Ok, I can take some questions if you have them.
Will Davis have a chance to do the software demo tomorrow?
That is worth watching. The Truth? Can we handle the truth? If the Panel doesn't allow it, something is fishy.
Any idea how much time Landis defense has left?
We'll get an exact count at the start, tomorrow. They are almost finished and Davis is their last witness. Redirect also seems short, but USADA has al ot of time left.
Time was always difficult to control when I was a lawyer and time preservation and expenditure by the Landis team was terrific in the trial. Plus, remember, Barnett gratuitously offered more time to them, so it should not be a problem.
I assume this arbritration has no direct effect on other's cases involving LNDD, but now that Landis's team has shown what appears to be gross incompetence by the lab's employees will the results be at least admissable in other cases if the panel sides with Landis?
It may be relevant in future cases as a template. I believe LNDD was the Landaluze lab, as well. They are not having a good year. The more interesting question is whether other cases can be reopened on this "new" evidence.
USADA offered 3-4 hours of their time to Landis yesterday. Can they back out of that now? I think Floyd's pretty much out of time without it.
I think Landis is ok on time. they would look very petty to withdraw the offer and I don't think the Panel will let them.
can you explain a bit more about the burden of proof issue and how it's changing?is it typical in arbitration for the burden to be on the defendent? what are the circumstances where it switches?
USADA has met the first burden; That Landis has has both his "A" and "B" samples from Stage 17 reported as an adverse analytical finding. Now it is Landis' burden to show any violations of International Standards. If they determine he did, USADA would have to prove that the violations didn't "cause" the adverse findings (he was a doper)
On a more qualitative note, what are the odds that the panel will care one way or the other? in other words, the totality of the evidence is what it is regardless of burden so even if the burden is on usada and they don't meet it but the panel still thinks he doped, would they rule against landis anyway?
They didn't do that in Landaluze. That Panel thought he was a doper (because there was good evidence he was) but he showed one LNDD technician analysed parts of both his "A" and "B" samples. It was established that that was an International Standards violation and the Spanish ADA failed to present any evidence to rebut the presumption.
What are the issues with regard to appeals? my understanding is that either side can appeal. to whom do they appeal, what is the (potential) bias of that body? do they have to grant every appeal? with they simply review evidence and briefs and rule or will there be a whole new trial?If, say, the landis wins 3-0, is the usada in so deep that they'll appeal no matter what or is there a chance that if they lose they'll "take it like a man" and let it go?
Both parties as well as WADA and UCI may appeal. The appeal is to CAS. The hearing would be in the US but will be in private and it will follow Swiss Law. The hearing is brand new. They will have to do it all over again.If USADA lets it go, UCI and or WADA can carry on an Appeal.
I know that I am biased in favor of Floyd, but I don't see how the panel could possibly rule against him based on what I have seen so far. Am I seeing this wrong?
If the Panel rejects his arguments that International Standards were violated. He will lose. I wouldn't make a call on it even tonight. Waqit until all the evidence is in and the arguments made. then, figure out what Botre's roll is because that is a wildcard.
About the manual/auto subtraction thing... If the code/methodology for the automatic process is now lost, shouldn't it be done manually, so that whatever process is used can be documented (even though they didn't)? If they had done it automatically, couldn't Landis claim that it's faulty because we don't know what the process is?
That is part of the argument, I think. Check TBV's summary later this evening as he will comment on that.
WHY wouldn't the panel compel LeMond to testify under cross examination? OR was this a miscalculation on the part of team Landis? I would thinks that since LeMond has a supposed history making false statements( the Lance Armstrong's threat against LeMond's wife) it seems that it would be pertinent. Now FL is posited as the only villain, which may not be so, and despite the media characterizations it's a "he said, he said" thing . Thank you.
I don't think the Panel understood the power it had to compel testimony under California law. Brunet said a number of times they couldn't make him but they could go to a Circuit court Judge (that is what i am) and ask him/her to order the witness to testify. If the witness wouldn't testify after that, contempt of court proceedings could be brought. Perhaps the value of the testiimony didn't warrant the investment of the time all that would take. You are welcome!
Assuming that Davis does as well on cross as we all expect (hope?), seems that would be ripe for a motion for a determination that the burden has shifted to USADA/WADA. Closest thin I can think of that is similar to a directed verdict in this system. Lack of procedural rules should make it possible to do, although they might refuse to address it. They can hide behind the timeline, but it would be interesting to have the water tested. A 2-1 or 3-0 on the issue shifting the burden to USADA/WADA would be instructive, diminish the impact of Botre and stagger USADA/WADA
We talked about this quite a bit when i was out there. I thought cases would just end on calls for votes such as you suggest at natural times during the testimony. I think that the Panel could do that (has the power to do it that way) but won't, choosing instead to hear everything and render a long and detailed decision.
One thing still bothers me; none of the defense testimony is that the tests show Landis did not dope. The USADA testimony is that the tests show he did dope. Also, since I've not been following closely, what about the issue of the additonal testing that was done, with the defense persons present; is the defense saying these tests are not accurate?
Landis said he didn't dope so there is evidence he didn't. It is very hard to prove a negative. The defense is systematically going through the tests to suggest that errors violating the International Standards rendered interpretation of any "positve" results impossible.
However, judges (sorry Bill) and juries have been known to base their decisions on biases and on improper "evidence," and simply not tell anyone about it. So . . . let us hope that the panel here does their job fairly and justly.
what goes on behind closed doors may be like watching sausage being made. sometimes, it is not pretty. Botre's role will be important. and i echo your hope everything here will be fairly considered.
I think I have you all covered, then. Everyone have agood night!!!!!
Do you think if Landis when he can sue USADA, WADA or LNND for defamation of character, lost wages or anything else?
That is a very interesting question. Let's let some of our legal eagles take a stab at that one. I'll Mongongu (cut and paste) any good answer and post it tomorrow.