Stephanie McIlvain Hates Lance
Magilla Gorilla
Los Angeles Times
September 21, 2010
11:40 p.m.
Lance Armstrong for years has denied allegations that he confessed to
cancer doctors about using performance-enhancing drugs.
The allegations, never proved, did not diminish the seven-time Tour de
France winner as he built his sporting legend beyond cycling to become a
leader in the fight against cancer and inspiring trust and hope through
his "Livestrong" foundation.
Now, one of his close associates, Stephanie McIlvain, has been summoned
to appear before a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on Wednesday to
clarify what he said to those doctors. McIlvain, a longtime liaison to
Armstrong for Oakley Inc., one of his major sponsors, was there.
In a 2005 deposition in an unrelated civil case, McIlvain testified she
never heard Armstrong admit anything about using performance-enhancing
drugs in that hospital room in 1996.
In a secretly recorded telephone chat with former Tour de France
champion Greg LeMond — allegedly conducted a year earlier — McIlvain is
asked about the hospital incident and tells LeMond she heard "it,"
though she never specifies what "it" is. The recording is in the hands
of federal prosecutors and The Times has reviewed it.
Scrutinizing McIlvain's accounts will be the focus of her scheduled
appearance in front of the grand jury, which is looking into allegations
of rampant drug use in cycling, according to a source with knowledge of
the investigation but who declined to go on the record because federal
law prohibits discussion of the secret proceedings.
The grand jury is also looking into allegations by former Armstrong
teammate Floyd Landis that Armstrong and other riders on the now-defunct
U.S. Postal Service team facilitated drug use, according to the source
and others.
Armstrong, who has not been subpoenaed, has repeatedly denied ever using
drugs.
McIlvain, in her conversation with LeMond, criticized Armstrong, who at
the time was in the midst of his record run of Tour de France titles
after overcoming cancer.
Although she doesn't specifically connect Armstrong to drug use, over
the course of the 30-minute conversation, McIlvain refers to Armstrong
as a liar but never clarifies what she accuses him of lying about.
LeMond taped McIlvain without her knowledge, but law expert Laurie
Levenson told The Times last week that single-party consent tapings are
presentable in federal cases.
"So many people protect him that it's just sickening," McIlvain told
LeMond on the tape, adding she "can't even watch" his then-run for a
sixth title. McIlvain's son has autism, and she told LeMond on the tape
it bothered her that Armstrong had been portrayed as an inspirational
athlete.
"He's giving how many people false hope?" McIlvain asked LeMond. "[It's]
the most disgusting thing ever for someone to do. Coming as someone
whose son has a handicap, you look to people for hope and strength. That
kills me."
McIlvain, who lives in Orange County, has declined to return several
messages left by The Times. Her attorney, Tom Bienert, did not return
messages Tuesday but told The Times last week that LeMond had an
"agenda" and was "attempting to get people to say things that are
incriminating."
On the tape McIlvain said of Armstrong "even his best friend" [who goes
unnamed in the recording] is aware "he's on it." She closes by saying,
"I'd love for it to come out."
The allegations that Armstrong had confessed in 1996 were first raised
by his former teammate Frankie Andreu and Andreu's wife, Betsy, who also
were in the Indianapolis hospital room. She says she repeated that
account to federal investigator Jeff Novitzky, who works for the Food
and Drug Administration and was the chief investigator in the BALCO
steroids scandal.
A member of Armstrong's legal team, Mark Fabiani, said Tuesday in an
e-mail that, "It makes no sense to waste the money of taxpayers and the
time of the FDA and the grand jury on very old issues that were long ago
fully examined. Ms. McIlvain has already testified at length under oath
in 2005, and the mythical hospital meeting has been completely disproved
by both witnesses and medical records."
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20100922,0,2720319.story
BLafferty
Mike Jacoubowsky
relevant. Everything else here is old stuff. Including your subject line.
