The number 1 question we are getting is why no statement from the Landis camp about the situation that occured yesterday.
Both sides are prohibited by a gag order to comment on anything concerning the proceedings so it isn't likely that any statement will be forthcoming.
We are having some technical issues with the Q and A, sometimes the questions don't appear but the answers do. Go to "full post with comments" button and it will take you to full text.
This is where you should all post any questions you have today. We will try to answer them. If possible, try to keep them short so we can do them as quickly as possible.
TBV and Bill
"What is the mood in the Landis camp? I would think that they would be devastated after yesterday's disaster, but I haven't seen indication of that. And are they contemplating a public statement on the Geoghegan matter, as swimyouidiot suggests elsewhere?"
There is a "gag" order in effect so it is not likely the defense team will issue anything. The lawyers seemed rattled yesterday, for good reason. Today, they appear to have regained their footing. FL was roaming the halls early this morning and his mood seemed as it was 2 days ago, upbeat and friendly.
It was pretty clear that Lemond wanted to talk about Landis's "threatening" post before he was dismissed ("can I say one thing?"). Do you think the bombshell might actually be to FL's advantage since the prosecution was not able to cast aspersions directly on FL's character (that seems to be the obvious reason for bringing GL to testify).
I think the way it ended, if it stays in evidence, is a wash.
Could Will plea bargain and finger Floyd if in fact Floyd was at all responsible -
I suppose so.
Could that be used as further evidence of doping violation in an appeal at CAS?
Yes, because that would be a brand new trial.
If Floyd takes the stand in the arbitration he will have to say definitively what role he had in Will's (alleged) stupidity. If he then gets involved with a criminal trial of Will what can the criminal courts and doping authorities do with any inconsistencies in the testimony given here and there.
Whatever is said under oath anywhere, can be used to cross examine the person who said it in any proceeding.
Particularly, in a hypothetical scenario where Floyd begins to ride again after being vindicated, Will's trial is likely to happen concurrently to Floyd returning to the sport. Does the Wada/usada code allow a re-arbitration based on new evidence
Yes, if the new evidence establisheds a new violation of the anti-doping code.
Will might put on record despite the fact that Floyd answered the same charges in a previous and slightly different form?c) In investigating Will, do the cops and prosecutors in Malibu have a legal duty to disclose to the arbitrators any information that clearly goes to culpability or non-culpability of Floyd - either before or after Will stands trial or pleads guilty.
No, that is the Operation Puerto problem.
If Floyd takes the stand in arbitration can he answer questions selectively by relying on the fact that he does not want to incriminate himself in any present or future criminal matter involving him and Will?
Yes, a witness is permitted to plead the 5th Amendment, selectively or as a whole.
Can the arbitrators draw inferences from such selective comments and/or silences?
Yes, in a civil case, that can be considered.
Is it possible to create a false positive on the irms test for testosterone? Has this alreadt been asked and answered? Seems to me if Landis can establish that he can create reasonable doubt with all the lab mistakes. Am I right?
They have not discussed false positives in the USADA case and USADA would likely not bring that subject up. If Landis mentions it, they would do so through their own expert later in the week, where its entry into the record can be controlled.
Is it certain that the case will be appealed to CAS? Are grounds for appeal necessary?How does the prospect of CAS arbitration influence current Prosecution and Defense strategies?Why present the best prosecution/defense now and allow the opposition to better prepare for CAS?
The appeal is a matter of right to both parties, to UCI and to WADA, independently. The appeal is de novo, meaning that the evidense is presented anew to the new Panel, in closed session, without public scrutiny. so ant appeal strategy does not play out here. whatever doesn't work can be presented and accepted by a new Panel. whatever works here, might not work in front of a new Panel.
A commentor suggested that if we don't like the "rules" set out by the TdF/ASO, a rider can simply choose not to race their event. Is certainly true, but what testing procedures can be enforced by contract? Has FL's Phonak contract ever been made public (or any pro team's contract?) What does a pro cycling consent to when joining a team, or joining US Cycling? Or entering a UCI race?
By taking a US license, the athlete consents to the WADA Code.
Do you feel the arbitration panel lacks a sense of judicial dignity?
I feel their sense of dignity has been exemplory.
Unless I missed it, I haven't seen the items in Arnie Baker's slide show discussed. Specifically, the use of white-out on the form instead of correctly overwriting the mistakes, and the level of contamination in the sample. Will this be discussed, or has something made this irrelavent?
Landis started direct of his first witness so if the white-out is an issue, it will be developed during the Landis case.