Originally Posted by Trevor98
He allegedly admitted to his doctor that he used PEDs 10 years ago and other people came forward within the last year to relay this information? Isn't that hearsay and rumor mongering? If this doctor violated his ethics and discussed a patient's records why should we believe him? If "friends" are discussing their memories of PED use timing then we must apply our own value on the reliability of their memories. I am having some short term memory problems now, but I could have never told you what I had been told ten prior- could you?
Well actually its not hearsay. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a statement by a Party offered against the party is not hearsay. ( Some state court rules provide that an admission is hearsay, but make admissions one of the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, and admissions while in the definition of hearsay, are still admissable.)
Applied to this case, the testimony of the Andreu's is not out of court so it isn't hearsay. The satement attributed to Armstrong is offered against him, and is therefore considered an admission, and is admissable, either as not hearsay, or as an exception to the hearsay rule, depending on which rules of evidence are applicalbe.
Whether it's credible is another issue, but it is not inadmissable hearsay.