Betsy testifies

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
python said:
it seems like you have a reading comprehension problem. where did i say you believe he did not dope in 1996 ?
You wrote this:

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 ?
From that I would conclude you would think I wouldn't want Novitsky to say these things because I am a "fanboy" or "Public Strategy Plant" or any other tired label trotted out to somebody that doesn't follow the pitchfork CW in here. I read that as you saying I didn't want to hear it because I don't believe it. If I am mistaken then you have my apologies.

Face it, python. I think he doped as much as you do, probably agree with you on all those bad things he did. We probably differ on how much of an advantage that gained him over his competition and whether or not he had the talent to win GT's within him without PED's. And, it is not personal with me with him. And, I don't do cartwheels and paint it in the worse possible scenario for him of what could happen when new info comes out. That makes me the enemy I guess.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ChrisE said:
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.
Its a forum - or have you not noticed.

McIlvain's perjury issues will be with the Fed's and what she say's now. Not what she said in 2005 at the SCA case.
The Fed's are doing their homework - and will be asking her questions they already know the answers to.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Its a forum - or have you not noticed.

McIlvain's perjury issues will be with the Fed's and what she say's now. Not what she said in 2005 at the SCA case.
The Fed's are doing their homework - and will be asking her questions they already know the answers to.
Fair enough. That is a different subject than what we were discussing. There was some talk that she admitted she lied on the tapes about SCA, ie perjury, that could be held against her and was bad news for LA. I questioned that.

Good for the feds. Maybe something will happen soon so we can stop guessing.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ChrisE said:
You wrote this:



From that I would conclude you would think I wouldn't want Novitsky to say these things because I am a "fanboy" or "Public Strategy Plant" or any other tired label trotted out to somebody that doesn't follow the pitchfork CW in here.
a lot of deductions and attributions never raised or alluded to but curiously raised. must be the guilty conscience ?

Face it, python. I think he doped as much as you do, probably agree with you on all those bad things he did.
then, why argue so much on armstrong's behave ? every time ? in the dozens of threads ? this is 99% of your posting ! the hard record is there !sorry i dont buy it.
We probably differ on how much of an advantage that gained him over his competition and whether or not he had the talent to win GT's within him without PED's.
off-topic. i could care less about it.
l And, it is not personal with me with him.
your personal posting record contradicts the statement 100%. that's all i and everyone else can go by.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Slightly off topic here...but hopefuly relavent. Im not familier with US law.

Does Novitsky have the power ( if he can present "good reason") to demand access to Lance`s medical records , in particuler ,information surrounding his Cancer treetment?.
Whatever Lances doping use after cancer , with his life on the line I would imagine full disclosure of his pre cancer PED use to the doctors treating him would be complete and truthful.
The risks of not doing would surely be so great it would out weigh all other considerations.
I assume doctor / patiant confidentiality , while being an extreemly important right to protect, can under certain circumstances be challanged?.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
python said:
then, why argue so much on armstrong's behave ? every time ? in the dozens of threads ? this is 99% of your posting ! the hard record is there !sorry i dont buy it. off-topic. i could care less about it. your personal posting record contradicts the statement 100%. that's all i and everyone else can go by.
I argue on behalf of fairness in terms of following due process with established testing protocols, and on topic in due process when it comes to the US govt. investigating and prosecuting it's citizens. Yes, I also think he takes undue heat in here because his competition was just as doped as he was IMO. I could care less about his using cancer as a shield, etc. that some people use as fuel. I'm not saying that is not a valid reason to feel a certain way...it is not just for me.

Contrast that with the brandished pitchforks in here it is easy to conclude I argue "on his behalf" as you say. It could be Alberto Contador from Spain or Joe Blow from Elbonia and my opinion would not change on these issues. The fact he is the main subject in doping forums is a coincidence.

