Armstrong contradicts sworn testimony

dennisn

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

he's got a credible defence then. He wasn't involved in managing US sponsorship monies. I somehow doubt betsy's word will be sufficient to put LA in jail...Tyler looks like he could talk. Hincapie's only rich cause of LA...he'd be a nobody needing a full-time job for 20 years post cycling just to live...I do believe he would take a bullet for LA

You think a man with a young family who decided a few years ago that he didn't want do doping any more is prepared to go to jail to protect Armstrongs interests?

Hincapie left Disco a year after LA retired from Disco. Contract ended, no role? Am not sure where it's been said that big George decided to "go clean" and therefore had to leave Disco. Hincapie I read has land and chalets back in USA and, the property/resort plot is named after his stage finish he won in the 05 TDF. He's earned fabulously from LA and would otherwise not be remembered and would have to work for a living post cycling career. He's completely LA and loses if LA loses

This isn't true. Hincapie was at Discovery until the end (the bitter end I think, at the Tour of MIssouri 2007)

The reason he left was because the team didn't exist anymore

That's how I remember it.

dave_1

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

he's got a credible defence then. He wasn't involved in managing US sponsorship monies. I somehow doubt betsy's word will be sufficient to put LA in jail...Tyler looks like he could talk. Hincapie's only rich cause of LA...he'd be a nobody needing a full-time job for 20 years post cycling just to live...I do believe he would take a bullet for LA

You think a man with a young family who decided a few years ago that he didn't want do doping any more is prepared to go to jail to protect Armstrongs interests?

Hincapie left Disco a year after LA retired from Disco. Contract ended, no role? Am not sure where it's been said that big George decided to "go clean" and therefore had to leave Disco. Hincapie I read has land and chalets back in USA and, the property/resort plot is named after his stage finish he won in the 05 TDF. He's earned fabulously from LA and would otherwise not be remembered and would have to work for a living post cycling career. He's completely LA and loses if LA loses

This isn't true. Hincapie was at Discovery until the end (the bitter end I think, at the Tour of MIssouri 2007)

The reason he left was because the team didn't exist anymore

ok, my mistake.., am just not sure he suddenly converted to go clean riding -if he ever doped that is.., more that Disco ended and he had to move on?

iainf72

Not quite. Hincapie had signed with High Horse before Disco ceased, but he did ride out their final season with them.

But he'd decided to leave before the team folded.

donrhummy

iainf72 wrote:

"I didn't own the company. I didn't have an equity stake. I didn't have a profit stake. I didn't have a seat on the board. I can't be any clearer than that."

He's not say "at that time" - Perhaps that's what he meant, but it sounds very much like a reversal.

Yeah except they were talking specifically about when the bikes were sold and Floyd found out about it. I think context here is important.

iainf72

Floyd Lawyer Strikes back

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... er_cy.html

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

Floyd Lawyer Strikes back

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... er_cy.html

"The new news that Mr. Herman and Mr. Armstrong fail to appreciate is that Mr. Landis no longer considers himself subject to the code of omertà, which Mr. Armstrong has been and continues to be the chief enforcer (of) among the peloton," said Handfelt.

Quite so...

dennisn

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Floyd Lawyer Strikes back

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... er_cy.html

"The new news that Mr. Herman and Mr. Armstrong fail to appreciate is that Mr. Landis no longer considers himself subject to the code of omertà, which Mr. Armstrong has been and continues to be the chief enforcer (of) among the peloton," said Handfelt.

Quite so...

Somebody please put a gag order on all these riders and lawyers. They're all starting to sound like, dare I say it, politicians. Mudslinging, half truths, zero truths, who knows what's the truth. Disgusting from all concerned. Just shut the f*ck up and let whomever is investigating whomever get on with it.

paulcuthbert

dennisn wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Floyd Lawyer Strikes back

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... er_cy.html

"The new news that Mr. Herman and Mr. Armstrong fail to appreciate is that Mr. Landis no longer considers himself subject to the code of omertà, which Mr. Armstrong has been and continues to be the chief enforcer (of) among the peloton," said Handfelt.

Quite so...

