I think that's why, whatever lies they've told in the past, we can be sure now that what Landis, Tyler and Big George have said in front of Novitzky is the truth.
another nail in the coffin
- Thread starter beastie
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I think that's why, whatever lies they've told in the past, we can be sure now that what Landis, Tyler and Big George have said in front of Novitzky is the truth.
Well this is an interesting, but perhaps subtle or moot even, point because the FDA don't actually care whether he (or Landis or Hamilton or Armstrong etc etc etc) doped or not. In so much as they used federal funds to buy drugs, yes, and/or supplied drugs to others, yes, and/or 'trafficed' drugs abroad, yes, but actually took drugs??? Not their remit. And they have no authority to ban riders. That all said, the evidence they collect could be used by other agencies (WADA, UCI, whoever). As I say, perhaps moot point but a distinction to be made none-the-less!
Edit: also, it is reported/suggested that those that testified before the grand jury would be offered immunity from prosecution (this in itself angered LAs PR machine, they didn't like the 'sweeteners'). Whether this immunity would extend to the content of their testimonies or not, I don't know. So I guess it is possible that Hinchapie (et al)'s testimony couldn't be used by other agencies. Possible but unlikely methinks. Remember, the only detail of testimony we've heard is the likes of Hamilton and Landis where the individuals themselves have decided to make public statements. Hinchapie's was leaked, and he denies it. And there have been others before the grand jury that we know either nothing of, or know no details of what they said.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Hincapie doesn't have to go public, he's given evidence under oath to the federal investigation. It's not his fault that information was leaked.
EDIT
wow - just noticed I've gone over a thousand posts here. Do I get a T shirt or anything?
You presume his testimony will enter the public domain at some point. That is not necessarily the case with Federal investigations. They don't all result in prosecutions. If not then the evidence may well be sealed.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Actually he hasn't explicitly denied anything in the quotes I've read. He's just refused to talk about what he said to the investigation. Best course given he is still competing and, if the leak is right, he's a doper.
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
That's correct. He has only denied speaking to 60 Minutes. He has not denied the contents of his testimony to the inquiry.
I did mean that he denied leaking any of his testimony. I was contrasting that to the situation of Landis and Hamilton, who have themselves explicitly made their allegations public and therefore those being available to other agencies (in the event of the USFDA not allowing the grand jury testimonies to be used by others).
I think what Hinchcapie said was something along the lines of 'he didn't know where 60 minutes got their information from'. Which I take as implying that is wasn't from him. He also said that he couldn't comment on the investigation. Straight by the book stuff and perfectly correct, imho.
He hasn't confirmed or denied the contents of his testimony because nobody outside of the inquiry knows what he said! Or should know, lets put it that way. So, splitting hairs, there is nothing in the public domain TO confirm or deny!
I think what Hinchcapie said was something along the lines of 'he didn't know where 60 minutes got their information from'. Which I take as implying that is wasn't from him. He also said that he couldn't comment on the investigation. Straight by the book stuff and perfectly correct, imho.
He hasn't confirmed or denied the contents of his testimony because nobody outside of the inquiry knows what he said! Or should know, lets put it that way. So, splitting hairs, there is nothing in the public domain TO confirm or deny!
if this is correct then it looks bad for Armstrong. It would be the easiest thing in the world for Hincapie to strenuously deny that he had any knowledge of drug taking.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
I cannot think of a single good reason for him not to strenuously deny that he had any knowledge of, or involvement in, drug taking if that were the case. To the investigation. To the journalists. To anyone who is willing to listen.
That he has chosen not to do so speak volumes to me. Big George could yet be the smoking gun.
and in other news I hear Clenbutador has had his hearing postponed until after TdeF. Will Prudhomme do the decent thing and uninvite him?
That's my spin on it too. The fact that Hincapie has given such a textbook legal response suggests (to me) that he doesn't want to publicly shop Armstrong. He hasn't lied to the grand jury (and his testimony squares with the allegations of Landis and Hamilton) and he cannot - or is unwilling to - say in public what he said behind closed doors so he is more-or-less forced to seek refuge behind 'cannot confirm nor deny'.
Of course, there is another possibility. That all 3 said to the grand jury that they saw nothing, but Landis and Hamilton decided to lie publicly! To sell books or whatever
Doesn't explain why Hincapie took the no comment line when 'I told the truth and Lance is innocent' wouldn't be lying and would significantly ease the burden for his friend!Sorry, I know this is another subject and there is a 'dirtie Bertie thread already but I simply have to respond to this! Contador is, as things currently stand, not guilty of doping. For him to have the invitation withdrawn for a presumption of guilt is against THE basic tenet of justice! It'd also be bad business, and ASO is a business!
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Invitations to join in the fun have been withdrawn in the past, including on Prudhomme's watch, for the unproven 'crime' of doing things, judged by ASO and other competant authorities, to be prejudicial to cycling's image.
Riding a Tour, and potentially winning it, whilst the authorities (WADA and UCI) are appealing an innocent verdict to CAS, the reversal of which would see you stripped of your title, is conduct prejudical to cycling's image, in my book. Cycling will be a laughing stock if Bert does well and then gets stripped of last years win.
