Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From the New York Daily News -- http://tinyurl.com/27dxhja -- "Floyd Landis adds legal muscle, hires Greg LeMond's attorney in face of potential legal challenges"

My question is where is he getting the bucks to hire a legal team of this calibre or is it possible that they're taking the case hoping to cash out on a settlement?
 

·
always right sometimes
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
ragweed said:
From the New York Daily News -- http://tinyurl.com/27dxhja -- "Floyd Landis adds legal muscle, hires Greg LeMond's attorney in face of potential legal challenges"

My question is where is he getting the bucks to hire a legal team of this calibre or is it possible that they're taking the case hoping to cash out on a settlement?

He is getting the funds from the "Positively Negative Fund" or PNF.:rolleyes: Good question. Good article.

Question: When LA's ex-wife Kristen Armstrong was in court and she was asked if she had ever seen LA use PED's, she "declined to answer" based on her attorney's advice.

If the true answer was 'No", why wouldn't she have just said "No". Makes me wonder...again:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
My suspicion is that Lemond is paying the tab. Wilson Sonsini is a large law firm, and they're not doing this pro bono. The bills will be hefty. In this ongoing feud, Lemond reminds me of Captain Ahab and Lance the white whale (i know, bad analogy as it relates to skinny cyclists; but you get the point).
 

·
Call me a Fred
Joined
·
17,025 Posts
Floyd needs to get a life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
why, what will really be gained? are they gonna go back and give the tour victories to all respective second place guys ,who, by the way weren't totally clean either. Keep it like it is,try to enforce the rules as best you can, keep trying to develope better tests but once someone seems to have gotten away with something you gotta let it go,get em next time. Do you really think Ivan basso isn't heading for another bust in the future.
 

·
Jeffie
Joined
·
76 Posts
rydbyk said:
He is getting the funds from the "Positively Negative Fund" or PNF.:rolleyes: Good question. Good article.

Question: When LA's ex-wife Kristen Armstrong was in court and she was asked if she had ever seen LA use PED's, she "declined to answer" based on her attorney's advice.

If the true answer was 'No", why wouldn't she have just said "No". Makes me wonder...again:(
If federal investigators subpoena her, could she be forced to answer? I am no legal expert, but didn't Barry Bonds' associates get in trouble for refusing to testify? SInce she is his ex wife, can she refuse to testify due to the previous marital relationship? I am more curious because of the weird legal situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
Opus51569 said:
My guess is there are any number of lawyers who would take his case pro bono just for the free publicity. Particularly if they can make anything stick.
This is not the type of matter that a firm of Wilson Sonsini's caliber would take on pro bono. I'm speculating that Lemond has found his proxy (Landis) to expose his long-time nemesis and is providing the financial backing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
fornaca68 said:
This is not the type of matter that a firm of Wilson Sonsini's caliber would take on pro bono. I'm speculating that Lemond has found his proxy (Landis) to expose his long-time nemesis and is providing the financial backing.
+1. No doubt about it. Lemond won't let it go.
 

·
Matnlely Dregaend
Joined
·
5,051 Posts
Redacted :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
mohair_chair said:
She cannot be compelled to testify because of spousal privilege.
I think that is a bit too broad. She is not disqualified under spousal incompetency (which would be her choice to invoke anyway) because they are no longer married.

So that would leave the question as to whether the testimony involved confidential spousal communications or not. Obviously, we don't know whether the testimony pertains to that when we don't even know the possible testimony is yet.

And you can bet that if things get serious there will be plenty of briefings on every exception to the privilege the prosecutor can think of.
 

·
Back from the dead
Joined
·
20,800 Posts
ArkRider said:
I think that is a bit too broad. She is not disqualified under spousal incompetency (which would be her choice to invoke anyway) because they are no longer married.
Yes, it is her privilege to invoke. As I said, she cannot be compelled to testify, but she can choose to testify if she wants to.

But it doesn't matter that they are no longer married. All confidential communications made during their marriage are covered.

The only important exception is where there is a third party present. Landis said she was there when one transaction took place, so assuming that happened, she cannot invoke the spousal privilege on that incident.
 

·
always right sometimes
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
mohair_chair said:
Yes, it is her privilege to invoke. As I said, she cannot be compelled to testify, but she can choose to testify if she wants to.

But it doesn't matter that they are no longer married. All confidential communications made during their marriage are covered.

The only important exception is where there is a third party present. Landis said she was there when one transaction took place, so assuming that happened, she cannot invoke the spousal privilege on that incident.

If Kristen did NOT see LA ever using PED's.....where the HECK is the harm in simply responding "No" when asked?

Simple. No harm done to anyone or anything. Correct?

She has ALREADY been asked in court right?

When she is advised to not respond, it clearly appears that she is avoiding the "Yes" answer. That is what has got my eyebrow raised. Am I off in my thinking??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
herbn said:
why, what will really be gained? are they gonna go back and give the tour victories to all respective second place guys ,who, by the way weren't totally clean either. Keep it like it is,try to enforce the rules as best you can, keep trying to develope better tests but once someone seems to have gotten away with something you gotta let it go,get em next time. Do you really think Ivan basso isn't heading for another bust in the future.
+1
The 2003 Tour would go to Haimar Zubeldia. One of only two guys in the top ten to never be caught up in a drug scandal or suspended.
People need to let some stuff go and move on.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top