Jump to content

SAY IT AIN?T SO FLOYD!


L'Bie

Recommended Posts

I would like to quote a responce to Floyd's admission on another page to you. Yeah, I know it has been disscussed at length, but it looks like a curveball. A possible SLAMMING curveball. Only time will tell if the legal authorities in Califrnia will take this one on.

"Newsflash: Floyd Landis has confessed
to doping during his professional cycling career in an e-mail to USA
Cycling chief executive officer Steve Johnson. The e-mail, which was
sent to Johnson on April 30, details Landis? history with doping,
starting from his first experience with testosterone in 2002 through to
2006 when he won the Tour de France, before abnormalities from a test
on stage 17 saw him stripped of the title years later.

Previous
denials. The incredible claims of his doping follow a four year period
during which Landis heatedly denied allegations of doping during the
2006 Tour de France, when a urine sample showed the rider had an
unusually high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio. Landis appealed
against the findings from his A and B samples, at which point USA
Cycling transferred Landis? case to the United States Anti-Doping
Agency.

Why now? Hmmmm. First, I think he believes that the
statute of limitations has run on any possible perjury charge. (4 years
? see discussion below); and then there is the impact saying it now to
garner the most publicity. That is, good ol? Floyd waits until just
before the Tour de France, while the Giro d?Italia and the Tour of
California are running to release his mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima
culpa. It gives him the most press, and places him back in the
limelight. What a sad sack, ?cause he wrong on both counts. This
confession won?t advance his career, if that?s what you call it, one
inch.

Questions class? I call on the person from the peanut
gallery wearing the faded U.S. Postal jersey, yeah you with the
upraised arm? What?s your question? What about all that testimony that
he gave under oath, where he denied doping. Was he being untruthful
then, or is he telling the truth now?

To answer your question,
we must all realize that these outlandish claims follow a four-year
period during which Landis passionately denied allegations of doping
during the 2006 Tour de France, when a urine sample showed he had an
unusually high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio. Landis appealed
against the findings from his A and B samples, at which point USA
Cycling transferred Landis? case to the United States Anti-Doping
Agency. The claim was heard in California. The case is the first ever
public hearing by the USADA - something Landis himself insisted on
after a ground-swell of support in the US - and was held at Pepperdine
University School of Law in Malibu, California. In fact, Landis' lawyer
called the case brought by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) an 'utter
disaster' and disputed the credibility of a lab test conducted in Paris
after his 2006 victory, which showed that he had taken testosterone.

Lying
then, or lying now. So how are we to react now that good ol? Floyd is
taking the position he was doping? Hmmm. . . I was lying then, I ain?t
lying now. I was a doper, using everything I could get my hands on to
improve my performance. Sorry. Uh, . . . sorry! What!? WHAT!

Back
on earth in California, we have a jury instruction that states: ?if you
decide that a witness deliberately testified untruthfully about
something important, you may choose not to believe anything that
witness said.? (See CACI 5003.) This man testified under oath, that?s
under penalty of perjury folks, that he did not use performance
enhancing drugs. Confessions are good for the soul, but why did he make
it public rather than tell it to a priest or minister. I wonder if he
realizes that admitting he lied under oath is a righteous admission of
perjury. The DA doesn?t even have to prove a case. The admission is not
hearsay because it is an admission against his penal interest. The DA
simply files his case, and puts in the admission like a dollar in a
change machine. Confession in, felony conviction out. Gulp, a felony in
California. Uh oh. Uh, where is the next train to Clarksville.

What
is perjury in California, you ask? California Penal Code Section 118
states the following: ?(a) Every person who, having taken an oath that
he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any
competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which
the oath may by law of the State of California be administered,
willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter
which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies,
declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the
cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or
certification is permitted by law of the State of California under
penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter
which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.? Perjury is a
felony in California. That is, under Penal Code section 126, ?Perjury
is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or
four years.? 2 to 4 years! Holy crap, Landis landed deep in it this
time!

Why, California law? Why am I citing California law to you
nattering nabobs? Because the 10-day arbitration on Floyds drug charges
was held at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, and, thus, the
perjury occurred in California. This means California law applies to
the case. Remember this, Landis, who testified in his own case,
repeatedly denied taking steroids, saying he would not feel any joy in
winning if he had cheated. Thus, on Tuesday, May 15, 2007, and Saturday
May 19, 2007, he testified in an admittedly false manner. Oh, and did
you hear Floyd mention the statute of limitations? Well, he was really
referring to his own statute of limitations on perjury, which he
believes is 4 years. So, by his lights, he can now say that he was
lying under oath and cannot be prosecuted. Assuming the perjury
occurred on May 15, 2006, that means the statute ran on May 15, 2010.
Ha, Ha, Ha. Right? You ain?t laughing. Right? Wrong, Floyd.

Statute
of Limitations with a twist. Prosecution for an offense of perjury in
California must be commenced within four years after commission of the
offense. (See Penal Code ? 801.) However, the twist, the rub, the
surprise in the package is that statute of limitations for perjury
(Penal Code section 118) is FOUR years from DISCOVERY of the offense.
(Penal Code sections 801.5, 803©(2).) Discovery in this case would be
the date of the confession, a couple of days ago. Good old Floyd waited
four years to throw his little bomb in a crowed room only to find that
it bounced right back at him.

Floyd, say it ain?t so, say you ain?t that stupid.

- Cicconi -"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember all the online petitions pleading his innocense, all the TV interviews slamming the TDF and UCI.

 

Besides the Statute of limitations you have to question his timing, just before the TDF.

 

What a waste, Floyd you dumb ****!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what i would like to know: what did he take the night after he lost a lot of time on the stage and then recovered the next day to regain the time lost. from what i understand of PED's is that the effect is seen over a period of time and you still need to train hard. it doesn't enable you to recover like he did, so he must of taken something which was out of the norm with his doping program. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's a dumb ass.... he should have stuck to the 3 "D's" aproach, and just retreated out of the limelight.. (3 "D's" = deny, deny, deny)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout