Betsy testifies

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Race Radio said:
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?
I'm sure they've got her on CALL Blocking right now. Wiretaps are part of Novitsky's bag o tricks.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
ChrisE said:
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.
So, if I follow the logic, she lies in her deposition about not hearing the questions and answers in the hospital room. Then, she is taped on two occasions (or only one if you like) saying she actually lied during her sworn testimony.

Now, if asked about the tape(s), she simply testifies that she was lying about lying?

And that makes her good to go.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
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.
Because the FBI can then say "We have proof that he used EPO prior to the incident in question," and one of the basis' for his denial that the conversation happened (the continued BS about him being clean) is wiped away. You build questioning, the idea that questioning is overt and straightforward is incorrect. They use anything they have as a form of Chinese water torture. Drip, drip, drip, and the PRESSURE of questioning cracks the nut. Not some direct question. If it were as simple as asking "Did you do it" and an answer of "no," then all of that interrogation training they go through would be stupid.

"We know he used EPO prior to this, here is the proof."
"We have this tape of you admitting he said it, listen."
"We have another tape of you admitting he said it, listen."
"Now, are you entirely sure he didn't say it?"

As for the USPS, because the prosecution MAY be limited, does not equate to the investigation being limited.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
MacRoadie said:
So, if I follow the logic, she lies in her deposition about not hearing the questions and answers in the hospital room. Then, she is taped on two occasions (or only one if you like) saying she actually lied during her sworn testimony.

Now, if asked about the tape(s), she simply testifies that she was lying about lying?

And that makes her good to go.
I don't know.....you tell me. You're the lawyer. Is that plausible? Would the govt. press charges against her for perjury because of that? She testifies under oath one thing, then claims BS on the tape to Betsy. For whatever reason.

Taking everything into account....her job, pressure, commitments in life, etc. whatever would you advise her to admit she lied or just stick to it? You know where I stand, knowing what we know which is admittedly probably only a small portion.....
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Because the FBI can then say "We have proof that he used EPO prior to the incident in question," and one of the basis' for his denial that the conversation happened (the continued BS about him being clean) is wiped away. You build questioning, the idea that questioning is overt and straightforward is incorrect. They use anything they have as a form of Chinese water torture. Drip, drip, drip, and the PRESSURE of questioning cracks the nut. Not some direct question. If it were as simple as asking "Did you do it" and an answer of "no," then all of that interrogation training they go through would be stupid.

"We know he used EPO prior to this, here is the proof."
"We have this tape of you admitting he said it, listen."
"We have another tape of you admitting he said it, listen."
"Now, are you entirely sure he didn't say it?"

As for the USPS, because the prosecution MAY be limited, does not equate to the investigation being limited.
I must be ignorant of everything she said in SCA since you are going in this direction. Did she testify she knew he didn't use PED's, or did she testify she didn't say what Betsy claims in the hospital? Do you have a link or copy of her testimony? Then, maybe you and I can discuss on a level playing field. :cool:
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
ChrisE said:
I don't know.....you tell me. You're the lawyer.
Definitely NOT a lawyer here. I've stated I'm an expert witness and testify for a living, but never represented myself to be a lawyer.

If you go to the thread I created, you'll see I never offered any opinions or answers to any questions, but simply created a venue for forum members to ask questions of the lawyers amongst us.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
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.
it's really funny how even the most detail oriented and intelligent posters missed what i called the essence of the lat article - according to the article McI was subpoenaed.

so, she now has a choice of telling the truth (about the1996-97 events) or perjuring herself in 2010 or 2011 or 2012 - the sca case is nothing but a corroborative picture novi is letting texas on: you texas dijk doped throughout your professional cycling life and im going to prove it as part of the other charges against you

re chrsE's posting supposedly defending his home sate boy, people should keep in mind that chresE is convinced armstrong doped (did he not say it ?) but because of chrisE's love for fair process he is currently doing everything within his limited posting freedom to get you aware of the potential pitfalls against his home-state boy. sounds pretty genuine if you ask me.;):D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
I must be ignorant of everything she said in SCA since you are going in this direction. Did she testify she knew he didn't use PED's, or did she testify she didn't say what Betsy claims in the hospital? Do you have a link or copy of her testimony? Then, maybe you and I can discuss on a level playing field. :cool:
No, she said he didn't say it, but part of what makes that testimony effective is that Armstrong never tested positive, so a reasonable question would be "If he never used EPO, why would he admit it?" Pretty convincing answer if you say "He wouldn't." IF that element is not in place, the suggestion that he said it would gain more legitimacy because we now know he actually did EPO.

Chris, don't troll me on this. You are clearly smart enough to make those connections.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ChrisE said:
Do you have a link or copy of her testimony? Then, maybe you and I can discuss on a level playing field. :cool:
i want to stress (did I ;)) that we have seen the same baiting tactic from the poster once he's against the wall arguing an indefensible position of his own creation - always regarding armstrong;s defense or attacks on lemond.

edited:
i do respect the discussion and the arguments, including chisE's, but i can't resist the comment - it's always 'please provide the link', followed by 'thanks', followed by either more 'questions that he's been known to be aware of or by 'you guys win' ......until the next time 'i chrisE decide to yank your chain, guys, that is....
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
And dude, I'll rub your back if you change back to Megan Fox. Please dude...please.
i will report any off-topic originating from your personal interactions re avatars.
;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
python said:
i will report any off-topic originating from your personal interactions re avatars.
;)
We should be able to report the avatar. For the love or Mother Teressa, that thing has to go.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
This is Chris you are talking to, you have to tell him you love his avatar and that you were really tired of looking at that old Megan Fox one.:D
Yea Chris, hot avatar you have there. That Megan Fox is a freaking bellybutton lint ball with a hot body.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Definitely NOT a lawyer here. I've stated I'm an expert witness and testify for a living, but never represented myself to be a lawyer.

If you go to the thread I created, you'll see I never offered any opinions or answers to any questions, but simply created a venue for forum members to ask questions of the lawyers amongst us.
I'm sorry, I seriously thought you were a lawyer. No offense meant, not that being a lawyer is a bad thing. I'm not one of those that villify them until I need one. :cool:
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ChrisE said:
I'm sorry, I seriously thought you were a lawyer. No offense meant, not that being a lawyer is a bad thing. I'm not one of those that villify them until I need one. :cool:
bs again, i am sorry, you only know mcroady for the last 4 years and from another space a guess ;) and after several personal public exchanges not to mention that mc roadie was always open and consistent about what his profession is. it's in the dozens of his posts all over...
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
No, she said he didn't say it, but part of what makes that testimony effective is that Armstrong never tested positive, so a reasonable question would be "If he never used EPO, why would he admit it?" Pretty convincing answer if you say "He wouldn't." IF that element is not in place, the suggestion that he said it would gain more legitimacy because we now know he actually did EPO.

Chris, don't troll me on this. You are clearly smart enough to make those connections.
Clearly I'm not as smart as you think I am.

If her testimony is he didn't say that in the hospital, what relevance is it whether he used PEDs or not? I am not following you here.

In your scenario, if I was asked "why would he admit it" I would say I don't have the foggiest idea. What he did outside that hospital room is not relevant to what she claims she heard him say inside of it.

What we know that is possibly pretty compelling if this thing went to trial, and if things we know are admissable, is that he used EPO after 96, from the 99 samples, circumstances, FL, potentially other witnesses, etc. What he did before then, and why that has relevance to what she says she heard him say in a hospital in 96, in terms of putting the screws to her, is lost on me.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
python said:
bs again, i am sorry, you only know mcroady for the last 4 years and from another space a guess ;) and after several personal public exchanges not to mention that mc roadie was always open and consistent about what his profession is. it's in the dozens of his posts all over...
OK. You got me. I purposely said he was a lawyer so I could apologize afterwards when he called me on it. You win. :rolleyes:
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ChrisE said:
What he did before then, and why that has relevance to what she says she heard him say in a hospital in 96, in terms of putting the screws to her, is lost on me.
it's lost on you because you may want it to be lost on you ???

may be you don't want to hear what novi is trying to say - your home state boy was a dope all along, from 1996 to 2005 whilst the other evidence surfaced ?

why so blind ?
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
python said:
it's lost on you because you may want it to be lost on you ???

may be you don't want to hear what novi is trying to say - your home state boy was a dope all along, from 1996 to 2005 whilst the other evidence surfaced ?

why so blind ?
Did I say he didn't dope in 96, or before then or after then? I didn't think so.
There is a whole pile of posts from me on this forum and DPF and if you can find one where I said any such thing then I will admit it. Good luck with that....you will need it.

We are talking about why that is relevant to what she heard him say in the hospital room, and how the taped conversations can play in any perjury charge or how it can play in this case in general. If you wish to stay on topic to what Betsy said, which the voice mail/perjury issue is part of, then I am game. Your call.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ChrisE said:
Did I say he didn't dope in 96, or before then or after then? I didn't think so.
There is a whole pile of posts from me on this forum and DPF and if you can find one where I said any such thing then I will admit it. Good luck with that....you will need it.

We are talking about why that is relevant to what she heard him say in the hospital room, and how the taped conversations can play in any perjury charge or how it can play in this case in general. If you wish to stay on topic to what Betsy said, which the voice mail/perjury issue is part of, then I am game. Your call.
Its been explained to you - why keep arguing it?

And if as you say he has been doped during that time period - then why should McIlvain lie for Lance?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ChrisE said:
Did I say he didn't dope in 96, or before then or after then? I didn't think so.
There is a whole pile of posts from me on this forum and DPF and if you can find one where I said any such thing then I will admit it. Good luck with that....you will need it.

We are talking about why that is relevant to what she heard him say in the hospital room, and how the taped conversations can play in any perjury charge or how it can play in this case in general. If you wish to stay on topic to what Betsy said, which the voice mail/perjury issue is part of, then I am game. Your call.
it seems like you have a reading comprehension problem. where did i say you believe he did not dope in 1996 ?
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Its been explained to - why keep arguing it?

And if as you say he has been doped during that time period - then why should McIlvain lie for Lance?
Doc, you sure like to jump into my arguments. I was replying to python's off topic post.

Mcivlain has a perjury issue. I would suggest she may continue lying for herself instead of LA. YMMV.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ChrisE said:
Doc, you sure like to jump into my arguments. I was replying to python's off topic post.
you keep confusing a simple issue for the n-th time, if you post publicly anyone can read and nswer you. in this case you seem to again to willfully ignore the obvious and posted above - mc I is part of a wider case.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY