Betsy testifies

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
ChrisE said:
Also what does 1996 when under contract with Motorola have to do with USPS?
Nothing, except that if and when LA is asked, in connection with his USPS years, if he ever doped, the choices facing him will be very clear. Outside prosecutors have said all along that Novitzky's best shot is getting perjury on a statement that may have little to do with the nominal focus of the investigation.
 
I can't blame Stephanie for wanting her attorney there. This is the second time she's been caught on tape saying she heard Lance admit doping in that room. You'll recall LeMond taped her conversation admitting it as well. She could be in some hot water here for perjuring herself in the past. She's soon going to be stuck between a rock and a very hard place.

I am actually not surprised how deep Novitzky is digging here. The more I read about the man the more thorough and persistent he seems to be to get to the very bottom of matters. I have a very strong feeling he still has a great deal yet on his list to uncover and is in no hurry to wrap things up, and numerous indictments may be handed out when this is over, some of them for very serious charges.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Merckx index said:
Nothing, except that if and when LA is asked, in connection with his USPS years, if he ever doped, the choices facing him will be very clear. Outside prosecutors have said all along that Novitzky's best shot is getting perjury on a statement that may have little to do with the nominal focus of the investigation.
Ask him when? Who says he will testify in the GJ if subpoenaed? Even if he does, the score is still where it was in SCA. I doubt McIlvane will flip.....she could just pull a JV or some type of crap and say she was just joking on the voicemail. That is what I would do if I were her.

What kind of an idiot leaves stuff like this on a voicemail?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ChrisE said:
Ask him when? Who says he will testify in the GJ if subpoenaed? Even if he does, the score is still where it was in SCA. I doubt McIlvane will flip.....she could just pull a JV or some type of crap and say she was just joking on the voicemail. That is what I would do if I were her.

What kind of an idiot leaves stuff like this on a voicemail?
guilty idiots!;)
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I can't blame Stephanie for wanting her attorney there. This is the second time she's been caught on tape saying she heard Lance admit doping in that room. You'll recall LeMond taped her conversation admitting it as well. She could be in some hot water here for perjuring herself in the past. She's soon going to be stuck between a rock and a very hard place.

I am actually not surprised how deep Novitzky is digging here. The more I read about the man the more thorough and persistent he seems to be to get to the very bottom of matters. I have a very strong feeling he still has a great deal yet on his list to uncover and is in no hurry to wrap things up, and numerous indictments may be handed out when this is over, some of them for very serious charges.
Again, I don't see how. She should just say she was BS'ing on the tapes. Problem solved. And, are those tapes even admissable in any kind of legal proceeding?

Yeah, Novitsky has some detetractors. The ends justifies the means for some people I guess, depending on who he is after.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-novitzky020309
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Benotti69 said:
guilty idiots!;)
For sure....many adjectives could go in front of the word "idiot" when describing this chick.

Galactically stupid guilty idiot for leaving the message, and to top that off she leaves it on Betsy Andreu's voicemail of all people. I wouldn't tell Betsy Andreu the sun rises in the east out of fear she would use that against me somehow. :rolleyes:

She should have just rented a plane and flew a sign that said "I lied in the SCA deposition" all over New York City.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ChrisE said:
Again, I don't see how. She should just say she was BS'ing on the tapes. Problem solved. And, are those tapes even admissable in any kind of legal proceeding?

Yeah, Novitsky has some detetractors. The ends justifies the means for some people I guess, depending on who he is after.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-novitzky020309
why should she just say she was BSing? why not tell the truth as it seems obvious she wants to tell the world she saw and heard him admit to doping, problem solved.......:)
 
ChrisE said:
Again, I don't see how. She should just say she was BS'ing on the tapes. Problem solved. And, are those tapes even admissable in any kind of legal proceeding?
So she was BSing on two different occasions? Like Roger was with Andy Pettitte, perhaps? It may not be a smoking gun, but it adds up.

Yeah, Novitsky has some detetractors. The ends justifies the means for some people I guess, depending on who he is after.
Funny thing about criminal investigations. If you approach them like a gentleman, you may not get very far. If Novitzky breaks any laws, may he suffer the consequences. But up to the limits of the law, why should he hold back?

I think SMc comes off as a basically decent, honest person who was caught in a very bad situation. It should be of some consolation to her that her scalp means nothing at all to Novitzky. If he can get more important information with her help, maybe a deal will be offered.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ChrisE said:
For sure....many adjectives could go in front of the word "idiot" when describing this chick.

Galactically stupid guilty idiot for leaving the message, and to top that off she leaves it on Betsy Andreu's voicemail of all people. I wouldn't tell Betsy Andreu the sun rises in the east out of fear she would use that against me somehow. :rolleyes:

She should have just rented a plane and flew a sign that said "I lied in the SCA deposition" all over New York City.
chrissy, listen, you'd doing better for the Uniballer to buy some yellow wrist bands, they must be real cheap now, and go around giving them out then trying to talk down Novitsky and Betsy Andreu and talk up the Uniballer.....:rolleyes:
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Benotti69 said:
why should she just say she was BSing? why not tell the truth as it seems obvious she wants to tell the world she saw and heard him admit to doping, problem solved.......:)
Because then she will admit perjury unless she gets immunity. Who says whe wants to tell the world? I don't pretend to know what she thinks, but she obviously seems to not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Also, SCA was a private matter....can the government offer immunity if perjury was committed in a private case? The plaintifs wouldn't be too happy about that.

