Stephanie testifies today

[sherer]

Thank you for proving my point, the Feds have had zero leaks in this case.

why would they ? Isn't that why they are the Feds ? All they care about is the case and getting a conviction not idle gossip on news websites

 

[stephens]

I love this bit - as if US law enforcement and the US government are the only ones with the ability to do any of this, and the rest of the planet are completely incompetent...

No, that's not the concern at all. Independent agencies and foreign government agencies may indeed be completely competent: the problem is that the u.s. courts have no way of verifying that competency, their ability to allow the defense it's required access to the evidence and to hold their own testing to verify the original results is compromised. And since the U.S. system is so strict on rules of evidence, I think it would be highly unlikely that the kind of thing like those '99 samples will be allowed in court.

Now, it's the kind of thing that may be used to get an athlete to confess in order to avoid the threat of perjury, but surely no one here thinks that the Armstrong case will follow that pattern. His team is far to sophisticated to fall for that - they'll fight this thing out in the courts all the way in an attempt to protect what is a very profitable myth.

 

[Escarabajo]

... And since the U.S. system is so strict on rules of evidence, I think it would be highly unlikely that the kind of thing like those '99 samples will be allowed in court.

...

So would the Vrijman report be allowed in court?

 

[stephens]

Well, if the '99 samples are introduced, then surely the Vrijman report would be introduced by the defense. But without the former, the latter is unlikely to be brought up at all. But we're getting off-topic here and I apologize.

 

[Merckx index]

No, that's not the concern at all. Independent agencies and foreign government agencies may indeed be completely competent: the problem is that the u.s. courts have no way of verifying that competency, their ability to allow the defense it's required access to the evidence and to hold their own testing to verify the original results is compromised. And since the U.S. system is so strict on rules of evidence, I think it would be highly unlikely that the kind of thing like those '99 samples will be allowed in court.

Now, it's the kind of thing that may be used to get an athlete to confess in order to avoid the threat of perjury, but surely no one here thinks that the Armstrong case will follow that pattern. His team is far to sophisticated to fall for that - they'll fight this thing out in the courts all the way in an attempt to protect what is a very profitable myth.

It's not an all-or-none situation. Just because the '99 samples could not be used as a sanctionable positive doesn't mean they don't constitute evidence of doping. Will the GJ conclude that the samples, by themselves, constitute proof of doping? Probably not. But in conjunction with other evidence, they help build the case (and remember, the GJ's job is not to convict, but only to determine if there is enough evidence to warrant going to trial).

Ashenden's testimony will certainly count for something, as he is a credentialed scientist who can establish that he knows what he's talking about. In addition to his testimony, other evidence strongly indicates that the samples were not tampered with. There is also the Montreal scientist (can't remember her name), who can testify that the possibility of long-term storage converting a negative into a positive is remote. I see no reason why the GJ would not take this testimony very seriously. Again, they don't have to accept it as proof of doping, only as a major piece of evidence.

The real question is whether the GJ will pursue the Did Armstrong dope? question in this direct fashion. It remains somewhat tangential to the main purpose of the investigation. But as has been noted many times, if LA testifies at some point that he did not dope, and they decide to pursue perjury, then the 99 samples become very germane.

 

[Escarabajo]

Well, if the '99 samples are introduced, then surely the Vrijman report would be introduced by the defense. But without the former, the latter is unlikely to be brought up at all. But we're getting off-topic here and I apologize.

Let me remind you the reason why we got off the topic:

Because you said that testimonies of what somebody said in a hospital in 1996 is worthless without a smoking gun. So I brought up to you the smoking gun: the 1999 urine samples or any other available samples up to 2001.

So now we can come back to topic. The 1996 Hospital conversation.

 

[Race Radio]

why would they ? Isn't that why they are the Feds ? All they care about is the case and getting a conviction not idle gossip on news websites

Agreed. So far the only people saying the Fed's are leaking are from Armstrong media machine. There is zero evidence to support this but the Fabricator just wants to confuse the narrative as much as possible and paint his client as persecuted.

 

[Race Radio]

Well, if the '99 samples are introduced, then surely the Vrijman report would be introduced by the defense. But without the former, the latter is unlikely to be brought up at all. But we're getting off-topic here and I apologize.

