Greg Lemond drops bomb at Landis trial

Mandy

I heard l'Equipe relocated their editorial staff to Area 51. Is this one of the reports I should not disregard?

who is HA?

anyone remember the "Today Show" interview with LeMond last summer after this whole thing started? Didn't he say he thought landis was innocent?

This is how it is- A network of people with normal lives are involved in an intricate net of dealers and users which spand several sports in both the USA and France. Cycling is among those sports,and a knee-deep shithole of people on both sides of the fence are involved. FL and LA are intertwined by means of (-)HA. The iron horse will soon dismantle the rider, who, in turn, will strike the source.

Informant AA03 wrote:

This is how it is- A network of people with normal lives are involved in an intricate net of dealers and users which spand several sports in both the USA and France. Cycling is among those sports,and a knee-deep shithole of people on both sides of the fence are involved. FL and LA are intertwined by means of (-)HA. The iron horse will soon dismantle the rider, who, in turn, will strike the source.

One can only hope this happens. (i.e. admissions & honesty)

But I seriously doubt it.

Informant AA03 wrote:

of (-)HA.

what does this mean??

I do not understand why Greg LeMond confided his secret to Floyd Landis to begin with. First, there is no correlation between the two events. Greg was a victim of a crime and Landis allegedly perpetrated a crime. Second, Greg says that it is wrong to keep big secrets, confides in Landis, then later tells the court that only a very few people know his secret. I thought his point to Floyd was that you should not keep secrets? Why did he continue to keep his then? Floyd's team really blew it by harassing Greg with that phone call, because just the sheer stupidity of the conversation between Greg and Floyd would have discredited Greg LeMond. Besides this heresay conversation would not be relevant to the procedural focus of the case.

yepers wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news

Greg doesn't look too good in the picture. He's really aged. Has he been doing a lot of drugs?

I am only mentioning something which I would like letsrun (managers and readers) to take into account. Much like the duke rape trial, could we please not denounce somebody until they are proven guilty. The letsrun headline is rather biased. Just because somebody steps up and says....

he sounded "very defensive" or that an article states he "implicitly confessed."

Are you joking? Please don't let this happen again. After this article it seems the media has already proven him guilty. They should let the people in the courtroom decide instead of either the writer of the article or somebody who could possibly have something against Landis. What, I don't know. Who would have guessed a stripper wanted to ruin the lives of some worthless duke lacrosse players. Maybe somebody gave Landis and the scientists at the lab 10 bucks to say he's guilty? Maybe he took drugs. But Landis is far from guilty (although he might be) just because this guy says Landis says "what good would it do.... if i did [confess]."

I've heard the same argument in 6th grade when my best friend said that his girlfriend was talking to her cousin and she said....

Is LeMond cycling at all now?

Yeah.

Lemond is still trying to get any attention his has-been tiny d i c k can. It sucks to be second, third, or whatever he is best anymore....

Why all the animosity towards Lemond in this thread? Seriously?

The latest testimony by Landis' first

witness certainly blew a huge hole in

the case related to the Testosterone/

Epitestosterone ratio and the attrocious

LNDD lab practices. Fortunately, this

type of open hearing will goad LNDD and

others to change there practices.

Dr. Goldberger's testimony can be viewed

using Internet Explorer (only) at

courtroom connect by going to:

http://www.floydlandis.com/case

and, towards

the bottom of the page, choosing the

PM session for 5/18/2006 and going

to minute 134:30 in the session. To be

fair, you can see the redirect questioning

by USADA after the direct testimony.

I'll say this, as a new cyclist after a highly successful running career terminated by knee osteo-necrosis (bone-death), the suffering I've experienced in biking is so brutal that I ALMOST don't blame these guys from NEEDING PEDS ! And I'm regarded as a promising newcomer, albeit too old for the real pelotons. The caloric toll alone is monumental, nevermind the mineral, electrolyte, and red blood cell drainage.

Legally, these guys are injected with all sorts of approved vitamins and proteins. Is it only too easy to take the next step? If we listen to the supposedly "straight" team doctors, they constantly talk about maintaining the "health" of their charges.

I have no answers, but I used to mercilessly make fun of cyclists, but now I respect the five hour grueling ordeals. Imagine a marathon effort day after day, week after week?

Lamont was sexually abused as a child-> Ergo, the testing done on Landis' samples are legit and flawless???

van wrote:

I'll say this, as a new cyclist after a highly successful running career terminated by knee osteo-necrosis (bone-death), the suffering I've experienced in biking is so brutal that I ALMOST don't blame these guys from NEEDING PEDS ! And I'm regarded as a promising newcomer, albeit too old for the real pelotons. The caloric toll alone is monumental, nevermind the mineral, electrolyte, and red blood cell drainage.

Legally, these guys are injected with all sorts of approved vitamins and proteins. Is it only too easy to take the next step? If we listen to the supposedly "straight" team doctors, they constantly talk about maintaining the "health" of their charges.

I have no answers, but I used to mercilessly make fun of cyclists, but now I respect the five hour grueling ordeals. Imagine a marathon effort day after day, week after week?

Yes the guy was very credible. I especially liked when USADA's attonrey tried to suggest he wasn't qualified and he handed him the letter offering him Don Catlin's old job as head of the UCLA lab. Ouch!

Make sure you know the answer before you ask it.

van wrote:

I'll say this, as a new cyclist.... the suffering I've experienced in biking is so brutal that I ALMOST don't blame these guys from NEEDING PEDS ! ...Legally, these guys are injected with all sorts of approved vitamins and proteins. Is it only too easy to take the next step?

Yeah, you'll fit right in in the cycling world, with all your excuses for cheating and drug use.

van wrote:I used to mercilessly make fun of cyclists, but now I respect the five hour grueling ordeals. Imagine a marathon effort day after day, week after week?

Who doesn't respect those efforts? On the other hand, as far as a "marathon effort", can you walk downstairs after a 5 hour bike ride? After several marathons I've run(ones with lots hills), I could barely walk for 2 days. After a 5 hour bike ride, I could......go for another 5 hour bike ride (a lot slower, but I could easily do it). There is a REASON the TDF riders can do those rides day after day, and one can't race a marathon every day. In a word, ECCENTRIC muscle contractions. One batters one's legs in running, but simply fatigues them heavily in cycling.

Old Runner Guy wrote:

This is arbritration, not a court. Therefore, it is not an official proceeding. It is an agreed to procedure by the parties involved.

Therefore, it is not clear that felony witness tampering laws apply in this instance.

Geoghegen's attroney's are not going to assume this when tehy wrote his release.

Here is a legal blog that opined on the possibility of Felony charges against Will Geoghegan. It largely agrees with what I worte above - he probably is NOT elibile to be prosecuted under the CA witness tampering laws

As best I can tell, the federal statute on witness tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512) does not seem to apply because it requires witness tampering in the context of an "official proceeding." An "official proceeding" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1) as "(i) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Claims Court, or a Federal grand jury; (ii) a proceeding before the Congress; (iii) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or (iv) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency."

Obstruction of justice is broader, defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1503, inter alia, as using "any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice." And the California statute (Penal Code § 182(5)) is similar, prohibiting conspiracy "to commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws."

But do such criminal penalties apply to international arbitration? It seems that arbitration could easily fall within the general definition of administration of justice, and anyone who threatens a witness in that context may be obstructing justice. The California arbitration statute (Cal Civ. Proc. 1283.05) is particularly helpful in this regard, stipulating that:

(a) After the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators, the parties to the arbitration shall have the right ... to obtain discovery regarding the subject matter of the arbitration, and, to that end, to use and exercise all of the same rights, remedies, and procedures, and be subject to all of the same duties, liabilities, and obligations in the arbitration with respect to the subject matter thereof,... as if the subject matter of the arbitration were pending before a superior court of this state in a civil action....

(b) The arbitrator or arbitrators themselves shall have power, in addition to the power of determining the merits of the arbitration, to enforce the rights, remedies, procedures, duties, liabilities, and obligations of discovery by the imposition of the same terms, conditions, consequences, liabilities, sanctions, and penalties as can be or may be imposed in like circumstances in a civil action by a superior court of this state under the provisions of this code, except the power to order the arrest or imprisonment of a person.

--

Not directly on point, but these provisions seem to support the general notion that the parties to an arbitration in California may be subject to the same penalties and liabilities that attach in state court. I would think that the combined effect of these statutes would give rise to a colorable claim of criminal liability for obstruction of justice in the context of international arbitration. But then again, there is absolutely no case law or law review commentary I could find directly addressing this question.

--

Any criminal law or arbitration experts that have thoughts, please comment.

Old Runner Guy wrote:

he probably is NOT elibile to be prosecuted under the CA witness tampering laws

Wrong. The blog that you are quoting from is discussing the possible application of a federal statute, not a state statute. Federal criminal statutes have rather limited jurisdictional reach. In particular, the federal "witness tampering" statute generally deals with "witness tampering" in proceedings before federal tribunals, along with certain matters that are deemed to affect interstate commerce. State criminal statutes are not so limited.

I have little doubt that there is enough in this case to move forward with a criminal prosecution under state law. Whether that will be done is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.