Dr. Maserati said:
I'm beginning to feel left out. I seem to be one of the very few people Stephanie did not tell about the hospital conversation.
I'm beginning to feel left out. I seem to be one of the very few people Stephanie did not tell about the hospital conversation.
, of course she is Irish with a name like that
Witnesses
Just making the point that it is possible Betsy was wrong about what she heard. If I remember right, Frankie's testimony was less adamant than hers on what was said. He's in a position of either backing up his wife or not... Not exactly a corroboration from a disinterested person.
Stephanie's somewhat ambiguous ("I was there, I heard it" stops short of saying exactly what "it" was, although we can infer it pretty well) remarks on recorded phone calls/messages carry less weight than her sworn statements, and her sworn statements appear to be consistent. Not that they don't cast doubt on her sworn statements, but she wasn't under oath and can BS her way out of what she says she meant, claim she meant something different, just gossipping, whatever. The standards of what is conclusive in court are a bit more demanding than the standards of this (and any) web forum.
Seems to me that this is still a he said / she said deal, in the absence of some definitive, independent corroboration, such as from the doctor in question or other wittnesses. If they did identify the doctor (hard to see why they haven't been able to) identify the doctor(s), I would imagine doctor-patient privilege would be invoked, unless waived by Lance.
I'm not saying what did/didn't happen or claim to know what was said, just that it's basically Betsy's (and Frankie) word against Lance and Stephanie's.
Dr. Maserati said:
Just making the point that it is possible Betsy was wrong about what she heard. If I remember right, Frankie's testimony was less adamant than hers on what was said. He's in a position of either backing up his wife or not... Not exactly a corroboration from a disinterested person.
Stephanie's somewhat ambiguous ("I was there, I heard it" stops short of saying exactly what "it" was, although we can infer it pretty well) remarks on recorded phone calls/messages carry less weight than her sworn statements, and her sworn statements appear to be consistent. Not that they don't cast doubt on her sworn statements, but she wasn't under oath and can BS her way out of what she says she meant, claim she meant something different, just gossipping, whatever. The standards of what is conclusive in court are a bit more demanding than the standards of this (and any) web forum.
Seems to me that this is still a he said / she said deal, in the absence of some definitive, independent corroboration, such as from the doctor in question or other wittnesses. If they did identify the doctor (hard to see why they haven't been able to) identify the doctor(s), I would imagine doctor-patient privilege would be invoked, unless waived by Lance.
I'm not saying what did/didn't happen or claim to know what was said, just that it's basically Betsy's (and Frankie) word against Lance and Stephanie's.
Merckx index said:
Don't feel left out, I didn't get a call either.
Question for everyone: we assume her questioning was about the hospital conversation. Is it possible, because of her obvious proximity and access to the LANCE; it is about something else? After the SCA case you'd have to think Oakley and any other intelligent sponsor would perform their own due diligence background checks to prepare for potential damage control.
We know about alleged bikes sold and cash not accounted for, what about Oakley's products and other incentives that might be difficult to trace?
Witnesses
True, and I'm not saying how likely it is, just that it's possible she (they) are mistaken in what they heard. They obviously believe it fervently, or they wouldn't subject themselves to so much pain. It would be a shame for them and everyone else involved if the really are wrong. My background is in aviation, and I have read many accident reports where eyewitness accounts of what happened were way wrong, when objective data were available to reconstruct what really happened.
Merckx index said:
True, and I'm not saying how likely it is, just that it's possible she (they) are mistaken in what they heard. They obviously believe it fervently, or they wouldn't subject themselves to so much pain. It would be a shame for them and everyone else involved if the really are wrong. My background is in aviation, and I have read many accident reports where eyewitness accounts of what happened were way wrong, when objective data were available to reconstruct what really happened.
Dr. Maserati said:
That's one of the best articles I've seen summarizing the incident and the subsequent testimony.
Rupert said:
Frankie's testimony:
QUESTION: And what is it Mr. Armstrong said in response to the doctor asking him about use of performance-enhancing drugs?
ANDREU: I don't know how the doctor phrased the question, but Lance's response was that he had taken EPO and testosterone and growth hormone and cortisone.
QUESTION: Did he say when he had taken these drugs?
ANDREU: ....when the doctor proposed the question, he said, 'Have you taken anything in the past or previous?' So obviously, it was sometime before that point.
QUESTION: Were you surprised when Mr. Armstrong said he had taken those various performance-enhancing drugs?
ANDREU: Yeah. I was surprised.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Oldman said:
I assume that part of McIlvain's questioning was focused on her 2005 testimony and whether Armstrong or others pressured her to testify in a certain way. I seriously doubt the feds suspect USPS was selling sunglasses on the side to fund doping.
Kennf1 said:
Again; don't make any assumptions about where the investigation ends up. USPS may be a gateway for questioning but in the end it's going to be about international PED trading and how it was facilitated. Anyone here been a sponsor rep that had to "launder" product to create a form of currency? Riders do it all the time, especially pro riders.
flakey
Stephanie certainly comes off as flakey, but (based on what we've heard about her testimony this week) she's been consistent when questioned under oath. Doesn't mean she's right and I don't know what the rules/guidelines are about how much weight the GJ can give the recorded messages/conversations. To me she seems to lean toward agreeing with who-ever she is talking to at any given moment, in the phone conversations.
Dr. Maserati said:
Stephanie certainly comes off as flakey, but (based on what we've heard about her testimony this week) she's been consistent when questioned under oath. Doesn't mean she's right and I don't know what the rules/guidelines are about how much weight the GJ can give the recorded messages/conversations. To me she seems to lean toward agreeing with who-ever she is talking to at any given moment, in the phone conversations.
no personal knowledge
I think that's the key point. They need either physical evidence or enough testimony form people with direct knowledge (not hearsay and inference, like Greg Lemond and many others offer) to make a good case in court. I think the idea that the 1999 samples could be available is interesting. They might not "count" from a procedural anti-doping perspective (no B sample, etc) but possibly they would be viable evidence in a different sort of proceeding. Of course we don't really even know what tack the investigation is taking, beyond lots of speculation.
Dr. Maserati said:
I think that's the key point. They need either physical evidence or enough testimony form people with direct knowledge (not hearsay and inference, like Greg Lemond and many others offer) to make a good case in court. I think the idea that the 1999 samples could be available is interesting. They might not "count" from a procedural anti-doping perspective (no B sample, etc) but possibly they would be viable evidence in a different sort of proceeding. Of course we don't really even know what tack the investigation is taking, beyond lots of speculation.
- Jul 2, 2009
- 1,079
- 0
- 0
direct knowledge?
Hasn't she said before that she had no direct knowledge of doping, only that she was asked to dispose of some material (transfusion equipment, needles, or something)? And she didn't really know exactly what it was she disposed of and whether it was really proof of doping (blood or other). She might also have reported cryptic statments from Lance, but I'm pretty sure nothing attributed to her so far would qualify as direct knowledge that would stand up anywhere but kn a David Walsh book. I don't think she has any silver bullets to offer here...
Benotti69 said:
Hasn't she said before that she had no direct knowledge of doping, only that she was asked to dispose of some material (transfusion equipment, needles, or something)? And she didn't really know exactly what it was she disposed of and whether it was really proof of doping (blood or other). She might also have reported cryptic statments from Lance, but I'm pretty sure nothing attributed to her so far would qualify as direct knowledge that would stand up anywhere but kn a David Walsh book. I don't think she has any silver bullets to offer here...
Pretty clear
Yep, if accurate, that's pretty clear. I remembered otherwise, that he seemed a more reluctant witness.
Kennf1 said:
Yep, if accurate, that's pretty clear. I remembered otherwise, that he seemed a more reluctant witness.
- Jul 2, 2009
- 1,079
- 0
- 0
greg lemond doesn't have direct knowledge?
Actually, I don't think he does. His main point is that suddenly everybody was going faster than him. He may be totally right, but that isn't direct knowledge of Lance / Postal / Radio Shack doping. I think the only direct knowledge Greg has is re. the dispute between Trek and LeMond. Is there anything else (DIRECT)?
tubularglue said:
Actually, I don't think he does. His main point is that suddenly everybody was going faster than him. He may be totally right, but that isn't direct knowledge of Lance / Postal / Radio Shack doping. I think the only direct knowledge Greg has is re. the dispute between Trek and LeMond. Is there anything else (DIRECT)?
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
Rupert said:
Sorry Rupert.
You have posted quite a few times since the above post - much of it on the basis of the highlighted above.
They were questioned separately.
Frankie's testimony was not less adamant - under oath he recalled what he heard, which is very similar to what his wife recounted in her separate testimony.
- Jul 2, 2009
- 1,079
- 0
- 0
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
- Jul 2, 2009
- 1,079
- 0
- 0
Dr. Maserati said:
wouldn't it be interesting if the entire usps squad during that time have also agreed with Floyd
Rupert said:
True enough, but who has come forward to deny this account, except of course LA and i believe one of the doctors (but one doctor who claimed it wasn't said wasn't there)? Stephanie has said it happened so many times that, regardless of what kind of ground she's on legally by now denying it, I accept that she heard it. And Frankie and Betsy.
So I think your argument is that maybe Frankie, Betsy and Stephanie all heard something that could be misheard or misinterpreted as an admission of doping, when in fact it was something else (e.g., LA admitted to taking other, non-banned, non-enhancing drugs; or banned drugs were mentioned in a way that impressed them on the memories of those present, yet LA never actually said he took them).
That can't be entirely ruled out. But I'm impressed by the certainty of Betsy in particular, who certainly at that time did not want to believe something like this. And also Stephanie, for all her behavior, including her denials, speak to someone who heard something that made her very uncomfortable, yet she couldn't deny it. As I said before, it's unusual for people to form false memories of something when those memories are problematic for them. It's much more common for memories to provide some support for their identity, or are created to please others. Both of these motivations can be seen in childhood abuse victims, who may initially form a memory of no abuse because it's too pleasant to contemplate, and later "remember" the opposite if pressured by someone with an interest in proving abuse.
Floyd
Well, Floyd has this small credibility problem. I think the key is how many others back up Floyd's version... So far we don't really know, do we? Unless there are at least a few, this may not go very far. And if the number who can be compelled to testify (presumably Americans) is limited, and the size of the inner circle (TdF team riders?) is limited, there may not be a large pool of potential witnesses. Again, the standard of proof is a lot higher in court than in a web forum.
Dr. Maserati said:
Well, Floyd has this small credibility problem. I think the key is how many others back up Floyd's version... So far we don't really know, do we? Unless there are at least a few, this may not go very far. And if the number who can be compelled to testify (presumably Americans) is limited, and the size of the inner circle (TdF team riders?) is limited, there may not be a large pool of potential witnesses. Again, the standard of proof is a lot higher in court than in a web forum.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Latest posts
-
-
Teams & Riders The Red Bull - Bora - Hansgrohe team thread
- Latest: red_flanders
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram