• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

David Walsh piece

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
stephens said:
Spouses can't be forced to testify. IANAL so... are ex-spouses required to testify about things that happened while they were still married to the suspect?

Except, she's not Floyd's ex. So, when the feds ask her: 'did you see EPO/syringes or whatever in Floyd's hands?', she can very well be forced to testify. As an investigator, the first thing I would check out is everything Floyds says about himself. Kik would be very useful to corroborate pieces of that.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
If they are charging Landis, then you'd be correct. If the case is against Lance, then I believe spousal privilege could protect Lance since legally she could not be forced to testify (though she could if she wanted to about things as long as they don't qualify under the marital confidence privilege: all two-party communications could be kept out by Lance under that privilege)
 
Jul 24, 2009
29
0
0
stephens said:
Spouses can't be forced to testify. IANAL so... are ex-spouses required to testify about things that happened while they were still married to the suspect?

Two privileges regarding marriage:

Marital communications privilege
-protects confidential communications between spouses while they are married
-privilege survives the marriage (either person can still invoke the privilege after a divorce, so Lance could prevent Kik from testifying as to their confidential communications during their marriage)

Spousal privilege
-protects a spouse from testifying in a criminal trial against his/her spouse
-witness spouse holds the privilege, not the defendant spouse -- defendant spouse can't "shut up" the witness spouse if the witness spouse wants to testify
-privilege does NOT survive the marriage -- Kik could not invoke the privilege and refuse to testify against Lance at a criminal trial, even if she wanted to keep the secret; she would have to testify if called to do so, except as to confidential communications (see above)

IAAL
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
bigmatt24 said:
-witness spouse holds the privilege, not the defendant spouse -- defendant spouse can't "shut up" the witness spouse if the witness spouse wants to testify

I don't understand what is meant by this sentence. It reads like you're talking about the spouse of a witness, but why would the spouse of a witness testify to anything unless he/she is a witness themselves. I'm pretty sure I must be misreading you.
 
I'm a bit confused too. Kik could not invoke privilege and refuse and would have to testify...except for confidential communications, which means she could avoid testifying about anything while they were married?

She just retired from cycling, but won a great deal. Would these laws apply to USADA rules on sanctions?

And what about what Cobbles asked. What if she's called to testify regarding Landis?

Which brings up a poing. Who exactly are the feds, or USADA for that matter, going to go after? Just Lance? That's not likely.

It seems to me what's going to happen (or is happening) is that USADA, and probably Novitzky will start talking to people and see who they can get to talk, and then use that information to proceed against who won't. It's a form of the prisoner's dilemma. Put two suspects in two rooms and tell each of them if they talk first, they will get amnesty, if they remain silent, and the other person talks, they will go down hard. While the people involved here won't be in separate rooms, the fear of being prosecuted and indicted tends tends to be a pretty strong motivator for most people.

In this regard, it doesn't look good for Lance, as he won't talk, ever, though others might. He's at the top of the pyramid, and it's going to be very hard for him to contact everyone he thinks investigators are talking to and convince them to remain silent, or lie. It's like holding onto water in cupped hands. You can keep it there for a while...

The question then becomes just how much info do investigators have, and what do they plan on doing with it?

It may be an issue where even without any indictment, or even without sanction by USADA, the evidence is so overwhelming that Armstrong's career and reputation are completely ruined in the public eye. He could end up like Barry Bonds. None of his records stripped, and never taken to court, but shamed into oblivion. And if that is what happens, and it very well might, it would possibly be as BikeCentric says, the greatest story of sporting fraud in history.
 
Jul 24, 2009
29
0
0
Cerberus said:
I don't understand what is meant by this sentence. It reads like you're talking about the spouse of a witness, but why would the spouse of a witness testify to anything unless he/she is a witness themselves. I'm pretty sure I must be misreading you.

The spouse of the defendant in a criminal case is a potential witness against the defendant, the other spouse.

So, to make it more concrete, if Lance is on trial for doping (assuming for the moment that "doping" is a crime in whatever jurisdiction we're talking about), then Kik is a potential witness against him. If Lance and Kik were still married, then Kik could refuse to testify against Lance if the prosecution called her as a witness against him. But if Kik DID want to take the stand, Lance could not prevent her from testifying against him. And now that they're divorced, Kik can't refuse to testify now, either. She would have to take the stand and "spill the beans" (as a previous poster put it), except as to confidential communications -- Lance could keep her from telling the court what he told her in confidence while they were married. But she would still have to testify as to what she saw, overheard, found, etc. -- anything that is not a confidential communication.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm a bit confused too. Kik could not invoke privilege and refuse and would have to testify...except for confidential communications, which means she could avoid testifying about anything while they were married?

She just retired from cycling, but won a great deal. Would these laws apply to USADA rules on sanctions?
Kristin Armstrong the ex-racer =/ Kristin Armstrong the Ex-wife. They're two different people.

"Kristin Armstrong (born August 11, 1973) is a professional road bicycle racer and Olympic gold medalist, the winner of the Women's Time Trial at the 2008 Summer Olympics. She rides for Cervélo TestTeam in women's elite professional events on the National Racing Calendar (NRC) and UCI Women's World Cup. Armstrong earned a bachelor's degree in sports physiology from the University of Idaho in 1995, and currently lives in Boise, Idaho. She is often confused with Lance Armstrong's ex-wife, whose name is also Kristin. Kristin Armstrong the cyclist and Lance Armstrong are not related."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Armstrong
 
Jul 24, 2009
29
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm a bit confused too. Kik could not invoke privilege and refuse and would have to testify...except for confidential communications, which means she could avoid testifying about anything while they were married?

Not about ANYTHING; only about "confidential communications", which is a relatively narrow area. If Kik overheard Lance saying something about doping on the phone, even if he thought it was in confidence with someone else, that is not covered by the privilege (maybe a hearsay issue, but not covered by the marital privilege); if Lance said something to her about doping and someone else was there, or even in the next room and he knew about that person's presence and said it loud enough that he knew the other person could hear it, then it probably wasn't "in confidence," and it isn't covered by the privilege; and if Kik found a pill bottle or syringe with a banned substance in it, that's not a communication at all, and it wouldn't fall under the privilege. So you see, there's a lot that Kik could testify to that Lance couldn't suppress.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
bigmatt24 said:
The spouse of the defendant in a criminal case is a potential witness against the defendant, the other spouse.

So, to make it more concrete, if Lance is on trial for doping (assuming for the moment that "doping" is a crime in whatever jurisdiction we're talking about), then Kik is a potential witness against him. If Lance and Kik were still married, then Kik could refuse to testify against Lance if the prosecution called her as a witness against him. But if Kik DID want to take the stand, Lance could not prevent her from testifying against him. And now that they're divorced, Kik can't refuse to testify now, either. She would have to take the stand and "spill the beans" (as a previous poster put it), except as to confidential communications -- Lance could keep her from telling the court what he told her in confidence while they were married. But she would still have to testify as to what she saw, overheard, found, etc. -- anything that is not a confidential communication.
Ok, thanks. I can see where I went wrong in reading your other post. I confused "defendant spouse" and "witness spouse" with "defendant's spouse" and "witness' spouse" (I'm actually not sure if I got the >''''< right here).
 
Jun 20, 2009
654
0
0
Berzin said:
I wasn't insinuating doubt about Walshs' integrity. I hope my comment didn't read like that.

I just find it odd that a European newspaper picked up on such an important detail first.

If it's true, oh boy. Wonder how Armstrong and company will spin this one.

Will she also be depicted as mentally unstable and vindictive? This is, after all, the mother of his first children.

The more I think about it, the more anxious I get. This really does have the potential to blow up big, much bigger than I thought.

Nothing to do with the locality of the paper - everything to do with Walsh's personal connections.
 
Jun 20, 2009
654
0
0
vrusimov said:
...nothing changes...american cycling goes in the trashcan [barely enough big races/sponsors now]...while each and every winner of major races is met with suspicion of doping, especially unusual performances...Walsh and LeMond are already going after Contador and the Science of Sport article about pre and post LeMond w/kg is an eye-opener...and then you start wondering about Indurain and how he was able to beat a man by over 4 minutes when the year before the difference between them over similar distance was less than 10 seconds...even Indurain's numbers skyrocketed as EPO came to the fore...if LeMond's 5.7 w/kg represents some type of baseline then everything that has come after it is evidence that something more than technological advances and training techniques are at work...

...i'll go on the record as being in Armstrong's corner but do i think beyond the doubt he has'nt indulged in a little "tweaking"...absolutely not...he would've been on EPO during his recovery from cancer...