Yes, if I was advising her I would tell her to STFU and say the tapes were BS. Again, who says they are admissable in any proceeding anyway? Of course, I have no moral clarity as Hugh Januss would say so take this for what it's worth. :cool:
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Benotti69 said:
chrissy, listen, you'd doing better for the Uniballer to buy some yellow wrist bands, they must be real cheap now, and go around giving them out then trying to talk down Novitsky and Betsy Andreu and talk up the Uniballer.....:rolleyes:
Is this an ad hominem? It sure does look like it, but that is probably debatable. I have an itchy trigger finger reporting posts lately with some success. Debate the subject and don't go there. If I am neutered to where I can't insult you back then I want a level playing field.

Back on subject, she has been posting for many years on forums and you have zero knowledge of my basic opinion of her or if I believe what she says or not. Or of any debates we have had on any forum over the years. So, move along and talk about something you know something about. Thanks.

I posted a link about Novitsky, draw your own conclusions. People have different opinions about people and those are what are discussed on forums. Welcome to the internet. I am leary of aggressive law enforcement...I dunno its just a fault of mine. If you're not then good for you and post about something that doesn't involve insulting me. Later.
 
The fact she lied is not the point here. Its why. Was she pressured? Was she told she'd lose her job and not being able to pay for her son's special needs schooling? or was she bribed? Offered money? A new job?

That's the key. There's fraud, bribery and good deal other criminal activity right there. Oh boy Lance better enjoy the high-carb jail food.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
thehog said:
The fact she lied is not the point here. Its why. Was she pressured? Was she told she'd lose her job and not being able to pay for her son's special needs schooling? or was she bribed? Offered money? A new job?

That's the key. There's fraud, bribery and good deal other criminal activity right there. Oh boy Lance better enjoy the high-carb jail food.
OK, you think she would admit to all of that? lol. I doubt it. Yes years after the fact she comes out with this. Team LA would have a field day.

She probably concluded she would lose her job. I can see that. That doesn't mean she was pressured. Disclaimer: I have no idea if what you say is true or not but that is not the point. We are talking about winning a "game" here for lack of a better metaphor, from her standpoint and LA's.

Methinks you are overly optimistic. Of course, I could be wrong.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ChrisE said:
Is this an ad hominem? It sure does look like it, but that is probably debatable. I have an itchy trigger finger reporting posts lately with some success. Debate the subject and don't go there. If I am neutered to where I can't insult you back then I want a level playing field.

Back on subject, she has been posting for many years on forums and you have zero knowledge of my basic opinion of her or if I believe what she says or not. Or of any debates we have had on any forum over the years. So, move along and talk about something you know something about. Thanks.

I posted a link about Novitsky, draw your own conclusions. People have different opinions about people and those are what are discussed on forums. Welcome to the internet. I am leary of aggressive law enforcement...I dunno its just a fault of mine. If you're not then good for you and post about something that doesn't involve insulting me. Later.
No one insulted you dear, just suggested a better use of your time as your argument if full of fanboydom and holes of course.

thehog has put it very succinctly in his post.

thehog said:
he fact she lied is not the point here. Its why. Was she pressured? Was she told she'd lose her job and not being able to pay for her son's special needs schooling? or was she bribed? Offered money? A new job?

That's the key. There's fraud, bribery and good deal other criminal activity right there. Oh boy Lance better enjoy the high-carb jail food.
Later:rolleyes:
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Benotti69 said:
No one insulted you dear, just suggested a better use of your time as your argument if full of fanboydom and holes of course.
:
The name is ChrisE, bud. Take care.
 
Anyone who'll do time for Lance to not have to do his, please offer your hands to the guards. They will handcuff escort you to the nearest jail. We may have question for you at a later time, just go now and save your face, especially towards Lance.

If you don't want to do time for Lance, please remain seated a few more moment. We have some hard questions for you. Answer any of them them wrong, and prepare to join the aforementioned, just with more force from the law.

Seriously, I think this is the first time I am LIKING the American justice system, or anything American.
The truth is such a powerful tool.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
ChrisE said:
Because then she will admit perjury unless she gets immunity. Who says whe wants to tell the world?....
CentralCaliBike said:
Perjury can be charged if it can be proved. There is likely to be a statute of limitations - under state law in California that is three years from the date of the actual perjury - the case would have to be filed prior to the three year limit.....
Think I read another post indicating perjury for the SCA trial was outside the statute of limitations too, but I can't find it.

ChrisE said:
...Also, SCA was a private matter....can the government offer immunity if perjury was committed in a private case? The plaintifs wouldn't be too happy about that....
Civil settlements are usually written with a "full and final no matter what" kind of clause. So there wont be a legal avenue for the plaintiffs to express their unhappiness.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Cloxxki said:
Anyone who'll do time for Lance to not have to do his, please offer your hands to the guards. They will handcuff escort you to the nearest jail. We may have question for you at a later time, just go now and save your face, especially towards Lance.

If you don't want to do time for Lance, please remain seated a few more moment. We have some hard questions for you. Answer any of them them wrong, and prepare to join the aforementioned, just with more force from the law.

Seriously, I think this is the first time I am LIKING the American justice system, or anything American.
The truth is such a powerful tool.
Is this how it goes?:

She says she lied on two tapes that are probably inadmissable in any court, at least the GL one probably is. We assume she will roll over. Game, set, match. Right?

So and so says this, you say that. Alot of other people say other things or deny this or that. Game, set, match. Right?

I don't think so. It may be a little more difficult than that IMO. We are not talking about the truth here.

BTW, if you think justice in America always falls on the side of truth then I have some beachfront property in Montana to sell you.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Civil settlements are usually written with a "full and final no matter what" kind of clause. So there wont be a legal avenue for the plaintiffs to express their unhappiness.
OK, July. I always enjoy your posts and I wish you would post more. I'm bored today so I decided to spam the forum. :D

So, if there is no avenue for the plaintifs then why does her perjury matter? How can it be used against her? Seems kinda one-sided to me if that is the case.....she gets in trouble but there is no recourse for the plaintifs whose case was potentially harmed by her lying.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
Again, I don't see how. She should just say she was BS'ing on the tapes. Problem solved. And, are those tapes even admissable in any kind of legal proceeding?

Yeah, Novitsky has some detetractors. The ends justifies the means for some people I guess, depending on who he is after.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-novitzky020309
If she is asked the question in a vacuum, maybe that would work. Unfortunately for her, there is most likely more information out there not just about her, but about Armstrong actually using EPO prior to going in the hospital. In light of that, her lack of recollection or some denial she heard what she heard will not be so weighty, and the offer of immunity from prosecution of perjury can be a pretty good carrot. It isn't that she even has to be sure that they can convict her, it is that she will have to go through the trial process regardless, with all of its stress and costs. Lancy boy couldn't fund her attorney fees in this, so, I would suggest that the idea it is a cake walk to say "I don't remember" or "I was kidding" is fanciful, but not realistic.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Think I read another post indicating perjury for the SCA trial was outside the statute of limitations too, but I can't find it.
This is probably correct, so I retract my statement.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
If she is asked the question in a vacuum, maybe that would work. Unfortunately for her, there is most likely more information out there not just about her, but about Armstrong actually using EPO prior to going in the hospital. In light of that, her lack of recollection or some denial she heard what she heard will not be so weighty, and the offer of immunity from prosecution of perjury can be a pretty good carrot. It isn't that she even has to be sure that they can convict her, it is that she will have to go through the trial process regardless, with all of its stress and costs. Lancy boy couldn't fund her attorney fees in this, so, I would suggest that the idea it is a cake walk to say "I don't remember" or "I was kidding" is fanciful, but not realistic.
What does LA using EPO prior to getting cancer have to do with her testimony? Furthermore what does it have to do with the case of USPS?

She said she didn't hear him say it in the hospital room. She is on record in SCA stating this. Why would she know his PED regimen? She is on 2 tapes, one of them probably inadmissable, saying she lied about what she heard. So she says she was BSing for whatever reason is a possibility IMO. I think that is the logical thing to say in her position. It worked for JV on the PM with Frankie. :rolleyes: What else could they have on her? Don't stop lying now. :D

I doubt the govt. would go thru a trial for this but who knows. I hear what you are saying about the potential for a trial for perjury but I don't think that is probable. YMMV. Maybe a game of chicken here.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Think I read another post indicating perjury for the SCA trial was outside the statute of limitations too, but I can't find it.



Civil settlements are usually written with a "full and final no matter what" kind of clause. So there wont be a legal avenue for the plaintiffs to express their unhappiness.
Assume that part of Novitsky's case revolves around misuse of funds and the potential tax avoidance or fraud that comes with laundering money for controlled substances.
Tax attorneys will tell you there is no limitations for Federal Tax Fraud if it is detectable (and it would not be protected by a Civil Settlement). Most prudent folks dispose of records after 7 years but say a witness does acknowledge her perjury in that SCA case; the Federal Prosecutor, as a part of pursuing a potential Tax fraud would want to investigate expenditures related to that case and interview additional witnesses. The more witnesses he has squirming about the Motorola and USPS days the more information he will uncover. The devil will be in assembling those details.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Remember when Mark Fabulous said a few weeks ago that Novitzky was trying to get people to change their "Sworn Testimony"?

Who was Stephanie's first call after Novitzky left her house? Stapleton, Knaggs, or lance?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY