Kik Confesses, Sort Of...

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
thehog said:
Well she did married a psycho so we shoudl give her a break. She's gone through a enough as it is :rolleyes:
Quite right. I think she has acted for the good of her children. I am guessing it is the choices and dislike of being in the position she was in that led to divorce, As ex wife and mother of children, she should not be asked to testify against Lance. The choices he made were his. I suspect she suffered a lot both before and after.
 
I just finished reading what was the most nauseating piece of self-serving drivel I've read in a long time.

I challenge anyone to get through this quote and not vomit from sheer disgust-

"When I wrote my first article for Runner’s World, I described how I carried an invisible pack of sadness over all those miles in my first marathon. I never said exactly what was in that pack, nor do I need to. Sadness sums it up pretty well."

"An invisible pack of sadness"...that is so terrible it beggars belief.
 
Sep 19, 2009
91
0
0
I am the woman I am today (cracks included) not in spite of my past…but because of it.
Is she trying to say the ends justify the means. She's proud of the unethical things she's done in the past because they made her the awesome person she is today. Sounds like maybe she and Lance were a pretty good match. Maybe the problem was there wasn't enough room in all their houses for the two of them.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,112
0
0
Berzin said:
Yes, let us all feel sorry for this bleach-blond bimbo with a divorce settlement the size of a lottery payout who doesn't have to work a day in her life, who was intimately involved in the biggest sporting fraud we've ever seen, and who now wants us to pity her.

She also has a really silly name.
 
Jul 19, 2010
741
1
0
Why should anyone feel sorry for her? She was a willful drug mule, she kept the married name and obviously gaining notoriety because of it.

She's part of the problem.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
frenchfry said:
I forgot to say that compared to Betsy, Kristin is a spineless weasel with no moral values.

Then again, compared to Betsy almost everyone comes off looking bad.
+1 10 char
 
Apr 21, 2009
130
0
8,830
Susan Westemeyer said:
"martial" privilege?

I assume she means "marital" and I also had always understood that was optional -- one couldn't be forced to testify against a spouse, but could if one wanted to -- and further that it didn't apply to ex-spouses.

I think she meant what she wrote and you misread.

"And there are many things that I am not free to discuss because I am constrained by legal principles like marital privilege, confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements."
 
Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
darkcloud said:
I think she meant what she wrote and you misread.

"And there are many things that I am not free to discuss because I am constrained by legal principles like marital privilege, confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements."
It's been corrected. It said martial when I saw a quote with 'martial' in it, so I checked the original.
 
Aug 21, 2012
138
0
0
ScienceIsCool said:
Can an NDA be used to silence co-conspirators in a criminal endeavor? Man, if I had only known!

John Swanson
Yeah, no kidding.

"We're going to rob this bank, but I'll need you to sign this NDA in case we get busted."
 
Oct 26, 2009
654
0
0
Big Daddy said:
She's a coward. Didn't admit to jack. She knows stuff and is complicit with USPS cheating, but her cowardly silence says a lot about who she really is. She'll never apologize for anything.
Ah, I think you're being extremely hard on her. She doesn't have to admit to anything. She owes us nothing. It's all Lance.
 
Berzin said:
I just finished reading what was the most nauseating piece of self-serving drivel I've read in a long time.

I challenge anyone to get through this quote and not vomit from sheer disgust-

"When I wrote my first article for Runner’s World, I described how I carried an invisible pack of sadness over all those miles in my first marathon. I never said exactly what was in that pack, nor do I need to. Sadness sums it up pretty well."

"An invisible pack of sadness"...that is so terrible it beggars belief.
I think she is saying that she used the family's butter for her first marathon.
 
Mar 22, 2010
908
0
0
hiero2 said:
+1 10 char
I think the fact there is 1 Betsy in this saga and too many cowards and people with not an ounce of self respect says a lot about the human species in general that is not very complimentary. We have good in us, but when push comes to shove, the majority of us, even if weren't a-holes to begin with, will take the path of least resistance.

We can all sit in judgment, and yes, Lance truly is a narcissist and that is actually putting it kindly, but the majority are just regular people no better or worse than you or me at the start. He knew he could manipulate them and then use them after he co-opted them because after he did he knew they were just as dirty as he was. The poisoined tree yields no good fruit.
 
Oct 19, 2012
23
0
0
Sheryl Crowe

What about Crowe?
Someone please start a thread bashing her.

might be more entertaining than listening to her music.
 
Jul 24, 2009
29
0
0
Berzin said:
Yes, let us all feel sorry for this bleach-blond bimbo with a divorce settlement the size of a lottery payout who doesn't have to work a day in her life, who was intimately involved in the biggest sporting fraud we've ever seen, and who now wants us to pity her.
Chill out. She's got some explaining to do, but she also has a kid with the guy, a kid who is now old enough to start to understand just how f***ed up this whole situation is. She has the unenviable job of parenting the kid, and for the kid's sake, I understand why she's not being totally forthcoming. I'm not sure I would be, either. Her situation is unique.

Again, I'm not saying she doesn't have some explaining to do.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
bigmatt24 said:
Chill out. She's got some explaining to do, but she also has a kid with the guy, a kid who is now old enough to start to understand just how f***ed up this whole situation is. She has the unenviable job of parenting the kid, and for the kid's sake, I understand why she's not being totally forthcoming. I'm not sure I would be, either. Her situation is unique.

Again, I'm not saying she doesn't have some explaining to do.
Um, the thread is about Kristin, his ex wife.
 
Jul 24, 2009
29
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
"martial" privilege?

I assume she means "marital" and I also had always understood that was optional -- one couldn't be forced to testify against a spouse, but could if one wanted to -- and further that it didn't apply to ex-spouses.
Speedzero said:
Susan, that is exactly right. (IAAL)
That is not exactly right. The marital communication privilege protects confidential communications made between spouses during the marriage from being testified to in court (in either a civil or criminal case), but nothing else. It continues even if the marriage ends, so the last part of your statement is not correct. Furthermore, the marital communication privilege ONLY protects confidential communications; it does not protect communications involving third parties, and it does not protect impressions, views, discoveries, and observations of non-communicative behavior.

There is another kind of privilege, termed the "spousal" privilege, which applies only to criminal cases and ends when the marriage ends. At common law, it prevented a spouse from being a witness against her spouse in a criminal proceeding -- hence the phrase, "marry a person and seal her lips." At common law, the defendant spouse was the holder of the privilege, which means that, if the husband is on trial, he would be the one to invoke the privilege to prevent his wife from testifying; the modern trend is to hold that the witness spouse, not the defendant spouse, is the holder of the privilege, which means that the witness spouse can either refuse to testify, invoking the privilege, or choose to testify; the defendant spouse simply has to hope she chooses to invoke the privilege.

So, applying these to the Armstrong situation, the spousal privilege is gone; the marital communication privilege remains, but it only applies to testimony in court, and it only applies to confidential discussions between Lance and Kik. She can be compelled to testify as to what she saw, did, heard Lance say to others, and what she saw him do.

So, to say she is remaining silent because of the marital privilege is just window-dressing; she is just trying to justify remaining silent for other reasons, and as I said above, I think Luke is her primary reason for staying silent for now.
 
Berzin said:
Yes, let us all feel sorry for this bleach-blond bimbo with a divorce settlement the size of a lottery payout who doesn't have to work a day in her life, who was intimately involved in the biggest sporting fraud we've ever seen, and who now wants us to pity her.
Couldn't have put it better myself. Vile woman.
 
Jul 24, 2009
29
0
0
thirteen said:
three children (not one) and all are old enough to know what is going on (hence the confusion).
Luke is apparently 13 (see the blog post previous to Kik's "confession"). The others are younger. I contend that they will all not understand fully what's going on, including their mother's role in the early days of the doping program, for quite some time. Luke is old enough, though, to start asking, and being able to appreciate the answers to, the complicated questions. And don't pretend that this isn't a complicated situation for them, or try to gloss over it by saying, "Lance and Kik are both total scumbags, and they should be telling their kids exactly that." You know that's not how the world works.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
carl spackler said:
Is she trying to say the ends justify the means. She's proud of the unethical things she's done in the past because they made her the awesome person she is today. Sounds like maybe she and Lance were a pretty good match. Maybe the problem was there wasn't enough room in all their houses for the two of them.
It reminds you a bit of Sam Sparks verdict:

"This forum has no place to indulge Mrs Armstrong's desire for publicity, self aggrandisement, villifications of defendants and to sift through a blog of 10,000 character's of mostly inane waffle in order to find the few kernels of factual material where Mrs Armstrong has been hard done by"

..... or something like that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY