Hue - Observations-Landis
Unanimous denial of striking Lemond's testimony. They will give it whatever weight they choose. They are not a jury and can sift and winnow through what is important and what is not to the case. Jacobs just stopped all cross after being invited by McLaren to try other things (Young Gambit-to hoist on one's own petard). This is perfectly within their discretion and I don't have a problem with it, at all. None.
Matt Barnett's doing the cross-so be on the alert for some topics having nothing to do with science being explored.
[more]
Admission of IV the night before is interesting because the WADA Code dictates "strict liability" so the source of a banned substance isn't important, the existence is. It is speculative to conclude that IV had a banned substance in it.
Barnett is trying the "Young Ruse", where you get evidence in that doesn't get in in a traditional way (through the witness). Note that the Panel has to look at what he is showing them, read it and then if not appropriate,ignore it. If it is hot, that is sometimes hard to do. If this is stuff that is being considered by the Panel in a motion to exclude, then Barnett wants the public to see it anyway. It must be "interesting" material. Just enough gets out to cause a person to conclude that Landis was being "investigated" for "something" by UCI but not enough to establish anything. Jab at character. Effective from an emotion standpoint.
So far, if a person "likes" Landis, nothing is changing that perception. If you don't "like" Landis, nothing is changing that perception. The Panel doesn't like or dislike him so I don't think this cross so far is doing anything for the Panel.
Attorney-client communication is privileged, even in this arbitration, but the Panel has power over a party. So the attorney must have legal reason for his instruction to the client not to answer, something Lemond, as a non-party didn't need to worry about. The attorneys are being careful about this because it also implies that Landis is not cooperating if they instruct him not to answer. In a civil matter, that failure can be held against him. the Panel wants an answer. They have the power to require the answer and they sort of get one.
Still, not much substance for the Panel here so far but USADA is working the "good guy" "bad guy" angle with Landis as the "bad guy" in the court of public opinion.
That cross didn't do much for me. I wouldn't redirect at all but it was short and to the point.
40 comments:
Was it a mistake for Landis' defense to stop with the cross of Lemond? Or, do you think this was on purpose so as to have a better issue on appeal?
Not an appeal issue because appeal is all new evidence or representation of the evidence already presented. it may have been a mistake. who knows what weight the Panel will give it.
Bill, I do a lot of appellate work. I bet Landis's attorneys figured that more cross would have looked bad and would have gotten them very little. I think they will simply point out that it was LeMond's memory against Landis's, and remind the panel that the main question is whether the science supports a sanction. Which is where we should have been all along.
Aside from the Armstrong stuff, what else could Landis' attorneys have cross examined Lemond on?
sachi,
Thank you for ALL your posts.
Good observations here and the stratigic stuff you are talking about makes a lot of sense to me.
Bill
I noticed that, I guess it was Mr. Barnett (or possibly Brunet?), who said "Do you want to advise your client not to answer the question?" I wondered if this was asked in hopes that Landis WOULD be advised not to answer, in which case it would make him look like the answer would be incriminating. I was glad when Suh said they wanted him to answer any and all questions and then Floyd said, "I would like to answer the question." And I thought Floyd's answer (as well as Suh's answer) made perfect sense.
Camille
Anon,
They could have asked questions going to Lemond's disputes with other paople as Armstrong seemed his main concern. They might have explored whether he had any medication or alcohol and thus may have misunderstood the conversation (NOTE-Please, I'm NOT saying he did or i know anything about this, I'm posing logical questions you would ask anyone), thaty might ask for the exact phrasing of his questions and Landis' reply. they might ask how the subject of sexual assault related to the admission of doping to see if the context and story made any sence.
