Betsy testifies

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

....and James Startt, a journalist who she told in 2004.
.....and everyone who listened to the tape GL has.

 

[eleven]

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.

IF the statements have little to do with the focus of the investigation (if they are not material to the case) it's not perjury.

Bill Clinton learned that the easy way.

 

[tubularglue]

No new news here people, move along

 

[Dr. Maserati]

IF the statements have little to do with the focus of the investigation (if they are not material to the case) it's not perjury.

Bill Clinton learned that the easy way.

But again the point is if she continues the lie now to either Federal investigators or a GJ then it is pertinent to this investigation.

 

[tockit]

But this is very interesting. I hadn't heard of this admission before:

"Lance was required to undergo an active steroid and EPO regimen as part of his post-operative treatment," Fabiani said, "which may give a reasonable explanation for there having been some discussion of EPO or steroids during her visit to the hospital, having nothing to do with any suggestion of use before he was a cancer patient."

It would also give the lie to the often-heard "Having had cancer, I would never dope, because I know it might increase the chances of a remission." In fact, there is evidence now that EPO may aggravate cancers, but at that time taking it post-cancer would have been quite reasonable.

Even if, as noted on this thread, this conversation happened before treatment, would Fabiani have made this statement without first clearing it with Lance? If he did not clear it, LA definitely hired the wrong guy. If he did clear it with LA, it sounds like the latter might be preparing the way for an admission?

This is BS. LA's admission to using EPO, et al, happened before his treatment according to his book.

EPO wouldn't be administered until he was well into his chemotherapy to boost his red blood cell count, which gets hammered by the chemo.

I doubt anabolic steroids would be used while treating cancer, and I know growth hormone wouldn't .

These drugs can make existing tumors grow like pouring gasoline on a fire!

 

[Hugh Januss]

....and James Startt, a journalist who she told in 2004.
.....and everyone who listened to the tape GL has.

She is in a bit of a tight spot, no doubt. Fortunately for her there is an easy way out. The truth shall set her free, or at least help her make a deal that will keep her free.

 

[Martin318is]

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.

Thanks Doc!

To clarify, were their sentences purely for their perjury or was it one of the charges that contriubuted to their sentences? I'm just trying to see what the worst case could be for McIlvain. The two biggest mitigators could be her family situation and the lying for self vs lying for others concept.

It seems quite logical that she will just cave in and give direct evidence to the investigation. The next question is the penalty.

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on whether its felt that lying for someone else would get her a higher or lower penalty than lying for self?

 

[tubularglue]

In regards to Merckx index info. ;


armstrong started out taking a regimen called BEP: bleomycin sulfate, etoposide phosphate, and cisplatin (Platinol)

the bleo destroys lung tissue, so after one cycle (3 weeks, 5 days on, weekend off, next week 1 drip bag, following week 1 drip bag) out of three treatments he went with a different more aggressive three drug combo, but less harsh on the lungs

http://www.google.com/search?q=cist...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5673716d440c1f33


http://www.google.com/search?q=cist...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5673716d440c1f33

and as i have stated before, testicular chemo treatment effects your white blood cell count, not your red. So, for instance, Neupogen is used, another Amgen product, to boost white cell count.

I never understood why the story goes, that he needed EPO, to raise red blood cell count. It does not work that way. EVER

now, while being operated on for the brain tumor, or during recovery, epo might possibly have been used. not for the cancer meds

BEP is the standard for testicular cancer

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks Doc!

To clarify, were their sentences purely for their perjury or was it one of the charges that contriubuted to their sentences? I'm just trying to see what the worst case could be for McIlvain. The two biggest mitigators could be her family situation and the lying for self vs lying for others concept.

It seems quite logical that she will just cave in and give direct evidence to the investigation. The next question is the penalty.

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on whether its felt that lying for someone else would get her a higher or lower penalty than lying for self?

Yes, all those sentances were solely for perjury and they were 'light' because it can be punishable for up to 5 years.

The reason given by the judge regarding Tammy Thomas was:

"Given the prison sentences of the "other miscreants" in the BALCO case, the judge said it would be unfair to send Thomas to prison."

 

[dbrower]

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.

Recall the gist of that case was that whether he doped or not was irrelevant to whether SCA owed the money, as a matter of contract law.

So all the sturm und drang was an irrelevant sideshow. It wasn't a vindication as Armstrong claims, but neither is there reason for SCA to revisit the matter with McIlvain, as that will not affect anything that matters to them.

-dB

 

[Race Radio]

It appears the LA Times modified the story. In the orignal it said

"Lance was required to undergo an active steroid and EPO regimen as part of his post-operative treatment," Fabiani said, "which may give a reasonable explanation for there having been some discussion of EPO or steroids during her visit to the hospital, having nothing to do with any suggestion of use before he was a cancer patient."

No it no longer is in the story. Is Mark Fabricator starting to feel guilty for the absurdity of the lies he is spewing? Did he beg the LA Times to take it out?

 

[Oldman]

Thanks Doc!

To clarify, were their sentences purely for their perjury or was it one of the charges that contriubuted to their sentences? I'm just trying to see what the worst case could be for McIlvain. The two biggest mitigators could be her family situation and the lying for self vs lying for others concept.

It seems quite logical that she will just cave in and give direct evidence to the investigation. The next question is the penalty.

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on whether its felt that lying for someone else would get her a higher or lower penalty than lying for self?

I think she'll tell her "truth" and what impact that has will be as Doc & Python pointed out: just a part of the case. It will amount to a helpful confirmation of behavior that will lend credence to something else of greater importance. She can suggest her employment was contingent on this cooperation and she will likely serve zero time. If the civil court wants to reopen the SCA matter and pursue her she will rely on an immunity grant from the Special Prosecuter; which she would most surely receive.
Lance's SCA windfall would then be in jeopardy; but that's the Civil case outfall and more $$$ than a morality play.
That testimony will put pressure on a witness to LA's earlier PED behavior to come clean, whichever staff or team mate that might be. Andreu(s) confirmation will provide added pressure.
Where all that leads isn't clear but I think they will be following a money trail, like I'll say until you're more annoyed. Fraud of some kind.

 

[Tubeless]

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.

It's hard to see why Stephanie wouldn't cooperate fully.

Back during the SCA case, it's a good bet that there was direct communication between Lance and Stephanie that ended up affecting her testimony. That type of witness intimidation / influencing almost never gets prosecuted in civil cases due to the limitations of civil litigation rules.

Who would have ever guessed that what Lance told her then would now be asked in front of a federal grand jury - with all the grave consequences of not to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". If Stephanie says Lance advised / asked / pressured her to say something specific in her affidavit - that would be a golden nugget for the prosecutors as they build their overall case. Getting one more person on record to saying she heard Lance personally admit to doping is likely not the only objective here.

 

[Tubeless]

It appears the LA Times modified the story. In the orignal it said

No it no longer is in the story. Is Mark Fabricator starting to feel guilty for the absurdity of the lies he is spewing? Did he beg the LA Times to take it out?

It seem this high-flying PR guy is still learning the ropes about doping. He said something that made no sense, someone pointed that out when the story was published and then he claimed he was misquoted. LA Times obliged since that part of the quote was not material.

Just shows he's struggling to come up with anything that would provide some counterweight to the incriminating story to his client. What remains is pretty weak in its own right, once the fact-checking is done:

Quote:

Mark Fabiani, who recently joined Armstrong's legal team, said Andreus' account was "preposterous." "The other six to seven people in that hospital room either say it didn't happen or have no recollection of any such conversation," he added. "The Andreus are the only persons who say it happened."

 

[BikeCentric]

It appears the LA Times modified the story. In the orignal it said



No it no longer is in the story. Is Mark Fabricator starting to feel guilty for the absurdity of the lies he is spewing? Did he beg the LA Times to take it out?

I have to think that the only way he could get them to retract the quote would be by telling them that he was completely mistaken (wrong) in the quote and that he had his facts mixed up. Which is interesting because I'm quite sure that LA has neither admitted nor denied taking EPO or anabolic steroids ever, regardless of whether it was used for cancer or not. Team Armstrong continues to make amateur mistakes.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have to think that the only way he could get them to retract the quote would be by telling them that he was completely mistaken (wrong) in the quote and that he had his facts mixed up. Which is interesting because I'm quite sure that LA has neither admitted nor denied taking EPO or anabolic steroids ever, regardless of whether it was used for cancer or not. Team Armstrong continues to make amateur mistakes.

He has admitted taking EPO;

Cycling Weekly interview 2008:

Would you open up your health book?
In the year 2001, there were two riders without any notes in their health books – me and Erik Dekker.

Will you open up your blood values record?
That’s for Don Catlin to answer but I’ve told him I’ve got no problem with that.

Have you ever taken EPO?
Yes, during the fall of 1996. Whenever I was ill.

I also know he mentions it in 1 of his books. (IIRC Every Second Counts).
Maybe someone else can confirm/deny?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It appears the LA Times modified the story. In the orignal it said



No it no longer is in the story. Is Mark Fabricator starting to feel guilty for the absurdity of the lies he is spewing? Did he beg the LA Times to take it out?

Thats a quality pun - that they have tried to do and missed.

I was rather disappointed that Lances PR didnt use more food based stories like they have so far:

As we say in Texas, the proof is in the pudding, and ah look at the pudding. There are 300 tests and there's not a single positive.Herman.

"Floyd Landis has disgraced himself with his admitted lies, and it is incredible that FDA agents are wasting taxpayer dollars in a fruitless attempt to bolster Landis' falsehoods." Fabriani

"His (Floyds) credibility is like a carton of sour milk; once you take the first sip, you don't have to drink the rest to know it has all gone bad."Armstrong.

“With salmonella causing the recall of 380 million eggs, I’m probably not the only one wondering right now why the FDA is spending its resources looking into international bicycle races that occurred years ago,” Fabiani

Forrest must have been off today.