Somebody please put a gag order on all these riders and lawyers. They're all starting to sound like, dare I say it, politicians. Mudslinging, half truths, zero truths, who knows what's the truth. Disgusting from all concerned. Just shut the f*ck up and let whomever is investigating whomever get on with it.

+1

iainf72

Thing I just learnt : At a Grand Jury in the US, when someone is questioned, they will generally not have a lawyer present.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

Thing I just learnt : At a Grand Jury in the US, when someone is questioned, they will generally not have a lawyer present.

A Grand Jury is convened to determine if they feel that there is enough evidence to bring
whomever to actual trial. If the Grand Jury doesn't see enough evidence(in their opinion)
then no trial(at that time). I do believe that another Grand Jury could be called if new evidence appears.

lucybears

Armstrong attorney explains apparent contradiction on Tailwind ownership
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/07/ ... hip_129107

pastasauce

i'm bored

Monty Dog

My understanding is that any evidence/testimony submitted by an individual to a Grand Jury is "under oath" and if subsequently found to be false can result in prosecution of the individual. A lot depends on who is deposed.

Apparently Greg Lemond has some fairly strong evidence too and he'll obviously welcome the chance to submit which the out of court settlement with Trek prevented him from doing so. Trek/LA were prevented from putting a restriction on him as part of the settlement.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

Thing I just learnt : At a Grand Jury in the US, when someone is questioned, they will generally not have a lawyer present.

Usually the DEFENDENT is not even present and if he / she is present they most likely won't have a lawyer..

moray_gub

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Thing I just learnt : At a Grand Jury in the US, when someone is questioned, they will generally not have a lawyer present.

Usually the DEFENDENT is not even present and if he / she is present they most likely won't have a lawyer..

Whats is the point of Grand Jury arent they just doing the job of a DA or public prosecutor or in my country a Procurator Fiscal who decides if there is enough evidence to go to trail. Seems like a waste of public money to me.

dennisn

Moray Gub wrote:

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Thing I just learnt : At a Grand Jury in the US, when someone is questioned, they will generally not have a lawyer present.

Usually the DEFENDENT is not even present and if he / she is present they most likely won't have a lawyer..

Whats is the point of Grand Jury arent they just doing the job of a DA or public prosecutor or in my country a Procurator Fiscal who decides if there is enough evidence to go to trail. Seems like a waste of public money to me.

Well, a waste of public money by any government shouldn't come as too much of a shock to anyone.
In any case only about half the States have Grand Juries. The rest use what's called preliminary hearing in which a judge decides if the evidence merits a trial. What the Lance watchers aren't going to like is that, if this goes to a Grand Jury, well, all the proceedings are secret. So you won't know what happened or what evidence was given unless the Grand Jury says that they feel there was a crime that needs to be answered to. If they don't "like" the evidence then the matter dies right then and there.

As an afterthought , there are no judges in a Grand Jury.

dennisn

Monty Dog wrote:

My understanding is that any evidence/testimony submitted by an individual to a Grand Jury is "under oath" and if subsequently found to be false can result in prosecution of the individual. A lot depends on who is deposed.

Normally the accused, and anyone who might testify on his behalf, are NOT called to testify. That's normally, and I don't see why this case would not be normal. So to speak.
Of course, this Grand Jury thing may never happen if the prosecutor feels he doesn't have a case.

rick_chasey

As far as I am aware, and I am only informed by the Wire, the person called to Grand Jury does not have an obligation to answer any of the questions given....

dennisn

Rick Chasey wrote:

As far as I am aware, and I am only informed by the Wire, the person called to Grand Jury does not have an obligation to answer any of the questions given....

People called to testify by the Grand Jury can be compelled to testify or face contempt charges. Although the accused will not normally be called, nor will any of his supporters or lawyers.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

As far as I am aware, and I am only informed by the Wire, the person called to Grand Jury does not have an obligation to answer any of the questions given....

Maybe we should call Armstrong to Stringer Bell instead then.

sherer

when did the team stop being US Postal. Wasn't that in 04 anyway and if LA wasn't an owner of Tailwind until after the USPS sponsorship money stopped then he can't really be done for fraud of misuse of money

mididoctors

sherer wrote:

when did the team stop being US Postal. Wasn't that in 04 anyway and if LA wasn't an owner of Tailwind until after the USPS sponsorship money stopped then he can't really be done for fraud of misuse of money

looks like that is going to be the defense...

dave_1

Moray Gub wrote:

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Thing I just learnt : At a Grand Jury in the US, when someone is questioned, they will generally not have a lawyer present.

Usually the DEFENDENT is not even present and if he / she is present they most likely won't have a lawyer..

Whats is the point of Grand Jury arent they just doing the job of a DA or public prosecutor or in my country a Procurator Fiscal who decides if there is enough evidence to go to trail. Seems like a waste of public money to me.

+ 1

afx237vi

Rick Chasey wrote:

As far as I am aware, and I am only informed by the Wire, the person called to Grand Jury does not have an obligation to answer any of the questions given....

Good old Horseface.

dennisn

Dave_1 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Thing I just learnt : At a Grand Jury in the US, when someone is questioned, they will generally not have a lawyer present.

Usually the DEFENDENT is not even present and if he / she is present they most likely won't have a lawyer..

Whats is the point of Grand Jury arent they just doing the job of a DA or public prosecutor or in my country a Procurator Fiscal who decides if there is enough evidence to go to trail. Seems like a waste of public money to me.

+ 1

FWIW the Grand Jury concept was started in England in 1166 by Henry II.

dennisn

mididoctors wrote:

sherer wrote:

when did the team stop being US Postal. Wasn't that in 04 anyway and if LA wasn't an owner of Tailwind until after the USPS sponsorship money stopped then he can't really be done for fraud of misuse of money

looks like that is going to be the defense...

Don't forget that there is no defense presented at the Grand Jury. Only if the matter goes to trial.

stokepa31

dennisn wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

sherer wrote:

when did the team stop being US Postal. Wasn't that in 04 anyway and if LA wasn't an owner of Tailwind until after the USPS sponsorship money stopped then he can't really be done for fraud of misuse of money

looks like that is going to be the defense...

Don't forget that there is no defense presented at the Grand Jury. Only if the matter goes to trial.

without physical evidence this will go nowhere. Landis is as reliable as an old skoda and the rest will merely give a testimony i.e. their word against LA. you cant go to court and expect to win with just sworn testimony. this aint the balance of probability or the man on the clapham omnibus. THIS WILL GO NOWHERE and your all just wearing out yer keyboards. ride yer bike and watch the tour

dennisn

stokepa31 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

sherer wrote:

when did the team stop being US Postal. Wasn't that in 04 anyway and if LA wasn't an owner of Tailwind until after the USPS sponsorship money stopped then he can't really be done for fraud of misuse of money

looks like that is going to be the defense...

Don't forget that there is no defense presented at the Grand Jury. Only if the matter goes to trial.

without physical evidence this will go nowhere. Landis is as reliable as an old skoda and the rest will merely give a testimony i.e. their word against LA. you cant go to court and expect to win with just sworn testimony. this aint the balance of probability or the man on the clapham omnibus. THIS WILL GO NOWHERE and your all just wearing out yer keyboards. ride yer bike and watch the tour

I tend to agree with the "GO NOWHERE" statement. First the investigation must be completed. Then whomever is going to prosecute must decide if he has enough evidence to present to a Grand Jury(16-24 people). If he can convince them then
it goes to trial at some future date, depending on whether a "deal" can be worked out by both parties. So if anyone is counting on a quick resolution of all this I'm thinking that, go ahead and plan this years ski vacation, and next years TDF holiday, and you still won't be in any danger of missing anything.

dennisn

Here's an topic. What is and / or who has, the so called, "still hot, smokin gun" in all this?

mididoctors

dennisn wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

sherer wrote:

when did the team stop being US Postal. Wasn't that in 04 anyway and if LA wasn't an owner of Tailwind until after the USPS sponsorship money stopped then he can't really be done for fraud of misuse of money

looks like that is going to be the defense...

Don't forget that there is no defense presented at the Grand Jury. Only if the matter goes to trial.

ok tactic to avoid trial then

if it is established he didn't have holdings then the charge is dropped/never indited etc irrespective of who persuaded who to take PEDS?

because the only crime being investigated is misuse of public monies?

is that right?