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.