They seem to be just going after the character issue. Judge Hue, any thoughts on why the recess?
aaaah, that's why the questions about his wardrobe selection. I guess that they were saying that "bad guys wear black". Who needs the science when we can base our decisions on the choice of the tie the defendant wears to hearings. Think how much money we can save!
cheryl,
When I was there, during Landis testimony, nobody could leave and come back. So frequent breaks were called for restroom breaks. Aslo, the Panel might want to decide that UCI blood testing issue so it can come in this morning if it will come in.d
Recess = Bio Break.
TBV
Mr. Hue,
Did you get the impression that Barnett was actually trying to draw correlation between the color of Mr. Landis' clothes and his guilt or innocence?
LOL, As i suspected! That one time, Brunet even said it was Campbell that needed the break!!!!
Bill
Re: the aborted Lemond cross on Armstrong. In one of his answers this morning Landis said something to the effect of Lemond accusing others of doping as well; every rider who's won the Tour since he did.
Did anyone else notice that?
Anon 11:33
That was clearly the implication and as i see it, a logical conclusion to reach...... if it is important and i don't believe it is. Even mean people (if you conclude they are mean) can still be innocent. so the entire area seems to be much about drama as it relates to what people like you and the public think about who is "good" and who is "bad".
It takes a special kind of mean (evil) to wear black---after threatening a Tour Champion with child molestation disclosure.
Landis choose to switch from a Yellow Tie to Black.
That's as close to a doping confession as you will see from Landis.
Being forever known as rotten low life coward, he is comfortable with, but the label of drug cheat troubles his cash flow.
We understand well the plight of the doping accused.
Thats your take. I'm putting no stock in it. It isn't important except to reconfirm to people who already believe he is evil, that he is. C'est la vie,
I guess Floyd's parents don't ever need a bio break. I never see them move.
bill, you're too cool to be a judge. thanks for everything. tbv and you deserve a pullitzer for explanatory reporting! if i ever get involved in a legal matter i'm asking for a change of venue! can you do that and go out of state?
Can we now expect the color black to be added to the USADA prohibited list or will it rather be the garb the accussed will wear while they are subject to the float test?
Good timing on the bio break so Floyd can catch his breath.
Hey anon 11:46 -- if he wears black and weighs the same as a piece of wood, he's a witch!
You can't wear black...and you can't look angry when crossing the finish line. The only explanation for looking angry is exogenous substances in your body.
Bill, do you think USADA may have introduced a dancing monkey by accident with the whole wearing black thing? I mean, it's so obviously not important, yet seeing the comments, there seems to be a lot of focus on it.
Anon 11:50
Everything Matt Barnett is in charge of is designed to appeal to the jury of public opinion, black suit, black tie, black socks, black shoes. i pointed that out that morning. what that has to do with co-elusion of "peaks" in a chromatogram is beyond me.
Without trying to represent the views of anyone else, I have to guess that to most fans of cycling the Lemond testimony was just very sad to observe. Over the last few years, my response to LeMond has just been general sadness. Balances out all the joy he brought me a child watching the Tour and riding my first bike. His instinct to work against doping is certainly laudable, but his method (attacking Armstrong and Floyd) strikes me a rather odd. All of this aside, Floyd could be the biggest asshole in the world . . . maybe even his boxers are black, and it still would have nothing to do with whether or not he actually doped. All of this character cross is just so much fluff. One might argue that it takes guts and standards to be an asshole, as it's so much easier to simply go with the flow and make everyone happy.
They didn't do cross the way you wanted them to, did they Roid.
You might address your complaints to Holme Roberts and Owen and spare the rest of us.
WOW. How wrong a FFF fan can be.
Greg Lemond is the only decent celebrity person left in sports marketing. The others are quiet and turn blind eyes to order collect fees.
Never discredit the message. Pro cycling is filthy dirty business.
But then so is NCAA football and the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL.
If Tom Brady, Pacman Jones or Micheal Vick were in doping trouble---do you think it would have ever come this far?
No way. Crime pays.
Floyd problem is that he lacks a Nike deal. Thus he will lose.
