Bizarre interview with FL

Wayne666 said:

Well the WADA code which all the riders agree to when they take out their UCI licenses lays out the due process for dope testing, etc.

If you read any of the arbitrator's decisions for USADA cases or CAS decisions this is clear. Landaluze got his suspension thrown out because of a violation of these rules.

However, I believe WADA only deals with dope tests. So building a case against a rider in the absence of a positive dope test must fall under some other rules. This appears to have been a USADA case and the reason they backed off may be that they realized they had no legal write to do what they were trying to do.

Agreed as to your first two points.

Regarding the third, you are correct that I made huge assumptions that the rules would be similar as they are under WADA. I don't know that to be the case, as I haven't reviewed the particular rules at issue, but I suspect in the US you can't test the B sample under the US rules without first having a positive A sample. I could be completely wrong in that assumption.

Your very last sentence however goes to my very point. They suddenly realized they couldn't do it under the rules? Hence, my previous statement about lack of due process, which I stand by. Ad hoc application of rules, [censored] nilly, random and arbitrary . . . .

You can have all the rules in the world on paper establishing what is required in order to meet due process, but if you don't follow them, that doesn't mean you met due process requirements, simply because it is covered in the rules. The rules are there for a reason . . . to set the standard and to be followed.

We're really talking about two different things and I've kind of muddied the waters by melding them together. Ad hoc application of rules and due process. They are not the same and one really.

Its no wonder the cyclists are up in arms about WADA processes not being adhered to. They spend tens of thousands of dollars each year on doping in a way that is designed to avoid detection in the initial test. The whole game relies on the system following the rules. If authorities are going to [censored] nilly go to step B without passing through the hoops in step A... then their whole investment goes down the drain.

I can't believe when I hear the argument that after a positive IRMS test... the cyclist is bleating about the fact that they shouldn't have done the test at all based on the them not getting a trigger on the initial ratio test. It's like the guy who gets caught with all the drugs in his house and complains that the police were supposed to warn him they were coming around to look first.

helmutRoole2 said:

I heard he tested positive at elite crit nats the year he won, 2006, but again the B test proved negative.

Anyone else hear that?

There have been a lot of stories swirling around him the past 6 months especially. Not sure where his A sample come up positive and his B negative - was it at Superweek? or another crit? who knows.

However, USADA need to follow rules on this. If they truly believe that he doped and that B sample came up positive.. well they need to let it go. But test the hell of out all his samples at every race he goes to, he can be one of the 'random' testing. Make sure to dot the i and cross the t, because with this seemingly lack of following rules they are alienating the fans. They need to get the fans, and then the sponsors behind them and not against them.
Americans love to rail against 'the man' who is seemed as unjust, and this is just the opening they need.

I wonder what Michael Ball's part in this is. He flat out denied that Kayle had tested positive. Was he in the dark? Did he know that there was no positive A sample so there would be no sanction?

earth_dweller said:

However, USADA need to follow rules on this. If they truly believe that he doped and that B sample came up positive.. well they need to let it go. But test the hell of out all his samples at every race he goes to, he can be one of the 'random' testing. Make sure to dot the i and cross the t, because with this seemingly lack of following rules they are alienating the fans. They need to get the fans, and then the sponsors behind them and not against them.
Americans love to rail against 'the man' who is seemed as unjust, and this is just the opening they need.

EXACTLY!!!!! He's got a target on his back now. Test the [censored] out of him, but follow the friggin' rules so as to maintain your credibility and authority, so people will take you seriously and respect you and support you so that you can do your job more effectively through more funding, etc.

C'dale Girl said:

EXACTLY!!!!! He's got a target on his back now. Test the [censored] out of him, but follow the friggin' rules so as to maintain your credibility and authority, so people will take you seriously and respect you and support you so that you can do your job more effectively through more funding, etc.

I can go along with that. Let him walk. I was never too keen on FLandis' B samples getting tested.

It's like the authorities have never sat down and contemplated the various scenarios that could arise and then prepared for them. Instead they are making it up as they go along. I think it's a sign that they have never been serious about fighting doping.

Bro Deal said:

I can go along with that. Let him walk. I was never too keen on FLandis' B samples getting tested.

It's like the authorities have never sat down and contemplated the various scenarios that could arise and then prepared for them. Instead they are making it up as they go along. I think it's a sign that they have never been serious about fighting doping.

But that is true, isn't it? Keep chugging along as if everything is normal. When an opportunity arises, strike, and use it to give the impression that you are hell bent on beating the doping problem. The only problem is they make a balls up of the process and then make everyone look bad.

C'dale Girl said:

Lying in a court of law is lying in a court of law. What difference does it make what the underlying proceeding is? The violation is . . . lying in a court of law. It's a crime.

WRONG!!

neither Martha Stewart nor Marion Jones lied in courts of law... they lied to Federal Investigators which if you are found out will land you in a Penatentary doing real time as both have found out... lying in a court of law will likely not result in you doing time as would lying to the Feds....

so if the Feds comes a knocking, you better answer truthfull or get used to getting cosy with your new wife/cell mate i.e. a 250lb man named bubba.

doctorSpoc said:

WRONG!!

neither Martha Stewart nor Marion Jones lied in courts of law... they lied to Federal Investigators which if you are found out will land you in a Penatentary doing real time as both have found out... lying in a court of law will likely not result in you doing time as would lying to the Feds....

so if the Feds comes a knocking, you better answer truthfull or get used to getting cosy with your new wife/cell mate i.e. a 250lb man named bubba.

Exactly what part of my post is wrong? I was discussing specifically lying in a court of law, in response to somebody else's post that inferring a difference between lying in a criminal and a civil legal proceeding. I didn't mention the feds at all. Yeah, obviously when it comes to punishment, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out there will be stiffer penalties if you lie to the feds than the muni court.

It's all right there in plain language. Read it.

C'dale Girl said:

Exactly what part of my post is wrong? I was discussing specifically lying in a court of law, in response to somebody else's post that inferring a difference between lying in a criminal and a civil legal proceeding. I didn't mention the feds at all. Yeah, obviously when it comes to punishment, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out there will be stiffer penalties if you lie to the feds than the muni court.

It's all right there in plain language. Read it.

I'm with C'dale Girl. Her point was valid. The whole Fed thing you are using as a contradiction wasn't even mentioned in her post. She was referring to perjury as being defined as a lie under oath in ANY COURT PROCEEDING... criminal or civil.

Crankyfeet said:

I'm with C'dale Girl. Her point was valid. The whole Fed thing you are using as a contradiction wasn't even mentioned in her post. She was referring to perjury as being defined as a lie under oath in ANY COURT PROCEEDING... criminal or civil.

Not to speak for doctorSpoc BUT, I think the point is, if you lie under oath to opposing counsel in a deposition or during trial in a civil court proceeding, the chances of getting pursued for perjury are virtually nil. But if you lie to federal prosecutors, you're playing with fire. At least, that's been my observation in my practice.

kennf said:

Not to speak for doctorSpoc BUT, I think the point is, if you lie under oath to opposing counsel in a deposition or during trial in a civil court proceeding, the chances of getting pursued for perjury are virtually nil. But if you lie to federal prosecutors, you're playing with fire. At least, that's been my observation in my practice.

I agree... but C'dale Girl was talking about the law... not the motivations of the feds. Her point wasn't about the Feds and lying to them in private interviews.

Crankyfeet said:

I agree... but C'dale Girl was talking about the law... not the motivations of the feds. Her point wasn't about the Feds and lying to them in private interviews.

Yep.

C'dale Girl said:

Exactly what part of my post is wrong? I was discussing specifically lying in a court of law, in response to somebody else's post that inferring a difference between lying in a criminal and a civil legal proceeding. I didn't mention the feds at all. Yeah, obviously when it comes to punishment, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out there will be stiffer penalties if you lie to the feds than the muni court.

It's all right there in plain language. Read it.

A) in all likely hood lying in a criminal case will likely garner a stiffer punishment than in a civil case depending on the gravity of the case of course.. so you statement in the majority of cases will in fact be wrong.

B) but the larger issues is... why the hell wouldn't you just point the poster you responded to, to the point that no one in any of the cases mentioned int this thread lied under oath in civil or criminal cases... so his post and your response have about as much relevance to the issues at hand in this thread as the price of tea in china...

C) my main point wast to point out that the post you responded to and your response have about as much relevance to the cases in the thread as the price of tea in china and should be really be ignored... i just wanted to make it very plain for all to see, since some seemed confused and though that it might actually have some relevance to what was being talked about...

doctorSpoc said:

B) but the larger issues is... why the hell wouldn't you just point the poster you responded to, to the point that no one in any of the cases mentioned int this thread lied under oath in civil or criminal cases... so his post and your response have about as much relevance to the issues at hand in this thread as the price of tea in china...

C) my main point wast to point out that the post you responded to and your response have about as much relevance to the cases in the thread as the price of tea in china and should be really be ignored... i just wanted to make it very plain for all to see, since some seemed confused and though that it might actually have some relevance to what was being talked about...

So, do you want to start counting how many threads have 100% of their posts completely relevant to the thread itself? 🙄

Crankyfeet said:

I agree... but C'dale Girl was talking about the law... not the motivations of the feds. Her point wasn't about the Feds and lying to them in private interviews.

Exactly. I agree with yours and DocSpoc's comments regarding the Feds and even said so in my last post. But, I was speaking about the definition of perjury generally speaking . . . nothing about punishment, nothing about the feds and nothing about if and when punishment is stiffer. None of those things ever came out of my mouth. It's very clearly all right there for reading. 😉

TheDarkLord said:

So, do you want to start counting how many threads have 100% of their posts completely relevant to the thread itself? 🙄

no... and i don't want to start counting the number of post that don't actually have a point are are devoid of logic either...

what is your point here? all i can think of is that you are saying that since irrelevant post are so numberous it should never be pointed out that they are irrelevant?? but you couldn't be saying that because that doesn't actually make any kind of sense.. right?

so what is your point? do you have a point? 🙄

doctorSpoc said:

no... and i don't want to start counting the number of post that don't actually have a point are are devoid of logic either...

what is your point here? all i can think of is that you are saying that since irrelevant post are so numberous it should never be pointed out that they are irrelevant?? but you couldn't be saying that because that doesn't actually make any kind of sense.. right?

so what is your point? do you have a point? 🙄

The point is that during a discussion, the topic under consideration can meander from the original starting point, and there is usually a logical trend. For instance, in this thread, the topic meandered from FL's interview to lies (as in Armstrong lied) followed by the question of whether civil perjury would be a crime under US law. But maybe that point is lost on you, and appeared to be pointless (just as you couldn't find a point in my previous post)??

TheDarkLord said:

The point is that during a discussion, the topic under consideration can meander from the original starting point, and there is usually a logical trend. For instance, in this thread, the topic meandered from FL's interview to lies (as in Armstrong lied) followed by the question of whether civil perjury would be a crime under US law. But maybe that point is lost on you, and appeared to be pointless (just as you couldn't find a point in my previous post)??

oooohhhh... ok... sorry, i get it now. so you were just taking the time to point out the obvious without actually having a goal, like advancing or focusing the discussion... thanks for that 🙄

doctorSpoc said:

oooohhhh... ok... sorry, i get it now. so you were just taking the time to point out the obvious without actually having a goal, like advancing or focusing the discussion... thanks for that 🙄

Absolutely! After all, that is how most discussions go anyway, right? 😉