I'm waiting for:
Lance is like a box of chocolates- rich and thick.

 

[python]

It seem this high-flying PR guy is still learning the ropes about doping. He said something that made no sense, someone pointed that out when the story was published and then he claimed he was misquoted. <snip>

the most intriguing and obvious slip fabiani made was the reference to the context of armstrong's involvement with drugs as related to cancer treatment rather than doping.

it is easy to refute by simply quoting the appropriate passages from the publicly available (138 page) armstrong deposition (see links thread) in the sca case when he was deposited by tillotson.

armstrong made it perfectly clear to tillotson (and it was videotaped) that he was questioned with regard to drugs use in cycling not his cancer treatment.

 

[python]

<snip>"The Andreus are the only persons who say it happened."

even if this obvious lie was only predicated on mcI story, there is evidence (repeatedly pointed by betsy on many occasions) that stapleton knew and admitted to frankie he knew that armstrong admitted pre-cancer drug use in the hospital room. that evidence i believe is also subpoenaed.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

It's hard to see why Stephanie wouldn't cooperate fully.

Publicly admitting lying in the SCA trial might be a bit unpleasant personally; perhaps she might worry about how that might affected future career prospects. But since she can't be charged for perjury in the SCA trial, and she could be charged for perjury if she lies now......it's hard to see why she wouldn't cooperate (unless someone has a way to unduly influence her).

.....If Stephanie says Lance advised / asked / pressured her to say something specific in her affidavit - that would be a golden nugget for the prosecutors as they build their overall case. Getting one more person on record to saying she heard Lance personally admit to doping is likely not the only objective here.

Yeah I think so too. Either that or they've got stuff all and are scrambling to get any little bit they can .

 

[jimmypop]

Wow, a gang fight. All you guys vs little old me. Sorry I keep getting y'all all worked up.

Where's flicker! I need help!

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

I know we bickered a bit and sort of agreed to disagree earlier in the year, but the fact that you're continuing this crusade indicates that you're feeling personally hurt that the athlete you've been idolizing since his teenage years is largely a fraud.

The rest of us may sway a bit to the "hate Armstrong" side, but I think that's the more reasonable stance these days.

 

[Beech Mtn]

It's hard to see why Stephanie wouldn't cooperate fully.

Back during the SCA case, it's a good bet that there was direct communication between Lance and Stephanie that ended up affecting her testimony. That type of witness intimidation / influencing almost never gets prosecuted in civil cases due to the limitations of civil litigation rules.

Who would have ever guessed that what Lance told her then would now be asked in front of a federal grand jury - with all the grave consequences of not to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". If Stephanie says Lance advised / asked / pressured her to say something specific in her affidavit - that would be a golden nugget for the prosecutors as they build their overall case. Getting one more person on record to saying she heard Lance personally admit to doping is likely not the only objective here.

Exactly. Could they go after LA for witness tampering? At the least this proves that Lance is guy who wields a fair amount of power - not what you'd expect from a guy who was "just another rider."

 

[QuickStepper]

. . .
I doubt anabolic steroids would be used while treating cancer. . .

One has to be careful not to confuse anabolic steroids with corticosteroids.
Corticosteroids (also banned in cycling) are commonly used in the case of low RBC and low hematocrit counts, i.e., leukemia or other conditions which result in low hematocrit or RBC counts (e.g., thrombocytopenia). An acute manifestation of thrombocytopenia which affects the immune system can usually be controlled by a course of therapy using steroids to inhibit the immune response for a period of several weeks. Costeroids (e.g., prednisone) are one of the most commonly prescribed cancer medications on the planet.

So if someone says they received "steroids" as part of their cancer treatment, that's no stretch...but they're not likely talking about anabolic steroids either.

Not that this has anything to do with Betsy Andreu or Novitsky....sorry for the interruption.

 

[frenchfry]

One has to be careful not to confuse anabolic steroids with corticosteroids.
Corticosteroids (also banned in cycling) are commonly used in the case of low RBC and low hematocrit counts, i.e., leukemia or other conditions which result in low hematocrit or RBC counts (e.g., thrombocytopenia). An acute manifestation of thrombocytopenia which affects the immune system can usually be controlled by a course of therapy using steroids to inhibit the immune response for a period of several weeks. Costeroids (e.g., prednisone) are one of the most commonly prescribed cancer medications on the planet.

So if someone says they received "steroids" as part of their cancer treatment, that's no stretch...but they're not likely talking about anabolic steroids either.

Not that this has anything to do with Betsy Andreu or Novitsky....sorry for the interruption.

My wife took costeroids during a phase of her treatment, and was as wound up as the energizer bunny for a few days each time. I can see why they would be banned for athletes.

 

[Digger]

I have seen the transcipts, as have many on here, of Stapleton talking to Frankie. And not once does he tell Frankie he is wrong. It is accepted that it happened and that Frankie should shut up. This is on tape.