Well, until the witnesses testify, the statements of what those witnesses will testify to as contained in the USADA letter are hearsay.
Well, until the witnesses testify, the statements of what those witnesses will testify to as contained in the USADA letter are hearsay.
If these statements hold true, my observation from several years back confirms athletes at this level who can afford a "physician" and "pharmacist" on staff are not using these resources for typical day to day health issues.
Just like using a Trial Plan / formulary.
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.
What is being charged by USADA is not direct witnessing of an actual event.
anon wrote:
Well, until the witnesses testify, the statements of what those witnesses will testify to as contained in the USADA letter are hearsay.
Those witnesses have already given testimony, possibly to the US government in its investigation and to USADA. I assume (dangerous word) that there are transcripts of that testimony. I do not believe it is correct to say that the USADA letter is hearsay. It is not, in itself, being presented to a court or arbitration panel--it is merely summarizing the underlying evidence. You should think of it more as a filing of charges by a prosecutor. It may include some things that may not be strongly supported at trial but does reflect what the prosecutor thinks he/she is in possession of.
Slopy Lawyers wrote:
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.
What is being charged by USADA is not direct witnessing of an actual event.
Actually USADA says they have people who will testify that they witnessed Lance and his co-conspirators using drugs, trafficking in drugs, and encouraging others to use. These are not hearsay but direct witness testimony.
Further these witnesses will apparently testify that they heard Lance and his co-conspirators state that they used performance enhancing drugs. This will likely be an exception to the hearsay rule based on the following exceptions:
The statement is made by an agent of the party against whom it is being offered and concerns a matter within the scope of the employment and is made during the course of that employment. (Presumably many of the witnesses were employees)
The declarant was a co-conspirator of the party against whom the statement is being offered and the statement is in furtherance of their conspiracy. (the witnesses, if they took drugs and helped to conceal that use, may be classified as co-conspirators).
Further, USADA may have different rules about hearsay than the court system (of course different courts, jurisdictions, and cases also have different hearsay rules as well). I honestly to not know what USADA's hearsay rules are.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Actually USADA says they have people who will testify that they witnessed Lance and his co-conspirators using drugs, trafficking in drugs, and encouraging others to use. These are not hearsay but direct witness testimony.
Unlikely. I can claim the same about someone I do not like. The people who will testify must have iron clad claims, and must prove their memories are not fuzzy after all these years. That is why there is a statute of limitations.
Further these witnesses will apparently testify that they heard Lance and his co-conspirators state that they used performance enhancing drugs. This will likely be an exception to the hearsay rule based on the following exceptions: ...
I heard is heresay.
Further, USADA may have different rules about hearsay than the court system (of course different courts, jurisdictions, and cases also have different hearsay rules as well). I honestly to not know what USADA's hearsay rules are.
The USADA is not a government agency that overrules the courts. They must abide by the rules of the U.S. legal system.
Interesting letter from Lance's attorney to the USADA before the charges were made public.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577465021326477022.html
[/quote]
The recitation of the "bum's rush" was interesting--kind of heavy-handed. But then the attorney is left only with Lance's denials and the 500 tests. I am not sure that I would believe 5000 clean tests at this point. Although not entirely analogous, Lance's position reminds me of the DWI clients who swear, repeatedly, that they were sober and that they passed the field sobriety tests with flying colors. They tend to repeat it over and over and then it becomes the truth to them.
Interestin coincidence--both Kip Litton and Lance Armstrong have supporters who argue that their (Kip's and Lance's) charitable works outweigh any wrongdoing they may have done and that the cheating, if any, was in the past and should be forgiven.
The hardest part for me to take is Lance's attacking defense. I guess time will tell.
Finally, I wonder how those who have fessed up, like Landis, feel about themselves now--as opposed to those who continue to deny any wrongdoing.
We all need to step back, take a deep breath, and absorb the difference between evidence and proof. One million riders can come out and say they saw Lance Armstrong inject himself with EPO or that Lance Armstrong told them he injected himself with EPO. That's evidence.
A blood test that both A and B samples test positive for EPO is proof.
The USADA doesn't have proof of doping violations, only evidence. They are powerless to do anything without proof.
The formal charges are brought up against Lance Armstrong based on what known drug cheats are saying. These drug cheats are saying the overhead conversations dating back 15 years or more. Those conversations now become heresay after sitting stagnate for that long. A drug cheat is a liar. How can you trust one thing they say, when you couldn't trust them before.