I'd call that 12:02 post one that could be deleted due to the 5th line. That's uncalled for harassment of the defendant's family and I'm really sick of hearing this person mention that.
It occurs to me that threatening G Lemond with revealing his secret is a product of a sheltered upbringing- that is to say, we view that Greg is the victim of abuse, not a prepetrator or willing participant ( as 6 year olds have no sexual urges- they don't have the chemistry). It seems to me that to take this knowledge, this secret Greg revealed, and to try to turn it around and use as a weapon of intimidation suggests a skewed thought-pattern, that the victim is somehow on par with the perpetrator of a crime. It is the abuser saying "I am not at fault because you made me do it", and blaming the child for the abuse. It seems unbelieveable, but how else can anyone think to try to intimidate someone with that ? So I can see how Landis with such a respectible upbringing can say with such sincerity "I did not cheat". I can not comment on the science, but the personality seems tainted.
I find it quite interesting that prior to yesterday Mr. Landis was guilty because the WADA lab heads said he was. Then we hear testimony from 2 expert witnesses regarding the conclusions drawn by LNDD and other.
Today we seemed to have moved on from the pesky science problem and instead will Mr. Landis because of the way he looks.
apologize
"will convict Mr. Landis because..."
Am I to believe Darth Vader and Johnny Cash were dopers, too?? Judges wear black! Priests wear black! DOPERS!
p.s. Bear in mind, GL used his "trauma" as a tool in an effort to elicit some sort of confession. THAT is no less reprehensible than some so-called "threat".
In response to anonymous 12:17. As Floyd himself specifies, it's not safe to assume that FL meant to refer to GL's "sexual abuse" in this comment. To infer so much about one's personality on the basis of an assumption about what intent may have been, based on a comment in an internet chat room, seems a stretch.
Don't forget that Lemond was already publicly declaring Floyd guilty before the DP Forum "threat". Floyd said he could smear Lemond in public if he wanted to - Lemond was already doing it to Floyd.
I remember when Floyd posted that and it never did strike me as a real threat, it was more just a way of saying "I could be as big a jerk as Lemond, but I'm choosing not to be".
Other than Bill and TbV, the arbs had to be the most bored people in the room this morning. What a waste of 4 hours of their lives - no substance at all. If WillG wasn't an idiot, the hearing would be over already.
Anonymous said...
Don't forget that Lemond was already publicly declaring Floyd guilty before the DP Forum "threat". Floyd said he could smear Lemond in public if he wanted to - Lemond was already doing it to Floyd.
I remember when Floyd posted that and it never did strike me as a real threat, it was more just a way of saying "I could be as big a jerk as Lemond, but I'm choosing not to be".
Agreed! I was on DPF at the time of the posting and that was my take at the time. It was posted in anger at Lemond's statements in the press. What is lost in this whole thing is context. Because of the DPF system crash, we are missing the entire thread and what led up to that statement.
BetweenRides
I have no problem at all believing that Floyd wore black because he was trying to make a statement about his feelings regarding Lemond. I have no problem believing that Floyd and pals are impish, peurile, sheltered boys who joke around with truly repulsive language and foul jokes at others' expense. The fact that a guy can admit to having an IV without being the least bit concerned or curious what might be in the IV when there are so many people and things to be suspicious of in cycling these days just proves that these guys are living on another planet.
But none of these realizations mean anything with regard to the science of the testing. USADA can try to make their case for a culture of doping, they can try to make their case that Floyd and friend are evil people, they can try to sway the outcome in the court of public opinion, but none of it should matter. Tygart counseled his critics to withhold judgement until all the fact were presented. Well, the facts are being presented and attested to by the experts-- some of whom designed the darn machines used to do the testing-- and things aren't looking so good for USADA's case. Take that, Tygart.
I say: let Floyd be a jerk, but let him go free to be a jerk if that's what he wants to do. This case stinks something rotten.
Post a Comment