Saturday, May 19, 2007

Hue - Observations Day 6

There is an interesting legal analysis concerning the Geoghegan phone call here:
http://opiniojuris.powerblogs.com/posts/1179457518.shtml

I agree that he may have a serious problem, as I have indicated previously.

I've got a spot inside the hearing room but it might be more difficult this afternoon when Floyd is expected to testify.

This is my last day here. It has been a pleasure working with TBV and I hope to add some comments from Wisconsin, remotely, next week.

Nothing is happening here. Perhaps that is why there is no camera feed yet. The parties may be meeting with the Panel in private but FL doesn't seem to be here yet as the hallway cameras have been waiting for a good shot at him. FL's parents are here and Amber is as well (Floyd has been riding with her in their VW SUV each day). We have started on time fairly regularly each day so the delay is puzzling.

[MORE]


Campbell has been in the hall and earlier Brunet was giving a tour to two women, speaking in french to them (He is a french speaker so they might be friends/family) and showing them the room and set up.

Looks like the conference is finished and we should start shortly.

Here we go: 10:25 am start.

I have been calling UCLA lab rep Caroline Hatten, "Hensen". My appologies.

Landis has only 10 hours left and USADA has 15.

Landis makes a motion to strike positivity critera from the cologn lab because they have not received material relevant to that subject. Young responds. USADA only cares about positivity criteria in Paris. They bring ther lab head from Cologne to counter a claim by Landis that the tests would not have been "positive" in Cologne. Young then goes to the "Young Gambit" which I have decribed as "hoisting the Landis team on their own petard" by recounting a conversation he had with Jacobs, claiming waiver. Both counsel are being questioned by Campbell. This goes to who asked who what and when that was asked. Cambell denies the motion.

The "Young Gambit" works. This is why I tell lawyers when confronted with similar issues, that I have to consider only what I have formally and they should not rely on informal discussions. If necessary, they should seek formal relief such as formal motions to compel.

Now it is clear the parties have not arranged to have Dr Schanzer see documents he is questioned on but Young says he sent the doctor all the exhibits. This is a difficulty, as is his telephone testimony over speaker, with his german accent.

Other than to note the problems taking time for translations in court and telephone testimony on a practical level, I yield to TBV's real time summaries and will chime in on law issues as necessary.

"Young Ruse" notice!!!! I have previously described the "Young Ruse" as the technique he uses to set forth "facts" by way of "summary" (the witness has generally not articulated anything he summarizes previously). The witness answers "yes" and the "summary" facts become evidence. It is a brilliant technique and has been done with perfection quite a few times previously.

Young establishes 3 levels of peer review and 2 levels have been "passed". the doctor says "yes". Young says he does this to clarify, summarize and then argue what he and not the witness establishes (the witness will say "yes" though). Understand this is fine in arbitration under the rules but not in any way allowable in Courts of Law, where similar conduct would be subject to sanction and censure. Ruse works!!!!! Young Rules!!!

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Same guy who posted the long comment in yesterday's mailbag. Thanks for the consideration.

Great article, even if arbitration = admin of justice, is Will a "party"? When announcing Will's firing, Suh was careful not to answer Young's question re: what capacity Will acted in, though hinted he was less involved in the hearing than in work previous. Could a manager be an independent contractor and not therefore a party? OTOH, Landis failed to act to sever a relationship when Will posted general threats on DPF about disbeleievers. And arguably his Lemond comments reinforce the notion that he supports Will's view and is knowledgable of it - that they acted in concert on the issue, even if their relationship was one of independent contracting.

Sacky said...

Hey -- this part here:

(a) After the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators, the parties to the arbitration shall have the right ... to obtain discovery regarding the subject matter of the arbitration, and, to that end, to use and exercise all of the same rights, remedies, and procedures, and be subject to all of the same duties, liabilities, and obligations in the arbitration with respect to the subject matter thereof,... as if the subject matter of the arbitration were pending before a superior court of this state in a civil action....

That indicates to me that the "fairness" here is even more out of balance than we previously thought. If the discovery process is supposed to go exactly like a civil court case, then aren't the rules (laws?) being broken when parties are denied the requested relevant documents and are denied the ability to depose witnesses?

The next section states that the arbitrators are unable to arrest or imprison anyone, which speaks to their inablity to force Lemond to answer questions, but the section I quoted seems to have been utterly ignored.

bill hue said...

Will was not a party because Landis and USADA are the only parties and they are the only ones the Panel has any actual control over.

We are waiting to see if Lemond's testimony will be stricken. If so, any cooperation and tacit approval of will's conduct won't be an issue.
But if in, it will be.

bill hue said...

sacky,
the problem with analysing this case based on US Federal or State law is that some argue the "fall back" law is Swiss civil law.
There is no clear answer but your points are well take.

Anonymous said...

Ooooooh noooooo, Mr Bill!

I understand you have a "life" to get back to, but we will SO miss your on-the-scene commentary & analysis! Both you & TBV have done OUTSTANDING work & if there are awards for blog/web sites, your work should get the top prize!

With strbuk adding the Daily Roundups & Marc(?) adding the French view, the only thing to make this Hearing's Report any more in-depth would have been if you were Floyd!

I have read many of your posts on DPF since last October & I've been reading TBV for even longer, so I'm not surprised at the knowledge both of you bring, but I'm still just about verkelmpt (!) at your on-the-spot work. That ALL of the mainstream media are not just reading this site but relying on it for information, is both humorous & just!

Once again, THANKS!

susie b

bill hue said...

Thanks susie,
That is nice of you to say. i don't hear the positives so much internally so i appreciate it.

Gary said...

We'll miss your daily musings Bill. Your perspective is unique, amusing and educational. I know you'll be watching things from home, like the rest of us, but I've enjoyed having you in the thick of it. Your perspective has shown us the art of law, as much as the word of law.

bill hue said...

Thanks Gary!

Anonymous said...

Ditto Mr. Hue, I am a law student and this has been a fascinating summer school session.

Anonymous said...

I will add my thanks to to Mr. Hue. I appreciate the legal advice we have received here as well as the more general comments you have made. I hope you will continue to contribute in absentia.

Anonymous said...

Mr Hue, I am married to a litigator and he has confirmed my impressions of your writings: You are one smart guy, with a wicked sense of humor. Bravo and thank you! You will be missed in our household. catherine

Cheryl from Maryland said...

Judge Hue, safe trip home. I really appreciated your commentary and legal perspective.

Theresa said...

Oh, Judge Hue, it won't be the same without you! But what you have done is just unbelievable! We appreciate all your work, and we'll miss your play by play! I hope you got in a ride or two, this week!

pommi said...

Bill, thanks for your great coverage, and I hope you enjoyed at least a bit of California outside of Pepperdine.

bill hue said...

thanks all. We did get in a climb every day. there are some steep roads going up off PCH and in the valley. I'll miss doing this, too.