Stephanie testifies today

[Merckx index]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20100922,0,2720319.story?track=rss

LeMond taped McIlvain without her knowledge, but law expert Laurie Levenson told The Times last week that single-party consent tapings are presentable in federal cases.

Also, was this posted? It must have been, but I hadn't seen it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/09/french-anti-doping-chief-wants-to-give-armstrongs-b-samples-to-us-investigators.html

Bordry ready to give '99 B samples to US Feds.

 

[shojii]

Let's hope she does the right thing. There's a lot riding on this one...

 

[thehog]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20100922,0,2720319.story?track=rss



Also, was this posted? It must have been, but I hadn't seen it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/09/french-anti-doping-chief-wants-to-give-armstrongs-b-samples-to-us-investigators.html

Bordry ready to give '99 B samples to US Feds.

Both have been posted. One several days ago the other several hours ago. Why start a new thread?

 

[buckwheat]

Let's hope she does the right thing. There's a lot riding on this one...

I suspect she has to.

It's obvious the Feds have decided what the truth is and that they will pursue a perjury or obstruction charge against her if she doesn't tell it.

 

[oldschoolnik]

I'm glad the LA Times is covering this so seriously. More detail about the tape than I have seen in any US media story.

That said, I did have to laugh at this line "The recording is in the hands of federal prosecutors and The Times has reviewed it.

This recording has been around the internet for years it's funny that a legit news source would give themselves kudos for getting a hold of it, like it was big score. As a matter of fact that line right there could be used to sum up much of the recent media coverage of this case. As Betsy said it's all been out there for years, it's only now being taking as truthful for some reason.

 

[Berzin]

It's obvious the Feds have decided what the truth is and...

Ah, no. They are trying to get at the truth.

What a strange thing to say.

 

[thehog]

QUESTION: Were you ever at a hospital room or other part of the hospital with Mr. Armstrong where he said anything about performance-enhancing drugs?

MCILVAIN: No.

QUESTION: Do you have any recollection of any doctor in your presence asking Mr. Armstrong if he used in the past any performance-enhancing drugs or substances?

MCILVAIN: No.

Lets hope 2010 is a little different.

 

[buckwheat]

Ah, no. They are trying to get at the truth.

What a strange thing to say.

Really?

Why?

I'd bet a lot that the Feds are asking very few questions they don't already know the answers to.

Unless of course, it's a fishing expedition.

 

[oldschoolnik]

She has shown her character on those calls to Betsy - She'll lie if her lawyers tell her there is little chance of prosecutors going for a perjury charge - unlike all the time LA doped or spoke about doping, in this case the only people who will tell prosecutors a different story and were in the room that day and are a married couple so I would assume the Andreas count as one person. So it's she said vs. they ( a couple) said.

It bothers me that with all the other evidence floating around this is still considered a key piece.

 

[Berzin]

Also, was this posted? It must have been, but I hadn't seen it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/09/french-anti-doping-chief-wants-to-give-armstrongs-b-samples-to-us-investigators.html

Bordry ready to give '99 B samples to US Feds.

Here's a quote form the article-

As recently as 2008, Bordry offered to retest Armstrong's samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France.

Hmmm, this guy Bordry wants Armstrong so bad he's willing to give the Feds samples that were never taken.

 

[Kennf1]

She has shown her character on those calls to Betsy - She'll lie if her lawyers tell her there is little chance of prosecutors going for a perjury charge - unlike all the time LA doped or spoke about doping, in this case the only people who will tell prosecutors a different story and were in the room that day and are a married couple so I would assume the Andreas count as one person. So it's she said vs. they ( a couple) said.

It bothers me that with all the other evidence floating around this is still considered a key piece.

It seems to me the feds are going to be much more focused on her from the angle of whether she was pressured to give false testimony in the SCA case, rather then focusing on what was said in 1996. I wouldn't think the feds really care whether Lance doped before cancer, but witness intimidation and perjury in '05, that's a whole other ballgame.

 

[Polish]

I suppose we will never know what Ms Stephanie said today....

I'm guessing she will admit to a drunken prank phone call with Greg.

"Yes, I was drinking with a friend when Greg called to tape me...."

"I asked Greg if he was taping me, just for yucks...I knew he was lol....but he told me "No" anyway that sneaky guy"

At one point in the conversation, she will recount, she had to put her hand over the receiver so Greg would not hear her laughingly tell her friend "I just told Greg I saw Lance dope! OMG OMG this is great!"

Stephanie is probably a lot of fun at parties

 

[Hugh Januss]

It seems to me the feds are going to be much more focused on her from the angle of whether she was pressured to give false testimony in the SCA case, rather then focusing on what was said in 1996. I wouldn't think the feds really care whether Lance doped before cancer, but witness intimidation and perjury in '05, that's a whole other ballgame.

Exactly, I am sure they are also looking into the "donations" to the hospital re. the Doctor who rightly said (since he wasn't actually there) that he didn't hear Lance make any such admission.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Random troll scat.

Man you just don't know when to stop backing a dead horse do you?

 

[python]

i think this thread is pointless (at least in terms of the things we have already discussed) unless we come up with some q/a examples...let me start.

novi: do you understand the reason you have been subpoenaed ?

s: yes, sir

novi: do you understand the gravity of your sworn testimony ?

s: yes sir

novi: did lance admit to doping in front of you?

s: i don't recall, sir.
.............
.........
...

 

[Merckx index]

She does have some wiggle room on this particular tape:

In a secretly recorded telephone chat with former Tour de France champion Greg LeMond — allegedly conducted a year earlier — McIlvain is asked about the hospital incident and tells LeMond she heard "it," though she never specifies what "it" is… Although she doesn't specifically connect Armstrong to drug use, over the course of the 30-minute conversation, McIlvain refers to Armstrong as a liar but never clarifies what she accuses him of lying about.

I would assume her lawyer would make sure she had something very specific to say in response to what "it" is and what LA was "lying about", which would not have to be doping, or anything else in conflict with what she said in connection with SCA. Or maybe this lawyer has been able to assure her that she can contradict SCA testimony without serious consequences. It seems to me that would be the first question she would have asked this lawyer upon consulting. If contradictory testimony is a problem, then she will certainly skirt carefully around what LA was lying about.

 

[Siriuscat]

Comes down to one thing, is she willing to go to jail for Lance Armstrong, I'll bet her lawyers are squealing like piggys to get her some kind of immunity in return for testimony.

 

[TexPat]

Please, please, please tell the truth Stephanie.

 

[buckwheat]

Please, please, please tell the truth Stephanie.

Hang in there.

The Fed's are building their case. They may be surprised by 10% of what she says but I guarantee they are just locking down what they already know and once they do that, they may ask about stuff they aren't sure of.

The lady is not the target so she WILL tell what she knows without being cute.

 

[VegasRider]

Serendipitous names perhaps

McIlvain, McNamee.

Brian McNamee did his part to out Clemens as a fraud. It's time for Stephanie to step to the plate and do the same to Lance.

 

[VegasRider]

As recently as 2008, Bordry offered to retest Armstrong's samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France.


Armstrong wasn't at the 1998 Tour... but that leads me to think once again about Bobby Julich's oddly strong performance that year.

 

[THISISIT]

Armstrong wasn't at the 1998 Tour... but that leads me to think once again about Bobby Julich's oddly strong performance that year.

Don't forget 10 guys who would have finished in front of Julich took their syringes and went home that year in protest of not being able to dope as freely as they wished.

 

[Señor_Contador]

Pardon my ignorance on all things law but... I could've sworn I heard Le Mond referring to drugs on that recorded phone call... Can McIlvain get out it by alleging that she thought Greg was talking about spicy peppers instead of PEDs? I mean, she says, on the tape, that, if subpoenaed, she would tell the truth.

I mean, she sounds more than anything else scared out of her mind. She sounds like she definitely does not want to go to jail.

 

[thehog]

She does have some wiggle room on this particular tape:



I would assume her lawyer would make sure she had something very specific to say in response to what "it" is and what LA was "lying about", which would not have to be doping, or anything else in conflict with what she said in connection with SCA. Or maybe this lawyer has been able to assure her that she can contradict SCA testimony without serious consequences. It seems to me that would be the first question she would have asked this lawyer upon consulting. If contradictory testimony is a problem, then she will certainly skirt carefully around what LA was lying about.

Alas not much wriggle room whereby she's left other messages admitting to lying and that she heard the confession by Armstrong. All will come out in the wash.

 

[Berzin]

It seems we have collectively forgotten that there are other recorded phone calls in the possession of the Feds that we are not privy to.

Who knows what's on those tapes? We are just going on the little that we've heard so far, but her testimony may very well be influenced, if not by a desire to tell the truth, but by how far into a corner those tapes in their totality paint her.