Lawyer Argument
No one likes lawyers until they need one. We could really use one right now. The Landis trial is almost over (well, this round of the trial is over – they do have another avenue for appeal, after all), and I can’t really tell what the score is. It seems like the Lemond testimony was dramatic, but in a legal sense, wasn’t really that relevant.
Also, is it me or does it seem like the testosterone test is more art than science? Why can’t the experts agree on what constitutes a positive test? And why are we convicting people based on subjective interpretations? Can’t we develop some sort of doping divining rod or perhaps a nice dunk test?
I know that there are some lawyers out there. If you are actually a lawyer, maybe you can comment on the state of the case. If you are not a lawyer, maybe you can just add a good lawyer joke.
"q is not if he’s a jerk but if he engages systematically in lying, deceptive, manipulative behavior. a tendency is enough to convict someone. "
Is this true? That sounds kinda extreme.
line?break?
Landis can be a total jerk and still not be a doper. Or he could seem like a nice guy and be a doper. Would you convict him for being a jerk if the evidence is shown to be flimsy?
q is not if he’s a jerk but if he engages systematically in lying, deceptive, manipulative behavior. a tendency is enough to convict someone.
also this is not a criminal case where the standard of conviction would have been ‘he did it beyond a reasonable doubt’. This is civil, so it’s a ‘he did it, based on a preponderance of the evidence’. Much different.
If you read that quote you can see that it’s referring to cross examination of expert witnesses, not Landis.
isn’t landis’s character extremely relevant to the case?
i mean he’s asking us to just gee whiz, believe him, and chuck out all the LNDD data.
In a cross of Landis it makes sense to focus on his character. What else would you focus on?
I’m sure they didn’t ask the expert witness on IRMS equipment about Landis’ character.
That’s an interesting statement by Eustice. This sort of thing wouldn’t happen in Baseball…. ok, bad example.
But the whole system in cycling is sloppy, where riders could pay dearly for errors or rumors and are left to deal with it alone, Pro-Tour teams are excluded from major races and race organizers have enormous power, riders’ "unions" are either un-supportive or powerless, etc. It’s almost like an underworld power system that has a volatile balance– things can change if the top guys are "bumped off", etc.
Landis’ lawyer is getting paid wayyyyyyyyyy more than the USADA guy.
They only have an annual bugdet of 12 million.
Lance himself earned more than that a year.
Is it any wonder they never caught him?
Floyd should put on a white tie and give up.
USADA later explained its reasoning for focusing on Landis’ character, rather than countering testimonies that had been made by expert witnesses brought in by the Landis’ side. It said that in general – referring to some of the other testimony – though it would like to proceed with cross-examination in all instances, it did not always have the preparation or the technical know-how at this point in time within the framework of an arbitration.
why is a black suit bad?
Im late to post this AM because I had to consult my lawyer since I can’t tell the diff between right and wrong on my own. He told me not to comment, or at least to feign memory loss or blame one of my staffers, so "no comment".
has come off like a scumbag.
Did you know he was sitting alone at a table w/ his manager "Will" when the famous phone call was made?
Also, a black suit? That seems like a passive agressive way to be an ass.
came off as a has-been loser…
and what relevance did papp’s testimony have? he isn’t even a has-been…they should both just go away
a lawyer and a catfish is that the one is a scum succing, mud eating bottom dweller and the other is a fish.