Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Hearing - Tue: Landis Cross

The room is filling up, but not insanely so. Young has walked into the room with his kind of loping gate, accented by his hunched shoulders. Weiss is moving back and forth setting up technical things for the Landis table. Barnett comes in, and Mr. Dunn is sitting down at the USADA table. Maybe we'll have a three-man tag team on the Landis cross.

For the first time I've seen, there is a biker present, an older fellow with close cropped grey beard in an LPR brakes jersey and black skull cap. He's in black socks, his cleated shoes left elsewhere.


Arnie Baker has been sitting in the back row of the well with Paul and Arlene. Scott comes in, as does Kay, who plugs in. Brian Rafferty of the FFF is in the audience. Landis and Henson come in together, along with Jacobs.

Suh is here, and it looks like we're all present but for the Panel.

The press rules have gotten way more relaxed than they started. There are numerous still cameras shooting, as well as laptops galore in the audience.

Landis looks like he got another haircut, and is sitting still and tense; it's quiet. He looks around to see who is here; Suh and Jacobs confer behind Scott's back. Rafferty and Henson are in the back of the audience, busily surfing the web and reading mail.

It could not be more quiet.

Brunet walks in; Campbell, then Mclaren.

BRUNET: Morning Everyone. Day 8.


Time: Landis 4.4 hrs; USADA 11.2

Motion to strike Lemond is UNANIMOUSLY denied; reasons to follow.


Barnett is asking about sample collection. Landis has seen the form, checks the samples, picked the bottle, split the samples, and bottles seemed to be locked, it's his signature, normal process, same as every other sample at the tour.

Asks about doping in cycling, and that some have problems, and it threatens the sport, and agrees suspensions are in order. Doesn't think he's talked about testosterone with team doctors and team officials. Doping has come up in conversations with cyclists. Admits having looked things up on the internet over time to educate himself.

Has he heard of microdosing? Understood what he meant by microdosing. Has heard rumours of T patches. Hasn't heard of certain german doctors talking about it; Pulls up a Jul 28 Cycling news article, EX 123. Second page reference fo Moosburger quote about T. He doesn't remember hearing any details; has heard of the patch before.

When he signed with Phonak, did he consider number of doping riders? He did. Given Jul 29 cycling news, "6 years 11 scandals, the phonak legacy" He signed in August 2004; He says he testified for Hamilton.

He says he talked with Rihs about the doping stuff, and cleaning house, and he was happy with the changes that were going to be made. Landis notes that Hamilton and Perez were after he signed.

Asked about Tour of Georgia and Moos who was sent home; he says it was wise to make a statement they weren't going to put up with it. Asked about Santi Gonzalez, he goes into team policy. Phonak concerned, more restrictive than the UCI limit at maybe 47. He thinks it was the Phonak limit that was hit, not the UCI test.

Asked about Guidi and EPO, the B was negative. In 2006 Urweider positive for T. Asked about riders removed from Tour, Guiterrez and Botero. Asked about Phonak's strict policy -- you can only control so much. If they had a strict policy, why do we have this long list? Landis can't speak why other guys thought it was worth the risk. Is a reason that doping is widespread? Won't speculate. Riders under pressure? Only in their own mind.

Asked about doctor, UCI requires, had 3, Thomas, Holgar, Demir, and another italian doctor; closest to Thomas and Demir. Was Demir involved in internal controls, yes.

Asked about team urine profiles, he asks for context; Barnett tries to make it seem like team management of profiles, but he says they never went anywhere with it.

Asked about S16, did you have an IV on the evening of S16? Yes, couldn't remember exactly; on checking with doctor, she said it was glucose and saline. He doesn't like IV's. Contents would be written on bag. Trust the label. He hopes there's water in the bottle he's drinking from.

Amory was asked about blood tests. Does Landis know about them? He doesn't know details and asks for clarification. Barnett cheerfully starts pulling out an exhibit. May 4th request from USADA. He's making a point about Landis' non-cooperation.

OBJECTION from Jacobs.

Landis thinks the UCI stuff is the vampire tests; he doesn't think the Phonak internal weren't recorded.

MCLAREN asks what test the UCI test are? Barnett thinks it's the hematocrit and "other" stuff.

OBJECTION from Jacobs; not appropriate to ask about a pending matter.

BRUNET: Just a moment Mr. Barnett.

SUH: what is the purpose of this questioning? We've made the motions, and we're waiting for the ruling. What is the point, improper.

Barnett is trying to backdoor this stuff in. Brunet doesn't want him to get into this now. Campbell says he says he (Landis) is not aware of the records. Wants Landis counsel to represent something about the existence of the records. Suh did not request docs; did not get from UCI. Barnett hands around more paper, which he says is a series of emails.

First is a request from UCI for all blood and urine results to be sent to Demir, dated 31 July; Second is represented as letter to Demir from UCI

SUH: Objection, we can't read;

Brunet offers to translate. They are providing a table of data from blood tests from 2005 and 2006; cc'd to Zorzoli of the UCI.

SUH renewed objection. They can get the results they request; we don't have them.

BRUNET: we haven't ruled on motion; we're getting evidence now.

Third is email from Demir to Erica Peruzzi says she doesn't have results from the TT on Jul 22, includes Landis in the cc. Fourth involves some anti-doping tests that are not the same as the vampire tests. Demir asks for all the anti-doping tests for two years. Fifth is letter from UCI to Tygart, claiming that Landis got the blood results. This is dated 13-Sep.

Landis denies receiving them from UCI, doesn't know if Demir every got them. He says the issue of the blood was dropped when it was clear it was urine, nor blood at issue.

Why should the panel believe you, "defined by their principles, and how them make decisions". "Character revealed by actions rather than".

He's going into Lemond. Disagreement about what was said, that Lemond said Landis confessed, and Landis says he didn't.

OBJECTION: mischaracterizing Lemond's testimony
BRUNET: sustained.

Pulls up the posting. Jacobs asks for full thread. Barnett says, no because of crash; complains the thread was asked in discovery. Brunet asks to see for relevance.

Panel thinks.

We're getting put on the screen again; it's our 11/28/2006 roundup. Landis admits writing it. Jacobs is objecting about context. He says his postings on DPF were always as "floyd". He says the part about damaging his character was about something other than his abuse, it was about his claims all winners since him have doped. Says he was upset, and that he spoke to him afterwards. That's it for that.

Goes into Geoghegan. Who did he tell it to? His whole team. He hoped it wouldn't come up in court, and didn't think it was going to come up, and he didn't expect Lemond to bring it up; he'd promised not to say. Did he tell Geoghegan because he was a member of the team, or for some other reason. Because he needed to know. Before being fired, Will was an employeed paid by Landis.

Confirms he was in the room Weds night, at ends of table; 6:53. Who else was there? Kay walked in, only people at table were Will and Floyd. On call back, he heard, "Greg Lemond is calling me back" and Will didn't answer. Talked for a second -- "I shouldn't have done that"; FL went to 1st floor room; tried to call WG at 3rd floor room, then went WG's room and heard a return call, outside the room.

How did Will have' GL's phone? they synced phones regularly.

Will knew there was a problem? yes. Didn't know what to do. Didn't think it through at that point. Did WG tell him GL was threatening to call police? He knew it was a big problem. Did he see Suh or Jacobs that night? No, not that night. Did he call Lemond back? No; he thought GL would have to be traumatized.

Didn't tell anyone Weds night, except maybe Amber. Got up and came to Pepperdine. Picked clothes, didn't wear yellow tie. Wore all black, agreed. EX 126. Sigh on San Diego, Zeigler, May 18th.

"It represents the end of any credibility Gerg Lemond has left", says he doesn't remember saying that, hasn't been making quote for the press. Doesn't remember saying that.

Denying wearing suit? No, terrible day, nothing to celebrate. Didn't want people to think he was happy. When did he arrive? About 30 minutes before start. Was Geoghegan with him? Rode with him in the car. When did he tell attorneys? Talked in car. Kay had already told attorneys part of the story, FL and WG said more right away.

Lemond testified after lunch. When Lemond was called, he knew WG had made the call, and the attorneys knew the call was made. Knew it would be a big deal. While Mr. Lemond was testifying...

OBJECTION: attorney's thought.

Landis thought it would come out. If he was so upset, why wait until it came out in court to fire him?

OBJECTION: privileged. We established Landis spoke to attorneys.

CAMPBELL: going to instruct witness not to answer?

[ suh and jacobs confer ]

SUH: I will represent to the panel they heard about this problem minutes before beginning the morning proceeding. This line of questioning is dealing with holding information.

BARNETT: objecting on his behalf, not on behalf of the witness.

SUH: It's about the privilege exception. Need to be careful. Do not wish to instruct him not to answer, this is about privilege.

[ Is this the Young Ruse in action? ]

Panel confers.

BARNETT: privilege doesn't apply.

Landis tries to answer, gets REREAD of question. He says what he did in the morning was about advice; probably should have fired him immediately, but wanted advice. Barnett is drilling into timing. Frelat testified, then long morning break with conference in chambers, another at end of lunch before testimony of Lemond. Landis told attorneys before them.

Questions Landis about rhetoric in the case, and a post about "war".



Anonymous said...

anyone else having audio problems?

Anonymous said...

Yes, I had, but I disconnected and after it was good

daniel m (a/k/a Rant) said...

I might be, if I had video. Right now, all I'm getting is a nice black screen saying the session hasn't started yet.

Are you seeing any video?

Anonymous said...

you better try to reconnect.

Anonymous said...

vid has been up for about 5 mins - FL on the stand - doens't sound good when he says he researched dopoing prodcuts he heard about on the internet - I noticed they left a nice dramatic pause after that to be sure everyone remembered it

Anonymous said...

What does the unanimous denial of striking Lemond's testimony mean? I want to know those reasons.

Judge Hue, do you think this shows the panel biasing against Floyd?

Or, if they do find Floyd innocent, that leaving it in would be better to show that they considered everything?

Anonymous said...

Yesterday and today, I could only get the document screen but not the live video.

Is there something I might be doing wrong?

~ Paul

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Unanimous denial of sriking Lemond. They will give it whatever weight they choose. They are not a jury. Jacobs just stopped all cross after being invited by McLaren to try other things. This is perfectly within their discretion and i don't have a problwem with it, at all. none.

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Matt Barnett's doing the cross-so be on the alert for some topics having nothing to do with science being explored.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Judge Hue! I really respect and value your opinion but wasn't expecting such a speedy answer.


Anonymous said...

<< OBJECTION from Jacobs; not appropriate to ask about a pending matter. >>

HUH??? especially frustrating as i can't get in.... but i reapeat, HUH?


Laura Challoner, DVM said...

This must be stuff subject to a motion in limne to exclude and despite the fact it has not been ruled on, Matt's trying to bring it to the public's attention and the Panels.

Cheryl from Maryland said...

So Barnett went through all this (someone cc:d Floyd on an e-mail and there are no e-mails showing he specifically received the table or info on where to get them) just to make FL not reliable? And then he moves on to the GL issue?

Anonymous said...

these posts were available just a couple of months ago...why didn't USADA copy them back then?

Anonymous said...

Am I correct in thinking that Barnett was grasping at straws the whole way through here? He seemed to be tacking like crazy. For a moment there I thought I was watching "What Not to Wear".

Anonymous said...

appears to me usada is on a fishing expedition and haven't caught anything yet. landis appears to be trying to be cooperative while his atty's look like their not.

Anonymous said...

There's an adage in the law that says,
"if you don't have the facts, argue the law; if you don't have the law, argue the facts; and if you don't have either, just argue!"
I think Barnett is living proof of the third option...if you are a fan of Floyd and believe he is innocent, this is a pretty amusing cross...

Anonymous said...

Did Landis really testify that he and Will G were the only ones at the table? And Landis didn't know what Will was doing when he made the call?

hughw said...

Yay! I was so glad to hear Floyd's explanation that he synced his phonebook with Will's so that Will could take calls and know who was calling.

I had imagined a more sinister scenario: Floyd and Will planning a prank phone call like adolescents; Will: "Give me the number, I'll make the call..."


Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Landis said on Saturday he was busy with his Blackberry at the table and then became aware of Will's call or the first call back- i can't specifically remember..

Anonymous said...

To be honest, I can sit at the dinner table next to my wife without playing with the balckberry and totally not see or hear what she is doing. And afterwards I had no idea of what we had agreed on in a conversation that I simply cannot recall.

Ken (EnvironmentalChemistry.com) said...

I'm the same as Anonymous 11:35. My wife can tell me her schedule six times and five minutes before she leaves for the day I ask what her plans are. Man does she hate that.

If she is talking to someone on the phone I totally tune her out and would have no clue who she was talking to, let alone what she was saying.

Anonymous said...

Been a Floyd fan since day one. I have held out hope that he's innocent. I do not believe the science supports the case against him. However, in watching his testimony (and I am a complete novice in this). I cannot convince myself that he did NOT know more.


Unknown said...

Where can I access this video feed you all are talking about? -thx

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Floyd does have a certain affect. That is why people testify live, so you can look at them and see what you think. i've been condemned by certain factions over my "harsh" treatment of Mongongu and Frelat but i saw in them what you feel in watching Floyd.
Hopefully, people will be nicer to you than they were to me.

Anonymous said...

If memory serves me right, Floyd said sat. that he thought maybe Will was talking to himself. And he wasn't paying any attention to him, until the phone rang back.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Lisa, go to the FFF site; it has the link, password, etc.

Anonymous said...

Floyd's claim that he didn't learn about the content of Will's call to LeMond until later (if I understand the testimony correctly) seems like a stretch, particularly since Will was at the same table. I believe that last week Landis was characterizing the setting as one where he and Will were in a large room, "...as big as this one," suggesting that he was reasonably oblivious to what Will was doing. There were the only two people sitting at the same table. Furthermore, the instant Will said that LeMond was "...calling him back," would likely trigger immediate alarm in Landis. e.g. "Why on earth would you be calling LeMond?"

Also, with respect to posts claiming that they can be sitting at the same table with their wives and have no idea what she was doing if they or she were on a cell phone or blackberry, I wonder if your attention might be drawn to such a term as "... hide your weenie."

Landis' aw-shucks credibility is being stretched a little here.

Anonymous said...

I think I just broke DPF. Tried to post a comment and now the same errors that were up yesterday are back.