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.