Landis, continued

They can't get a capable translator !
In all of California, no one can do this ?
Really not too difficult as testimony.

I am amazed they can concentrate, but after all, it's the submissions that
will support a decision by the panel.

So long as USADA attorneys make this a lab course, and so long as Landis'
attorneys keep focused on legal and procedural issues, it is reasonably
possible for there to be no finding of a violation.

But............
Long road ahead.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:49:02 +0200, Sandy wrote:
They can't get a capable translator !

F-E or E-F? For what, for which testimony, for whose benefit do you
mean?

--
E. Dronkert

Dans le message de ,
Ewoud Dronkert a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:49:02 +0200, Sandy wrote:
They can't get a capable translator !

F-E or E-F? For what, for which testimony, for whose benefit do you
mean?

Neither F-E nor E-F. But doing it both ways is tiring and difficult. My
sympathies lie with the translator(s) so burdened.

For the benefit of the panel - they are the only ones needing to benefit.

It's a bear to listen to, even ignoring the language gaps. It is just a
bunch of intermittent Q&A.

The parties rely, one presumes, on the written submissions, anyway. The
testimony is a decoration, and it would be more helpful (to all, especially
weary observers), if they just hit on the key points of dispute. It's about
10 times quicker to finish a murder trial.

But every lawyer has a style, and a book of business to deal with.
Should Landis prevail, I hope he is granted costs and expenses.
Should this go to TAS, it will take a miracle for Landis to find arbitrators
friendly to his position, I fear. Remember, if it goes there, WADA can
basically mandate a /de novo/ hearing, and we'll live with this another
year.

Sandy wrote:
They can't get a capable translator !
In all of California, no one can do this ?
Really not too difficult as testimony.

I am amazed they can concentrate, but after all, it's the submissions that
will support a decision by the panel.

So long as USADA attorneys make this a lab course, and so long as Landis'
attorneys keep focused on legal and procedural issues, it is reasonably
possible for there to be no finding of a violation.

But............
Long road ahead.

A yellow tie at an arbitration meeting. Didn't Landis ever read Power
Dressing for Success? He should have gone with a trustworthy blue, or
an authoritative red.

I'm wondering what's up with the arbitration panel. Christopher
Campbell, Patrice Brunet and Richard McLaren...? This is amerikay,
dad-blammit! With names like that, it's obviously some Franco-Hooked-
On-Phonics conspiracy.

I'm glad to see that Landis' team represents a more balanced team.
Howard Jacobs and Maurice Suh. Can't get much more American than
that!*

R

* Well, actually it could, but Hector Rodriguez was left off due to
possible Puerto connections being raised.

Dans le message de
oups.com,
RicodJour a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Sandy wrote:
They can't get a capable translator !
In all of California, no one can do this ?
Really not too difficult as testimony.

I am amazed they can concentrate, but after all, it's the
submissions that will support a decision by the panel.

So long as USADA attorneys make this a lab course, and so long as
Landis' attorneys keep focused on legal and procedural issues, it is
reasonably possible for there to be no finding of a violation.

But............
Long road ahead.

A yellow tie at an arbitration meeting. Didn't Landis ever read Power
Dressing for Success? He should have gone with a trustworthy blue, or
an authoritative red.

Yellow tie - yellow jersey. He's already nostalgic.

On May 16, 5:49 am, "Sandy" wrote:
They can't get a capable translator !
In all of California, no one can do this ?
Really not too difficult as testimony.

I am amazed they can concentrate, but after all, it's the submissions that
will support a decision by the panel.

So long as USADA attorneys make this a lab course, and so long as Landis'
attorneys keep focused on legal and procedural issues, it is reasonably
possible for there to be no finding of a violation.

But............
Long road ahead.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

From:

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...ters&type=lgns

"Former Tour de France champions Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are
expected to be called as witnesses later during the hearing being held
at Pepperdine University.

Three-times winner LeMond is scheduled to testify against fellow
American Landis while Belgian Merckx, who won the Tour five times
between 1969 and 1974, is set to testify in Landis's favor."

LeMond will testify that he is the only American to win the TdF
clean. So, he's better than Lance or Flandis.

Not sure what Eddy will say.
--
Marty

Marty wrote:
From:

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...ters&type=lgns

"Former Tour de France champions Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are
expected to be called as witnesses later during the hearing being held
at Pepperdine University.

Three-times winner LeMond is scheduled to testify against fellow
American Landis while Belgian Merckx, who won the Tour five times
between 1969 and 1974, is set to testify in Landis's favor."

WTF! Neither of these guys is relevant to the case.

Bob Schwartz

Marty wrote:

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...ters&type=lgns

"Former Tour de France champions Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are
expected to be called as witnesses later during the hearing being held
at Pepperdine University.

Three-times winner LeMond is scheduled to testify against fellow
American Landis while Belgian Merckx, who won the Tour five times
between 1969 and 1974, is set to testify in Landis's favor."

LeMond will testify that he is the only American to win the TdF
clean. So, he's better than Lance or Flandis.

Not sure what Eddy will say.

Something along the lines of, "You silly, pig-dog, I fart in your
general direction." Then he'll challenge Lemond to an impromptu race
on the bikes they both just happened to bring along to prove who is
the Cannibal and who is the Oscar Meyer lunchmeat. The newly trim
Merckx will then kick the crap out of LeBlob and prove
conclusively...well, I'm not sure what it will prove, but it'll be fun
to watch Greg get all teary-eyed and defensive before getting his ass
beat. I'd guess he might opt for the I'm-riding-with-diarrhea
defense.

I don't understand why they're bringing in people without _specific_
knowledge of whether he doped or not during the stage in question.
Everything else is window dressing.

R

RicodJour wrote:
A yellow tie at an arbitration meeting. Didn't Landis ever read Power
Dressing for Success?

If you use your tie in lieu of a hankerchief a yellow one is good as a
camouflage, particularly if you have a upper respiratory tract infection.

Sandy wrote:
They can't get a capable translator !
In all of California, no one can do this ?
Really not too difficult as testimony.

Why don't they just use babelfish or the google equivalent. I'm sure that
would increase the entertainment value by several points.