Lance - what's going to happen?

2»

Comments

  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    I think he'd be under oath at the USADA hearing. It will be held by an independent arbitration board. They can subpoena, so I'm assuming they have a fairly firm legal standing, though they aren't a court of law (neither is CAS).

    Interesting, how about if he does nothing, mounts no defence and refuses to appear at the independent arbitration and just accepts what ever they hand down to him?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    wonder if the grand jury case will get opened again ?

    Seems the charges are the same ones they were investigating
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    He will be convicted by the Courts of Sport (I really hope), but he will never be convicted in a court of law. Myabe some lawsuits but not that many...

    No one outside of cycling will care either way...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,550
    Dave_1 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    I think he'd be under oath at the USADA hearing. It will be held by an independent arbitration board. They can subpoena, so I'm assuming they have a fairly firm legal standing, though they aren't a court of law (neither is CAS).

    Interesting, how about if he does nothing, mounts no defence and refuses to appear at the independent arbitration and just accepts what ever they hand down to him?

    Well presumably if they find he doped, and if he's previously said in court that he doesn't, then he's perjured himself. Perjury is just lying in court, you don't need to change your story to be found guilty of it.
    sherer wrote:
    wonder if the grand jury case will get opened again ?
    Seems the charges are the same ones they were investigating

    Possibly, but the GJ had to find that he paid for his gear with government money. I suspect that was the difficult bit, might not have kept receipts for that sort of thing....
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,550
    ddraver wrote:
    He will be convicted by the Courts of Sport (I really hope), but he will never be convicted in a court of law. Myabe some lawsuits but not that many...

    No one outside of cycling will care either way...

    He may well be open to private law suits for various forms of damages though.

    Is there not still something going on with a whistle-blower investigation featuring Floyd (who would stand to take a cut of money recouped)?
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    I think he'd be under oath at the USADA hearing. It will be held by an independent arbitration board. They can subpoena, so I'm assuming they have a fairly firm legal standing, though they aren't a court of law (neither is CAS).

    Interesting, how about if he does nothing, mounts no defence and refuses to appear at the independent arbitration and just accepts what ever they hand down to him?

    Well presumably if they find he doped, and if he's previously said in court that he doesn't, then he's perjured himself. Perjury is just lying in court, you don't need to change your story to be found guilty of it.
    sherer wrote:
    wonder if the grand jury case will get opened again ?
    Seems the charges are the same ones they were investigating

    Possibly, but the GJ had to find that he paid for his gear with government money. I suspect that was the difficult bit, might not have kept receipts for that sort of thing....

    would an arbitration panel's ruling that he doped be of the same force as a criminal court..wouldn't a court of law have to prove he doped before he could be accused of perjury in the courthouse of the SCA case?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,550
    Dave_1 wrote:
    would an arbitration panel's ruling that he doped be of the same force as a criminal court..wouldn't a court of law have to prove he doped before he could be accused of perjury in the courthouse of the SCA case?

    Blimey, think you might need to ask a lawyer that!

    Actually, having looked up the legal definitions of perjury, to perjure yourself you have to lie about something that is material to the case. The bonus case in 2006 was decided on the fact that his doping was actually irrelevant, as the contract didn't state he had to win clean. Therefore lying about it probably can't be considered perjury.

    You learn something new every day....
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,578
    I think the statute of limitations for perjury has past for the SCA case.
  • derbygrimpeur
    derbygrimpeur Posts: 822
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Cavendish will narrowly miss out on the TdF green jersey, but surprise everyone by attacking on Box Hill and soloing to victory in London in the Olympic RR.

    I like the thought of this. A LOT

Categories