If WADA and UCI are appealing do you think they are doing so in the hope that your innocent man will be found not guilty?
EDIT: PS LA hasn't been found guilty of anything by anyone (but in my book on the balance of probability he is guilty) but you don't appear to set much store by a presumption of innocence in that case do you?
Riding a Tour, and potentially winning it, whilst the authorities (WADA and UCI) are appealing an innocent verdict to CAS, the reversal of which would see you stripped of your title, is conduct prejudical to cycling's image, in my book. Cycling will be a laughing stock if Bert does well and then gets stripped of last years win.
If WADA and UCI are appealing do you think they are doing so in the hope that your innocent man will be found not guilty?
EDIT: PS LA hasn't been found guilty of anything by anyone (but in my book on the balance of probability he is guilty) but you don't appear to set much store by a presumption of innocence in that case do you?
Dave Davenport
Guru
- Location
- Hampshire
Why does he need these blokes if he's got nothing to hide?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-bolsters-legal-team
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-bolsters-legal-team
Smokin Joe
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
A bigger laughing stock than it was after Festina, or after Landis, or after countless other high profile cases? The time to worry about the sports image has long passed, now the need is to hammer anyone who is or has doped and frighten the shoot out of present and future riders who might be contemplating it.
One other thing with the federal investigation going on, we only hear about the high profile figures who have testified so far. There will also be mechanics, drivers, gofors of every description involved with the team(s) who will no doubt be called to testify too. These aren't highly rewarded employees who can afford top lawyers but average Joe's with families and mortgages. They are even less likely to risk jail time lying for LA than his team-mates and will know and have seen exactly what was going on.
Three things;
1 - I didn't say ASO wouldn't or couldn't un-invite Contador. Merely offered my opinion that it would be unjust IF a presumption of guilt were the reason. I'd apply the same reasoning for anyone. If Contador is stripped of any titles and cycling is shown to be a laughing stock, that's not the fault of the Giro, the TdF or ASO. They correctly allowed a 'at the time' innocent man to compete. As they should, imo. Cycling's image is not tarnished by them, nor are they the arbiters of it.
2 - I like Contador but I've stated several times I believe him to be guilty. WADA and UCI also believe Contador to be guilty. Currently, the law states he is innocent. Regardless of what anyone believes, the law has the final say. I accept that as equally WADA and UCI presumably do and will accept the decision of the CAS. They may well be 'disappointed' if it doesn't go their preferred way but they have little other option to accept it. Again, that's as it should be, imo.
3 - I make no apologies for my dislike of Armstrong and I do not try to hide it, but I don't assume him to be guilty. I believe him to be and hope he is proven to be but I want it to be proven justly. If for no other reason than to end the debate once and for all. I always try to write even handedly with regard to the established facts and on-going story. If I fail to do that than that is my belief leaking, it's not a presumption of guilt.
If there's one thing that should stand out from the above it is a very clear difference in my mind between what I believe and what the law says. That awareness under pins each of those 3 points. Whatever I may personally think about the individuals, I will primarily always want fair due process for both Contador (whom I like) and Armstrong (whom I dislike) - even if it doesn't lead to my preferred outcome. Finally, I am not in such a position were the disclosure of what I believe prejudices either case, so I'm at liberty to say what I believe. So I do.
1 - I didn't say ASO wouldn't or couldn't un-invite Contador. Merely offered my opinion that it would be unjust IF a presumption of guilt were the reason. I'd apply the same reasoning for anyone. If Contador is stripped of any titles and cycling is shown to be a laughing stock, that's not the fault of the Giro, the TdF or ASO. They correctly allowed a 'at the time' innocent man to compete. As they should, imo. Cycling's image is not tarnished by them, nor are they the arbiters of it.
2 - I like Contador but I've stated several times I believe him to be guilty. WADA and UCI also believe Contador to be guilty. Currently, the law states he is innocent. Regardless of what anyone believes, the law has the final say. I accept that as equally WADA and UCI presumably do and will accept the decision of the CAS. They may well be 'disappointed' if it doesn't go their preferred way but they have little other option to accept it. Again, that's as it should be, imo.
3 - I make no apologies for my dislike of Armstrong and I do not try to hide it, but I don't assume him to be guilty. I believe him to be and hope he is proven to be but I want it to be proven justly. If for no other reason than to end the debate once and for all. I always try to write even handedly with regard to the established facts and on-going story. If I fail to do that than that is my belief leaking, it's not a presumption of guilt.
If there's one thing that should stand out from the above it is a very clear difference in my mind between what I believe and what the law says. That awareness under pins each of those 3 points. Whatever I may personally think about the individuals, I will primarily always want fair due process for both Contador (whom I like) and Armstrong (whom I dislike) - even if it doesn't lead to my preferred outcome. Finally, I am not in such a position were the disclosure of what I believe prejudices either case, so I'm at liberty to say what I believe. So I do.