Please, please, please introduce the Vrijman report. It only reinforces the fact that Armstrong received special treatment for his $500,000 payoff.

 

[theswordsman]

Since the thread is still talking about the 1999 samples - Pierre Bordry announced his retirement. He'll go when a successor can be named, probably next month. I started a new thread.

 

[eleven]

What part does she believe is true? What she said on the stand or what she has told a dozen other people?

The part she told on the stand, obviously.

 

[eleven]

Same is true for Betsy. Maybe what she thinks she heard is not what really happened. Not that she isn't honest in her belief, but human memory is notoriously fallible. Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable, regardless of how convinced people are of what they thought they saw / heard they are often proven wrong. In the absence of any corroboration (other than Frankie) it needs to be considered (but wouldn't be on this forum, of course).

This was my point, which I apparently was unclear about. It is quite possible (and perhaps even likely) that both Betsy and Stephanie are relating the events as they remember them to be.

 

[eleven]

Wrong - here is what WADA chief Pound said about that report;


The LNDD lab was good enough to catch Landis.

I think the point is that regardless of what Pound and others thought of the report, the report exists. And the official report casts doubt. That's all the defense team needs.

 

[thehog]

This was my point, which I apparently was unclear about. It is quite possible (and perhaps even likely) that both Betsy and Stephanie are relating the events as they remember them to be.

This is possible but several recorded messages and in person conversations suggest otherwise.

 

[eleven]

This is possible but several recorded messages and in person conversations suggest otherwise.

Oh, I agree. As a defense against perjury however, where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, I suspect it would hold up.

As regards my earlier post, I should not have said "perhaps even likely". in retrospect, I don't think it's all that likely.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This was my point, which I apparently was unclear about. It is quite possible (and perhaps even likely) that both Betsy and Stephanie are relating the events as they remember them to be.

Really? How?

Betsy has been clear and consistent in what she recalls.
Frankie has been clear and consistent in what he recalls.

Stephanie - well, not so much. She is telling opposing stories to different people.

 

[eleven]

Really? How?

Betsy has been clear and consistent in what she recalls.
Frankie has been clear and consistent in what he recalls.

Stephanie - well, not so much. She is telling opposing stories to different people.

How? By Stephanie believing her version of the story to be true.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think the point is that regardless of what Pound and others thought of the report, the report exists. And the official report casts doubt. That's all the defense team needs.

'Official report'?!
A report with no mandate (except to identify the source of the leak - which was the UCI) - conducted by a friend of Hein Verbruggen, with a payment of $100,000 from Armstrong to the UCI weeks after its publication.

If Lance is relying on that 'report' as his defense he is screwed.

 

[Oldbiker]

Providing she isn't charged with perjury when this is all over.

I think, from what little information we gained here, Race Radio was correct in his assessment back on about page 2 here.

So far throughout this thread there has been very little information, just "belief" and "innuendo".

Eye(ear)witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Especially if they have a bias against someone. eg Lemond, Betsy, Frankie.

People on this thread wanted Stephanie to nail LA to a cross and she didn't do it. Novitzky could get her on perjury for differences between this testimony and the SCA trial, but not for differing with the Lemond tapes.

To dope in the manner suggested by most of the posters over seven years, would surely require at least one accomplice. Who do you suggest that would be?

If it were true that LA did dope, he is NOT a "dope", so I feel confident he would not do it in front of witnesses other than his accomplice.

So what evidence are you looking for?, purchase of doping products, tapes of LA himself admitting doping, actual witnesses who saw him inject, swallow or take illegal products in some form.

According to many experts on this forum the performance of LA could only have been achieved by doping. If that is true why are Schleck and Contador not under investigation since they were in a class by themselves at the Tour.

If there is evidence that LA did dope then the punishment would be what?

He did not deny the USPS of wonderful front page advertising, so they got their moneys worth. How were they defrauded? They signed up for exposure and they got plenty of great press.

Since Bjarne Riis did not have his win retracted, why would they do it to LA?

So the fury over all this seems a little exaggerated. If Novitzky finds something then he will indict and maybe get some kind of verdict that slams LA. Until that time, relax!!, don't get your lycra in a knot.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How? By Stephanie believing her version of the story to be true.

