Barese Rider

What the hell is a supposed threat by a Landis agent doing in evidence in this hearing ? Its a stretch to find any relevancy or competency to this testimony at all vis a vis gregs conversation with landis and its highly prejudicial to boot.. Greg nowhere claims that landis made the call or was present when the call was made. If landis's agent was stupid enough to have done so then he should be charged with it, if he wants to then dime out Landis as putting him up to it fine,but without that link you cant connect Landis to the phone call..Judge Barese Rider excludes the evidence!!

And as far as anti greg goes,what in the world is he doing at this hearing? Did he call up the authorities and say I might have some dirt on Landis? And I want to come and squeal on him? If Greg was my kid Id tell him to keep his mouth shut and find better things to do.. Maybe he suffers from some kind of PTSD and gets paranoia over these things and cant help but mouth off.

Blaireau

If I may quote myself on this issue personnal insults on Greg Lemond's appearence aside of course
"Wow. That's messed up. Landis's business manager Will Geoghegan is one big idiot. Had he not made that threatening call, Lemond's story would have been inadmissible as hearsay, more than likely, either during the hearing or on appeal later on. Now, its a different issue, the story can likely withstand the motion to strike. Not to mention that the not so "anonymous" call lends credence to Lemond's version.
I always believed Landis doped. This is just one more brick in the wall."

PhatRoadie

what a circus....

canili

Agreed. He certainly comes off as bitter and whiny, but who wouldnt be? He obviously feels pretty strongly that the whole of cycling is dirty, but people want him to smile politely and kiss LA's and FL's as$es. Ask Hank Aaron how he feels about Bonds closing in on his record, I'd duck soon after asking...

KramerTC

It is not a supposed/alleged threat anymore. The call did take place. The guy who was identified to have made the call admitted so in the court. He was promptly fired.

Barese Rider

No,no you messed up your evidence 201. What Landis supposedly told Greg can be viewed as an admission against interest and as such is admissable..The part about the manager does not belong in evidence as there's no connection between landis and the threat....The only thing it would co-oberate was that Greg told landis that he was abused not that landis told Greg that he was guilty.. These types of statements are normally not admissable in court.. But when you have an administrative hearing like this the rules of evidence get thrown out the window.. And it is on the left coast too.. So what do I know?

patentcad

They are disappointing Bingo:

KramerTC

Barese Rider, are you a lawyer?
If so, I'm proud that I passed level 101

Jinker

If he was a lawyer he would probably have spelled corroborate correctly.

fly:yes/land:no

+1, but evidence is next semester for me . this whole thing is incredible. agree with the administrative hearing part, but i question the motives of usada in bringing up the abuse part. ultimately, their interests are served not in finding flandis guilty, but in proving credibility of the system and the reliability of its results through a fair trial. using smear tactics to make flandis look bad doesn't really make me feel comfortable with usada's accusations and they shouldn't make anyone else comfortable either. even though it was flandis' dude that called lemond, it is the usada that looks foolish for even bringing this aspect of lemond's life into the trial. i just think that, particularly in high profile trials, prosecutors/agencies should seek justice, not victory.

Prince9931

I cant wait until Tanya and her Yellow tie get on the stand ............ it should be good stuff.

I don't know anyhting about these tests or how to interpet them, but when viewed from afar this entire "circus" justs looks bad. And his camp needs to be fired, everyone of them. And he should never be allowed to speak to reporters, because he is horrible at answering/dodging questions. He isnt doing himself any favors in the court of public opinion.

Prince9931

Your last sentence is correct. In a perfect world yes..... But in the world we live in today....... Any day basically. It's just not the way anymore, maybe it was never that way. Sometimes victory equals justice. Sometimes not.

donrhummy

Lemond keeps claiming to have these conversations with Lance, Landis and who knows who else yet he never tapes them? And after Lemond's testimony of his phone call with Lance (which EVERYONE in cycling knows about) why would Landis ever admit anything to Lemond?

VT Biker

But if he was taping them:

(a) In some jurisdictions, they are illegal unless the other party is informed.
(b) They are inadmissable in court if the counter party is not aware (I believe this is the case).

reef58

Different states are different, but usually it is not illegal to record a conversation if you are a party to the coversation. It is usually illegal for a third party to record a conversation without the parties of the conversation consent.

Richard

reef58

I will have to change my predictions for the TDF. I think Pizzaman will edge out Killer Penguin. Cypress will do well, but his avatar admits to doping. Oh well.

Richard

USAZorro

Sounds like last year's Giro in a more formal setting.

daredevil

My eyes glaze over any time the doping topic comes up. What a freaking mess. I need the simplified version of events. My brain can't process the current state of affairs. Some people's purpose in this whole thing must be simply to confuse the issue.

shakeNbake

USADA won so far.

This Lemond ordeal just made everyone forgot that yesterday two of the most incompetent people in the history of incompetent people did Landis's urine test.

Trevor98

I disagree, nobody "wins" here- they all lose. At least they're providing some bizarre entertainment.

dogpound

+1

merlinextraligh

Sorry Barese, but you also didn't quite get Evidence correct. While you come to the right result that Landis' alleged statement to Lemond is admissable, you cite the wrong principle.

Landis' alleged statement is an admission of a party opponent, and therefore not hearsay (F.R. Ev. 801).

An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule (F.R. Ev. 804 b 3) However, the statement against interest rule only applies when the declarent is not available.

You don't even get to hearsay exception of statements against interest, because the admission by the party opponent isn't defined as hearsay in the first place.

Sorry Barese rider, but if your in my class, you get 1 point for the right result, miss the 2 points for citing the wrong rule, and miss 2 points for the wrong analysis, unfortunately a failing grade.

Laggard

Don't be surprised. It dates back here to a time when Greg dissed the Lance the Cycling God. Some people have never forgiven Greg for that transgression.

merlinextraligh

What's amazing to me is how badly Landis' camp botched this. Short cross examination of Lemond to the extent "isn't it true your a washed up old has been that slings crap at everybody?" and "even what you claim Landis said is subject to interpretation?"

That would have pretty much dealt with it.

Instead by pulling the stupid stunt, it actually gives weight and credence to Lemond, who otherwise would be have been disregarded as curmudgeonly crackpot.

KramerTC

Yesterday was very reminiscent of the OJ Simpson trial when the lab workers were being questioned. Anyone remember Denis Fong? He was made to look like a total idiot by the defense attorneys.

I think the impression of incompetence is inevitable anytime you have a low level technician's daily routine being put under the microscope by high level attorneys and experts.