If you don't believe what I say then so be it.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ChrisE said:
I argue on behalf of fairness in terms of following due process with established testing protocols, <remove irrelevant offtopic>
this is you other overused mantra that's known well :D

please provide links or other evidence where you argued on behalf of valverde, vino, ulrich...dozens of others (not withstanding your preposterous assumption that ulle is one of those rich who's 'using the psychological distress button) who deserved due process.

again, your record on this forum says you only defend your home state boy's due process. everyone knows it.

betsy testifying and having mcI subpoenaed is a due process according to your country's laws but you are willing to poo it. why ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
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.
The relevance is that her continuing to lie is covered by the fact that there is no evidence he did EPO, so there would have been no reason for him admit it to anyone. IF there is evidence that he did EPO, her cover for her lie is diminished. I am merely stating that for purposes of getting her to admit what was really said, all evidence previously known will be used to do so. It appears that, from your posting, you believe that questioning goes something like this "Did you hear it?" answer: "No." "Okay, next witness." The fact that he was known to have used EPO prior to going into the hospital opens up a myriad of questions that can be used to draw out the truth.

Now, I believe you are being obtuse just to be obtuse, so I cede any future point you may make.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
A) A lot of you guys are saying McIlvain has a "perjury issue" and must be pooping herself over fears that she's a perjurer....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a middle-income single mom who has an autistic son at home to take care of. In the Lemond tape, doesn't she say Lance was able to coerce Oakley into letting her "work from home" in order to tend to her son??

Anyhoo, yes she may have perjured herself, but I severely DOUBT the Feds would look to put her behind bars, for God's sake. More likely they simply will tell her, "You lied once, now's a good time to tell the truth". My guess is she wants to get on w/ her REAL life, and so tells the truth. (Either that or Lance has already contacted her and paid her off $$$.....)

B) God bless Betsy for keeping the tape all these years. Good on ya, girl. Who knew "answering machines" even existed anymore?

C) Lance may have been right: Betsy really does hate you, Lance. Woo hoo!! What comes around, comes around. BIATCH!
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Now, I believe you are being obtuse just to be obtuse, so I cede any future point you may make.
i don't think so. i think it is plain intellectually disingenuous.

as i explained in a post above, the due process according to chris is his driver but he's willing to only defend the home state boy's due process never in my experience on this board raising the issue specificsally about the other doping riders.

american discovery lead by novi is the due process but chris is posting anti-novizky links whilst believing that armstrong doped all along. sounds a bit suspiciously selective, would you think ?
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
Chris E builds a faux-rational argument to disguise his fanboyism, but it's transparent. Armstrong could be accused of rape and murder and he (and others) would devise pseudo-intellectual arguments that would allow them to continue to worship their human idol.

It's just easier to admit you're a superfan who will defend your hero at no costs. At least then there's some romantic loyalty to the story. Now, it's just sad, and says more about the defenders than the defenders are able (or willing) to admit.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
please provide links or other evidence where you argued on behalf of valverde, vino, ulrich...dozens of others (not withstanding your preposterous assumption that ulle is one of those rich who's 'using the psychological distress button) who deserved due process.
I don't care to search for links so I will state this here for the record just for you, my friend: I don't believe Valverde should be banned for various reasons. You can search some of those threads and find my opinion on that if you are so inclined. I'm not inclined to do your legwork. Vino, of course he failed a drug test so I have no problem with his suspension. I also have no problem with him or anybody else coming back after he served his suspension. JU? I dunno but I could possibly say he is getting screwed. I really don't know that much about his details. I have somewhat of a problem with how OP went down and the resulting bans. And these opinions mean what????

If you wish to discuss my feelings about JU's mental state there is another thread going on about that. Bump it up and we can discuss. If you think that my opinion on that is "preposterous" then good for you and we can leave it at that. I got bored with that thread after awhile.

again, your record on this forum says you only defend your home state boy's due process. everyone knows it.
See above. Admittedly I am more into the LA thing, but if he was from Florida for example I think I would be posting just as much and I would definitely have the same opinions if the subject of LA was as much of a hot topic on here as it is now. I said above I basically don't care if you believe that or not, and that is still valid. :cool:

betsy testifying and having mcI subpoenaed is a due process according to your country's laws but you are willing to poo it. why ?
I didn't write that and you know it. The subject on this thread I was discussing was mci being pressured by Novitsky due to potential perjury charge from SCA vs the tapes. Obviously Novitsky can subpoena whoever he wants and I have no problem with that.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
jimmypop said:
Chris E builds a faux-rational argument to disguise his fanboyism, but it's transparent. Armstrong could be accused of rape and murder and he (and others) would devise pseudo-intellectual arguments that would allow them to continue to worship their human idol.

It's just easier to admit you're a superfan who will defend your hero at no costs. At least then there's some romantic loyalty to the story. Now, it's just sad, and says more about the defenders than the defenders are able (or willing) to admit.
Wow, a gang fight. All you guys vs little old me. Sorry I keep getting y'all all worked up. :cool:

Where's flicker! I need help! :D

I'm going to bed, fellows. Have fun calling me names while I sleep. :D
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
NashbarShorts said:
A) A lot of you guys are saying McIlvain has a "perjury issue" and must be pooping herself over fears that she's a perjurer....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a middle-income single mom who has an autistic son at home to take care of. In the Lemond tape, doesn't she say Lance was able to coerce Oakley into letting her "work from home" in order to tend to her son??

Anyhoo, yes she may have perjured herself, but I severely DOUBT the Feds would look to put her behind bars, for God's sake. More likely they simply will tell her, "You lied once, now's a good time to tell the truth". My guess is she wants to get on w/ her REAL life, and so tells the truth. (Either that or Lance has already contacted her and paid her off $$$.....)

B) God bless Betsy for keeping the tape all these years. Good on ya, girl. Who knew "answering machines" even existed anymore?

C) Lance may have been right: Betsy really does hate you, Lance. Woo hoo!! What comes around, comes around. BIATCH!
To answer your A).

It was discussed on another thread - but it would be difficult to pursue a charge of perjury of what McIlvain said from the SCA case.
What will be of interest to the Fed's now is what she tellls them now. Which is why they got all the paperwork from GL & now from the Andreus.

In short - if McIlvain repeats what she said during the SCA case - she could be in big trouble, regardless of her family situation.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ChrisE said:
Admittedly I am more into the LA thing,snipped irrelevancy>
that's all most concerned posters knew already.
The subject on this thread I was discussing was mci being pressured by Novitsky due to potential perjury charge from SCA vs the tapes. Obviously Novitsky can subpoena whoever he wants and I have no problem with that.
somehow you assumed i did not know the subject of this thread.

hmmm, the issue that most posters had with your argument was that your pooing on novitzky and and your artificial 'not understanding' the relevance of mcillvant vs novi to armstrong case was suspiciously disingenuous, or obtuse as tff put it.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
In short - if McIlvain repeats what she said during the SCA case - she could be in big trouble, regardless of her family situation.
yeah but thats kind of the point isn't it?
Its really easy to write something as all encompassing as that, but exactly what size and type of trouble would she actually be in?

Fine? (Fine Size?)
Jail time? (How long?, Suspended or actual?)
Other penalty possibly? (what?)
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
python said:
somehow you assumed i did not know the subject of this thread.
I have to admit he seems to have a point given that I have had to delete a bunch of your posts as part of a collection (that yes, I KNOW included ChrisE's and others) for off topic discussions of ChrisE's posting style.

It seems to be the good Doctor who has been answering the actual questions in the meantime.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
uspostal said:
Hey Chris is this the investagtor that LA haters are pinning there hopes on

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-novitzky020309
Yea, that's him. I feel comfortable pinning my hopes on him. That lying, narcissistic doper you are hoping will be pulled out of the fire, I bet his pants have to be checked hourly for piles of sh!t because of that man. Lance may have power, but he is playing child's games when it comes to comparing that to the power of a federal investigator and a DA. Keep whistling in the dark.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Martin318is said:
yeah but thats kind of the point isn't it?
Its really easy to write something as all encompassing as that, but exactly what size and type of trouble would she actually be in?