Does anybody have a timeline someplace that shows who's been called up and
when? Obviously much of it is not known, but just as obviously much is. Such
as today's testimony by Stephanie.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Magilla Gorilla" <m.go...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote in message
news:4C9A4173...@sandiegozoo.org...
> By Lance Pugmire
> Los Angeles Times
> September 21, 2010
> 11:40 p.m.
>
>
> Lance Armstrong for years has denied allegations that he confessed to
> cancer doctors about using performance-enhancing drugs.
>
> The allegations, never proved, did not diminish the seven-time Tour de
> France winner as he built his sporting legend beyond cycling to become a
> leader in the fight against cancer and inspiring trust and hope through
> his "Livestrong" foundation.
>
> Now, one of his close associates, Stephanie McIlvain, has been summoned
> to appear before a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on Wednesday to
> clarify what he said to those doctors. McIlvain, a longtime liaison to
> Armstrong for Oakley Inc., one of his major sponsors, was there.
>
> In a 2005 deposition in an unrelated civil case, McIlvain testified she
> never heard Armstrong admit anything about using performance-enhancing
> drugs in that hospital room in 1996.
>
> In a secretly recorded telephone chat with former Tour de France
> champion Greg LeMond - allegedly conducted a year earlier - McIlvain is
Brad Anders
> Fabio. He's da man!
He's a lawyer. Wouldn't you be doing the same if Lance were your
client?
Brad Anders
H. Fred Kveck
Brad Anders <pban...@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't you mean: "He's a lawyer. Wouldn't you be doing the same if you had any
clients?"
DirtRoadie
wrote:
> The only thing that's news here is that McIlvain was summoned TODAY. That's
> relevant. Everything else here is old stuff. Including your subject line.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/22/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20100923
DR
Brad Anders
>
> DR
"Bienert said McIlvain "testified truthfully. Most of what she was
asked about was between five and 14 years old, so she didn't have the
greatest recall. But she confirmed she had no personal knowledge of
Lance Armstrong using or taking performance-enhancing drugs.""
Well, doesn't look like she changed her tune. We'll now see if she's
convicted of perjury as many here have said she will. My bet is she
won't be charged.
Brad Anders
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:3b7af9a6-3c84-433f...@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 3:04 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 6:06 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The only thing that's news here is that McIlvain was summoned TODAY.
> > That's
> > relevant. Everything else here is old stuff. Including your subject
> > line.
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/22/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-...
>
> DR
=======
"Bienert said McIlvain "testified truthfully. Most of what she was
asked about was between five and 14 years old, so she didn't have the
greatest recall. But she confirmed she had no personal knowledge of
Lance Armstrong using or taking performance-enhancing drugs.""
Well, doesn't look like she changed her tune. We'll now see if she's
convicted of perjury as many here have said she will. My bet is she
won't be charged.
Brad Anders
========
If it's at all reasonable to charge her with perjury, they *HAVE* to. Her
situation is so well-known (the recorded conversations with BA) that her
treatment sets a standard that all others will be looking to, regarding
their own cases.
If they (the Grand Jury & prosecutor) let her walk, without challenging her,
they're nuts. The lost leverage would be extreme.
BLafferty
She's just pissed off the prosecution. She will be charged. And the
AUSA has probably got a major hard on now to get Lance as well. Foolish
of her.
Fred Flintstein
> She's just pissed off the prosecution. She will be charged. And the
> AUSA has probably got a major hard on now to get Lance as well. Foolish
> of her.
>
I'm curious. Do you think she hasn't talked to legal counsel
that is more competent than a guy like yourself that can't
find work in the profession?
Seems unlikely.
Fred Flintstein
BLafferty
What makes you think I can't get work in the profession? I'm retired
from practice, FuckWit.
I'm beginning to think her lawyer spoke with you. The thing is, she
probably doesn't know what some of the others have testified to. That
could really be her undoing. Time will tell.
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
I realize that being a retard doesn't preclude working as a lawyer.
But not everyone retires voluntarily. You've got some pretty clear
issues with OCD, that would seem to work against your finding
gainful employment.
Other people have an interest in her testimony. Oakley, for one.
Your man-crush LANCE for another. It's in both their interests for
her to have good legal advice.
Given that neither she nor Betsy have said anything relevant to
LANCE's tenure with US Postal I just think it's unlikely that the
Feds will go after her. Especially since her testimony while under
oath has been consistent and there are a million ways to explain
away the phone message to Betsy, which wasn't made under oath.
Dumbass.
Fred Flintstein
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
>
> She's just pissed off the prosecution. She will be charged. And the
> AUSA has probably got a major hard on now to get Lance as well. Foolish
> of her.
How do you know she pissed off the prosecution?
Do you have personal knowledge, or is it just an inference?
I only have personal knowledge that she pissed off you.
According to her lawyer, she testified that she had no
personal knowledge of doping by LANCE. It's entirely
possible, for example, that she had no personal knowledge
of doping by LANCE or Georgie-Porgie, and yet said
on the phone to Andreu or Lemond (I forget which) that
Georgie was so full of dope it was a miracle his kids
weren't deformed. She might just have been 100%
convinced of their dopertude without ever having seen
it happen. I am pretty convinced LANCE used EPO,
but I have no personal knowledge of it.
B. Andreu is quoted as commenting, "The weight of the
evidence will show she's lying." This strikes me as
imprudent, especially since Andreu doesn't yet know what
McIlvain actually said. Recall Simeoni got Armstrong into a
legal battle when Armstrong called Simeoni a liar (which he
probably was not).
Fredmaster Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:RtWdnVcsr7DUawbR...@giganews.com...
Whatever she did, she did with the advice of very-well-paid legal
counsel; it was not a decision she made on her own. In you're into
conspiracies (I'm suggesting that's a question and not a statement of
fact???) then your next move is to suggest that she's being promised the
moon by Oakley to protect Lance, basically taking the bullet for the
team. A high-stakes gamble that could either derail the entire process
(no perjury charges brought to bear on her, emboldening others to "not
recall" thing) or, if that fails, put her away for a while (with a
promise of significant compensation for her, er, work).
It could work.
How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be
brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Keith
<Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>=======
>"Bienert said McIlvain "testified truthfully. Most of what she was
>asked about was between five and 14 years old, so she didn't have the
>greatest recall. But she confirmed she had no personal knowledge of
>Lance Armstrong using or taking performance-enhancing drugs.""
Sounds like they're playing on words and going for a "technicality",
i.e. hearing someone say they took drugs might not qualify according
to them as "personal knowledge", unlike "I saw lab certified doping
results that he had doped". I doubt they were amused...
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
She can say anything she wants, they can't prove she's lying.
Fred Flintstein
Fred Flintstein
> How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be
> brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon.
The phone messages prove she lied to someone about something. It
doesn't prove to whom. If there are perjury charges it'll just
be for harassment.
Fred Flintstein
Brad Anders
wrote:
> How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be
> brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon.
IMO, wasting time charging and prosecuring her isn't a priority for
the "get Lance!" team. Why waste ammo on small fry when you've got the
prize in your sights?
Brad Anders
Mike Jacoubowsky
On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be
> brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon.
========
IMO, wasting time charging and prosecuring her isn't a priority for
the "get Lance!" team. Why waste ammo on small fry when you've got the
prize in your sights?
Brad Anders
========
Brad: The issue with Stephanie is that it's the best publicly-documented
he-said she-said thing out there. Everybody knows about it, and in the
absence of any hard physical evidence, the entire case is going to hinge on
he-said she-said stuff. It has been assumed that people would be coerced to
testify (I say "coerced" because if they'd wanted to talk about this stuff
previously, they would have) due to the legal ramifications of denying that
you know something that the prosecutor thinks you do. So they offer
immunity. But immunity is not such a huge deal if the bear has no teeth, and
if the bear doesn't go after Stephanie...
If I were Novitsky, I'd be throwing everything at Stephanie. No way would I
let her walk away claiming she doesn't recall, or she has no recollection of
any conversation in which Lance said he had taken PEDs. That's not the sort
of conversation you'd forget. If you don't go after her, you're giving
credibility to her version of the story, and letting everyone else know they
can say or not say whatever they want.
Her testimony cannot go unchallenged. Novitsky's no dummy, so I suspect
something will come of this.
Fred
wrote:
> "Brad Anders" <pband...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You're right, Novitsky is no dummy, which is why he won't go after
her. She's previously testified under oath that she had no direct
knowledge of LA taking PEDs. She's now testified under oath that she
has no direct knowledge of LA using PEDs. She gave a perfectly
believable, albeit lame, excuse for why she told others she heard LA
talk about taking PEDs when in fact she had not direct knowledge of
him taking PEDs. None of her conversations re: knowing that LA used
PEDs were under oath, and if she claims now that she was just BS'ing
all along, that's not exactly illegal.
So, unless Novitsky has definitive proof she DID have direct knowledge
of LA using PEDs, how can he possibly prove perjury? AND, if he has
definitive proof that she has direct knowledge of LA using PEDs, this
whole thing would be over 'cause he'd have proof of LA using PEDs.
If he can not at this time prove LA used PEDs, how could he possibly
prove that she knew about him using PEDs?
The only way she gets charged for perjury is if they eventually prove
LA used PEDs AND during the course of the remainder of the
investigation it becomes clear she knew, then he goes after her.
Fred
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
>
> Brad: The issue with Stephanie is that it's the best publicly-documented
> he-said she-said thing out there. Everybody knows about it, and in the
> absence of any hard physical evidence, the entire case is going to hinge on
> he-said she-said stuff. It has been assumed that people would be coerced to
> testify (I say "coerced" because if they'd wanted to talk about this stuff
> previously, they would have) due to the legal ramifications of denying that
> you know something that the prosecutor thinks you do. So they offer
> immunity. But immunity is not such a huge deal if the bear has no teeth, and
> if the bear doesn't go after Stephanie...
>
> If I were Novitsky, I'd be throwing everything at Stephanie. No way would I
> let her walk away claiming she doesn't recall, or she has no recollection of
> any conversation in which Lance said he had taken PEDs. That's not the sort
> of conversation you'd forget. If you don't go after her, you're giving
> credibility to her version of the story, and letting everyone else know they
> can say or not say whatever they want.
>
> Her testimony cannot go unchallenged. Novitsky's no dummy, so I suspect
> something will come of this.
Novitsky is an investigator. He is not the prosecutor.
I assume he works closely with the prosecutors, but
Novitsky will not make decisions about whom to
indict. (The tendency to personify the investigation and
prosecution as all-Novitsky makes me think he really does
have a good press agent.) A prosecutor will make those
decisions and it probably will be based largely on whether
the prosecutor thinks the case can be won. Indictments
can be tactical, but in general, prosecutors don't bring
cases if they don't think they can win - losing makes them
look bad and gives their bosses a bad impression.
Indictments are likely to be based on gathering most
or all of the grand jury testimony and seeing what can
support a case; I kind of doubt that you will see the
prosecutors turn around and indict McIlvain now,
right away.
If you think back to the Scooter Libby case, there was a
long investigation, lots of testimony, and all sorts of
overheated speculation about who would be indicted
before Patrick Fitzgerald finally returned indictments
against Libby. Liberals speculated Rove would be
indicted (Fitzgerald didn't think he could prove that in the
end) and conservatives speculated Joe Wilson would be
indicted (Yes, this really was speculated).
Fredmaster Ben
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
>
> Whatever she did, she did with the advice of very-well-paid legal
> counsel; it was not a decision she made on her own. In you're into
> conspiracies (I'm suggesting that's a question and not a statement of
> fact???) then your next move is to suggest that she's being promised the
> moon by Oakley to protect Lance, basically taking the bullet for the
> team. A high-stakes gamble that could either derail the entire process
> (no perjury charges brought to bear on her, emboldening others to "not
> recall" thing) or, if that fails, put her away for a while (with a
> promise of significant compensation for her, er, work).
>
> It could work.
I doubt that any responsible legal counsel for Oakley
would touch that with a hundred-foot pole. They could
easily arrange for her to have as good legal advice as
they can afford, but any quid pro quo for testimony
risks sending all of upper management within the
blast radius to jail.
Fredmaster Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
"Fredmaster of Brainerd" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24fcf06c-1a1f-43b7...@g6g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
>
> Whatever she did, she did with the advice of very-well-paid legal
> counsel; it was not a decision she made on her own. In you're into
> conspiracies (I'm suggesting that's a question and not a statement of
> fact???) then your next move is to suggest that she's being promised
> the
> moon by Oakley to protect Lance, basically taking the bullet for the
> team. A high-stakes gamble that could either derail the entire process
> (no perjury charges brought to bear on her, emboldening others to "not
> recall" thing) or, if that fails, put her away for a while (with a
> promise of significant compensation for her, er, work).
>
> It could work.
I doubt that any responsible legal counsel for Oakley
would touch that with a hundred-foot pole. They could
easily arrange for her to have as good legal advice as
they can afford, but any quid pro quo for testimony
risks sending all of upper management within the
blast radius to jail.
Fredmaster Ben
=========
You're not into conspiracies like some. Relax your standards a bit. It
makes the normal mundane day-to-day stuff more interesting.
BLafferty
If the US Attorney has enough evidence from others to obtain a perjury
conviction, I think he will go after her. It has nothing to do with
Armstrong. It has to do with lying to a Federal grand jury. That is
something US Attorneys will generally not tolerate. Ask Tammy.
Fred Flintstein
> If the US Attorney has enough evidence from others to obtain a perjury
> conviction, I think he will go after her. It has nothing to do with
> Armstrong. It has to do with lying to a Federal grand jury. That is
> something US Attorneys will generally not tolerate. Ask Tammy.
Dumbass,
Aren't you the guy that was certain that Floyd was in the shit for
hackign the French lab's computer?
I think the qualifier you put on that statement means we both know
that she's not going to go down for perjury.
Fred Flintstein
BLafferty
FuckTard, you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default
attempt at witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-)
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:BuadnXwvB7UZDgLR...@giganews.com...
And that sends a signal to everyone else who hasn't yet testified. It
remains a he-said she-said situation with opportunities for
relatively-safe plausible deniability. Unless someone is worried about
physical evidence turning up, there's not much to come back to them.
That's not to say that Armstrong wouldn't have a problem himself if the
1999 samples play out badly for him, but there's nothing about those
samples that would cause problems for the others who have testified,
near as I can tell.
The lawyers here can argue this one back & forth as much as they want,
but at some point you have to think like a "normal" person and a
"normal" person who's been caught up in all of this and concerned about
the ramifications of "not recalling" things is going to feel great
comfort from a situation in which Stephanie walks. I certainly would,
even if I had nothing to hide.
At this point, I would be bringing in financial forensics specialists
and really put the hurt on the money players involved. Whether it's
Wiesel or Lance or whomever, if you've got reason to believe that $$$
were used inappropriately and start digging through the books, who knows
what you might find, and such a threat would be, I think, the easiest
path to a victory, or at least a plea bargain, for the prosecution.
Bring on the accountants. Nobody likes accountants. My apologies to
those here who are accountants.
Fred Flintstein
Given that you have no clear proof that she lied, I think
that's a huge overreaction. Remember, she isn't the least
bit relevant to what might have happened years later.
If you are going to go fishing, only a dumbass casts into
a rain barrel.
Fred Flintstein
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
> "Fred Flintstein" <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
Signal, shmignal.
If you read what Lafferty said literally, I think it's
pretty much correct, and not inconsistent with what
Flintstein said either. The prosecutors will go after
someone who provably lies to a grand jury. Forget
what signal McIlvain's testimony sent. If you are a
potential witness in this case, you are well advised
to tell the truth and the whole truth if there is a possibility
that evidence exists that will contradict your evasion.
That doesn't mean you can't say "I don't recall" about
something that happened 10-15 years ago. It means
that if last year you told your 5 best friends about X and
this year you say you don't recall X, you may be in deep
trouble. Remember that we don't actually know what
McIlvain literally said (and the literalities matter) and
so our ideas about whether she dissembled in her
testimony are based mostly on our presumptions.
Again to bring up the Scooter Libby case, there was a
lot of documentary evidence that Libby had been so
deeply involved that his lack of recollection was not
believable. Similar evidence did not exist against Karl
Rove, for example, which is why he skated and did not
get indicted.
As for the accountants, the money trail has always been
the best angle for uncovering illicit behavior, even though
it is not as media-friendly as whether "OMG LANCE
confessed to doping on his near-death-bed!!"
Especially since somewhere down in the murk, this is
supposed to be a fraud case.
Fredfollowthemoney Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
"Fred Flintstein" <bob.sc...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
But that's my point. We have contradictory statements, but no clear
proof as to who lied.
As for "years later" I thought this was all about things past, as in
during the USPS time period?
> If you are going to go fishing, only a dumbass casts into
> a rain barrel.
>
> Fred Flintstein
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Fred Flintstein
> Especially since somewhere down in the murk, this is
> supposed to be a fraud case.
Oh yeah, fraud. And given that US Postal certainly saw tremendous
benefit from an association with a multiple Tour de France
winner and cancer philanthropist, I can't wait until Novitsky
stops screwing around and gets down to the fraud angle.
What I wonder about is whether Novitsky has to justify his time
to anyone. And when that person will consider pulling the plug.
Fred Flintstein
Mike Jacoubowsky
========================
Signal, shmignal.
Fredfollowthemoney Ben
========================
I see we're on the same page regarding the money at least.
On the Stephanie issue though, the problem is that without physical
evidence, we have nothing but contradictory statements and no way to
prove who's lying. You say "The prosecutors will go after someone who
provably lies to a grand jury." I'm saying there's no there there. Not
yet anyway. Not until someone comes up with a way to corroborate
testimony with photos or receipts detailing or whatever. They're working
their weakest angle first, which doesn't make sense. Make the case the
other way around (enough financial forensics to prove that something
happened) and then your "witnesses" are under pressure to say a lot more
than "I don't recall" because they become part of a cover-up.
But you are correct that we don't actually know what Stephanie testified
to, and there could be reasons that I don't understand for her attorney
suggesting that, publicly, she sticks to a different story than what she
tells the grand jury. I'll leave it for you or Brian or whomever to fill
in the reasons why that might be.
Not sure the Libby case is relevant here; I think most are reasonably
comfortable with assumptions that the prosecution's actions were being
called from high-up (by "most" I mean people on both left & right). I
don't think Lance has that kind of pull. Do you?
Fred Flintstein
> As for "years later" I thought this was all about things past, as in
> during the USPS time period?
Betsy is 1996, that's Motorola. USPS is 1998.
Fred Flintstein
Mike Jacoubowsky
"Fred Flintstein" <bob.sc...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
Right, I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise. I wonder how wide the
supboenas will go? I remember very well the excited phone call I got
from the guy who was the Trek team coordinator at the time, almost
foaming at the mouth over the fact that he'd gotten Trek to help sign
Lance a contract with the USPS team. I even have photos from my visit to
Lance's first training camp with the team. I will admit that I didn't
see the future then, not in the slightest. Lance was just a guy with an
interesting past but I certainly didn't visualize what he might
accomplish. This other guy did. Whether he knows anything at all about
stuff relevant to this case, I have no idea. He was certainly an
excellent judge of talent though, and to be around pro cyclists that
much...
(Nope, just checked, not of my photos from that training camp show any
cyclists with syringes they forgot to pull out of their arms when
leaving their rooms for a ride).
Mike Jacoubowsky
> On 9/26/2010 2:40 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
>> BLafferty wrote:
>>> If the US Attorney has enough evidence from others to obtain a
>>> perjury
>>> conviction, I think he will go after her. It has nothing to do with
>>> Armstrong. It has to do with lying to a Federal grand jury. That is
>>> something US Attorneys will generally not tolerate. Ask Tammy.
>>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> Aren't you the guy that was certain that Floyd was in the shit for
>> hackign the French lab's computer?
>>
>> I think the qualifier you put on that statement means we both know
>> that she's not going to go down for perjury.
>>
>> Fred Flintstein
>
"Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get
go down for perjury?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-)
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
>
> I see we're on the same page regarding the money at least.
>
> On the Stephanie issue though, the problem is that without physical
> evidence, we have nothing but contradictory statements and no way to
> prove who's lying. You say "The prosecutors will go after someone who
> provably lies to a grand jury." I'm saying there's no there there. Not
> yet anyway. Not until someone comes up with a way to corroborate
> testimony with photos or receipts detailing or whatever. They're working
> their weakest angle first, which doesn't make sense. Make the case the
> other way around (enough financial forensics to prove that something
> happened) and then your "witnesses" are under pressure to say a lot more
> than "I don't recall" because they become part of a cover-up.
>
> But you are correct that we don't actually know what Stephanie testified
> to, and there could be reasons that I don't understand for her attorney
> suggesting that, publicly, she sticks to a different story than what she
> tells the grand jury. I'll leave it for you or Brian or whomever to fill
> in the reasons why that might be.
I don't think her attorney would advise doing that.
I just mean that it matters _exactly_ what she said
and we don't have a direct quote, we have her lawyer
saying she said she had no personal knowledge of
doping by Mr. Armstrong, and what that means leaves
enough room for interpretation that I at least am
totally uncomfortable pontificating about whether
she lied or not.
> Not sure the Libby case is relevant here; I think most are reasonably
> comfortable with assumptions that the prosecution's actions were being
> called from high-up (by "most" I mean people on both left & right). I
> don't think Lance has that kind of pull. Do you?
I don't agree on Libby. I think the prosecutor brought and
tried the case he thought he could win, and declined to
bring charges against people when he thought the case
would be unprovable, that is when people could get away
with "I don't recall" to a reasonable doubt, which is why I
think it's relevant.
Whether the prosecutor thought those people were lying is
somewhat extraneous - it doesn't matter what he thinks, only
what he thinks he can prove. IMO, there was certainly
obstruction of that investigation, but with enough fog that some
of the obstructors got away with it. From Cheney's complaints
about Libby taking the fall for other people, I think he agreed,
in a sense.
Fredmaster Ben
Fred Flintstein
I have two predictions:
1) She doesn't go down for perjury.
2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response.
Fred Flintstein
BLafferty
I have predictions, too.
1. We'll all know what happens within two years.
2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a
FuckTard. :-)
Mike Jacoubowsky
Brian: You are in a position to hazard a reasonable guess on whether or not
they'll attempt to nail Stephanie on perjury. I'm not talking about the big
picture here, just this one thing. What do you think?
Fred Flintstein
I think that qualifies as a major candyass. Thanks.
She won't go down for perjury.
Fred Flintstein
Fred Fredburger
He has a history of candyassing in this precise way. It's why he'll
never be able to convincingly say "I told you so".
"I candyassed you so" doesn't have the same ring.
BLafferty
Brad Anders
> He has a history of candyassing in this precise way. It's why he'll
> never be able to convincingly say "I told you so".
>
> "I candyassed you so" doesn't have the same ring.
We all owe a big debt of gratitude to Andrew Vernon Albright for co-
opting that term from prison lexicon.
Brad Anders