...Armstrong's relevance in professional cycling is fast fading, comeback notwithstanding...and somebody has to win these races, even if you believe that everybody does it...at some point a totally clean peloton will still produce a winner and perhaps a dominant one...that is the specific point of a race, to find a winner, regardless of the route taken to said victory...and if Armstrong's tour wins are bad then what remains at the top of cycling that is good?

...interests internationally will of course have more interest in seeing him torn down but my fellow Americans are fooling themselves if they think that Armstrong's head on a platter will be good for American cycling...cycling is'nt really cultivated in the US...not like Europe and it could be a long time before another american rider stands on a podium in France...

...as far as Landis is concerned, he's trying to be a hero but he's anything but...he tried to bankrupt the forces aligned against him while extracting monies from fans who believed that he was innocent...and for him to state that his positive is still bogus but that he extensively used dope is an exercise in some serious denial/dissonance...the good Dr. Kay believes he's innocent but what must he believe after his confessions and allegations?...

...his motivations must be questioned and altruism ain't high on that list...why haggle Bruyneel and Armstrong during the past four years why haggle the TOC organizer...my take is that Floyd could'nt extract what he wanted from those he deemed capabale of helping restore his place in cycling...if Bruyneel lets him on the team [or helps him financially] and if TOC allowed him to race do we believe that he keeps his mouth shut and continues his denials of using PED's?...Landis is trying to ride a coin and land on the right side but it won't happen, regardless of what happens with Armstrong...

...he's misrepresented himself too many times and in too many ways to be seen as anything more than a rat...and no i'm not calling him that personally but his represents a scorched-earth policy laced with vindictiveness and it has less to do with sleeping at night than making sure he takes a few down with him...he can sleep better at night by returning all the money he took under false-pretenses...

...there is less a need for a clean up domestically than there is internationally...that's where the most prestigious races occur and where the best in the world compete year-round...even LeMond pretty much threw domestic cycling over his shoulder when he moved to Belgium...stateside racing does'nt bring you much acclaim or money for that matter...cycling is largely an amateur sport in America, much more so than in Europe...

...stateside fans of Armstrong care less about endogenous/exogenous EPO, testosterone, hgh or anything more technical than the absolute number of tour wins and the fact that he's a cancer survivor with world-wide influence...

...LeMond has his heart in the right place but is a bit overzealous with his announcements at times...he's overcompensating now for what he did'nt do before his abuse announcement...sadly, we may never see a totally clean peloton, not when the riders that matter think that their peers are hopped up on a little "orange-juice"...

...as far as Lance goes...he probably should've stayed retired...as the hour grows late someone might just come forth with some pretty damaging information, without worrying about potential retribution...

"Dude", that is WAY too long a post. No-one's going to read that. Try to make your point in a para or two. ;)
 
drb716 said:
I note the hint of sarcasm in your last sentences, but in all seriousness, would Armstrong's fall really change anything in the sport? Big names have been chased out before, and where are we? Vino 2.0, Basso 2.0, Garzelli, Scarponi, Ricco, etc... Furthermore, if the doping has been so widespread before, should we simply assume Cavendish, Sagan, Gerdemann, Nibali, and other of today's better riders are doped as well? With Armstrong gone, what changes?

Armstrong is a big deal for the symbolism as much as anything. The biggest fish is the UCI. Full investigation required, followed by disbanding with McQuaid and Verbruggen going to jail on corruption charges.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
Roland Rat said:
Armstrong is a big deal for the symbolism as much as anything. The biggest fish is the UCI. Full investigation required, followed by disbanding with McQuaid and Verbruggen going to jail on corruption charges.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. So far the evidence of corruption in the UCI is that Landis says that Lance told him it happened. Hardly ironclad. Even if it's true, it could be far harder to prove than the doping charges because most likely less people would know about it. Certainly it's the most interesting charge, but it's also the hardest to prove.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
No - I think you want to bury your head in the sand and hope it all blows over.

Guess what that will change..........

...put your kool-aid down bucko...your level of interest and/or emotional investment in the beheading of Armstrong and Co. is your own business and if it extends to countless hours of conjecture, insinuation, self-righteousness, personal animosity or whatever else you can conjure up makes no difference to me...i have no such personal investment/interest...i merely state my opinion and could care less which way this "blows" or your propensity to bare your teeth when the mere mention of Armstrong is made...if/when the man goes down i will lose no sleep or worry over the salivations of those who've relished it for nearly a decade...

...quite possibly you're the one who's dreaming if you think that Armstrong's demise will signal kumbaya and the peloton's return to the days of sub 6 w/kg performances...live in that sand-castle if you like...
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
vrusimov said:
...put your kool-aid down bucko...your level of interest and/or emotional investment in the beheading of Armstrong and Co. is your own business and if it extends to countless hours of conjecture, insinuation, self-righteousness, personal animosity or whatever else you can conjure up makes no difference to me...i have no such personal investment/interest...i merely state my opinion and could care less which way this "blows" or your propensity to bare your teeth when the mere mention of Armstrong is made...if/when the man goes down i will lose no sleep or worry over the salivations of those who've relished it for nearly a decade...

...quite possibly you're the one who's dreaming if you think that Armstrong's demise will signal kumbaya and the peloton's return to the days of sub 6 w/kg performances...live in that sand-castle if you like...

Actually I only mentioned Armstrong to you once;
No - the problem is you are a fan of Lance, it is easier to shoot the messenger than swallow the bitter pill.
Which was in responce to you giving out about Wash, I find this is a strange view point as you wrote this"
"...nothing changes...american cycling goes in the trashcan [barely enough big races/sponsors now]...while each and every winner of major races is met with suspicion of doping, especially unusual performances..."
....even though you give out about the people who are not ignoring the problem.

I have never said the demise of Armstrong would clean up the sport - so the rest of your post is moot.

Peace.
 
Sep 23, 2009
409
0
0
laziali said:
"Dude", that is WAY too long a post. No-one's going to read that. Try to make your point in a para or two. ;)


I read it, but then I rode a hundred and thirty 5 smiles one day, the casualty department was empty and this to long a post would have paced the time better than I did riding all that way, when their is a hospital at the top of the hill here.
 
Sep 23, 2009
409
0
0
Ten minutes ago on RTE radio news we heard that they just caught the Duchess of Pork, trying to manhandle £500,000 out of an undecover reporter, for access to Prints mAn drew(B&W), he being an international business hoover type dude for his mudders gang.

How come no one has ever been able, cleanly, just like Higgins in Snooker, corner Lance and get it over with? He corners himself by his behaviour. Witch hunting should only be for people who put bells on bicycles to make them go fatter.


One hour later: Fhuckingham Chalice have refused to comment on the Alsatians.
 
May 5, 2010
37
0
0
Cal_Joe said:
For those of you on the other side of the pond, perhaps a bit of explanation.

"Not co-operating" = lawyered up and will talk to no one, using counsel to delay as long as possible.

"Co-operating" = possibly lawyered up (in this instance I would say most likely) and has agreed to meet with the appropriate investigators. This is in principle only an agreement to meet and does not indicate that the person that has been asked to meet with investigators will freely discuss the issues at hand.

"Understood to be co-operating" (which is what the article actually said) = a premise advanced by Walsh, without outside confirmation or without the usual disclaimer of "from sources who have requested anonymity because they have not been authorized to speak on the subject."

"Spilling the beans" = no explanation needed.

As with everything else this week, there are probably wheels within wheels and undoubtedly agendas by all participants.

I would be hesitant to draw any conclusions from what the general public has seen to date on this.

I was waiting for someone to say that...

I have to agree, even with confirmation-if and when that comes-that she is co-operating I don't belive that means that she's turned up with photos/used syringes/etc and is ready to spill the beans! It could be as basic as answering phone calls from authorities or agreeing to meet for interviews - and even then, who's to say she'll tell all she may know? I'd imagine she would want to keep her relationship with LA on good terms
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
bigmatt24 said:
The spouse of the defendant in a criminal case is a potential witness against the defendant, the other spouse.

So, to make it more concrete, if Lance is on trial for doping (assuming for the moment that "doping" is a crime in whatever jurisdiction we're talking about), then Kik is a potential witness against him. If Lance and Kik were still married, then Kik could refuse to testify against Lance if the prosecution called her as a witness against him. But if Kik DID want to take the stand, Lance could not prevent her from testifying against him. And now that they're divorced, Kik can't refuse to testify now, either. She would have to take the stand and "spill the beans" (as a previous poster put it), except as to confidential communications -- Lance could keep her from telling the court what he told her in confidence while they were married. But she would still have to testify as to what she saw, overheard, found, etc. -- anything that is not a confidential communication.
you clarified for me a lot. thanks. but i'm still confused about what constitutes 'confidence' between armstrong and his ex :confused:

i recall armstrong upon his divorce insisted on (whats the term ?) confidentiality agreement or something like that.

couldn't he and his lawyers design the agreement so that any doping related issue involving her ex restricts her from talking in public or in court ?

armstrong was generous and i assume no mother wants to be sued if she violated the legal confidentiality agreement with her ex.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
theswordsman said:
I think probably so they can build the case without tipping their hand. I recall from one of the books that she went with him for his European training at least one year. And before Sheryl Crowe went to the apartment for the first time, Lance called his assistant to de-Kik the place. You'd think she'd notice if she went to the fridge for milk for her cereal and saw blood bags hanging. :eek: But seriously, she could have overheard things, or stumbled across things when he was out, or maybe she's willing to testify about the conversation in the hospital. I'd be happy just knowing for sure that she's talking, without the dark side being able to do damage control. They have way too many sources of info as it is.

Kristin Armstrong was not in a relationship with Lance when he was recovering in hospital in 1997. She won't be collaborating the Andreu's confessions. But don't fret, KiK knows plenty more of the good stuff. Read up on Lemond and the case he settled with Trek/LA in February. KiK was going to be called for testimony. I thought at the time when the case settled, it was about protecting KiK from having to testify against Lance. Not putting her in the position to hurt Lance unintentionally. Maybe with this piece by Walsh the Lemond/Trek case was settled because LA knew KiK had motive to intentionally damage him if given the chance in a court case.

Either way, I don't think so. Why now? After Lance has ploughed through every skank with a skirt, Crow, Hudson, etc...why would she change her tune now? The two new kids. Maybe they get more attention than hers ever have. As for the language Walsh used...'cooperating' in a legal sense means you are lawyered up and answering enquiries. It does not infer you are spilling the beans. You can be cooperating and in effec,t be saying/doing nothing other than deploying simple subterfuge (deflecting) by providing cheap responses. You can catch the drift or gist of it...KiK only talks when you hear the quotes, no sooner.

Also forgot to mention, KiK recently wrote her own book about overcoming adversity. Has a faith component. Maybe her renewed faith in life, God and justice might see her say something. The Floyd show better get back on the road and keep churning...June is going to be a cracker.
 
Jun 9, 2009
140
0
0
Galic Ho said:
Also forgot to mention, KiK recently wrote her own book about overcoming adversity. Has a faith component. Maybe her renewed faith in life, God and justice might see her say something. The Floyd show better get back on the road and keep churning...June is going to be a cracker.

Well that's good, because people who are facing hard time often need their faith to get them through. If Armstrong's ex-wife knew about, or worse, in any way participated in the illegal distribution of prescription drugs or controlled substances, she could be prosecuted. If she lies to a federal investigator she could be prosecuted. If there is evidence of crime, anyone tangential to the criminal activity could be implicated as an accomplice or accessory, and therefore strongly motivated by investigators to testify in return for leniency.
 
python said:
you clarified for me a lot. thanks. but i'm still confused about what constitutes 'confidence' between armstrong and his ex :confused:

i recall armstrong upon his divorce insisted on (whats the term ?) confidentiality agreement or something like that.

couldn't he and his lawyers design the agreement so that any doping related issue involving her ex restricts her from talking in public or in court ?

armstrong was generous and i assume no mother wants to be sued if she violated the legal confidentiality agreement with her ex.

Wouldn't any agreement which blocked a federal investigation be illegal or invalid? Can't see where because you sign a contract that says you won't talk about a crime (not saying such contract or crime exist or occurred) that it would be valid.
 
gjdavis60 said:
Well that's good, because people who are facing hard time often need their faith to get them through. If Armstrong's ex-wife knew about, or worse, in any way participated in the illegal distribution of prescription drugs or controlled substances, she could be prosecuted. If she lies to a federal investigator she could be prosecuted. If there is evidence of crime, anyone tangential to the criminal activity could be implicated as an accomplice or accessory, and therefore strongly motivated by investigators to testify in return for leniency.

One look at her website and the Feds will know they have a weak link to tap. The key is not to go after Armstrong but those around him. The chic is still hurting that Lance left her.

The website pours out: "He left me when I stood by him and I want to phark him over and it was that stupid bike & the drugs that did it".

http://www.kristinarmstrong.net/