# Has Hincapie Been Caught Doping?



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

If that did happen I didn't hear. It sounds like he just confessed. Am I reading that wrong cuz it would be a big dealhttp://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/cbs-news-reports-hincapie-testified-that-he-and-armstrong-supplied-each-other-with-epo-testosterone_174866?


----------



## RUFUSPHOTO (Oct 14, 2010)

From George himself 7 hours ago via Twitter.

http://twitter.com/#!/ghincapie/status/71734167322374145


----------



## The The (Sep 9, 2002)

It's hard to say. I want to believe CBS News, but we all know 60 Minutes has been caught faking things in the past, such as the exploding gas tank story from many years ago.

As a journalist, I'm always wary of people who are clearly running PR campaigns. Tyler Hamilton could have an agenda here, but Armstrong also has an agenda and employs PR people to help promote it. It would be interesting to see the journalist's notes. I can't imagine they'd run a story on flimsy evidence; I've been in those situations and it's never good when you know you have something interesting but not enough evidence to run it when someone's lawyer is on the verge of seeking an injunction against you.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

The The said:


> It's hard to say. I want to believe CBS News, but we all know 60 Minutes has been caught faking things in the past, such as the exploding gas tank story from many years ago.
> 
> As a journalist, I'm always wary of people who are clearly running PR campaigns. Tyler Hamilton could have an agenda here, but Armstrong also has an agenda and employs PR people to help promote it. It would be interesting to see the journalist's notes. I can't imagine they'd run a story on flimsy evidence; I've been in those situations and it's never good when you know you have something interesting but not enough evidence to run it when someone's lawyer is on the verge of seeking an injunction against you.


Excellent point/reply. :thumbsup:


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Lelandjt said:


> If that did happen I didn't hear. It sounds like he just confessed. Am I reading that wrong cuz it would be a big dealhttp://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/cbs-news-reports-hincapie-testified-that-he-and-armstrong-supplied-each-other-with-epo-testosterone_174866?


Good point. I feel like some of the "clean" guys with no failed tests are going to softly admit to doping too. Monkey off their back maybe. That has got to be a heavy weight to carry around to a decade or more...hiding/secrecy/lying..

The more that admit it, the easier it will be for others to spill the beans..


----------



## 3djock (Apr 3, 2006)

Well when you have federal investigators breathing down your neck you have better tell the truth or face jail time, that goes for any of them. This is serious folks not a slap on the wrist..


----------



## Wiaruz (Jan 2, 2003)

3djock said:


> Well when you have federal investigators breathing down your neck you have better tell the truth or face jail time, that goes for any of them. This is serious folks not a slap on the wrist..


so when does LA get subpoenered to testify?


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

Wiaruz said:


> so when does LA get subpoenered to testify?


He'll be under oath at his trial.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

The The said:


> It's hard to say. I want to believe CBS News, but we all know 60 Minutes has been caught faking things in the past, such as the exploding gas tank story from many years ago.
> 
> As a journalist, I'm always wary of people who are clearly running PR campaigns. Tyler Hamilton could have an agenda here, but Armstrong also has an agenda and employs PR people to help promote it. It would be interesting to see the journalist's notes. I can't imagine they'd run a story on flimsy evidence; I've been in those situations and it's never good when you know you have something interesting but not enough evidence to run it when someone's lawyer is on the verge of seeking an injunction against you.


IIRC the exploding gas tank story was NBC's Dateline show, not CBS News or 60 Minutes, so give 60 Minutes a break. Not sure, but I do not think they have faked anything in the past, maybe embellished a point liberally, but not faked outright.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

It wasn't on 60 minutes last night anyway - d'oh!


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

RUFUSPHOTO said:


> From George himself 7 hours ago via Twitter.
> 
> http://twitter.com/#!/ghincapie/status/71734167322374145


That only says he never talked to 60 minutes. It does not address what he did or didn't say to the grand Jury. 60 Minutes claim was "People close to the investigations told 60 minutes that Hincapie admitted using .......nd with LA." Or something similar.

Len
\


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Grand jury testimony is supposed to be sealed, so isn't it nice that there are "people close to the investigations" who are talking to news organizations? The problem here is that 60 minutes knows they can't ever verify the information, and they chose to run with it anyway. It's just an attempt to smoke out Hincapie, and he didn't blink. Lame.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Grand jury testimony is supposed to be sealed, so isn't it nice that there are "people close to the investigations" who are talking to news organizations? The problem here is that 60 minutes knows they can't ever verify the information, and they chose to run with it anyway. It's just an attempt to smoke out Hincapie, and he didn't blink. Lame.


They can't verify a lot of information. Can they verify anything Tyler said? They may have multiple sources who have direct knowledge of what Hincapie said, without violating grand jury rules. People who are close to George, maybe George's attorney, or other sources could all have talked to 60 Minutes. If they were trying to smoke out George for an interview, they probably wouldn't have come out with the information publicly 3 days before the airing of the program.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Grand jury testimony is supposed to be sealed, so isn't it nice that there are "people close to the investigations" who are talking to news organizations? The problem here is that 60 minutes knows they can't ever verify the information, and they chose to run with it anyway. It's just an attempt to smoke out Hincapie, and he didn't blink. Lame.


Witness are allowed to talk about their testimony.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Len J said:


> That only says he never talked to 60 minutes. It does not address what he did or didn't say to the grand Jury. 60 Minutes claim was "People close to the investigations told 60 minutes that Hincapie admitted using .......nd with LA." Or something similar.
> 
> Len
> \


My thoughts exactly. George has been picking his words carefully . 

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/hincapie-ochowicz-react-to-hamilton-accusations_174673


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> They can't verify a lot of information. Can they verify anything Tyler said? They may have multiple sources who have direct knowledge of what Hincapie said, without violating grand jury rules. People who are close to George, maybe George's attorne, or other sources could all have talked to 60 Minutes. If they were trying to smoke out George for an interview, they probably wouldn't have come out with the information publicly 3 days before the airing of the program.


Tyler is an original source, speaking on camera. There can be no doubt what he said, so you don't need to verify it. The story is about him. 

You always verify information from anonymous or uncredited sources. Always. Unless you are a tabloid rag. But in this case, they can't, because Hincapie wouldn't talk to them, and his testimony is sealed.

Coming out with the information publicly 3 days before the airing of the program is EXACTLY what they would do to smoke out George for an interview. They imply they have something, he scrambles to comment, they re-edit the piece to include his comments. It's done all the time. The piece isn't done until they air it.

I stopped watching 60 minutes 25 years ago because I got tired of their manipulation of the story. They do a lot of good work, but it becomes tiresome to see them pull the same stunts over and over. Mike Wallace was the worst. 

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm just saying that when they tell you they know what was said in sealed testimony, they are wrong. They don't know. All they know is what someone who told them, and there is no way to verify it.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Witness are allowed to talk about their testimony.


"Betsy says she is cooperating with the ongoing investigation, but can't comment further on what she and her husband have told the government investigators, who opened a grand jury to investigate Landis' allegations last year."

I think people can speak, but they may not be able to speak about what testimony they gave the GJ without maybe getting into contempt of court.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Grand jury testimony is supposed to be sealed, so isn't it nice that there are "people close to the investigations" who are talking to news organizations? The problem here is that 60 minutes knows they can't ever verify the information, and they chose to run with it anyway. It's just an attempt to smoke out Hincapie, and he didn't blink. Lame.


Bike racing is supposed to not be drugged up to the gills, so isn't is nice that there are "people close to cycling" which are making the races faster? The problem here is that doping riders know it's wrong to dope, and they do it anyway. It's just an attempt to not get in trouble for something that's difficult to prove, they've done it before and it'll happen again. Lame.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> ... there is no way to verify it.


Put it this way -- they are betting millions of dollars in a potential lawsuit the information is correct. I wouldn't spend too much energy being concerned whether they can verify the information. This won't be Dan Rather's Memogate.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Tyler is an original source, speaking on camera. There can be no doubt what he said, so you don't need to verify it. The story is about him.
> 
> You always verify information from anonymous or uncredited sources. Always. Unless you are a tabloid rag. But in this case, they can't, because Hincapie wouldn't talk to them, and his testimony is sealed.
> 
> ...


I don't understand. News reports constantly say things like "sources close to the investigation" or "sources who wished to remain anonymous". Were they to take the word of a single unnamed source, then yes that could be classified as tabloid journalism. Multiple sources verifying an account becomes more credible though. We don't know how they verified George's testimony, but I would assume George will be suing for damages if they did a poor job sourcing the story, or said things that were not true.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> I don't understand. News reports constantly say things like "sources close to the investigation" or "sources who wished to remain anonymous". Were they to take the word of a single unnamed source, then yes that could be classified as tabloid journalism. Multiple sources verifying an account becomes more credible though. We don't know how they verified George's testimony, but I would assume George will be suing for damages if they did a poor job sourcing the story, or said things that were not true.


Whenever I see "sources close to the investigation" or "sources who wished to remain anonymous," I get suspicious. The one that really rankles me is "Phone calls to Jane Doe were not returned by Tuesday afternoon," as if it is good enough to "try" to verify something, rather than actually verify it. After all, we're on deadline!

Maybe everyone doesn't share my skepticism, and that's fine. And I don't know about you, but I get pissed when someone reveals testimony that is supposed to be sealed. And I get pissed when things that are sealed are revealed in order to get the person to talk. Because I know where that is going. Soon, people are asking, "Why isn't George defending himself? Why isn't he suing? It must all be true." And maybe it is. But there is a good reason why grand jury proceedings are secret, and no one should have to defend themselves against things they said that were supposed to be secret. When and if the time comes where George has to testify in open court, we'll find out what he said.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> And I don't know about you, but I get pissed when someone reveals testimony that is supposed to be sealed. And I get pissed when things that are sealed are revealed in order to get the person to talk.


Except we have no information at all that even suggests this is what happened. It's a complete straw man.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> Except we have no information at all that even suggests this is what happened. It's a complete straw man.


This is a commonly used technique in journalism. It's effective more often than not. Maybe 60 minutes isn't guilty of using it this time, but they have certainly used it many times in the past. Draw your own conclusions. I know what mine are. I have no doubt they were trying to smoke out Hincapie, and he didn't bite.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> This is a commonly used technique in journalism. It's effective more often than not. Maybe 60 minutes isn't guilty of using it this time, but they have certainly used it many times in the past. Draw your own conclusions. I know what mine are. I have no doubt they were trying to smoke out Hincapie, and he didn't bite.


60 Minutes has certainly violated grand jury secrecy laws in the past? I have honestly never heard of that before. Can you give me an example?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> 60 Minutes has certainly violated grand jury secrecy laws in the past? I have honestly never heard of that before. Can you give me an example?


What I said, or meant to say, was that they weren't above using information unnamed sources to paint someone into a corner to get them to comment. But I didn't say that this information always came from sealed grand jury testimony.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> What I said, or meant to say, was that they weren't above using information unnamed sources to paint someone into a corner to get them to comment. But I didn't say that this information always came from sealed grand jury testimony.


I'm having a hard time seeing the importance of your point.

While having Hincapie on with Hamilton would have made for better TV, it's a big enough story as it is and Hincapie didn't deny 60 Min.'s information. Hincapie can decline to comment until his deathbed, but who cares -- everyone now knows what he told the Feds.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Gaear Grimsrud said:


> it's a big enough story as it is and Hincapie didn't deny 60 Min.'s information.


Jeeze, you just made my point. Hincapie doesn't have to deny anything. His testimony was delivered in secret and by law, was supposed to remain secret. We do not know what he said. But because 60 minutes says they know, people like you now demand that he deny it or sue them. And if he doesn't, then whatever 60 Minutes said must be true. Right? And there you have it, the new American way. What a joke.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> His testimony was delivered in secret and by law, was supposed to remain secret.


You just got off this merry-go-round with SilasCL: we don't know how 60 Minutes found out about Hincapie's testimony -- it could have come from his lawyer, from Hincapie himself, who knows.

I don't "demand" anything, but I wouldn't mind a plausible explanation. GH has everything to lose by not denying he told the Feds he and LA doped. He wouldn't be violating any laws by asserting his innocence. The only plausible explanation is that his answer to the Feds to whether he and LA doped was yes, and if he denied saying yes he'd be up for perjury.

The thing is, GH is only delaying the inevitable. LA will not settle with the Feds, he will be indicted, and GH's testimony will then become public knowledge. Until then you may hope that you can misdirect by waving your hands about the way 60 Minutes obtained their info, but that's something no one really cares about.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Gaear Grimsrud said:


> You just got off this merry-go-round with SilasCL: we don't know how 60 Minutes found out about Hincapie's testimony -- it could have come from his lawyer, from Hincapie himself, who knows.
> 
> I don't "demand" anything, but I wouldn't mind a plausible explanation. GH has everything to lose by not denying he told the Feds he and LA doped. He wouldn't be violating any laws by asserting his innocence. The only plausible explanation is that his answer to the Feds to whether he and LA doped was yes, and if he denied saying yes he'd be up for perjury.
> 
> The thing is, GH is only delaying the inevitable. LA will not settle with the Feds, he will be indicted, and GH's testimony will then become public knowledge. Until then you may hope that you can misdirect by waving your hands about the way 60 Minutes obtained their info, but that's something no one really cares about.


George isn't delaying the inevitable, he's stonewalling for the foreseeable future. His testimony will not become public knowledge unless he is called to testify in an upcoming trial. At this point, we don't know if Hincapie will be called to testify in the trial, or if there even will be a trial, as people could choose to settle.

Hincapie's no comment does likely point to the 60 Minutes report being true, as you said. He's playing his hand wisely so that he can keep racing until he's forced to go public.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Gaear Grimsrud said:


> You just got off this merry-go-round with SilasCL: we don't know how 60 Minutes found out about Hincapie's testimony -- it could have come from his lawyer, from Hincapie himself, who knows.
> 
> I don't "demand" anything, but I wouldn't mind a plausible explanation. GH has everything to lose by not denying he told the Feds he and LA doped. He wouldn't be violating any laws by asserting his innocence. The only plausible explanation is that his answer to the Feds to whether he and LA doped was yes, and if he denied saying yes he'd be up for perjury.
> 
> The thing is, GH is only delaying the inevitable. LA will not settle with the Feds, he will be indicted, and GH's testimony will then become public knowledge. Until then you may hope that you can misdirect by waving your hands about the way 60 Minutes obtained their info, but that's something no one really cares about.


FWIW, it did not go directly from Hincapie to 60 Minutes. Hincapie, tweeted that he "has no idea how or where 60 Minutes got this info" (words might be off a little..but you get the point)


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> His testimony will not become public knowledge unless he is called to testify in an upcoming trial


Let's say LA goes to trial without GH being called: is it likely a verdict would be handed down without any of the evidence being made public?

And with the eyewitness testimony emerging, I'm finding it hard to imagine Novitsky settling for anything less than admission of guilt, and that LA would accept that condition to avoid a trial. But I suppose it would be the ultimate Oprah moment to have a tearful public confession -- might even redeem him to the Livestrong die-hards.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> Coming out with the information publicly 3 days before the airing of the program is EXACTLY what they would do to smoke out George for an interview. They imply they have something, he scrambles to comment, they re-edit the piece to include his comments. It's done all the time. The piece isn't done until they air it.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm just saying that when they tell you they know what was said in sealed testimony, they are wrong. They don't know. All they know is what someone who told them, and there is no way to verify it.


Totally agree. I suggested, in another thread, that 60 Minutes was just chumming for a reaction from George and got laughed at.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

jorgy said:


> got laughed at.


It doesn't look like GH is smiling much. But maybe the choice between a sh!t sandwich and a sh!t casserole was one he was happy to make.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Gaear Grimsrud said:


> Let's say LA goes to trial without GH being called: is it likely a verdict would be handed down without any of the evidence being made public?
> 
> And with the eyewitness testimony emerging, I'm finding it hard to imagine Novitsky settling for anything less than admission of guilt, and that LA would accept that condition to avoid a trial. But I suppose it would be the ultimate Oprah moment to have a tearful public confession -- might even redeem him to the Livestrong die-hards.


Grand jury testimony is sealed, regardless of any outcome. It is only used in the indictment, any testimony in the trial is a separate event.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

jorgy said:


> Totally agree. I suggested, in another thread, that 60 Minutes was just chumming for a reaction from George and got laughed at.


There are only 3 reactions George could have made......confirm, no comment or deny.

All's George had to do was deny the report ("i never testified that i used drugs and i never testified that LA used drugs") and he would have cut 60 minutes off at the knees if it were true. And 60 minutes would know this............consequently, it seems unlikely to me that 60 minutes would make the claim if they didn't have at least 2 sources making them comfortable it were true To much risk with little reward. The TH footage already would get them the ratings bump they wanted.

What is it you think 60 minutes got from making this up? ( that they didn't have already)

Len


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

mikeman said:


> ....so give 60 Minutes a break. Not sure, but I do not think they have faked anything in the past, maybe embellished a point liberally, but not faked outright.


Well 60 Minutes and Dan Rather did have those bogus memos regarding President Bush. I think that was the beginning of the end for old Dan.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Grand jury testimony is sealed, regardless of any outcome. It is only used in the indictment, any testimony in the trial is a separate event.


Testimony delivered under oath to federal agents would not be admissible in the trial? Therefore Hamilton, Hincapie, et.al would be subpoenaed a second time?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Gaear Grimsrud said:


> Testimony delivered under oath to federal agents would not be admissible in the trial? Therefore Hamilton, Hincapie, et.al would be subpoenaed a second time?


I'm not a lawyer, but yes, that's my understanding of it. If they were not called, how would a defense lawyer cross examine them?

Isn't this why mobsters kill witnesses? Or at least they do in the movies...

Like I said, not a lawyer and I'm happy to be corrected by others who know more about such matters.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> If they were not called, how would a defense lawyer cross examine them?


That makes sense. Guess we'll soon see.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Gaear Grimsrud said:


> It doesn't look like GH is smiling much. But maybe the choice between a sh!t sandwich and a sh!t casserole was one he was happy to make.



I got laughed at by other RBRers. Sorry that wasn't clear.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Len J said:


> There are only 3 reactions George could have made......confirm, no comment or deny.
> 
> All's George had to do was deny the report ("i never testified that i used drugs and i never testified that LA used drugs") and he would have cut 60 minutes off at the knees if it were true. And 60 minutes would know this............consequently, it seems unlikely to me that 60 minutes would make the claim if they didn't have at least 2 sources making them comfortable it were true To much risk with little reward. The TH footage already would get them the ratings bump they wanted.
> 
> ...


I'm thinking along the lines of mohair. Whatever information 60 Minutes has is second or third-hand. If you played telephone as a kid, it's easy to understand how things get distorted as they get passed on down the line.

60 Minutes has nothing to lose by putting the hook out there. That's just smart TV journalism.

Who knows what George testified to? Maybe there are other people/reasons besides Lance that George might want to just say 'no comment' instead of "I never testified that i used drugs and i never testified that LA used drugs." Once he starts talking about his testimony, a whole big can of worms gets opened. Better to say 'no comment' to everything.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

None of these cyclists are telling us anything that their lawyers haven't first ok'd. 

George is a great example of a guy that probably says about 10 words a month. So naturally he's been able to remain friends with Lance. 

However if you're someone that likes to pop off and tell it like it is (Landis) then you can forget warming your toes by the fireplace with Lance late at night over a bottle of wine.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

jorgy said:


> I'm thinking along the lines of mohair. Whatever information 60 Minutes has is second or third-hand. If you played telephone as a kid, it's easy to understand how things get distorted as they get passed on down the line.
> 
> 60 Minutes has nothing to lose by putting the hook out there. That's just smart TV journalism.
> 
> Who knows what George testified to? Maybe there are other people/reasons besides Lance that George might want to just say 'no comment' instead of "I never testified that i used drugs and i never testified that LA used drugs." Once he starts talking about his testimony, a whole big can of worms gets opened. Better to say 'no comment' to everything.


What 60 minutes has to lose is a suit brought by George if it's not true. 

George, expecially since he is still trying to race, could probably prove direct damage of a false report. 

I think it's wioshful thinking that this report by 60 Minutes was 2nd or 3rd hand uncorroberated......I don't think 60 minutes is that stupid. We will certainly see.

Len


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Gaear Grimsrud said:


> Testimony delivered under oath to federal agents would not be admissible in the trial? Therefore Hamilton, Hincapie, et.al would be subpoenaed a second time?


A grand jury is essentially a fact finding body. Lots of Constitutional protections don't apply. You aren't allowed to have a lawyer present, for example. You can't take the fifth. And so on. It can be pretty harsh if you are called to testify. The trade-off is that the testimony is secret and sealed and cannot be used at trial. Prosecutors have to start over from scratch. The only catch is that you are under oath, so the grand jury testimony can be used to prove perjury. If you say one thing in the grand jury and then change your story at trial, you are in trouble.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> A grand jury is essentially a fact finding body. Lots of Constitutional protections don't apply. You aren't allowed to have a lawyer present, for example. *You can't take the fifth*. And so on. It can be pretty harsh if you are called to testify. The trade-off is that the testimony is secret and sealed and cannot be used at trial. Prosecutors have to start over from scratch. The only catch is that you are under oath, so the grand jury testimony can be used to prove perjury. If you say one thing in the grand jury and then change your story at trial, you are in trouble.


The Fifth Amendment right against self incriminaton _does_ apply before the grand jury, The only way that a prosecutor can force someone to tell the grand jury about something that may bring criminal liability upon him or her is to grant the person immunity from future prosecution. Tyler Hamiltion said on 60 Minutes that he had been granted immunity. This is done by prosecutors who want to use little fish to get big fish. The target of an investigation would not be given immunity and could invoke the Fifth Amendment if he or she were called before the grand jury.

One other Fifth Amendment nuance. The Fifth Amendment only protects someone from being forced to incriminate himself or herself. It does not protect you from having to testify about the actions of others unless somehow that testimony also would incriminate you.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Witness are allowed to talk about their testimony.


Correct. Witness in front of a Grand Jury can blab all they want to anyone about anything. Members of the Grand Jury are sworn to secrecy.


----------



## Jeesh (Apr 20, 2009)

*qualifies as perjury*

I may be getting this completely wrong, but how would a statement to a news agency on anything be considered for perjury? Hincapie wouldn't have been sworn-in, filling out an legal form, or testifying to a court in releasing a statement to 60 minutes, so as I understand it he could say the sky is green without worrying about about contradicting himself from previously sworn testimony. 

Lying to the public would certainly be distasteful, but I don't see where a concern for perjury comes into play. (Who knows, Hincapie may be under a gag order).


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

Jeesh said:


> Lying to the public would certainly be distasteful, but I don't see where a concern for perjury comes into play.


I agree with that; if asked during a trial to reconcile conflicting statements, that would be something, but yeah, there's no "perjury" without being under oath.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Jeesh said:


> I may be getting this completely wrong, but how would a statement to a news agency on anything be considered for perjury? Hincapie wouldn't have been sworn-in, filling out an legal form, or testifying to a court in releasing a statement to 60 minutes, so as I understand it he could say the sky is green without worrying about about contradicting himself from previously sworn testimony.
> 
> Lying to the public would certainly be distasteful, but I don't see where a concern for perjury comes into play. (Who knows, Hincapie may be under a gag order).


Hincapie states XXXXXX to the grand jury under oath.
Hincapie states YYYYY to 60 Minutes.
Hincapie is put on trial for perjury.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Tschai said:


> Hincapie states XXXXXX to the grand jury under oath.
> Hincapie states YYYYY to 60 Minutes.
> Hincapie is put on trial for perjury.


Uh, no. That's not how perjury works.


----------



## Jeesh (Apr 20, 2009)

Tschai said:


> Hincapie states XXXXXX to the grand jury under oath.
> Hincapie states YYYYY to 60 Minutes.
> Hincapie is put on trial for perjury.


[edit for typo]

Hincapie states xxxxx under oath to a grand jury
Hincapie states yyyy under oath in a deposition, on the stand in a trial, etc.
Hincapie can be tried for perjury.

Hincapie states xxxxxx under oath to a grand jury
Hincapie states yyyyyy to 60 minutes
US legal systems cares 0 about the difference. The public (and members of a potential jury when judging his character during cross examinations) on the other hand....


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Uh, no. That's not how perjury works.


Why not?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Tschai said:


> Why not?


Hincapie swore an oath to the grand jury that his testimony to the grand jury would be truthful. The oath doesn't apply outside the grand jury. So he can say whatever he wants, outside the grand jury. Saying different things in different forums may raise questions about his honesty and credibility, but it is not illegal.

If 60 minutes makes you swear an oath to them under penalty of perjury, and you lie to them, then you could be charged with perjury. But that is not something 60 minutes, or any news organization, commonly does.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Hincapie swore an oath to the grand jury that his testimony to the grand jury would be truthful. The oath doesn't apply outside the grand jury. So he can say whatever he wants, outside the grand jury. Saying different things in different forums may raise questions about his honesty and credibility, but it is not illegal.
> 
> If 60 minutes makes you swear an oath to them under penalty of perjury, and you lie to them, then you could be charged with perjury. But that is not something 60 minutes, or any news organization, commonly does.


I am not following this. I don't think whether the oath applies outside the grand jury is the issue. I think all you need to prove perjury is a statement made under oath and then some kind of evidence that contradicts the sworn testimony. Hincapie's statements to 60 Minutes sure seems like contradicting evidence. At a minimum they would likely result in a perjury investigation. 

It seems you are saying that the only way to perjury is if you have two contradicting statements both made under oath. I really don't think that is the only way to perjury.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Tschai said:


> I am not following this. I don't think whether the oath applies outside the grand jury is the issue. I think all you need to prove perjury is a statement made under oath and then some kind of evidence that contradicts the sworn testimony. Hincapie's statements to 60 Minutes sure seems like contradicting evidence. At a minimum they would likely result in a perjury investigation.
> 
> It seems you are saying that the only way to perjury is if you have two contradicting statements both made under oath. I really don't think that is the only way to perjury.


It's not the only way, but it is the most likely way in this situation.

You're right that if George said he knew nothing about Lance doping, then they produced some evidence like other testimony or maybe a letter he wrote indicating that he did know, then that could still be perjury. I honestly don't know how a TV interview would fit in, but I doubt that it would be grounds for perjury on its own.


----------



## Jeesh (Apr 20, 2009)

Tschai said:


> I am not following this. I don't think whether the oath applies outside the grand jury is the issue. I think all you need to prove perjury is a statement made under oath and then some kind of evidence that contradicts the sworn testimony. Hincapie's statements to 60 Minutes sure seems like contradicting evidence. At a minimum they would likely result in a perjury investigation.
> 
> It seems you are saying that the only way to perjury is if you have two contradicting statements both made under oath. I really don't think that is the only way to perjury.


How is anything other then contradicting statements made under oath or through a notary liable for perjury? If Hincapie hasn't sworn before a court or to a notary public that his statements to 60 are true, then he can lie with impunity. (Note that I am not saying he did. I am only following the line of thought concerning possible perjury). 

Given our rights of free speech in the US, as long as I don't slander someone, say something that would provoke an immediate and violent reaction (cribbed fighting words definition), or engage in a conspiracy in violation of the law, I can say anything I please in the public and private spheres.

If people contest that George has perjured himself by releasing a statement to 60 minutes, I don't see where they back up that claim. Again, it would be distasteful for Hincapie to lie via a news release, but a release is not the same as sworn testimony or a notarized document. Good fodder perhaps for a prosecutor to bring up during a witness examination, but not that could be used to bring perjury charges in court, unless i am completely missing what constitutes perjury.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> It's not the only way, but it is the most likely way in this situation.
> 
> You're right that if George said he knew nothing about Lance doping, then they produced some evidence like other testimony or maybe a letter he wrote indicating that he did know, then that could still be perjury. I honestly don't know how a TV interview would fit in, but I doubt that it would be grounds for perjury on its own.


Contradicting your own sworn testimony on a national news program is going to get you in trouble. Whether the statements on the news show alone, or whether a letter or other witness testimony are enough for a perjury conviction is an issue outside the scope of my original statement. If George contradicted his testimony, rest assured the feds would do something.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Jeesh said:


> How is anything other then contradicting statements made under oath or through a notary liable for perjury? If Hincapie hasn't sworn before a court or to a notary public that his statements to 60 are true, then he can lie with impunity. (Note that I am not saying he did. I am only following the line of thought concerning possible perjury).
> 
> Given our rights of free speech in the US, as long as I don't slander someone, say something that would provoke an immediate and violent reaction (cribbed fighting words definition), or engage in a conspiracy in violation of the law, I can say anything I please in the public and private spheres.
> 
> If people contest that George has perjured himself by releasing a statement to 60 minutes, I don't see where they back up that claim. Again, it would be distasteful for Hincapie to lie via a news release, but a release is not the same as sworn testimony or a notarized document. Good fodder perhaps for a prosecutor to bring up during a witness examination, but not that could be used to bring perjury charges in court, unless i am completely missing what constitutes perjury.




I am not really following your comments. However this is not a fre speeech issue. Yes, we all have free speech, including the freedom to make statements that will get you into legal trouble.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Tschai said:


> I am not following this. I don't think whether the oath applies outside the grand jury is the issue. I think all you need to prove perjury is a statement made under oath and then some kind of evidence that contradicts the sworn testimony. Hincapie's statements to 60 Minutes sure seems like contradicting evidence. At a minimum they would likely result in a perjury investigation.
> 
> It seems you are saying that the only way to perjury is if you have two contradicting statements both made under oath. I really don't think that is the only way to perjury.


First of all, Hincapie made no statements to 60 Minutes.

Second, yes, that is basically what I am saying. Assuming you told the truth on one sworn occasion, if you then lie on another sworn occasion, that is perjury.

Perjury only applies when you swear an oath under penalty of perjury. As long as you tell the truth to the people or body you have sworn to tell the truth to, you are fine to lie to anyone and everyone else. It is not perjury if you told the truth in sworn testimony and then immediately went outside the room and lied through your teeth to reporters. How would you prosecute that? "Your honor, he swore to tell us the truth, and he told us the truth, but....???"


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> First of all, Hincapie made no statements to 60 Minutes.
> 
> Second, yes, that is basically what I am saying. Assuming you told the truth on one sworn occasion, if you then lie on another sworn occasion, that is perjury.
> 
> Perjury only applies when you swear an oath under penalty of perjury. As long as you tell the truth to the people or body you have sworn to tell the truth to, you are fine to lie to anyone and everyone else. It is not perjury if you told the truth in sworn testimony and then immediately went outside the room and lied through your teeth to reporters. How would you prosecute that? "Your honor, he swore to tell us the truth, and he told us the truth, but....???"


You have it reversed. The issue/hypo is that Hincapie used PED and that he gave false testimony before the grand jury. I still say that under this scenario Hincapie's contradictory statements on 60 Minutes can be used as evidence against him.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Tschai said:


> Contradicting your own sworn testimony on a national news program is going to get you in trouble. Whether the statements on the news show alone, or whether a letter or other witness testimony are enough for a perjury conviction is an issue outside the scope of my original statement. If George contradicted his testimony, rest assured the feds would do something.


I'm sure the situation has had to happen before, do you have any examples? :thumbsup:


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Tschai said:


> You have it reversed. The issue/hypo is that Hincapie used PED and that he gave false testimony before the grand jury. I still say that under this scenario Hincapie's contradictory statements on 60 Minutes can be used as evidence against him.


I have it reversed???? This was your post:

Hincapie states XXXXXX to the grand jury under oath.
Hincapie states YYYYY to 60 Minutes.
Hincapie is put on trial for perjury.

Now how did I get it reversed?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> I have it reversed???? This was your post:
> 
> Hincapie states XXXXXX to the grand jury under oath.
> Hincapie states YYYYY to 60 Minutes.
> ...


Because it is obviously a non-issue if Hincapie told the truth to the grand jury. Perhaps I should not have assumed that with my XXXX and YYYY. I just wanted to save typing time.

In any case, if Hincapie was your client and he told you that he wanted to come clean on 60 Minutes about using PED's (he is short on cash and is writing a tell all book) and he also tells you that 6 weeks ago he testified to a grand jury that he never used PED's and then tells you that his grand jury testimony was false, you would advise him that he has no perjury concerns?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Tschai said:


> Because it is obviously a non-issue if Hincapie told the truth to the grand jury. Perhaps I should not have assumed that with my XXXX and YYYY. I just wanted to save typing time.
> 
> In any case, if Hincapie was your client and he told you that he wanted to come clean on 60 Minutes about using PED's (he is short on cash and is writing a tell all book) and he also tells you that 6 weeks ago he testified to a grand jury that he never used PED's and then tells you that his grand jury testimony was false, you would advise him that he has no perjury concerns?


But it doesn't make a lot of sense the other way. He lies to the grand jury, then tells the truth to 60 minutes? That's really foolish. That's pretty much a slam dunk for a perjury conviction. 

If he were my client, I would advise him that coming clean on 60 minutes was a terrible idea. Instead, I would ask the grand jury to allow him to testify again. Only after he has come clean with the truth to the grand jury would I allow him to come clean publicly.


----------



## Buck Satan (Nov 21, 2005)

Perjury = lying under oath. End of story. Stop making this harder than it is.


----------



## Oasisbill (Jan 15, 2011)

Buck Satan said:


> Perjury = lying under oath. End of story. Stop making this harder than it is.


Perjury = Lying under oath in a court of law - not to your girlfriend or 60 minutes. It is simple as you say. 

This trial by media mentality reeks of MacCarthyism. Plant a seed, "a source told us...", attempt to get a comment or denial from the accused (GH). Fail to get any useable comment. Imply guilt, "he's hiding something..."

You can't win once suspicion has been thrown in the ring.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Oasisbill said:


> Perjury = Lying under oath in a court of law - *not to your girlfriend*...


Oh thank God for that, otherwise I would be serving lifetime sentence in jail!


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

55x11 said:


> Oh thank God for that, otherwise I would be serving lifetime sentence in jail!



LOL! Oh, you are so hosed if we ever get some really good dirt on you :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

I think Hincapie just got 2nd at Nationals. Wonder how his competitors feel knowing that he's at least implicated in doping. He was always a favorite of mine but it now sounds like anyone who was successful was cheating. It makes it easier to comprehend why Tom Danielson failed to live up to expectations in Europe. Now I think the guys who almost made it are my real heros. They rode as hard as any natural person can.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Buck Satan said:


> Perjury = lying under oath. End of story. Stop making this harder than it is.


Correct! Perjury can only come under oath or sworn testimony, period.

Anyone can tell the grand jury one thing and the media something else without purging themselves.

Now under oath/notary for a deposition or trial, then you must give the same answer.


----------