Fine? (Fine Size?)
Jail time? (How long?, Suspended or actual?)
Other penalty possibly? (what?)
To bring BALCO as an example, Marion Jones served 6 months (A reduced sentance as she plead guilty), Trevor Graham and Tammy Thomas received 1 year and months of 'Home Confinement' respectively.

But the difference between them and McIlvain - is that if McIlvain lies it will be only to protect Lance - it serves her no purpose to continue the lie.
 
Aug 4, 2010
198
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
To bring BALCO as an example, Marion Jones served 6 months (A reduced sentance as she plead guilty), Trevor Graham and Tammy Thomas received 1 year and months of 'Home Confinement' respectively.

But the difference between them and McIlvain - is that if McIlvain lies it will be only to protect Lance - it serves her no purpose to continue the lie.
That maybe just remember that the DA has to prove she knowling lied about what she did or didn't hear. She may say she was agreeing with Frankie and Co. so as not to have pressure put on her about it. Only she knows what she did or didn't hear time will tell.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
I'm comfortable with Novitsky. He made his mistakes and learned his lesson while at the IRS. Has anyone seen a single sentence out of him since the investigation started?

I don't care if a woman who worked for Oakley gets in trouble. I care if she, even under pressure, tells the truth about what happened. For me a big part of this investigation (so far) is the righting of wrongs. The reign of terror is over, so it's time for the people who have been beaten down in the past to come out and repeat what they said to a world more willing to believe. The people in L.A. Confidential are a good start. Let the former friends and former employees step up and speak to an investigator who believes them (based on an accumulation of things) and treats them with respect. I think some of us former fans need to go through it as well. This quote from a new, brief article in the New York Daily News:

Novitzky has now reached out to the Andreus, who, after being subpoenaed in a 2005 arbitration dispute over victory bonuses, testified that they heard Armstrong confess in a hospital in 1996 to using performance-enhancing drugs. Betsy Andreu confirmed that she and her husband had spoken to Novitzky, but said they have not been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles that is meeting in secrecy under the direction of assistant U.S. Attorney Doug Miller.

"Novitzky has been nothing but respectful and fair to us," Andreu told the Daily News. "We will definitely cooperate, telling the truth."
That was the only quote (don't know if it was Frankie or Betsy) in the article, so it must have meant something.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/09/01/2010-09-01_jeff_novitzky_reaches_out_to_former_lance_armstrong_teammate_frankie_andreu_wife.html
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Martin318is said:
I have to admit he seems to have a point given that I have had to delete a bunch of your posts as part of a collection (that yes, I KNOW included ChrisE's and others) for off topic discussions of ChrisE's posting style.

It seems to be the good Doctor who has been answering the actual questions in the meantime.
when a poster is repeatedly saying he does not understand the relevance of mcI involvement with novitzky whilst accepting armstrong's doping all along, and yet repeatedly pointed out by several posters the possible reasons for mc I involvement, it's fair to question whether the poster is reading what was written or intentionally and willfully ignoring it. in such cases, the poster's previous arguments or his posting style which was often commented on by many as intentional or potential baiting that derailed many a thread is a fair game.

I showed surprise with novitzky's vigour re the hospital room incident with my first post. apparently, my surprize is not shared. does it mean i have to pretend i did not see what's written ? i take it as people see things differently, rather than endlessly try to convince them of my argument.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
ChrisE said:
You wrote this:

Face it, python. I (ChrisE) think he doped as much as you do, probably agree with you on all those bad things he did.
ChrisE,

Could you then specifically state, for the record of this forum, that "you think LA doped from 1999-2005"?

You seem to like to argue details but then do not offer specific statements. Here is your opporunity to set the record straight: your beliefs and LA the doper.

NW
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY