• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Stephanie McIlvain - what now ?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 27, 2012
1,112
0
0
thehog said:
She's Lance's personal assistant for Oakley. I kid you not. Travels with him still.

Absolute sell out.
It's the way the man works. Anyone with significant dirt on him either works for him (often to create a dependency) or gets victimized. Very few in the middle.

examples of former: Kevin Livingston, oncologist Nichols, McIlvain, etc.
examples of latter well documented.
 
Jul 5, 2012
2,299
0
0
Big Daddy said:
McIlvain is going to jail. She's on tape threatening assault against Betsy Andreu.

..perjured herself in sworn testimony video shown on "Four Corners". That SCA lawyer looked warm and cuddly, but is meaner than a cut snake. He is not the forgiving type.
 
Mar 10, 2009
5,918
0
0
sittingbison said:
..perjured herself in sworn testimony video shown on "Four Corners". That SCA lawyer looked warm and cuddly, but is meaner than a cut snake. He is not the forgiving type.
What are the chances she's coming up with some post dated prescription to claim she was not of sound mind due to said prescription and analysis by a LiveStrong fanboi Doc :D
 
Oct 8, 2012
233
0
0
Yeah, it's so funny. She's trying to get out of it, but she's boxed herself in with her comments about wanting to break a bat over Betsey Andreu's head. Armstrong told her not to worry and her lawyers are putting it out that she was drunk when she was threatening Betsy, ya know like it was a joke.
 
Jul 16, 2009
213
0
0
Alcohol, painkillers and a narsty person all rolled into one

I wonder where she was in her life all those years ago when she left those messages?

Crazy lady.

Man, If I were involved in the whole sordid spiral i'd give a nacker to be enirely out of it


Edit: this is an old tape isn't it- as in 7 or so years old?
 
Oct 8, 2012
233
0
0
Ozzie2 said:
Alcohol, painkillers and a narsty person all rolled into one

I wonder where she was in her life all those years ago when she left those messages?

Crazy lady.

Man, If I were involved in the whole sordid spiral i'd give a nacker to be enirely out of it


Edit: this is an old tape isn't it- as in 7 or so years old?



Is Oakley protecting her? Or is she protecting Oakley? And what to make of Armstrong's lawyers getting to her before her testimony?
 
Oct 8, 2012
233
0
0
jam pants said:
Isn't she busy stalking Tyler Hamilton these days?


Word on the street is that she's still ruminating over Betsy and that Oakley is in some deep doo doo right now. Stay tuned. This is gonna get good.
 
Oct 17, 2012
380
0
0
Big Daddy said:
Word on the street is that she's still ruminating over Betsy and that Oakley is in some deep doo doo right now. Stay tuned. This is gonna get good.
I very much doubt it.

I am guessing she got immunity when subpoenad to testify to grand jury , to force her to talk. So I am guessing she is off the hook for perjury, other than humiliation, and in the hope they could land Lance on a "conspiracy to pervert the course" with getting her to alter testimony.

Rest assured , if it were that simple and guaranteed. They wouldhave done it. So my guess is , anything to do with SCA is off limits because of time.

This is not another Tygart kangaroo court - federal justics has actual rules. It takes more than "you are guilty because I say so"
 
Jul 6, 2012
113
0
0
mountainrman said:
I very much doubt it.

I am guessing she got immunity when subpoenad to testify to grand jury , to force her to talk. So I am guessing she is off the hook for perjury, other than humiliation, and in the hope they could land Lance on a "conspiracy to pervert the course" with getting her to alter testimony.

Rest assured , if it were that simple and guaranteed. They wouldhave done it. So my guess is , anything to do with SCA is off limits because of time.

This is not another Tygart kangaroo court - federal justics has actual rules. It takes more than "you are guilty because I say so"
OK, Lance.
 
Oct 17, 2012
380
0
0
Racelap said:
OK, Lance.
No really. I am no supporter of drug cheats, but the lack of legal process in which one organisation appoints itself prosecutor defence, judge and jury without any right to testing the evidence brings the sport into even further disrepute. It smells.

Any half way decent attorney could ride coach and horse through most of it if in federal court. Which is why they wont let you take it there, because all who have done so (like heras) in the past win. Not on technicalities, but because the evidence and presentation is simply not good enough.

Sparks did not say the process was good - indeed he had major reservations - he simply stated it was civil and that he could not intervene it - it was a contract that led to CAS.

I have seen someone I knew - Diane Modahl - ripped to shreds by this kangaroo justice, and it does not impress me at all. Ever since Butch reynolds, they have been determined to change the system to one which they control and win regardless which is why it is now just that.

Lance may be guilty as hell. He is still entitled to justice, and he will find none in this process.

Just simple questions about Hincapies testimony rip it to shreds.

So you are a convicted doping cheat correct? Yes.
And you got a zero sentence in order to testify against my client? No it was six months.
Six months AFTER you retired that is, so no sentence at all, in reality? No.
And you knew you were given this to testify against my clietn? Yes.
And because of that testimony you were also allowed to ride the TDF. Yes.
So you were doping before and after my client returned from cancer? Yes.
So my client did not introduce yo to doping or show you how? No.
And doping was endemic in that team before my client returned? Yes.
And you carried on dopiong after my client retired? Yes
So you were a serial doper regardless of my client...Well I suppose, put like that yes.
And you were given a deal to avoid sentence, by testifying against my client? Yes.

Did you ever actually see my client dope?
(and on the basis of the testimony in that affidavit the answer has to be ) No.
(I suspect if he could have said so he would have been forced to say so)

So you really have no evidence against my client at all. (smiles at jury)
Take the girona flat incident, you make so much of in your testimony? OK.

Did my client actually tell you to look for drugs. No but that is what I assumed..
Answer my question did my client ask you to look for drugs, specifically saying drugs.. You are under oath mr hincapie. No.
Did mr bruyneel ask you tol ook for drugs SPECIFICALLY. Well no?
Did you find any drugs? No.
So that entire incident is a red herring. Yes or No ? Y
You have no evidence it had anything to do with drugs? Other than your assumptions? Well No.
So your entire testimony is assumptions based on hearsay that you talked to my client abot drugs which were clealry prevalent, so cyclists talked about those things? ...yes.
So Mr Hincapie - I put it to you - the ONLY reason you are testifying is to avoid sentence for your own murky past. You have no evidence against my client...

Etc And so on...

NONE of the evidence is given any kind of test, take the girona flat.
Most of it is from people who cheated before and after they met lance.
From memory the only ones who said they saw him do it, have already lied under oath , which may not matter in the court of public opinion, or at CAS. It mattes in federal court.

But lance cannot win in CAS, because yet again they are judge jury and prosecution.

He may be as guilty as hell, and he should swing for it , if guilty, but it is still kangaroo justice.

And Novitsky I suspect knew, it may sound good in the court of public opinion , but the case was not guaranteed to win. Not enough physical evidence, or even eye witness testimony..
 
Aug 17, 2009
121
0
0
Oh god not you again. Your arguments have already come and gone. There is no point engaging with you. You are 3 months behind.
 
Apr 9, 2009
942
0
0
mountainrman said:
No really. I am no supporter of drug cheats, but the lack of legal process in which one organisation appoints itself prosecutor defence, judge and jury without any right to testing the evidence brings the sport into even further disrepute. It smells.

..
No really, you're wrong on every point. These were the talking points three weeks ago. They've been amended.
 
Oct 17, 2012
380
0
0
Kennf1 said:
No really, you're wrong on every point. These were the talking points three weeks ago. They've been amended.
Just as valid now as the arguments always were - I was not here at that time.. Read the post above. The system needs revising.

As I said someone I knew got crushed by one of these kangaroo courts. Diane Modahl. It is not justice.

As for stepahnie , my guess is she has immunity courtesy Novitsky.
Thats what they do to get people to testify.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Robert21 said:
Harsh, I feel. Do you have an autistic child who will need care until the day he dies? Do you live in a country where there is no high-quality universal health care for all and where the quality of the treatment that you can get for your loved ones depends on having a good employee insurance plan or what you can afford?

Yes, it might have been easier for her had she said nothing to Lemond, but she didn't think it was been taped and even asked if this was the case first.

Yes, she acted very poorly, but I bet she was desperate and I would still say that the real villains are Oakley and Armstrong for making it clear that her job was on the line if she didn't lie for them.
Acted poorly? Threatening Betsy and tracking Tyler on behalf of the sociopath.

The austistic child shield is just as nauseating as the cancer shield.
 
Oct 17, 2012
380
0
0
frenchfry said:
Acted poorly? Threatening Betsy and tracking Tyler on behalf of the sociopath.

The austistic child shield is just as nauseating as the cancer shield.
For avoidance of doubt , the worst aspect of armstrong to me is less the cycling but how he bullied the little people.

The rule of law still matters - except at USADA and CAS - I am guessing that tape is inadmissible evidence in federal court , unless there is demonstrable agreement that it should be recorded, or judicial sanction for a tap.

I also think SOL is already past.

WOuld be interested in a legal view on both.
 
Aug 24, 2012
19
0
0
mountainrman said:
No really. I am no supporter of drug cheats, but the lack of legal process in which one organisation appoints itself prosecutor defence, judge and jury without any right to testing the evidence brings the sport into even further disrepute. It smells.
Somebody needs to check in with the Livestrong home office more often. El Jefe announced earlier this week that all Livestrong employees will be spewing talking point number 472 this week. Failure to do so will result in the suspension of all fanboi privileges to the Livestrong powder rooms.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,045
0
0
mountainrman said:
Just as valid now as the arguments always were - I was not here at that time.. Read the post above. The system needs revising.

As I said someone I knew got crushed by one of these kangaroo courts. Diane Modahl. It is not justice.

As for stepahnie , my guess is she has immunity courtesy Novitsky.
Thats what they do to get people to testify.
1. System broken. Check
2. Kangaroo Court. Check
3. Not justice (no due process). Check
4. Sweetheart deals for testimony (immunity). Check

Someone sees an opportunity for advancement. They must have ****-canned all the old interns...
 
Aug 24, 2012
19
0
0
MacRoadie said:
1. System broken. Check
2. Kangaroo Court. Check
3. Not justice (no due process). Check
4. Sweetheart deals for testimony (immunity). Check

Someone sees an opportunity for advancement. They must have ****-canned all the old interns...
I suspect that all the Livestrong employees/volunteers see the writing on the wall and are either updating their resumes or have already bailed. It didn't take too long for Marion Jone's or Tyler Hamilton's charities to fold after they were busted.
 
Jul 28, 2009
350
0
0
mountainrman said:
No really. I am no supporter of drug cheats, but the lack of legal process in which one organisation appoints itself prosecutor defence, judge and jury without any right to testing the evidence brings the sport into even further disrepute. It smells.
Apparently you don't have a clue how an arbitration procedure develops. If Lance hadn't renounce his right to a procedure,judge and jury wouldn't have been the same as the prosecutor.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
mountainrman said:
I have seen someone I knew - Diane Modahl - ripped to shreds by this kangaroo justice, and it does not impress me at all. Ever since Butch reynolds, they have been determined to change the system to one which they control and win regardless which is why it is now just that.
Nice try, but complete BS

Modahl was not WADA. It was 10 years before IAAF signed the WADA code. A key focus of WADA is to insure standardized testing, she never would have been sanctioned under WADA. Butch Reynolds was 14 years before the IAAF signed the WADA code

Stephanie has no immunity...If you are going to babble nonsense at least try a bit harder
 
Oct 13, 2012
44
0
0
mountainrman said:
Just as valid now as the arguments always were - I was not here at that time.. Read the post above. The system needs revising.

As I said someone I knew got crushed by one of these kangaroo courts. Diane Modahl. It is not justice.

As for stepahnie , my guess is she has immunity courtesy Novitsky.
Thats what they do to get people to testify.
Mr Empfield, don't you have your own Forum to post, you know, the one where most of us here in The Clinic can't post?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS