Hey yo Leroy, we got some us some fresh meat!
- Thread starter roadhouse
- Start date
"a defense lawyer representing Armstrong, said any cyclists who claim that Armstrong doped were not telling the truth.
'They just want them to incriminate Lance Armstrong and that’s my concern,' Daly said".
my favourite part of the article. first it was the french lab which was out to get him, then the french in general, and now it's his former teammates. it is just so darn hard not to be persecuted these days.
'They just want them to incriminate Lance Armstrong and that’s my concern,' Daly said".
my favourite part of the article. first it was the french lab which was out to get him, then the french in general, and now it's his former teammates. it is just so darn hard not to be persecuted these days.
Yojimbo_ said:
Yeah, sure, Francis. Armstrong won't be suing anyone. He said so when FLandis started talking. As soon as he sued someone, he would open himself and former teammates to discovery. The last thing he wants is former teammates being deposed. Unfortunately for him, that is effectively happening with the grand jury.
Now both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have confirmed from ex-Postal members that there was a doping program at the team. This is completely apart from anything that Landis has said.
Bro Deal said:
It's all hearsay until some real evidence turns up and I haven't heard of any yet. All he has to do is deny it all and refer back to the 300 (or 500) clean tests he's had. If I was a juror and I had to choose between uncorroborated hearsay testimony and 300 clean tests, I'd be going with the 300 clean tests.
You know, there's lots of people out there who swear they've been anally probed by space aliens. I bet you don't believe them.
Yojimbo_ said:
I think we need to keep in mind that this is a federal government with a lot of resources and people working on this case. If they want to take him down the will. Also, hearsay from some of these people can be deemed expert witness testimony which is enough in a federal government case.
let's not buy into the skewing of the investigation being led by armstrong's lawyer. this investigation did not start "to get him." this investigation was instigated because federal monies may have been obtained under false pretenses and then misused. as far as i can tell from what i've read, mr. novitzky and the prosecutors conducting this investigation have no axe to grind against armstrong anymore than they did against bonds, clemens, et. al.
The press announced similar claims in novitzki's other high profile drugs case about 3 years ago. Apparently damning evidence combined with paperwork from the lab in question. Three years have passed... And stil not court date set...
... I wouldn't be too surprised if this was more of the same - putnout the perception that someone has talked in order to try and 'fish' someone, anyone; out to give any information.
The difference with the main scope of investigation with Armstrong is not just whether of not he doped but did the money provided by USPS, whether that direct funding or indirect from the sale of team assets, contribute towards equipment used for doping or pharmaceutical products that were used in doping - whether that be something as direct as viles of Epogen or something as simple as providing a small fridge used for holding blood bags or even something as bottles of DHEA.
Did 'any' part of that money go towards 'stuff' that wasn't UCI, IOC or even legal under US law.
... I wouldn't be too surprised if this was more of the same - putnout the perception that someone has talked in order to try and 'fish' someone, anyone; out to give any information.
The difference with the main scope of investigation with Armstrong is not just whether of not he doped but did the money provided by USPS, whether that direct funding or indirect from the sale of team assets, contribute towards equipment used for doping or pharmaceutical products that were used in doping - whether that be something as direct as viles of Epogen or something as simple as providing a small fridge used for holding blood bags or even something as bottles of DHEA.
Did 'any' part of that money go towards 'stuff' that wasn't UCI, IOC or even legal under US law.
does anyone think that Lance is lying to his lawyer? or would you think that his lawyer has been told the truth (as it may seem the truth means he's doped) and is not disclosing that info as it's client/lawyer privilege and would completely shatter him. in other words, can a lawyer lie to the federal investigators and courts even if lying means withholding the truth?
some of the sh!t this guy says is so unreal. Armstrong lawyer disputes teammate's doping claims - Cycling - Yahoo! Sports
“We understand that riders may be being offered sweetheart deals to change testimony that they have given in the past, under oath,” Daly said. “The power of the federal government is being abused to pursue dated and discredited allegations, and that’s flat-out wrong, unethical, un-American, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.”
some of the sh!t this guy says is so unreal. Armstrong lawyer disputes teammate's doping claims - Cycling - Yahoo! Sports
“We understand that riders may be being offered sweetheart deals to change testimony that they have given in the past, under oath,” Daly said. “The power of the federal government is being abused to pursue dated and discredited allegations, and that’s flat-out wrong, unethical, un-American, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.”
Yojimbo_ said:
1st person testimony is not hearsay.. if ten people testify that they saw you running out of the bank with a big bag of money and a gun in your hand at the exact time the bank was robbed and you don't have an alibi, odds are you're going to get convicted of armed robbery..
you simply don't know what hearsay is.. hearsay is when you present what SOMEONE ELSE has supposedly told you they saw or heard and is not usually admissible... but 1st person testimony, that you yourself heard or saw IS admissible and is considered evidence...
edit: further hearsay is not admissible because the person with 1st hand knowledge is not there to be cross examined, has not taken an oath to tell the truth under penalty of law (i.e. jail time if they lie) etc.. but if the person with 1st hand knowledge is there the judge can directly make a determination of how credible they are..
Yojimbo_ said:
also the investigation is not even about "getting armstrong" it's about getting to the bottom of whether the owners of the team (notice that armstrong is now claiming that he was not an owner at the time) misappropriated government monies for illegal purposes.. illegally purchasing controlled substances and defrauding race organizers and sponsors by cheating with these drugs.. this is not even directly about if armstrong cheated or not it's about if the team purchased the drugs.. the fraud part needs to determine if they used the drugs.. but again, this case is not directly about if armstrong used drugs or not..
doctorSpoc said:
You have to understand that dismissing evidence as "hearsay" has been the standard operating procedure of Armstrong chamois sniffers for several years now. They have no clue what it means. It just part of the standard Armstrong talking points. You really have to wonder about how stupid someone has to be to continue to use a word when they have no idea of what it means.
Bro Deal said:
Gents.
Perhaps you should re-read the article that was included in the first post in this thread and explain to me how that does not qualify as hearsay. Other than Landis, there are no names attached to any of the comments being made - all there is are references to remarks by unidentified riders who wish to remain anonymous. If that isn't hearsay I don't know what is.
Show me some first person evidence, and tell me who the first persons are who are giving that evidence. Other than Landis and what he's said, I still haven't heard anything concrete and I don't think you have either. And until there is something like that, it's still all hearsay whether you like it or not.
It's a little bit beyond heresay when stated and repeatedly published that people are talking.
Armstrong investigation intensifies; team-mates support doping claims | Latest News | Cycling Weekly
"Yesterday, a former team-mate of Armstrong told the newspaper he spoke with investigators and detailed his own drug use, in addition to "widespread cheating" in US Postal. He told the newspaper it was all done with Armstrong's knowledge and encouragement."
Armstrong investigation intensifies; team-mates support doping claims | Latest News | Cycling Weekly
"Yesterday, a former team-mate of Armstrong told the newspaper he spoke with investigators and detailed his own drug use, in addition to "widespread cheating" in US Postal. He told the newspaper it was all done with Armstrong's knowledge and encouragement."
roadhouse said:
It's all rumours and innuendo from unamed sources. The fact that it's published over and over doesn't make it more credible.
It's also hearsay - the author of the article is saying he heard that a former team-mate of Armstrong said something to somebody. It ceases to be hearsay when that former team-mate comes forward, identifies himself, and states categorically what he saw. Even then it won't mean much without corroboration.
I know it's hard for you to believe, but people sometimes lie about what they've seen - see my earlier remark about anal probes by space aliens.
Similar threads
