Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[86TDFWinner]

Solid post!

I also seem to remember Disgraced Cyclist Lance Armstrong using his children as a way to deflect doping accusations. People who are lying will many times use whatever they can to cover the lie. I don't think that means that Stephanie or Disgraced Cyclist Lance Armstrong don't love their kids. What it does show however is the depravity of the person speaking. You can shorten that to whatever colloquialism you'd like, but anyone defending her actions needs to look at the amount of capital they have in their morality account. I also don't remember Stephanie recanting the outright lie she told in court. Ever. So this isn't a "she did something to someone 10 years ago and you meanie haters are not letting her up off the turf." It's a matter of assessing what is presently still the situation.

Excellent post as well. I agree. Just because she's a woman doesn't let her off the hook for what she's done. RR even said her using her kids as an excuse, as she feared she'd lose her insurance, was a lie too.

 

[thehog]

Going to find out that she isn't a very nice person, and the POT label definitely fits her.

it is, where?

Yes, along with: George, Thor and others.

What about Vaughters? He supported Lance at the SCA hearing just like Stephanie did.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JV Exhibit B SCA Affidavit of JVaughters.pdf

 

[thehog]

Excellent post as well. I agree. Just because she's a woman doesn't let her off the hook for what she's done. RR even said her using her kids as an excuse, as she feared she'd lose her insurance, was a lie too.

Yes, I'm sure there is a link to her grand jury testimony on the Internet. People will believe what they want to believe. That can't be helped.

 

[blackcat]

Excellent post as well. I agree. Just because she's a woman doesn't let her off the hook for what she's done. RR even said her using her kids as an excuse, as she feared she'd lose her insurance, was a lie too.

this is not an apologia. but, if we all had to admit all our lies... i can remember most of my lies, that i massaged as white-lie/justified/manipulation explanation. a utility justification if you will. but i just couldnt reconcile it, atavistic romancatholic self flaggellation. (no euphemism). My lies werent political, i was not politician. I just did it to back out of awkward social situations.

so i think i, p'raps others should extend her a pass on that one. I doubt she was pernicious and scripted with McKinnon in the Public Strategies hq. Was she trying to ruin others? no, she just managed to get cornered in a scrap not of her making, and made those ephemeral decisions of the moment that did not allow her to plan a retreat. life is messy innit

 

[Race Radio]

Yes, along with: George, Thor and others.

George is a bit of a doofus but I can't see him leaving a voice mail saying

"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…definitely make an impact on you."

Doubt JV or CVV left voice mails like that either.

 

[DirtyWorks]

.... I doubt she was pernicious and scripted with McKinnon in the Public Strategies hq. Was she trying to ruin others? no, she just managed to get cornered in a scrap not of her making, and made those ephemeral decisions of the moment that did not allow he to plan a retreat. life is messy innit

Well, doing what she did was a terrible choice. She was fully committed to it. That's a clue about the other kinds of professional decisions she makes. IMO definitely not the innocent you portray her as.

There's no right answers, and lots more interesting things going on so i agree to disagree and move on.

 

[thehog]

The preassumption being that a false and misleading affidavits between 2006 and 2012 is not a problem.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JV+Vaughters+Jonathan+Affidavit.pdf

A drunken phone call vs. intent to mislead under oath?

Lock up every guy and girl on a Saturday night out at the bar

 

[Oldman]

George is a bit of a doofus but I can't see him leaving a voice mail saying



Doubt JV or CVV left voice mails like that either.

That qualifies her as a misguided tool of her employer. I'd be more interested if she had someone encouraging the voracity. She doesn't seem to have the moral fortitude to strike out on her own.

 

[blackcat]

That qualifies her as a misguided tool of her employer. I'd be more interested if she had someone encouraging the voracity. She doesn't seem to have the moral fortitude to strike out on her own.

right. context is everything. if she was under immense pressure and stress at sunglasses, is she just venting. It reads as criminal. But one must engage their faculties to discern the complete picture. One can feel only empathy for Betsy, but, it is not a either-or. Thats a false dichotomy. It was borderline criminal, but that does not peel back the dynamic for all its complexity.

I can be for, first and foremost, for the Andeus. But, if we merely see it as a criminal threat over a wire carriage, we are missing 90% of the picture

 

[Bluenote]

She's definitely not a victim. She's definitely not a POS, either. The vulgar hater rhetoric is what got this started. I don't think anybody would gainsay that McIlvain's behavior (eight or nine years ago) was terrible, but the ridiculous over-the-top vulgarity of the attack against her today is absurd.

Ahhh, the self esteem generation, where we can't ever say anything bad about anyone, as they might get their feelings hurt.

McIlvain is said to have done some pretty nasty stuff:
-lied under oath
-lied under oath where millions of dollars were at stake
-covered up for Armstrong's doping, helping to cheat (or push from the sport) clean cyclists
-threatened the Andreu's for testifying truthfully
-hide behind excuses for her behavior (sick kid, work pressure, etc...)
-continuing the charade to the present day, refusing to back up the Andreu's version of "the Hospital Room."

I guess it's a matter of personal opinion what one has to do to qualify for POS status. McIlvain's misdeeds are pretty serious, so its kind of a stretch to call characterizing her as a POS an "over the top vulgar hater" attack. Vulgar, sure, my Gran wouldn't approve of the S word. But over the top, hater driven rhetoric - I dunno, people commonly get called POS for much lesser deeds.

Look up sh*t on Wikipedia and you get "Piece of sh*t: may also be used figuratively to describe a particularly loathsome individual."
Look up "loathsome" in Websters and you get: causing intense displeasure, disgust or resentment.

I'd say its fair to say McIlvain's actions cause intense disgust, displeasure. I don't think it's over the top to have intense disgust at someone who lies under oath and harasses someone who tells the truth.

If your objection was only the use of vulgar language, no matter if it came from "fanbois," or "haters," or what have you, you might have a point.

But an advance search of your posts doesn't reflect a fair minded anti-cussing stance. Search terms like "vulgar," "cuss," "swear," etc... show that you've objected to dirty words twice. Here, and several years ago when a Mod said "Sh*t" with the full spelling.

Yet people use dirty words (with spelling altered) or dirty acronyms in the Clinic all the time. (I'm not going to repeat them all here, but I did a quick browse of the Armstrong III or Lemond threads).

So it seems like your objection to vulgar language is raised selectively - to score points against people with whom you disagree.

It all seems like a distraction to the real issue - McIlvain's loathsome behavior, which continues to the present day. After all, I'm guessing public confirmation of "the Hospital Room" incident would mean the world to Ms. Andreu.

 

[thehog]

-lied under oath (contradiction between SCA and USADA affidavits)
-lied under oath where millions of dollars were at stake (SCA affidavits)
-covered up for Armstrong's doping, helping to cheat (or push from the sport) clean cyclists
-threatened the Andreu's for testifying truthfully
-hide behind excuses for his behavior (statue of limitations etc.)
-continuing the charade to the present day, refusing to back up the Andreu's version of "IM messages."
.

Fairly much what Vaughters did, yes? Why does he get to get away with it?

The only correction would be per the original; since she spoke to the Grand Jury you no longer know what her present day position is.

 

[Bosco10]

Stop at Nothing is on Youtube again. Grab it while you can.

http://youtu.be/uYjQPr50qaY

 

[MarkvW]

Ahhh, the self esteem generation, where we can't ever say anything bad about anyone, as they might get their feelings hurt.

McIlvain is said to have done some pretty nasty stuff:
-lied under oath
-lied under oath where millions of dollars were at stake
-covered up for Armstrong's doping, helping to cheat (or push from the sport) clean cyclists
-threatened the Andreu's for testifying truthfully
-hide behind excuses for her behavior (sick kid, work pressure, etc...)
-continuing the charade to the present day, refusing to back up the Andreu's version of "the Hospital Room."

I guess it's a matter of personal opinion what one has to do to qualify for POS status. McIlvain's misdeeds are pretty serious, so its kind of a stretch to call characterizing her as a POS an "over the top vulgar hater" attack. Vulgar, sure, my Gran wouldn't approve of the S word. But over the top, hater driven rhetoric - I dunno, people commonly get called POS for much lesser deeds.

Look up sh*t on Wikipedia and you get "Piece of sh*t: may also be used figuratively to describe a particularly loathsome individual."
Look up "loathsome" in Websters and you get: causing intense displeasure, disgust or resentment.

I'd say its fair to say McIlvain's actions cause intense disgust, displeasure. I don't think it's over the top to have intense disgust at someone who lies under oath and harasses someone who tells the truth.

If your objection was only the use of vulgar language, no matter if it came from "fanbois," or "haters," or what have you, you might have a point.

But an advance search of your posts doesn't reflect a fair minded anti-cussing stance. Search terms like "vulgar," "cuss," "swear," etc... show that you've objected to dirty words twice. Here, and several years ago when a Mod said "Sh*t" with the full spelling.

Yet people use dirty words (with spelling altered) or dirty acronyms in the Clinic all the time. (I'm not going to repeat them all here, but I did a quick browse of the Armstrong III or Lemond threads).

So it seems like your objection to vulgar language is raised selectively - to score points against people with whom you disagree.

It all seems like a distraction to the real issue - McIlvain's loathsome behavior, which continues to the present day. After all, I'm guessing public confirmation of "the Hospital Room" incident would mean the world to Ms. Andreu.

Thanks, Doc! I guess that only a few people, found here in the Clinic, are not "mentally bankrupt!"

Maybe I should "un-forgive" Floyd. After all, he was way more POS-ish than McIlvain ever was!

 

[Digger]

Thanks, Doc! I guess that only a few people, found here in the Clinic, are not "mentally bankrupt!"

Maybe I should "un-forgive" Floyd. After all, he was way more POS-ish than McIlvain ever was!

You do indeed have a hatred of landis stretching back a number of years...which is extraordinary. I would be curious to know if you would be willing to say this to him.

 

[Bluenote]

Fairly much what Vaughters did, yes? Why does he get to get away with it?

The only correction would be per the original; since she spoke to the Grand Jury you no longer know what her present day position is.

I know what her current - public - position is. She has not -publicly- confirmed "The Hospital Room Incident," publicly apologized to Ms. Andreu, publicly apologized to the SCA, paid any kind of compensation, etc...

Telling the truth, privately, under the threat of a perjury conviction is - the bare minimum expected of someone. It is not a noble deed that wipes out past (and continued) transgressions.

It certainly doesn't make SCA Financially whole, restore Ms. Andreu's reputation, compensate clean riders who were pushed from the sport, etc...

So yeah, fail there trying to argue that she has someone atoned for her past.

Not sure why the JV Strawman. I'm not a big fan of JV. He's fairly mercenary, IMHO.

 

[Bluenote]

Thanks, Doc! I guess that only a few people, found here in the Clinic, are not "mentally bankrupt!"

Maybe I should "un-forgive" Floyd. After all, he was way more POS-ish than McIlvain ever was!

Not sure why the Landis strawman. I'm on record holding Landis as a total scum.

So you're against vulgarities (only when uttered by haters, of course) but for snark and strawmen. Got it.

So lets call "Cussgate" what it is - an attempt to crank up The Outrage Machine - ohh, look everyone - a meanie hater with a potty mouth.

And "Landis Strawman Gate" is what it is, too. Ohh, the meanie hater who gives Landis a free pass, oh oops, Blue doesn't give Landis a pass, never mind.

 

[thehog]

I know what her current - public - position is. She has not -publicly- confirmed "The Hospital Room Incident," publicly apologized to Ms. Andreu, publicly apologized to the SCA, paid any kind of compensation, etc...

Telling the truth, privately, under the threat of a perjury conviction is - the bare minimum expected of someone. It is not a noble deed that wipes out past (and continued) transgressions.

It certainly doesn't make SCA Financially whole, restore Ms. Andreu's reputation, compensate clean riders who were pushed from the sport, etc...

So yeah, fail there trying to argue that she has someone atoned for her past.

Not sure why the JV Strawman. I'm not a big fan of JV. He's fairly mercenary, IMHO.

There's going to be no public apologies from anyone whilst they have GJ testimony, QT in the throws along with other implications of SCA etc.

Its all rather pointless , besides I'm not sure there is any reason to provide one.

SCA is another story. I'm not sure we're aware of everything that was arranged in that deal. Let's await to the verdict to see if we learn more but looks like Lance will be paying out on it, the only question is to what degree.

 

[MarkvW]

You do indeed have a hatred of landis stretching back a number of years...which is extraordinary. I would be curious to know if you would be willing to say this to him.

I can't say that I hate Landis (but you sure can!). I have no desire to inflame your passionate defense of (or is it prosecution for ) Floyd. I don't think I would be interested in meeting him. I do hope he scores big on Lance, though.

 

[Bluenote]

Its all rather pointless , besides I'm not sure there is any reason to provide one.

I'm pretty sure that it matters to Betsy Andreu. I bet she'd really appreciate being publicly vindicated and receiving an apology.

There's going to be no public apologies from anyone whilst they have GJ testimony, QT in the throws along with other implications of SCA etc.

How do those cases relate to McIlvain? Please be specific as to how the QT, GJ, SCA place McIlvain in some kind of jeopardy where she can't publicly tell the truth?

Here is what I see.

GJ
- the GJ has been dropped
- McIlvain wasn't the subject of the GJ
- Unless she perjured herself to the GJ, she shouldn't face an issues for publicly telling the truth now.

SCA Part I
-McIlvain is likely passed SOL for her original testimony (as is Armstrong).
-Its already widely said that she wasn't truthful in her testimony. If SCA wanted to somehow pursue her for this, they already would have.

SCA part II
-unless she intends to perjure herself as part of SCA part II, she doesn't face any issues for telling the truth now.
-If SCA really wanted to go after her for being deceitful in SCA part I, they can just put her under oath again and ask her the same questions. They don't need her to go public, to "get the truth out of her."

QT
-McIlvain is not party to the QT lawsuit.
-McIlvain wasn't part of the USPS contract, so she doesn't fall under the whole defraud the Government / QT case umbrella. (You can't be sued for violating a contract you never signed).
-unless she intends to perjure herself as part of the QT, she doesn't face any issues for telling the truth.

So what, specifically, would McIlvain face from the GJ, QT, etc... if she decided to publicly tell the truth now?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm pretty sure that it matters to Betsy Andreu. I bet she'd really appreciate being publicly vindicated and receiving an apology.



How do those cases relate to McIlvain? Please be specific as to how the QT, GJ, SCA place McIlvain in some kind of jeopardy where she can't publicly tell the truth?

Here is what I see.

GJ
- the GJ has been dropped
- McIlvain wasn't the subject of the GJ
- Unless she perjured herself to the GJ, she shouldn't face an issues for publicly telling the truth now.

SCA Part I
-McIlvain is likely passed SOL for her original testimony (as is Armstrong).
-Its already widely said that she wasn't truthful in her testimony. If SCA wanted to somehow pursue her for this, they already would have.

SCA part II
-unless she intends to perjure herself as part of SCA part II, she doesn't face any issues for telling the truth now.
-If SCA really wanted to go after her for being deceitful in SCA part I, they can just put her under oath again and ask her the same questions. They don't need her to go public, to "get the truth out of her."

QT
-McIlvain is not party to the QT lawsuit.
-McIlvain wasn't part of the USPS contract, so she doesn't fall under the whole defraud the Government / QT case umbrella. (You can't be sued for violating a contract you never signed).
-unless she intends to perjure herself as part of the QT, she doesn't face any issues for telling the truth.

So what, specifically, would McIlvain face from the GJ, QT, etc... if she decided to publicly tell the truth now?

We differ on Floyd (I love him if for no other reason than the sheer joy I felt reading his hand grenade email back in 2010...that and he seems like a really funny mother****er otherwise.)

Anyway, you knock this so far out of the park, that little more needs to be written. Thank you.

Also note that the people defending McIlvain have no proof that she changed a thing in GJ testimony...and the evidence that she didn't is that she still hasn't recanted. Anything. Nor apologized. Ever. But some people believe in unicorns and others believe that Birotte has super-secret intertubes detection power, and wouldn't think of besmirching anyone for fear of someone finding out who they really are, so no biggie.

 

[Bluenote]

We differ on Floyd (I love him if for no other reason than the sheer joy I felt reading his hand grenade email back in 2010...that and he seems like a really funny mother****er otherwise.)

Anyway, you knock this so far out of the park, that little more needs to be written. Thank you.

Also note that the people defending McIlvain have no proof that she changed a thing in GJ testimony...and the evidence that she didn't is that she still hasn't recanted. Anything. Nor apologized. Ever. But some people believe in unicorns and others believe that Birotte has super-secret intertubes detection power, and wouldn't think of besmirching anyone for fear of someone finding out who they really are, so no biggie.

Oh don't get me wrong, I think Landis is /was very entertaining. Ballsy, nonconformist, unpredictable, refreshing. I appreciate a guy who is willing to ride balls-to-the-wall, call Hein out as being full of sh@t, etc...

But the two aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can be very entertaining, but also have a crooked moral compass.

Thanks, btw.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I'm pretty sure that it matters to Betsy Andreu. I bet she'd really appreciate being publicly vindicated and receiving an apology.



How do those cases relate to McIlvain? Please be specific as to how the QT, GJ, SCA place McIlvain in some kind of jeopardy where she can't publicly tell the truth?

Here is what I see.

GJ
- the GJ has been dropped
- McIlvain wasn't the subject of the GJ
- Unless she perjured herself to the GJ, she shouldn't face an issues for publicly telling the truth now.

SCA Part I
-McIlvain is likely passed SOL for her original testimony (as is Armstrong).
-Its already widely said that she wasn't truthful in her testimony. If SCA wanted to somehow pursue her for this, they already would have.

SCA part II
-unless she intends to perjure herself as part of SCA part II, she doesn't face any issues for telling the truth now.
-If SCA really wanted to go after her for being deceitful in SCA part I, they can just put her under oath again and ask her the same questions. They don't need her to go public, to "get the truth out of her."

QT
-McIlvain is not party to the QT lawsuit.
-McIlvain wasn't part of the USPS contract, so she doesn't fall under the whole defraud the Government / QT case umbrella. (You can't be sued for violating a contract you never signed).
-unless she intends to perjure herself as part of the QT, she doesn't face any issues for telling the truth.

So what, specifically, would McIlvain face from the GJ, QT, etc... if she decided to publicly tell the truth now?

Don't forget in the case of McIlvain, Greg Lemond has a tape recording in which she admits LA confessed to PEDs at the Indiana hospital (See Stop at Nothing). So the testimony in the SCA case is perjury. By law McIlvain cannot discuss her GJ testimony. My hunch is she perjured herself there as well. Her rationale is she needed her job at Oakley(What does this tell us about Oakley?).

If she tells the truth in the Qui Tam case as per her taped telephone conversation with Lemond she would clearly be admitting she perjured herself in the SCA case in 2005 testimony, and the GJ case but she might be saved by Statute of Limitations.

BTW having a SOL on perjury is absurd.

 

[Granville57]

By law McIlvain cannot discuss her GJ testimony.

I'm certain we covered this before.

Under Penal Code 924.2, grand jurors are supposed to keep secret everything that goes on in a grand jury proceeding. This obligation of secrecy does not apply to grand jury witnesses, who legally may talk about their testimony with the press or anyone else.

 

[Bluenote]

Don't forget in the case of McIlvain, Greg Lemond has a tape recording in which she admits LA confessed to PEDs at the Indiana hospital (See Stop at Nothing).

Yeah, the tape where she admits to having heard "the Hospital Room Incident." And then goes on and on about how terrible it is that Armstrong has given so many people -false- hope? How, as the mother of a disabled son, she knows how you cling to any hope?

Pretty dispicable, really.

 

[Bluenote]

Don't forget in the case of McIlvain, Greg Lemond has a tape recording in which she admits LA confessed to PEDs at the Indiana hospital (See Stop at Nothing). So the testimony in the SCA case is perjury. By law McIlvain cannot discuss her GJ testimony. My hunch is she perjured herself there as well. Her rationale is she needed her job at Oakley(What does this tell us about Oakley?).

If she tells the truth in the Qui Tam case as per her taped telephone conversation with Lemond she would clearly be admitting she perjured herself in the SCA case in 2005 testimony, and the GJ case but she might be saved by Statute of Limitations.

BTW having a SOL on perjury is absurd.

SCA's attorney is on record that SCA part I is likely beyond SOL.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2012/10/30/lance-armstrong-perjury-doping/1668765/