Stephanie testifies today

[Barrus]

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.

You ask question, yet ignore the answers.
My own post of this morning:

I have said this often enough, even if the evidence is gathered by unlawful means by a third party, as long as this party cannot be seen as an agent of the state (and with this I mean bot the country US, as well as a specific state within the US) it can be used in criminal proceedings. See Burdeau v. McDowell.

Also in a Grand Jury proceeding it would even be allowed outside of this exception to the exclusionary rule

 

[Oldbiker]

Are you a lawyer? Do you know anything about cycling at all?

The Hog.
&
Dr. Ferrari.

No I am not a lawyer and yes I know something about cycling, having been a cyclist since 1950 and following the likes of Coppi, Kubler, Bahamontes and Anquetil, Roche, Elliot and Tommy Simpson. Of course I am not an acknowledged expert like you guys.
So what does that have to do with the investigation, nothing probably, just you and your buddies trying the "bash the poster" routine.
That twist in your saddle probably is knotty lycra!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

And again - as I asked earlier:

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?

Surely, even you can see that these are opposing statements?

 

[eleven]

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?

It has nothing to do with thwarting the US judicial system. In case you missed it, there's a presumption of innocence and a burden of proof involved here. Only in the court of public opinion are people convicted because we don't like them.

 

[CPAvelo]

And again - as I asked earlier:


Surely, even you can see that these are opposing statements?

The only thing I see is your persistent harassment of Stephanie.

 

[eleven]

And again - as I asked earlier:


Surely, even you can see that these are opposing statements?

and again, as I've said three times now: The version of the story she told yesterday.

Let me try a fourth time: She may well believe the version of events she told yesterday. It is not her job to prove she believed it, it is the prosecution's job to prove she didn't.

 

[Escarabajo]

No I am not a lawyer and yes I know something about cycling, having been a cyclist since 1950 and following the likes of Coppi, Kubler, Bahamontes and Anquetil, Roche, Elliot and Tommy Simpson. Of course I am not an acknowledged expert like you guys.
So what does that have to do with the investigation, nothing probably, just you and your buddies trying the "bash the poster" routine.
That twist in your saddle probably is knotty lycra!

You asked the question first. So I answered it.

About the cycling knowledge. The low post count in a LA thread caught my attention. My mistake.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

and again, as I've said three times now: The version of the story she told yesterday.

Let me try a fourth time: She may well believe the version of events she told yesterday. It is not her job to prove she believed it, it is the prosecution's job to prove she didn't.

I know you have said that 3 times - yet you still don't answer the question. Perhaps this is why her testimony was 7 hours.

Ok - its not her 'job'...... is she not compelled to recite the story to her best ability in a truthful manner?

 

[Tubeless]

and again, as I've said three times now: The version of the story she told yesterday.

Let me try a fourth time: She may well believe the version of events she told yesterday. It is not her job to prove she believed it, it is the prosecution's job to prove she didn't.

From her attorney's statements it seems she chose to say "I don't recall" the hospital room conversation. And that she has no other personal information or knowledge about Armstrong's doping. She recalled the taped phone conversation with Lemond but said it was just gossip and speculation.

It seems a calculated strategy to stay from implicating her friend and a client. Blame bad memory and passing of time on one hand and friendly gossip on the other. She believes in this version because her attorney, employer and Oakley-sponsored client told her it's the only option that will retain her job, her reputation, and who knows what else.

So I guess you can say she believes. Her attorney also told her he believes that she won't pay a legal penalty for walking this fine line. I believe she's nervous as heck now.

 

[eleven]

I know you have said that 3 times - yet you still don't answer the question. Perhaps this is why her testimony was 7 hours.

Ok - its not her 'job'...... is she not compelled to recite the story to her best ability in a truthful manner?

Lets review: You asked, twice:

Which version is that?

I answered, three times: The version she told in court yesterday.

It is her job to testify truthfully. It is the prosecutors job to prove she did anything but testify to what she believes the truth to be.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Lets review: You asked, twice:



I answered, three times: The version she told in court yesterday.


It is her job to testify truthfully. It is the prosecutors job to prove she did anything but testify to what she believes the truth to be.

And I asked which version is that.


You do realise what her attorney Tom Bienert said yesterday?

"testified truthfully. Most of what she was asked about was between five and 14 years old, so she didn't have the greatest recall. But she confirmed, she had no personal knowledge of Lance Armstrong using or taking performance-enhancing drugs."

 

[thehog]

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.

Well the issue being that if she did in fact say that she never heard the confession and is unaware of aware drug use it contradicts what she has said to multiple people at different points in time. Often under no pressure to divulge such information. She’s also repeated the same to people in casual conversation.

This can only lead to two conclusions.

The first being she lied to the grand jury and she is aware of the drug use. End result perjury.

Or secondarily her testimony that she’s unaware of any such confession is accurate but her incessant need to want to gossip, slander and cause rumours means her state is some what unreliable and what she says can really only be taken as such. Thus anything she has said could almost be disregarded.

Now compare this to the Andreu’s testimony which hasn’t changed position once since 1996. They’ve maintained the same line for 14 years and haven’t gone out of their way to create malicious rumours as Stephanie has.

Who do you believe?

 

[thehog]

And I asked which version is that.


You do realise what her attorney Tom Bienert said yesterday?

"testified truthfully. Most of what she was asked about was between five and 14 years old, so she didn't have the greatest recall. But she confirmed, she had no personal knowledge of Lance Armstrong using or taking performance-enhancing drugs."

This statement I believe to be accurate. Its true she’s doesn’t have any personal knowledge of drug use. She’s never seen Lance use an IV or use EPO. But she’s aware of it. The key work being “personal” in the context of knowledge. She still has knowledge of the drug use and more than likely divulged this information.

 

[red_flanders]

Well the issue being that if she did in fact say that she never heard the confession and is unaware of aware drug use it contradicts what she has said to multiple people at different points in time. Often under no pressure to divulge such information. She’s also repeated the same to people in casual conversation.

This can only lead to two conclusions.

The first being she lied to the grand jury and she is aware of the drug use. End result perjury.

Or secondarily her testimony that she’s unaware of any such confession is accurate but her incessant need to want to gossip, slander and cause rumours means her state is some what unreliable and what she says can really only be taken as such. Thus anything she has said could almost be disregarded.

Now compare this to the Andreu’s testimony which hasn’t changed position once since 1996. They’ve maintained the same line for 14 years and haven’t gone out of their way to create malicious rumours as Stephanie has.

Who do you believe?

Whoever allows me to keep my current belief system. I"ll cling to any lawyered-up story as long as it allows me to hang on to the mythology in which I've invested my emotions, time and faith.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"testified truthfully. Most of what she was asked about was between five and 14 years old, so she didn't have the greatest recall. But she confirmed, she had no personal knowledge of Lance Armstrong using or taking performance-enhancing drugs."

This statement I believe to be accurate. Its true she’s doesn’t have any personal knowledge of drug use. She’s never seen Lance use an IV or use EPO. But she’s aware of it. The key work being “personal” in the context of knowledge. She still has knowledge of the drug use and more than likely divulged this information.

Agree -
It is a rather interesting thing to say, "no personal knowledge".

 

[Hugh Januss]

SSDD

All of your points(?) have been covered in countless threads complete with abundant links. You may want to go back and read up a little, if only so that you are not bringing up arguments that have been long settled to the satisfaction of most intelligent people.

 

[thehog]

Whoever allows me to keep my current belief system. I"ll cling to any lawyered-up story as long as it allows me to hang on to the mythology in which I've invested my emotions, time and faith.

I should add. That the Andreu’s knew of the hospital room confession in 1996. They’ve never ever repeated it anywhere or to anyone. It was only in 1999 when Mrs. Anderu discovered her husband had started using EPO that she requested he stop using it. When he stopped Mr. Anderu was removed from the inner circle and ultimately from the team and his employer.

The hospital room confession only ever saw the light of day in 2005 because Armstrong himself brought a law suit against his insurance company. He’s the one who brought it into the public domain. Now contrast this with Stephanie who continually told people, left messages on voicemails and entered into gossip on the issue.

again would you believe?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I should add. That the Andreu’s knew of the hospital room confession in 1996. They’ve never ever repeated it anywhere or to anyone. It was only in 1999 when Mrs. Anderu discovered her husband had started using EPO that she requested he stop using it. When he stopped Mr. Anderu was removed from the inner circle and ultimately from the team and his employer.

The hospital room confession only ever saw the light of day in 2005 because Armstrong himself brought a law suit against his insurance company. He’s the one who brought it into the public domain. Now contrast this with Stephanie who continually told people, left messages on voicemails and entered into gossip on the issue.

Have to correct you there.
The story was common knowledge back in the early 2000's. Which is why it got picked up by Walsh & Ballester for L.A. Confidential.
Their source of the story was another journalist - who had heard it directly from someone who went before a GJ yesterday.

 

[thehog]

Have to correct you there.
The story was common knowledge back in the early 2000's. Which is why it got picked up by Walsh & Ballester fro L.A. Confidential.
Their source of the story was another journalist - who had heard it directly from someone who went before a GJ yesterday.

Thanks. That's what I meant. That she was the person engaging in such salacious talk. None the less its Mrs. Andreu who's suffered because of it.

 

[MacRoadie]

The "official" unbiased report on WADA, paid for by the UCI...

I'm at a loss with regard to the assertion that the document prepared by Emil Vrijman was some sort of "official" report.

"Official" in what regard? It is the result of an "investigation" by a lawyer hand-picked by the UCI, for the benefit of the UCI, into the performance of a WADA-accredited lab over which the UCI has no jurisdiction, authority, or oversight.

Further, because this "report" was not commissioned by the authority that DOES have authority and oversight responsibilities vis-a-vis WADA-accredited labs, much of the information necessary to perform a complete and unbiased investigation was not readily available to Vrijman, nor was he logically in a position to appreciate all the information that MAY have been available to him.

It's about as "official" as a report by Ford on the performance of Chevy trucks...and just about as unbiased.

 

[eleven]

she not compelled to recite the story to her best ability in a truthful manner?

Well, technically I'm sure she could plead the 5th. But if she does answer questions, she is compelled to answer them in a manner she believes to be true.

 

[Tubeless]

Have to correct you there.
The story was common knowledge back in the early 2000's. Which is why it got picked up by Walsh & Ballester for L.A. Confidential.
Their source of the story was another journalist - who had heard it directly from someone who went before a GJ yesterday.

Do we know the name of the journalist that heard the story directly from Stephanie?

 

[Race Radio]

Do we know the name of the journalist that heard the story directly from Stephanie?

James Startt is one.

I first heard the story in 2001. The person who told me said that the source was Stephanie.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do we know the name of the journalist that heard the story directly from Stephanie?

One of the people she told was James Startt and he was called to testify in the SCA case:

Under oath, Startt said he ran into McIlvain at the 2004 Tour de France, and they had a brief conversation. Startt had heard about Armstrong's alleged admission of performance-enhancing drug use. In his testimony, Startt said "I asked her did it definitely happen. And she said, yes it did."

 

[buckwheat]

I know you have said that 3 times - yet you still don't answer the question. Perhaps this is why her testimony was 7 hours.
Ok - its not her 'job'...... is she not compelled to recite the story to her best ability in a truthful manner?

Yeah, it takes a while to dig your own grave.