Landis on king:

http://www.bikeworldnews.com/index.php/201...nds-larry-king/

A few Flyoidiant slips.

Like ducking the Larryiant slip on denying doping, when he meant to ask about denying hacking.

And ducking it again, later...

When Larry asked him again, so you deny hacking or doping:

"I shouldn't laugh, but..." (gave no answer)

And, would you go to France if you were served this notice?

"I would have to see what it says..." (another non-answer)

Dave.

And of course not one mention by Floyd or Kay or any attempt to correct King's misunderstanding or misrepresentation that Floyd is accused of the actual hacking. Everyone knows (as should Larry) that the identity of the actual hacker has been known for months.

Over and over, Floyd denies committing an act that no one is even acccusing him of...

I saw that more being a case that Larry is senile and impossible to communicate with.

He may or may not be senile, but Floyd and Kay produced lie after lie.

When Larry asked that, and that (hacking) is what you have been charged with, they conveniently responded 'that is what is in the press'. Which is BS.

They introduced the whole Joe Papp "Star Witness" thing without any prompt from Larry, when Joe Papp's testimony wasn't used in either the Arbitration Hearing or the CAS case. Again, more BS from Floyd and Kay.

KING: So what do you make of these charges?

KAY: Well, I think it's a matter -- it's a means for them to go after Dr. Baker, who did a tremendous amount of work in Floyd's defense. It's another means to try to make Floyd look bad, particularly in light of the fact that their star witness this week was convicted of drug trafficking. You saw the star witness that they used to testify against Floyd in his hearing was convicted in federal court this -- this week of drug trafficking. And this is the person that they used, you know, to say that Floyd utilized these different products during the Tour de France.

Then, they conveniently charge the lab with taking away Floyd's title. More BS.

KING: And the title was taken away?

LANDIS: It was taken away by the -- by the very lab that's making these allegation.

The lab does not have the authority, and cannot take that action. In fact, wasn't the title actually removed before the arbitration hearing - in fact, removed well before the B sample result?

Jul 23, 2006

Floyd Landis Stripped of Tour de France Title

PARIS - Just moments after his victory in the Tour de France, Floyd Landis was stripped of his yellow jersey.

Landis lies, lies and lies.

BS and more BS. Maybe Lance was right to describe him with s-bombs.

Dave.

Again, watch the interview in the link above and not read the transcript. The tone and tenor of most of Larry's question sound like they are coming for a person that is confused, lost and not really sure what he was suppose to ask them. That's why I said Larry was senile. I'm not sure he knew what day of the week it was. (The joke name for the "Larry King Live" Show show is "Larry King Barely Alive")

I saw Floyd more trying to answer the question that he should have been asked and not what Larry was actually asking as those questions were confusing and not on topic.

Also, as someone who is frequently interviewed on TV, like Floyd, you understand that you only have a few seconds and a few words to get your point across so you greatly condense what you have to say. So regarding this passage:

KING: And the title was taken away?

LANDIS: It was taken away by the -- by the very lab that's making these allegation.

I believe Floyd was trying to short-hand the answer that the same lab that conducted the original tests that lead to him losing his title is now telling the world their is a warrant for his arrest.

Unless you have been in a 5 minute TV interview with a producer screaming in your ear you have 12 seconds to answer the question, trust me these things should never be scrutinized like this. And yes, he could have answered it like I wrote it but he did not know what Larry was about to ask and he had about a 1/3 of second to formulate an answer.

No, I am not going to 'trust you'.

You have no idea what my level of experience is with TV interviews. Landis clearly steered this towards the ends that he wished for. And, yes, these things should be scrutinized.

After all, you are trying to hold out the same interview as some sort of example of confirming his innocense. If so, then you are asking that the interview be scrutinized.

You cannot have it both ways - and you are evading the Landis/Kay evasions and redirections.

As noted, it is a lie that the lab took away the TDF title. It had been taken away before the lab was done with its work. I am surprised that you would cite this quote as it is so obviously a Floyd lie that he had complete control over in his "12 seconds". In fact, consistent with Dr. Hare's trait #1, Landis clearly exhibits

1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile.

He should be charged with emotion, he should be stumbling over words. But, he is not. Never did Floyd appear lost for words. And, he had no problem inserting the messages that he wanted. He even breaks out into laughter. That is not someone who is straining to formulate an answer in 1/3 of a second.

It is a lie that Joe Papp was a star witness, for example, and it is deliberately misleading of Landis/Kay to insert this into the interview.

Where are the hard questions?

Why was Kay even involved in the interview?

He claims to know that Floyd is not a hacker. Even though that was another Red Herring, is Kay an expert in Hacking? What was Kay even doing there? Waiting to insert something about Papp in case Floyd did not? Yes, it appeared very rehearsed betweent he two. Again, no struggle formulating answers.

The subpoena and warrant are about a hacking case, but Floyd and Kay got to twist this every which way they wanted.

Whether alive, dead or barely alive, Larry is the King of softball and Landis was obviously thrilled to extend his 15 minutes of fame to spread more nonsense.

Dave.

And earlier, he had all day to come up with:



Nope, not buying it.

Rake and D:

Do you hold the same vitriol for Bordry at the LNDD for lying as well?

To be clear, Bordry, speaking in his role as the head of the LNDD and therefore the French Government said:

• It was an "international warrant" Their is no such thing, judges only issue national warrants. "International" sounds more serious and was the magic word that help to generate even more headlines about this case.
• He's wanted for failing to appear for questions not for being part of the hacker ring. He has not been charged with that. Bordry said he's wanted to for hacking.
• The U.S and France treaty that lays out the specific way to legally summon Landis and Baker to Paris. It appears this procedure has not been followed. AB and FL claim they have not been legally contacted by the French and all of a sudden the LNDD has decided to not comment about this part of the case (see the LNDD's statement in the transcript above). So Bordry said they were summoned to Paris, FL and AB said they have not received any legal summons from France. When Bordry/LNDD was asked to respond, he now says he has no no comment.

Bordry is a government employee and his words have the weight and prestige of the French Government. Landis is a private US citizen. Bordry words should be held to a higher standard of professionalism than a private citizen.

Lets be consistent here boys. Where your outage about Bordry? Remember that regularly and repeatedly the LNDD breaks the law by leaking test results to the media.

My guess is these lies are ok with you. You approve of lies that might paint Landis in a bad light.

bordry is a politician, so why would you expect him to be truthful?

i saw where someone had floated the theory that this is nothing but a tactic he's using to get more funding.
at first i dismissed it as foil hat material, but as the story unfolds i'm starting to wonder..........

Is this response directed at me? My comment was specific to the Landis comments on Larry King Live (curiously, the topic of this thread). Nice straw man though.

look at the top, he addressed rake and dave

But he quoted me, that's why I asked.

quoting you was a mistake, it's a question for Rake and D

No problem, I'll remove the snotty dig.

How can you confuse lies and mistakes so easily?

What you have not get it's the warrant can be changed to international warrant if Landis or Baker landed in a country having an extradition agreement with France. So it's just a half mistake.

BTW are you sure of his words? Are you sure that were not a reporter mistake?
Why are you so quick to condemn people without an an appropriate hearing? Are you living in a country where "guilty until proven innocent" is the standard?

Did the pen of the reported calibrated according the URI requirements?




Wrong again.
You have no quotation of his words. And no one knows the real motive of judge.




You are transforming your assumptions to facts.

First, Cassuto's office reported that Landis and Baker have been summoned according French laws procedures. So what said Landis and Baker is not important.

Until you prove that Cassuto was wrong, I still believe that he and his office are more competent than you.

Never was reported that leaks were done by LNDD. Where are your proofs? (Do you have 6 EPO samples on your shelf as proof )

Are you sure you don't want to stick with MacRoadie's answer?

Can we hold you to the same standard as you are trying to hold Bordry?

Because, you are distorting the truth far more than you accuse Bordry of.

Thus, if you want me to hold vitriol for what may be Bordry's level of distortion, then I must hold more vitriol for someone that promotes even greater distortion.

Let's not forget that Landis has an arrest warrant issued against him, not Bordry. It is absurd and a gross distortion to try and compare the two in this way. Thus, your fundamental premise is a gross distortion, an inherent lie, and is thus reprehensible.

How about if we try using facts, instead of your fiction?

• "Bordry, speaking in his role as the head of the ... French Government said"
  
  Bordry does not speak for the French Government. Just as, for example, Travis Tygart does not speak for the US Government. The AFLD is a state-sanctioned organization, not the official government of France.
  
  Thus, you are deliberately lying. And, that is reprehensible.
  
• "It was an "international warrant" Their is no such thing, judges only issue national warrants. "International" sounds more serious"
  
  Do you know what the procedure is for national versus international warrants? If not, then you are purposefully distorting this situation. Here is an AP udpate:

  Earlier Monday, France's anti-doping chief Pierre Bordry had mistakenly described the arrest warrant as international. Granoux stressed that the warrant is only applicable on French soil. It is possible in such cases to issue an international warrant at a later date if needed.

  In other words, if Landis continues to dip and dodge, he - and you - should expect an "international warrant".
  
  Perhaps Bordry was ahead of himself, but he does appear to be describing the inevitable.
  
• "Bordry said he's wanted to for hacking."
  
  This is an outright lie by you.

  According to CyclingNews, Yahoo, ESPN, Reuters, Time, AP, and dozens of other articles, "Landis used the hacked files for his defense, that's how we discovered the whole scheme," Bordry said to the Associated Press.

  Your distortion is reprehensible.
  
  You are lying.
  
• "The U.S and France treaty ..." You don't even know what treaty applies here, how it applies, or how it will be appied.
  
  Pretending to know any of these things is a lie.

You are lying. That is reprehensible, and deserves scorn and vitriole.

Dave.

First, Cassuto's office reported that Landis and Baker have been summoned according French laws procedures. So what said Landis and Baker is not important.

Until you prove that Cassuto was wrong, I still believe that he and his office are more competent than you.

---

Again, their is no such thing as an "international warrant" Only the world court in the Hague issues "international" warrants. All warrants are applicable for the jurisdiction of the court.

In the case of Cassuto (the "controversial" judge that talks to dogs), that applies only for France. He is correct on this narrow part. Landis is saying he was not LEGALLY notified of the warrant. Baker says the same. Their is a treaty with France that lays out how to notify an American of a Warrant in France. That has not been followed. The French refuse to say the treaty was followed so I assume it was not, otherwise they would. Why have the French not followed this rule and then make international news about it? Because they are more interested in soiling Landis reputation than talking to him. This hacking thing is garbage, the NY Times quote the French in August saying the French no evidence FL and AB were involved. Now they are? I call BS

---

According to CyclingNews, Yahoo, ESPN, Reuters, Time, AP, and dozens of other articles, "Landis used the hacked files for his defense, that's how we discovered the whole scheme," Bordry said to the Associated Press.

This is also a lie. See the record, these files were public months before the hearing. We have many many threads on these files months before the hearing.

They presented the files at the hearing but they were not the basis of their defense.

New Public Strategies contract ORG?

I love the "talks to dogs" talking points. At least it's amusing.

Unfortunately, the truth isn't so salacious. Cassuto, at the request of prosecutors, allowed the dog to be brought into chambers (instead of open court), for the sole purpose of seeing if the dog would react in the presence of it's owner's alleged killer.

No questions, no testimony, no talking to the dog. Oh yeah, and no judicial review, or mistrial.

Pretty close to what happened. Try this ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...urder-case.html

The dog was in the flat at the time of the death.

During a preliminary hearing in the city, the pet was led into the witness box by a vet.

A suspect in the case was presented to the dog, to see how it reacted.

It is said to have ‘barked furiously’.

The aim was to decide if there was sufficient evidence to launch a full murder inquiry.

A decision on the case is pending.

The legal first took place in the Paris suburb of Nanterre, with controversial French judge Thomas Cassuto praising the animal for his ‘exemplary behaviour and invaluable assistance.’

During the hearing a court clerk was asked to ‘record all of the dog’s barks’ and to note ‘its general behaviour throughout the cross examination’.

A spokesman for the Palais de Justice in Paris confirmed that the Nanterre case was the first time a dog had appeared as a witness in criminal proceedings in France.

He said he was ‘almost certain’ it was also a world first.

Still looking for where the judge allegedly talks to the dog....

The legal first took place in the Paris suburb of Nanterre, with controversial French judge Thomas Cassuto praising the animal for his ‘exemplary behaviour and invaluable assistance.’
i wonder if the dog understood what the judge said.

Yes because he talks to dogs!

Frankly I don't give a damn about Bordry.

What I do care about is that Landis failed a doping test, and was rightfully stripped of his Tour de France result in 2006. I do care that he is clutching at every last straw, and the camel's back (for me, with him) broke a long time ago.

According to ESPN:

Granoux (spokeswoman for Nanterre's prosecutor's office) stressed that the warrant is applicable only on French soil. It is possible in such cases to issue an international warrant at a later date if needed.
...
Landis' samples taken after that stage revealed a testosterone-epitestosterone ratio of 11-1 -- nearly three times the 4-1 limit....

Who are we to believe?

You - an anonymous poster with a clear agenda and clear history of factual distortion?

Or, ESPN and the Nanterre prosecutor's office?

Of course, I don't know much about international warrants or which one of many possible treaties apply, or how they are applied. But, my ego isn't shattered by observing this.

I am just going to have to see how this plays out - and will not rely upon your dismissal, Floyd's dismissal or your distortions or Floyd's distortions of this action.

In fact, Floyd has underestimated the commitment of his accusers before. According to CyclingNews, WADA was fully committed to its case

...According to the AFP report, preventing Landis' defense from succeeding cost the World Anti-doping Agency nearly its entire 1.8 million dollar legal budget on the case....

Thus, if I were Floyd I might start taking these things seriously. But, if patterns hold, a betting man might want to wager that Floyd will continue with the bluster all the way to the court steps.

Thus, I am certainly not going to rule out the possibility that Floyd finds himself forced to deal with this through legal, and not Larry King, means. Going on Larry King has only served to waste everyone's time.

There, it required some concerted effort, but we are now back on the Larry King topic.

Dave.

As we are back to Larry King, another thing caught my attention during the interview.

Floyd appeared to be wearing Team Ouch clothing. Yet, as Bonnie Ford notes

Landis returned from his suspension a year ago at the Tour of California. He raced exclusively in North America last season with the OUCH-Maxxis team, sponsored by a Southern California medical sports medicine practice that includes his personal physician, but showed nothing near the form he displayed as one of the top cyclists in the world from 2002-06.

At the end of the 2009 season, Landis announced he would end his relationship with the OUCH team (now under new sponsorship) and seek to sign a contract with a team that did more racing in Europe. Landis has raced in two minor events this season wearing the colors of Rock Racing, a U.S.-based team whose license to race in Europe is in limbo, but does not have a formal contract with Rock Racing, according to two sources who asked for anonymity. In the recent Valley of the Sun stage race in Arizona, Landis was listed as unaffiliated.

Thus, the promotion of Ouch appeared unusual on Larry King.

Anyone have any insight here? Is Ouch going to pay for the visit to France?

Dave.

Well at least somebody appreciates what this case was all about ... not finding the truth, but preventing Floyd's defense from succeeding (at all costs, no doubt). Deliberate emphasis on this perspective, I wonder ?

Again their is not such thing as an international warrant. Warrants apply to the jurisdiction they were issued in. Again, only the world court in the Hague can issue anything close to an international warrant.

So, what does this mean? It believe it means that Landis is 100% correct. The French issue a national warrant but have not taken the steps to legally Summons FL to Paris. "Issuing an international warrant", I believe, means they would contact the US Attorney General at a later date to issue him a summons.

FL said he was not summoned and this make it sounds like he is 100% correct. And, he should do absolutely nothing until he is summoned. Any competent lawyer would tell him that.

So, I'm back to the question I've been repeatedly asking ... why haven't the French legally summoned Landis? Is it because they are really not interested in talking to him about hacking but really want to generate bad press for him as he is looking for a European ride. Or, is their case against him so weak they are not going to ask the US AG and be rejected?

Regarding Landis getting a Euro ride ,,, Not only does he look fit but he won the Tour of Bahamas TT on a borrowed bike, clinchers and no aero cloths. He also broke Zman's course record of two years ago..

That was January 23 and it surely got some to take notice. Five days later the "dog whisperer" judge issues a warrant and his new spokesman Bordry inaccurately characterizes the warrant to generate maximum headlines and bad press for FL.

Setting aside the tin foil hat moment, are you suggesting that Landis is on again? Surely something must have propelled him to overcome the drag from the clinchers.

Dave.

P.S. Who noticed?

Yes, there is such thing as an international arrest warrant

Why do you believe that Floyd has never been summoned? He has lied so much in the past why would you believe him now? Arnie has said he received a summons, why would think that Floyd did not?

Seldom has the defense "You could not find me" held up well in court.

Spanish Judge Issues Warrants for Three US Soldiers



Strasbourg Judge Issues an International Arrest Warrant



A judge in Argentina has issued international arrest warrants



Indian court issues international arrest warrants for Dutch labour activists



Spain nabs Moroccan drug baron on international arrest warrant



International arrest warrant filed for attackers of Togolese football team



David Caruso's Alleged Stalker Issued International Arrest Warrant

So you believe that countries no longer have sovereignty anymore? Ever heard of extradition? That means the country of residence has some say over whether a foreign judge's warrant has any merit. Otherwise, what's the point of having laws in our country if the laws of France apply here? Do you think French cops can go to San Diego and arrest Landis should they make it "international?" If not, what exactly does international mean in your mind (quick make something up!)

If FL is never summoned, the warrant is meaningless unless he goes to France. If he is not summoned then it was a meaningless political hype designed to generate headlines and not continue an investigation.

Well well well, apparently Bordry was caught in another lie requiring the New York Times to run a correction on Friday

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sports/c...g/16landis.html

Correction: February 19, 2010

An article on Tuesday about the issuing of an arrest warrant in France for the United States cyclist Floyd Landis in connection with a computer data hacking case from 2006 misstated the suspicions of investigators after a security breach at the French antidoping lab that tested Landis's urine samples from the 2006 Tour de France. Investigators found that an e-mail message sent to another lab in an apparent effort to discredit the Châtenay-Malabry antidoping lab — the message included nonpublic documents from Landis's Tour testing, the first indication that the French lab had been hacked — had originated from the same Internet Protocol address used by Arnie Baker, then Landis's coach; they did not conclude that a Trojan horse program used to download files remotely from the lab could have originated from an e-mail message sent from Baker's computer. (In fact, a French computer specialist, Alain Quiros, has confessed to the hacking.)

----

So all that about emailing directly to Baker was made up. The French have nothing.






Wrong!
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/02/new...-hacking_105351
Arnie Baker, the former Floyd Landis advisor who was named in a French arrest warrant along with Landis yesterday, said he has has offered to talk to French authorities but they have not taken him up on the offer. Baker denies any involvement in hacking into the French anti-doping agency’s computer system, the alleged act French authorities said they want to talk to him about.

“Months ago I offered to be interviewed through the applicable U.S.-French Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and the French authorities have not done so,” Baker told VeloNews in an email Tuesday. “I want to make it clear once again: I never hacked into, and never helped or hired or asked anyone to hack into, the LNDD (French anti-doping) computer system.”

---

He offered and they are not interested because they know he was not involved. They are only interested in gerneated anti-FL headlines and nothing more.

Your unequivocal statement was "their (sic) is not (sic) such thing as an international warrant. Warrants apply to the jurisdiction they were issued in. Again, only the world court in the Hague can issue anything close to an international warrant." Remember?

I provided you with numerous citations wherein courts from across the globe issued what they (and the various media reporting) referred to specifically as "international warrants". Of course, you won't respond to that, will you? Now, let's move the goalpost again and shift the argument to whether the referenced warrants have any merit (the Moroccan drug baron would probably say "yes"). Why should we even debate it? With or without merit, they don't exist, right?

As far as what "international" means in my mind, I don't need to "think quick", I'll just base my understanding on the plethora of citable references found. I'm happy to leave that determination up to the jurists who issue those warrants, the law enforcement agencies who accept their validity and act upon them, and the news organizations who report on them. Curiously, none of the articles (and there are dozens more that can be cited) make any mention of the validity or merit of the warrants in question. Very curious. Maybe they should call you for an opinion.

As far as French cops travelling to San Diego, don't be an idiot and betray your true ignorance. Instead, try reading the cited articles. When you do, you might just come across this:


Spanish police, making an arrest on Spanish soil, based on a Moroccan "international warrant". No INTERPOL, no World Court. Granted, Ceuta is a Spanish enclave in Morocco, but it is Spanish soil nonetheless and Moroccan police have as much jurisdiction there as Roman police have in The Vatican.

Just stick with the "talks to dogs" argument, at least you didn't have to interject any of your own thought into that one.

Thank you for clarifying what we already knew (and the NY Times should have known).

We know who conducted the hacking. Alain Quiros.

We know that the forged documents from the hacking were sent from Arnie's IP Address.

We don't know

• Who paid Quiros
  
• Who Quiros gave the documents to
  
• Who altered the documents
  
• How the altered documents managed to get sent from Arnie's IP address
  
• How much Arnie and Floyd know/knew about this

These seem like quite reasonable things to find out a little more about.

Given the pre-occupation of

• TBV,
• FFF,
• Floyd himself,
• Arnie himself,
• etc.,

about access to documents, as well as the example of Will's willingness to pursue dirty tricks and the ongoing bleating about proper procedure, there is a reasonable amount of circumstance with respect to the 'coincidence' of their interest, the hacking, the forged documents, and the alleged attempt to discredit the lab.

Dave.

Last time ... an "international" arrest warrant, as the media means it, is a "national" arrest warrant with a "request for extradition." It is an "extradition warrant." International warrant is a media short hand that makes it sounds sensational.

If the French want to make this an "international" arrest warrant, they will request extradition. They have not as they have no case. See two posts above.






They have the hacker, unless he has offered info implicating AB/FL, this is a fishing trip.

And yes, these are reasonable things to ask about. As noted above AB said:

“Months ago I offered to be interviewed through the applicable U.S.-French Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and the French authorities have not done so,” Baker told VeloNews in an email Tuesday. “I want to make it clear once again: I never hacked into, and never helped or hired or asked anyone to hack into, the LNDD (French anti-doping) computer system.”

Given the fact that the French have not taken AB up on this, or even summoned Landis means they are not really interested in these reasonable things.

Arnie has lied for the last 4 years, why do you expect him to suddenly start telling the truth?

As MacRoadie and D-queued argue the term “International Arrest Warrant” applies to the hacking of the LNDD computer system, this post is for you.

Just do a little research. Old Runner Guy is making you look foolish. You are just too uninformed about “International Arrest Warrants” to know any better:

http://www.federalcrimes.com/interpol-and-...CFQtx5QodUUzkgA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC

In a context related to AFLD, LNDD, Arnie Baker, or Floyd Landis, the term “International Arrest Warrant” is sensational and wrongly applied.

Seriously, the ICC couldn’t be less concerned with someone hacking LNDD’s Apple II-e computer. (insert smiley face)

Now, argue away!

p.s. Surftel: yawn.

Yawn yourself.

If you would just read what I already posted:

QUOTE(D-Queued @ Feb 21 2010, 09:01 PM)

...Who are we to believe?

You - an anonymous poster with a clear agenda and clear history of factual distortion?

Or, ESPN and the Nanterre prosecutor's office?

Of course, I don't know much about international warrants or which one of many possible treaties apply, or how they are applied. But, my ego isn't shattered by observing this.

I am just going to have to see how this plays out - and will not rely upon your dismissal, Floyd's dismissal or your distortions or Floyd's distortions of this action.
...

Then you would realize that, as noted, I am simply tryng to follow this case as it evolves and am not claiming to be an expert in international law or warrants.

Why, however, are you so bold to suggest that you are?

Dave.

Are you claiming ignorance is bliss? Old Runner Guy attempted to set you straight. Three easy to read sources have been cited. If you don’t read them, enjoy your ignorance, and keep on pontificating in your usual style.

Surftel’s champion now? Yawn right back at you.

No, are you?

Dave.

Yawn,

By attempt to set straight you mean repeating the same landis' lies that lost twice in court?

Really, after four years are you not just a little embarrassed to be still defending this fraud?

Old Runner Guy is in complete denial and keeps repeating the same old same old.

Landis doped. He got caught. Not that hard to understand why Landis doped, and not that hard to understand why he got caught.

Yep, it's all pretty clear what happened.

And now we have the sorry spectacle of Landis having to go through the denial routine all over again, and the sorry spectacle of his defenders clucking over some irrelevant international legal agreements trying to recreate the wiki defence smokescreen that turned out to be a complete disaster.

Landis made some poor choice in his defence, particularly who he surrounded himself with. He followed the Hamilton model that also proved to be a complete failure. A good contrast is Ivan Basso: he made a mumbled apology and admission (although he was sadly evasive, everyone new he was guilty); he served his time and is now back in the Euro pro peloton.

What cost to Landis - not just financially, but also psychologically - of living the lie? His riding career was effectively over after 2006. As Basso has showed, it didn't need to be. Bad choices all the way along.

I do believe that people, who were in denial after the first evidences were revealed like on this forum, have pushed Landis in his hole... They could have a part of responsability in his fall.

DQ, the point that you seem intent upon being ignorant about is the myth that the term “International Arrest Warrant” somehow applies here. It’s fairly easy to comprehend it does not. The use of the term has resulted in sensational headlines. It’s a sad commentary on the current level of knowledge enjoyed by the press, in general, and those, like you, who blindly rely on the lazy press when more authoritative sources are available. Surely you can do better?

Yawn, it’s probably pointless to respond to Surftel. Landis didn’t loose twice in court. Are you just a little embarrassed that you don’t seem to understand that, after four years?

Velo, who is repeating “the same old” and who is making a lame attempt to shift the argument? Old Runner Guy pointed out the issue of the “international arrest warrant” is both inflammatory and a myth. Dispute that.

Kiwi’s and fab’s inability avoid rehashing “the same old”, as defined by Velo, and to address the mis-characterization of the warrant is stunning.

Can I be blunt?

You are likely an idiot if you think that I haven't done some research on International Arrest Warrants. Ok?

Why would go against my past practice of conducting at least a reasonable level of research?

Moreover, I have made my position clear twice now.

As I trust you are not actually an idiot, let me expand on what I do know and have done.

As with the original hearing and the CAS case, I am ultimately a spectator and will not pay any attention to the 'sky-is-falling' denial from the Landis supporters. I want to see this get played out.

It is somewhat curious, though, that all those legal beagles who claimed to be intrigued at Landis' wiki defense are not now exhibiting any interest into how this will play out. One would think that they would be returning to DPF in hordes. But, perhaps they were actually part of the Wiki defense after all, and not here for personal interest.

With respect to the term 'International Arrest Warrant', I do admit to some ignorance. But, I admit to that after doing a reasonable amount of research. In other words, I have done enough research to know that I do not have all the relevant information and remain somewhat ignorant. Research that goes well beyond anything posted thus far in these forums. Research that appears to be well beyond the capabilities of the Landis supporters.

First, it appears that there are (at least) two International Courts that can issue these: International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). There are also "611 Interpol Arrest Notices" which are the effective equivalent of International Arrest Warrants. Have you researched all of these?

If not, then please go back and try again - especially before accusing others of ignorance when you may not have resolved your own!

One of these, the ICC, appears to focus primarily on crimes against humanity and may not apply here in this case. The other apparently does issue them for people like Polanski, and could potentially apply. Interestingly the Polanski case is one of those few areas where US statute of limitatons does not apply, though it does seem odd to still be pursuing this after so many years.

Here is some help for you from the US Attorneys office on the 611 Interpol Red Notice:

An Interpol Red Notice is the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today. Interpol (the International Criminal Police Organization) circulates notices to member countries listing persons who are wanted for extradition. The names of persons listed in the notices are placed on lookout lists (e.g., NCIC or its foreign counterpart). When a person whose name is listed comes to the attention of the police abroad, the country that sought the listing is notified through Interpol and can request either his provisional arrest (if there is urgency) or can file a formal request for extradition.

Ultimately, there are more citations of International Arrest Warrant than I can track down and make full sense of. And, the web searching is further muddled by all the new references for Floyd.

On the other hand, the web search does 'unveil' a more intriguing and photgenic Arrest Warrant example: Arrest Warrant Issued for Columbian Beauty Queen



Second, the term 'International Arrest Warrant' may not be the literal requisite for causing Landis to actually appear. There are obviousy at least two treaties that may apply to provide an effective 'International' warrant, if not a literal one. Having read through both the US:French treaty referenced by Baker, as well as the treaty that covers cybercrime etc., there does appear to be provision for extending law enforcement jurisdiction within the borders of another country - and within the US in particular. It is not clear if a 611 Notice, or an arrest warrant from the ICJ would be required if these treaties were being followed.

If the Bordry reference is to the effective, but not literal, interpretation of international arrest warrant that would be covered under these two or any other treaty, then Bordry's statement(s) still hold water.

Independent of what mechanism might be used to bring Floyd to justice, however, I would still strongly encourage Floyd to move out of his rigid denial defence, and pursue this proactively. His strategy has already failed, time for a new strategy.

Dave.

This is not what you said two days ago

http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...st&p=162417

Of course, I don't know much about international warrants or which one of many possible treaties apply, or how they are applied. But, my ego isn't shattered by observing this.

I am just going to have to see how this plays out - and will not rely upon your dismissal, Floyd's dismissal or your distortions or Floyd's distortions of this action.

I still don't know much about international warrants. I have never claimed to. My posts are completely consistent.

That was the entire point of my post, with all of its research. Which would appear to be far more research than you have done.

That research still does not qualify as knowing much.

It appears that there are at least two sources of actual Interntional Warrants, and many possible routes that would lead to the effective equivalent. But, what does that really matter? If they want him to appear, there are channels to do that. This should not be a surprise. I am not an expert on those channels. That should also not be surprise.

I still plan to see how this all works out. It certainly appears like they can continue to pursue Landis if they want to. And, it appears that Landis hasn't learned from his past experience yet.

It will be interesting.

Dave.

Dq, based upon personal experience, and as you seem quick to accuse others of ad hominem attacks, you waste no time treading dangerously close to, if not completely in, ad hominem territory. I don’t assume you to be stupid, but I expect you’ve provided us with a few examples of feigning stupidity or ignorance when confronted with having made an incorrect presumption regarding international arrest warrants. The nations that created the ICC agreed on the definition and scope of use. The purpose and scope of an international arrest warrant is extremely limited. Their purpose and scope do not relate to computer hacking.

In post #17, you chide Old Runner Guy for not knowing what he is talking about wrt the warrant and applicable treaty(s). The response, which you took the trouble to highlight in bold text, is more telling that you didn’t know what you were talking about. While we’re on your post #17, your assertion that Floyd’s side used the hacked documents in his defense (if by defense, you mean the Malibu hearing or CAS appeal), then you are playing loose with the facts or you are simply wrong. Please cite, from the transcripts, where they were used. Don’t cite news reports. The reporter(s) were lazy and inaccurate. Go to the horses mouth and cite the relevant portions of the transcripts. Again, from post #17, Old Runner Guy does appear to have a good working knowledge of the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between France and the United States. However, neither you, Bordry, or Judge Cassuto seem to have a handle on it?

In post #25, you continue the theme and cite ESPN and the Nanterre prosecutor’s office, while dismissing Old Runner Guy, even though he was right and you, ESPN, and the Nanterre prosecutor’s office were/are each wrong. After that jab and those cites, you throw in your half hearted disclaimer. I find it interesting you chose not to highlight your disclaimer in bolt type.

Post #30 and #31, Surftel and MacRoadie seem to ignore, or have failed to notice your disclaimer, and join in by suggesting that an international arrest warrant would apply. Surftel might have been technically correct about there being such a thing (though it’s not close to applicable here), however the content of his post, and subsequent posts indicates he has no clue as to why? MacRoadie lists a series of sources that incorrectly use the term. Just because the term is often repeated and misapplied does not make it correct. His sources should be embarrassed and issue corrections. They make a mockery of the concept of intelligent reporting.

In post #32, ORG points refers to national sovereignty and extradition to provide some inference and context. Most of us learned about those terms, and their implications, when we were ~11-14 years old during school. YMMV.

By this time, the issue of the applicable treaty and/or treaties was discussed. A link to the English text of the treaty that should have been used first was supplied as a cited link. Further, in post #38, additional authoritative links are noted for your reading pleasure.

In answer to your question in post #25 where you ask, “Who are we to believe?”, we are to believe the root authorities, expert sources available, and a publicly available summary that backs up the first two. In this case, Instead, you chose to trust lazy news reporters, Bordry, Judge Cassuto, and Nanterre prosecutors?

I trust these:
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/16/2/7131.pdf
because the U.N. is a reliable source for international treaties and this treaty applies.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC
because the International Criminal Court is integral in defining what an International Arrest Warrant is, not a judge in Nanterre, not ESPN, not Reuters......
http://www.federalcrimes.com/interpol-and-...CFQtx5QodUUzkgA
because this law firm is well respected and specializes in international law. This link spells out the limitations of Interpol/Europol, and lends more evidence that an international arrest warrant does not apply. There is related detail found in their other links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
because, while Wikipedia can be flawed, they essentially have it right here and summarize much of the information contained in the above cites.

As for the lingerie model you cited that is accused of drug trafficking, the television website and The Telegraph (http://www.wctv.tv/APNews/headlines/85309087.html) further demonstrate the term is wrongly used in plural. It sounds sensational, but again, it’s sloppy reporting at best, as the usage is erroneous.
The lingerie model may have been placed under one of Interpol’s color coded notices? However, an international arrest warrant was not issued for her, as neither ICC or Interpol issue international arrest warrants for drug trafficking. In fact, Interpol doesn’t actually issue arrest warrants at all.
http://www.federalcrimes.com/interpol-and-...CFQtx5QodUUzkgA (already cited).

I don’t know if Cassuto, Bordry, Nanterre prosecutor(s), and the media are attempting to be sensational, are working a different agenda than publicly stated, are purposely obfuscating, are lazy, or are just plain old dumb? Whatever is going on, they are FOS on international arrest warrants and there seems to be an absence of reporting that they’ve (Cassuto/Bordry/Nanterre prosecutors) attempted to utilize any possible applicable treaty.

Does that help clear things up for you?

edited a couple of typos