USADA figures if it could bring down the most famous endurance athlete to have ever lived, wether on true or false accusations and with little or no proof and evidence that is applicable, then other athletes will think twice about doing drugs. Well, the USADA is an overbearing crock of hopeless idiots.
Find me at @TravisTheRunner on twitter...
Circumstantial evidence: I have needles coated with Lance's DNA and containing PEDs.
Direct evidence: I saw Lance shove a needle in his arm. The needle contained something that looked like a PED to me.
Hearsy: I heard that Lance stuck a needle in his arm, that absolutely contained PEDs.
The USADA has the last of the above. They do not have either of the first two, both which are required to establish corroborating evidence. Alone, the last doesn't hold enough water to make something stick. The USADA has to do better than what they have claimed so far.
This is retarded.... Can we just let this go already
Old Balls Webb wrote:
This is retarded.... Can we just let this go already
he's a fake hero
g-u-i-l-t-y
No, we cannot. His entire charity was built on lies and false hero worship. He must go down.
Sloppy Lawyers wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Actually USADA says they have people who will testify that they witnessed Lance and his co-conspirators using drugs, trafficking in drugs, and encouraging others to use. These are not hearsay but direct witness testimony.
Unlikely. I can claim the same about someone I do not like. The people who will testify must have iron clad claims, and must prove their memories are not fuzzy after all these years. That is why there is a statute of limitations.[/unquote]
You claimed it was all hearsay. It is not all hearsay. USADA says they have people that will testify to what they witnessed directly. That is not hearsay. The length of time that has passed and the reliability and consistency of memories are certainly something the panel can weigh when they listen to testimony. The allegation is that the conspiracy continued up until 2009-2010 so it all falls within the statute of limitations and while some of the testimony may be about events that happened a long time ago some of it will also be more recent.
Further these witnesses will apparently testify that they heard Lance and his co-conspirators state that they used performance enhancing drugs. This will likely be an exception to the hearsay rule based on the following exceptions: ...
I heard is heresay.[/unquote]
You do know that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. I listed two of them the likely apply in this case. Just because something is hearsay does not mean it is necessarily inadmissible. As most of the people testifying would likely be co-conspirators and/or employees of one of the co-conspirators then it is very probably that all of it will be admissible.
[quote] Further, USADA may have different rules about hearsay than the court system (of course different courts, jurisdictions, and cases also have different hearsay rules as well). I honestly to not know what USADA's hearsay rules are.
The USADA is not a government agency that overrules the courts. They must abide by the rules of the U.S. legal system.
This is absolutely incorrect. USADA is not a government agency (even though they receive funding from the US government. They do not have to operate under the same rules as the US legal system.
My biggest hope is that Lance will choose to conduct this hearing in open court (which he has the option to do) so that I can hear and see all of the evidence myself.
Magic 8 Ball wrote:
We all need to step back, take a deep breath, and absorb the difference between evidence and proof. One million riders can come out and say they saw Lance Armstrong inject himself with EPO or that Lance Armstrong told them he injected himself with EPO. That's evidence.
A blood test that both A and B samples test positive for EPO is proof.
The USADA doesn't have proof of doping violations, only evidence. They are powerless to do anything without proof.
They are both evidence. One may be more damning than the other but they are both evidence.
Hidden Coward wrote:
USADA figures if it could bring down the most famous endurance athlete to have ever lived, wether on true or false accusations and with little or no proof and evidence that is applicable, then other athletes will think twice about doing drugs. Well, the USADA is an overbearing crock of hopeless idiots.
Find me at @TravisTheRunner on twitter...
USADA may be just as interested in Bruyneel, Ferrari and the others as they are in Lance.
Ok you guys are cute. I didn't mean to start a hearsay discussion, just wanted to defend the one poor commenter who dared to say it's hearsay. But yeah, no idea by what rules of evidence (if any) the USADA abides.
If he is not yet found guilty is it legal to ban him from competing in triathlons?
I do believe he is guilty as charged but I think its not fair to ban him before he is found guilty. Poor fella after all that preparation for Kona!!
It is hearsay, as ten years the court does not accept "memories" as a viable form of evidence. The USADA accepting these "confessions" are accepting them on the basis that the USADA heard from so-and-so that so-and-so did this or that. If they take away his eligibility, Lance Armstrong will have the chance to sue for his elgibility in the US Court System. The USADA has to abide by rules and statutes set forward by the US Courts.