Which version is that?

The version she told the SCA - where she said that the 'Hospital room' incident did not happen.

Or where she told LeMond on tape "I was in that room, I heard it". And where she has confirmed that to other journalists and Betsy says she has a tape of McIlvain apologizing for lying?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So far throughout this thread there has been very little information, just "belief" and "innuendo".

Eye(ear)witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Especially if they have a bias against someone. eg Lemond, Betsy, Frankie.

People on this thread wanted Stephanie to nail LA to a cross and she didn't do it. Novitzky could get her on perjury for differences between this testimony and the SCA trial, but not for differing with the Lemond tapes.

To dope in the manner suggested by most of the posters over seven years, would surely require at least one accomplice. Who do you suggest that would be?

If it were true that LA did dope, he is NOT a "dope", so I feel confident he would not do it in front of witnesses other than his accomplice.

So what evidence are you looking for?, purchase of doping products, tapes of LA himself admitting doping, actual witnesses who saw him inject, swallow or take illegal products in some form.

According to many experts on this forum the performance of LA could only have been achieved by doping. If that is true why are Schleck and Contador not under investigation since they were in a class by themselves at the Tour.

If there is evidence that LA did dope then the punishment would be what?

He did not deny the USPS of wonderful front page advertising, so they got their moneys worth. How were they defrauded? They signed up for exposure and they got plenty of great press.

Since Bjarne Riis did not have his win retracted, why would they do it to LA?

So the fury over all this seems a little exaggerated. If Novitzky finds something then he will indict and maybe get some kind of verdict that slams LA. Until that time, relax!!, don't get your lycra in a knot.

You're trying to cover a lot of bases with this post - so I will simply say that Floyd Landis would be that 'accomplice'.

Schleck, Contador? I don't believe either has a teammate that is co-operating in an investigation in to team wide doping ring that would constitute a fraud through a stipulation in the contract inserted by USPS in 2001.

 

[Escarabajo]

So far throughout this thread there has been very little information, just "belief" and "innuendo".

...To dope in the manner suggested by most of the posters over seven years, would surely require at least one accomplice. Who do you suggest that would be?

...

Every person that knows about cycling knows about this. But I'll say it again.

The Hog.
&
Dr. Ferrari.

Maybe some of his ex-teammates.

 

[eleven]

'Official report'?!
A report with no mandate (except to identify the source of the leak - which was the UCI) - conducted by a friend of Hein Verbruggen, with a payment of $100,000 from Armstrong to the UCI weeks after its publication.

If Lance is relying on that 'report' as his defense he is screwed.

He doesn't need to "rely on the report". He only needs the report - the official report - to cast doubt. He's not the one with the burden of proof, Dr.

 

[eleven]

Which version is that?

The version she told the SCA - where she said that the 'Hospital room' incident did not happen.

Or where she told LeMond on tape "I was in that room, I heard it". And where she has confirmed that to other journalists and Betsy says she has a tape of McIlvain apologizing for lying?

The version she told in the court room yesterday, Doc. I'm not sure how you and the other poster could possibly be confused about that.

 

[CPAvelo]

Schleck, Contador? I don't believe either has a teammate that is co-operating in an investigation in to team wide doping ring that would constitute a fraud through a stipulation in the contract inserted by USPS in 2001.

This is what seems to be readily overlooked, especially by LA supporters. This case is much more than about PED allegations and TdF victories. Who cares whether LA's TdF is expunged or remains intact? This case is about whether he and others defrauded an agency of the US government. This has very broad implications.

If the allegations are true, hopefully justice will prevail. And, hopefully cycling will be cleansed of the whole cheating culture of doing wrong to get ahead, at least as it applies to PED and other improper techniques.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He doesn't need to "rely on the report". He only needs the report - the official report - to cast doubt. He's not the one with the burden of proof, Dr.

So - the judicial system of the USA will be thwarted by a 'report' - sorry an 'offical report' -with no mandate, done by a buddy of Hein, with a payment from Armstrong to the UCI at that time?

What next - the Lance defence team is going to have BPC as an expert witness?