led him down that path and asked him for a job, he suddenly got a bout of conscience when he was turned down. His credibility is non existant. The same argument will be applied to any other witness. What they need is a credible witness with no convictions producing a piece of evidence that proves their point, not just "I saw him do it"
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    Landis wasn't credible in the past, only the most gullible thought he rode clean. In stepping forward to cooperate with the authorities he has gained in stature, albeit by a small amount. Even if he is a bad witness, if his accounts match those given by others.

    Anyway, surely only a retarded ostrich with memory loss problems still thinks US Postal were riding clean whilst everyone else was doping?
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... etour.html

    Imagine a group of self-selected men who fraudulently rake in millions of dollars. They bribe officials to suppress evidence of their crimes and use secret bank accounts to evade taxes. Their leader promises to destroy anyone who breaks their code of silence.

    A bit dramatic but ....
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • hotoph88
    hotoph88 Posts: 58
    Kléber wrote:
    Anyway, surely only a retarded ostrich with memory loss problems still thinks US Postal were riding clean whilst everyone else was doping?

    Thanks - an image to carry through the day ! - its that sort of comment which makes it worthwhile reading these boards.
  • samiam
    samiam Posts: 227
    Wow, Armstrong is totally fucked. I honestly thought it would all blow over, but he is going down big time.

    Craaaazyyy.
  • pollys_bott
    pollys_bott Posts: 1,012
    jonnycon wrote:
    In the UK the prosecution have prove something occured beyond all reasonable doubt all the defence have to show is that it didn't on the balance of probability

    So if ten people say 'I saw him do it' and the defendant says 'I didn't do it', and the circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the ten saying 'he did it', are you seriously suggesting that the defence could say 'the balance of probability is on our side' :?
    jonnycon wrote:
    The dopers crawling out of the woodwork are already shown to be liars. Landis has lied to just about everyone, he has stolen money from his fans to fuel his defence, he has committed perjury, he is a caught and convicted doper, despite all this he approached the person he alleged led him down that path and asked him for a job, he suddenly got a bout of conscience when he was turned down. His credibility is non existant. The same argument will be applied to any other witness.

    Absolutely agree with you that Landis is on a very sticky wicket credibility wise, but it's not just about him is it? Your stacking up of reasons to doubt Landis is correct, but could they be used against Prentice Steffen or Armstrong's cancer consultants present at his alleged confession for example?
    jonnycon wrote:
    What they need is a credible witness with no convictions producing a piece of evidence that proves their point, not just "I saw him do it"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Jones
    Read section 4 - the US legal system doesn't seem to have had much of a problem relying on eye-witness testimony from dopers here eh? And he was her ex-spouse, what a cad! :lol:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    samiam wrote:
    Wow, Armstrong is totally farked. I honestly thought it would all blow over, but he is going down big time.

    Craaaazyyy.

    Whoa, not so fast. What you say may / may not happen, but the people investigating this
    haven't decided if they have enough evidence to go before a Grand Jury. If they do think they have enough then the Grand Jury has to agree. If they agree, THEN it goes to trial. And I still think that this is not going to be about whether LA doped or not. In the end it may not even be about LA in particular. I think some people are making the mistake of thinking that this is about someone using drugs. To me that's the small view of this.
  • jonnycon
    jonnycon Posts: 116
    Pollys Bott wrote:
    jonnycon wrote:
    In the UK the prosecution have prove something occured beyond all reasonable doubt all the defence have to show is that it didn't on the balance of probability

    So if ten people say 'I saw him do it' and the defendant says 'I didn't do it', and the circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the ten saying 'he did it', are you seriously suggesting that the defence could say 'the balance of probability is on our side' :?
    jonnycon wrote:
    The dopers crawling out of the woodwork are already shown to be liars. Landis has lied to just about everyone, he has stolen money from his fans to fuel his defence, he has committed perjury, he is a caught and convicted doper, despite all this he approached the person he alleged led him down that path and asked him for a job, he suddenly got a bout of conscience when he was turned down. His credibility is non existant. The same argument will be applied to any other witness.


    jonnycon wrote:
    What they need is a credible witness with no convictions producing a piece of evidence that proves their point, not just "I saw him do it"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Jones
    Read section 4 - the US legal system doesn't seem to have had much of a problem relying on eye-witness testimony from dopers here eh? And he was her ex-spouse, what a cad! :lol:
    Ok if 100 people arrive at court and say LA doped you may think that he doped that's a lot of people saying it, what then if 100 people turn up at court with LA and say he didn't dope, legally who do you believe ? I referred to the 'smoking gun' that doesn't appear to be here. If LA's name was associated with op puerto for instance and witnesses said that he doped then that would add some credence to the allegation.
    I believe the senior doctor in charge of his treatment has said that LA didn't say he had taken doping prducts, also stating that he would have been made aware of any statement by LA referring to performance enhancing substances by his associates. No such conversation is recorded and apparently it isn't recorded in his medical notes. Now that is a massive cover up if we believe that someone treating an individual for a critical illness wouldn't record detail relevant to cause/treatment. As a comparison Pantani's discussions with medical staff re. doping are recorded.


    Re. Marion Jones A man scorned eh !!! Don't know enough to comment on this but I'm certain that there must have been more evidence to elicit such a frank admission. Would this be likely from LA ?
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    Isn't ironic that the least credible accuser (Landis) may be the one that finally causes the Armstrong myth to be fully exposed.
  • pollys_bott
    pollys_bott Posts: 1,012
    jonnycon wrote:
    Ok if 100 people arrive at court and say LA doped you may think that he doped that's a lot of people saying it, what then if 100 people turn up at court with LA and say he didn't dope, legally who do you believe ?

    Easy - the ones who aren't committing perjury :lol:
    jonnycon wrote:
    I referred to the 'smoking gun' that doesn't appear to be here. If LA's name was associated with op puerto for instance and witnesses said that he doped then that would add some credence to the allegation.

    Failed corticosteroid test? EPO in six urine samples? Association with Ferrari? Surely if a procession of former team-mates take the stand and say that they saw him dope that would 'add some credence?'
    jonnycon wrote:
    I believe the senior doctor in charge of his treatment has said that LA didn't say he had taken doping prducts, also stating that he would have been made aware of any statement by LA referring to performance enhancing substances by his associates. No such conversation is recorded and apparently it isn't recorded in his medical notes. Now that is a massive cover up if we believe that someone treating an individual for a critical illness wouldn't record detail relevant to cause/treatment. As a comparison Pantani's discussions with medical staff re. doping are recorded.

    Well, if I were a doctor and someone was writing my hospital a cheque for half a million bucks I'd probably try to not drop him in the crap either... :wink:
    jonnycon wrote:
    Re. Marion Jones A man scorned eh !!! Don't know enough to comment on this but I'm certain that there must have been more evidence to elicit such a frank admission. Would this be likely from LA ?

    The point being that there doesn't appear to be a smoking gun for Marion Jones either. BALCO was investigated after Victor Conte said that he supplied her drugs and in the federal investigation her ex said that he saw her take them. She denied it when quizzed by the feds but eventually she admitted that they were right all along. No smoking gun, just eye-witness testimony from a supplier of illegal drugs and a convicted drugs cheat... consider her associations with dubious characters and constant parroting of 'never failed a test'... ring any bells? :wink:

Categories