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!!!
