At last it is heading towards the end

petethedrummer

leftism wrote: »

I don't see that as a smoking gun. Sure Landis is an ex-USPS rider and his testimony will hardly win the case.

The thing is, we don't exactly know what the case is and how wide or narrow it is.

Also Armstrong hasn't been caught for doping because all they really have to go on is urine and blood samples. I would guess the U.S. feds will have much more evidence at their disposal.

leftism wrote: »

Testimony from colleagues, friends, former misstresses, drug-dealers etc. no matter how damning, is too easily disregarded as it is basically Lances word vs. theirs. But not only that, it'll be Lance's word + an unlimited number of powerful buddies vs. theirs. For every colleague Novitsky digs up, Lance's legal team will find 10 to contradict it.

Eye witness testimony is direct evidence not hearsay.

leftism wrote: »

And in the end he can always resort to his tried and tested approach; "They're just jealous" "He's a compulsive lier who cannot be trusted" "She's just angry i didn't marry her".

That has worked in the media war on a case by case basis. He can't now tar all his ex-teammates and all the other people tarred with the jealous brush and have people take him seriously.

With Armstrong just retired Pat McQuaid has lent credence to Landis' claims and is already trying to distance himself from the Armstrong-Verbruggen era:

With claims being repeated in the media and a federal investigation into alleged widespread doping at Lance Armstrong's former US Postal team nearing a conclusion, it seems the UCI can no longer simply discredit Landis.
"A lot of the stuff he says in relation to what went on in those years is probably true," admitted McQuaid. "But by the same token, he's very fond of zoning in on people and accusing them of things with absolutely no corroboration".
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49173811/mcquaidinterview

That's an enormous admission by McQuaid, IMO.

leftism wrote: »

Without hard evidence i don't see them winning this case. Novitsky set a major precedent when he got Marion Jones convicted. But bear in mind that Jones confessed to purjury while on trial. She served 6 months in prison and now plays professional basketball in the WNBA.

Jones probably never stepped on anybody's toes on her way up. And also would have had a smaller circle of people aware of her drug taking.

leftism wrote: »

The happy ending we all dream of, with Armstrong breaking down in tears in front of a jury and the worlds media, crying "OK I ADMIT IT!" before being led away in handcuffs is not likely to happen. The unfortunate truth which Jeff Novitsky has probably already realised, is that the Jones case was a fluke and Armstrong is going to be a much tougher nut to crack...

I somewhat agree. Anyway interesting times ahead.

leftism

niceonetom wrote: »

Lance is powerful guy and has great influence but do you really think that when the feds lean on Tyler Hamilton, or Hincapie, or all the other insiders there and say "Look, you lie to us, and you will go to prison." they won't fold?

I'm confident that a number of those ex-USPS riders will admit to some of what Landis is accusing Lance of. But i am not confident of that testimony securing a conviction or even coming close to proving that Lance misused federal funds as part of a systematic team doping programme.

niceonetom wrote: »

You may think that getting the urine samples from '99 seems like scraping the barrel - the actions of a man with nothing in his arsenal - I see it as the action of a guy or near-robotic thoroughness. If he's got those samples I'm confident that he's also got records of damn near every financial transaction LA has ever been involved in. That's where any smoking gun will be found.

I really hope you're right about this one! I've so much respect for Novitsky for even contemplating taking on this case. But i hope he did so with a good concept of the difficulties and challenges associated with such a case and it wasn't just a reactionary measure on the back of the Landis admission. Remember that Novitsky already had a whistleblower who provided him with hard evidence when he took on BALCO. In addition, he probably could not believe his luck when Jones broke down under cross-examination.

The challenges associated with this case are far more difficult, not least because you're talking about events that happened over 10 years ago. Its unlikely that hard evidence (a syringe, blood-transfusion bag, etc.) is gonna surface now and without that, we're holding our breath hoping for a set of account transactions made out to; The EPO Warehouse Ltd., 23 Haematocrit Way, Tuscany, Italy. I've never bought illegal drugs but i'd say the suppliers accounts department are shoddy at best...

Without some hard evidence, i just cannot see how he will secure a conviction, and so much is riding on getting that conviction. I would go so far as to say the future of cycling rides on it. Secure a conviction, potentially implicate UCI officials and we will finally see fundamental change in the way cycling deals with dopers. What this sport needs more than anything is to get an image of Lance being carted away in handcuffs and burn it into the minds of every young rider for the next decade!

Jawgap

If it's a Congressional Hearing, rules of evidence pretty much go out the window - they can wheel in whoever they want to say whatever they want - whether something is admitted or not or is hearsay or not is down to the chairman.

They are modern day Star Chambers!

His political affiliations will probably have a larger bearing on what type of experience he has, which may explain his insistance that he has no political aspirations.