• 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!

Lemond/McIlvain tape

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
theswordsman said:

Fabulous interview!
Loved this part in particular, and haven't seen it getting any mention on this forum before:
"VN: There was an interesting statement recently by Armstrong’s PR manager Mark Fabiani…

BA: Yes, it was in the LA Times, I have it here. In their original story, he is quoted as saying [reads] “Lance is required to undergo an active steroid and EPO regimen as part of his post-operative treatment, which may give a reasonable explanation for their 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.”

So, I have a few questions regarding this. Fabiani is stating that I misunderstood the doctors and the discussions that took place. In saying discussions did take place, is he then admitting that Lance lied under oath at the SCA case, when Lance said no doctors were ever present, no such discussions ever took place?

Because this is a complete and clear contradiction…

VN: So, let’s get your point straight: Lance has said that there was no discussion, any mention of performance-enhancing drugs, but Fabiani is saying is that several substances were mentioned, but mentioned as part of a treatment therapy?

BA: Exactly. But what is interesting is that this has now been pulled out of the LA Times’ original article. But it has already been picked up by other publications, so how are they going to squirm out of this one?"


Absolutely, positively love Betsy to bits. Her remark that they didn't lawyer up before speaking to Novitzky, "We didn't demand he contact our attorney for a reason: we have nothing to hide. The truth is rather simple; it's the consequence of not telling the truth that might bite you in the a**."


Oh, the times they are a-changing, indeed! :D
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
hektoren said:
Fabulous interview!
Loved this part in particular, and haven't seen it getting any mention on this forum before:

Yep, Shane Stokes did a great job on this, and Betsy was brilliant. And like I said in another thread, their legal team is messing up in the press. There's no money to be gained in a Federal whistleblower suit unless a jury decides that fraud has been committed against the government. So when the legal team started whinging loudly about Floyd being in it for the money, they basically admitted there was money to be gained.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Amazing looks on this couple! Good demonstration of what a clear conscience does for your body language and self-confidence.
Andreu_Frankie_Betsy.jpg


I wonder what this photo demonstrates?
70ca9942f8d4e052_lance.larger.jpg
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
hektoren said:
Amazing looks on this couple! Good demonstration of what a clear conscience does for your body language and self-confidence.
Andreu_Frankie_Betsy.jpg

Wait, That's Betsy ?!? ....But Lance told me she was 300 pounds and ate Big Macs like they were TicTac's.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Isn't it fairly easy to determine who is telling the truth? The posture, the words used, those who speak freely, etc.

Guilty people generally behave as if they are guilty.
 
Feb 12, 2010
61
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Yep. Nothing like the bind that Armstrong put her in by threatening her job, or the bind she put herself in by committing perjury.

Maybe next time you're busy "searching", you can spend some time "searching" the law to verify something is illegal before you spout off that it is:



.

While I agree with the sentiment, there's a misconception that should be cleared up. Based upon some of the LA camp's spin, it sounds like McIlvan may have been in Cali at the time of the recording. If this is the case, Cali's two-party wiretapping statute applies (I'm an attorney for an outbound teleservices company, and am way more familiar with this statute than I care to be), meaning that GL committed a misdemeanor (and also gave rise to civil liability) by recording the call, unless he obtained informed consent beforehand, or there was a clearly audible beep from the recording device. (This is why you have the ubiquitous "this call may be recorded" language at the onset of a customer service call, even if both you and the phone center are in one-party consent states...)

For those with more time than sense, you can peruse the statute here:

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/631.html
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
_yngve_ said:
While I agree with the sentiment, there's a misconception that should be cleared up. Based upon some of the LA camp's spin, it sounds like McIlvan may have been in Cali at the time of the recording. If this is the case, Cali's two-party wiretapping statute applies (I'm an attorney for an outbound teleservices company, and am way more familiar with this statute than I care to be), meaning that GL committed a misdemeanor (and also gave rise to civil liability) by recording the call, unless he obtained informed consent beforehand, or there was a clearly audible beep from the recording device. (This is why you have the ubiquitous "this call may be recorded" language at the onset of a customer service call, even if both you and the phone center are in one-party consent states...)

For those with more time than sense, you can peruse the statute here:

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/631.html

Again - what MacRoadie said was to Minnesota law, which is where the call was made from:
Minn. Stat. § 626A.02: It is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording — so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording.

It should also be noted that the recording was aired at the SCA case - so it is already accepted by a different state.
More importantly the recording is with the Fed's who have their own legal criteria.

Again - this will only become an issue if Stephanie says she did not hear anything in the Hospital room in front of a GJ, which seems a rather big risk for her to take.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again - what MacRoadie said was to Minnesota law, which is where the call was made from:


It should also be noted that the recording was aired at the SCA case - so it is already accepted by a different state.
More importantly the recording is with the Fed's who have their own legal criteria.

Again - this will only become an issue if Stephanie says she did not hear anything in the Hospital room in front of a GJ, which seems a rather big risk for her to take.

And as the LA Times article states, in Federal cases it's sufficient for one party to have consented to the recording. So the CA law would appear to work only for cases tried under CA statues. Not here.
 
Tubeless said:
And as the LA Times article states, in Federal cases it's sufficient for one party to have consented to the recording. So the CA law would appear to work only for cases tried under CA statues. Not here.

Just saw this on the another forum:

Had armstrong doped either, a) prior to getting cancer he never would have survived the illness as documentary evidence showed that his was one of the worst cases doctors had ever seen and only a clean living supreme athlete could have survived it. or b) as the most tested athlete on the pro cycling circuit real measureable evidence would have come to the surface by now as the french hated the fact that the guy who has won the most tours is an arrogant american. It sounds to me that it is a case of two bitter american tour winners (one a proven cheat,the other who felt that he was robbed of more tour wins), trying to blacken the reputation of a man whom history will show that they will always live in the shadow of.

I think there's still alotta love out there!
 
Feb 12, 2010
61
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again - what MacRoadie said was to Minnesota law, which is where the call was made from:

I understand that the call was placed from MN - my point was that, according to California law, if the receiving party is located in California (which I understand was the case here), their two-party law applies.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
thehog said:
Just saw this on the another forum:

Had armstrong doped either, a) prior to getting cancer he never would have survived the illness as documentary evidence showed that his was one of the worst cases doctors had ever seen and only a clean living supreme athlete could have survived it. or b) as the most tested athlete on the pro cycling circuit real measureable evidence would have come to the surface by now as the french hated the fact that the guy who has won the most tours is an arrogant american. It sounds to me that it is a case of two bitter american tour winners (one a proven cheat,the other who felt that he was robbed of more tour wins), trying to blacken the reputation of a man whom history will show that they will always live in the shadow of.

I think there's still alotta love out there!

Wow, what forum is that?

Nice to see BPC has found a new home
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
Race Radio said:
Wait, That's Betsy ?!? ....But Lance told me she was 300 pounds and ate Big Macs like they were TicTac's.

What Lance meant is that she's of legal age and therefore he's not interested. Also, she doesn't look the least bit like his mother.
 
Feb 12, 2010
61
0
0
Tubeless said:
And as the LA Times article states, in Federal cases it's sufficient for one party to have consented to the recording. So the CA law would appear to work only for cases tried under CA statues. Not here.

correct - at least insomuch as it applies to the admissibility of the evidence in federal court...supremacy clause in action. Of course, that won't stop LA's attorneys and spinmeisters from impugning the validity of the evidence because of the manner in which it was collected.

I believe the original point to this particular tangent, however, was that GL acted unethically and unlawfully in recording the call. In that particular context, I'll forego any commentary on the former (I was lucky enough to meet and chat with GL on a ride when I was a teen just getting into cycling, and still think of him as an incredibly nice guy), and state that he did (almost certainly unknowingly) violate a state statute, giving rise to the latter.
 
Race Radio said:
Wow, what forum is that?

Nice to see BPC has found a new home

They even had this beauty!:- You couldn't make this stuff up! I think even Armstrong would have a chuckle at some of the comments!

"Two things...

Armstrong's alleged drug use prior to his cancer is not the focus of this case. Following cancer, there is no information suggest he used. Sure he might have used prior to his 7 wins, but following his body transformation (muscle loss), he really did become a new athlete.

Second, I seriously hope charges are leveled against Greg "Bitter" Lemond for recording (without consent) the telephone conversations of all those involved. It is illegal to record a conversation of another person with their consent or Attorney General/Court approval. Period."
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
_yngve_ said:
correct - at least insomuch as it applies to the admissibility of the evidence in federal court...supremacy clause in action. Of course, that won't stop LA's attorneys and spinmeisters from impugning the validity of the evidence because of the manner in which it was collected.

I believe the original point to this particular tangent, however, was that GL acted unethically and unlawfully in recording the call. In that particular context, I'll forego any commentary on the former (I was lucky enough to meet and chat with GL on a ride when I was a teen just getting into cycling, and still think of him as an incredibly nice guy), and state that he did (almost certainly unknowingly) violate a state statute, giving rise to the latter.

How does this work in practice under state law? If it's legal to record the conversation in MN where GL placed the call from - how is he supposed to know that the other party happens to live in a state where both parties must consent? Also, GL could argue he did not know where McIlvaine was located at a time (he first called her on her cell, then transferred to her home phone, but phone #'s no longer tell the person's location they used to).

It would seem the recording, made by GL, was legal and GL did not violate any laws - or is the argument that simply by making the recording, a CA resident could sue GL for an illegal recording, even in this case? The tape would not be admissible as evidence if there ever was a legal case based on CA state law. But a case tried under MN law, the tape could be used in court?
 
Feb 12, 2010
61
0
0
Tubeless said:
How does this work in practice under state law? If it's legal to record the conversation in MN where GL placed the call from - how is he supposed to know that the other party happens to live in a state where both parties must consent? Also, GL could argue he did not know where McIlvaine was located at a time (he first called her on her cell, then transferred to her home phone, but phone #'s no longer tell the person's location they used to).

It's one of those funny civil/criminal statutes. You can get busted criminally (misdemeanor) if you happen to be in CA after making the calls, but that typically carries a mes rea (guilty mind) requirement. So the state also has the ability to seek civil money penalties ($1k/call, IIRC) with a strict liability standard (regardless of what you knew or didn't know, if you did the deed, you're liable). Finally, the individual on the other end has a private right of action, too.

Tubeless said:
... or is the argument that simply by making the recording, a CA resident could sue GL for an illegal recording, even in this case? The tape would not be admissible as evidence if there ever was a legal case based on CA state law. But a case tried under MN law, the tape could be used in court?

Yup.

The law appears to have been passed primarily to protect citizens first and foremost from perceived invasions by the authorities - fruit from the poisonous tree and all that.

However, it's secondary effect has a huge net impact on companies like mine, with phone centers in one-party consent states, but who make hundreds of thousands of calls into two-party consent states (Like CA) every year.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
_yngve_ said:
It's one of those funny civil/criminal statutes. You can get busted criminally (misdemeanor) if you happen to be in CA after making the calls, but that typically carries a mes rea (guilty mind) requirement. So the state also has the ability to seek civil money penalties ($1k/call, IIRC) with a strict liability standard (regardless of what you knew or didn't know, if you did the deed, you're liable). Finally, the individual on the other end has a private right of action, too.



Yup.

The law appears to have been passed primarily to protect citizens first and foremost from perceived invasions by the authorities - fruit from the poisonous tree and all that.

However, it's secondary effect has a huge net impact on companies like mine, with phone centers in one-party consent states, but who make hundreds of thousands of calls into two-party consent states (Like CA) every year.

I believe this will all be rendered moot anyway as McIlvaine is not the target, and the ambiguity of the MN, CA, and Fed issues will cause McIlvaine to buckle and not risk a perjury finding against her. She'll testify truthfully in front of the Grand Jury and the tape will have served the purpose LeMond originally had for it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
thehog said:
Just saw this on the another forum:

Had armstrong doped either, a) prior to getting cancer he never would have survived the illness as documentary evidence showed that his was one of the worst cases doctors had ever seen and only a clean living supreme athlete could have survived it. or b) as the most tested athlete on the pro cycling circuit real measureable evidence would have come to the surface by now as the french hated the fact that the guy who has won the most tours is an arrogant american. It sounds to me that it is a case of two bitter american tour winners (one a proven cheat,the other who felt that he was robbed of more tour wins), trying to blacken the reputation of a man whom history will show that they will always live in the shadow of.

I think there's still alotta love out there!

Yeah, go over to huffington post and read comments...95 percent of which are of course Armstrong is the cleanest guy in world...Lemond is bitter ect...all kinds of Saint Lance statements ect...most tested guy in history and never a single bad test blah blah...one guy even claims he CURED cancer!...the general herd/public obviously need their hero...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
just for laughs:

"You'd think a guy who saved cycling and cured cancer could catch a break for once."

....this from some wingnut named skippypicasso...;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hiero2 said:
O - and you know what else? I hate that GH is turning out to be one of the doper-guys. It is more and more looking like there ain't no other way. And it is a shame, to me, cuz I like the guy.

<sigh> Life goes on.

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!" he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Ride on.

Just because Coolhand keeps saying Greg doped, doesn't mean he doped.
 
Oct 22, 2009
66
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Just because Coolhand keeps saying Greg doped, doesn't mean he doped.

?? The previous poster is talking about George.

Anyway, I agree that Stephanie will not have the nerve to lie to the grand jury. Remember that she will be in there alone -- without her lawyer. And she will be offered immunity from perjury charges stemming from her SCA testimony.

That's because Novitsky will want to get on to the interesting questions. Who pressured her into giving the testimony she gave in the SCA case, and how? Subornment of perjury may be what brings LA down.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
A sample from Dim's link.

VOICEMAIL #1
"I hope somebody breaks a baseball bat over your head. I also hope that one day you have adversity in your life, and you have some type of tragedy that will (inaudible) your failing, that will definitely make an impact on you, will make you more softer in your life, and will make you realize that life is about other than going after people that you actually hate. It's pathetic Betsey. I thought you were a better person than that, and I'm so saddened that you're not. I've moved on. I don't have any contact with Lance, I have no contact with you. But you just keep going and going and going. So sad. Go ahead and post that on the Internet. OK? Go ahead and post it. Because you're such a shallow b----."