Stephanie testifies today

[Rupert]

Can't be ruled out

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 ... That can't be entirely ruled out.

That's my entire point, just that it's possible (even if not likely), and therefore can't be entirely ruled out without more evidence / corroboration. One thought on Frankie and Betsy is that they no doubt compared notes between one another, and would likely either one might have reinforced the other's perception of what they heard, especially if one was sure and the other wasn't. All speculation (just like a lot of what you read here).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

What is wrong with Floyds credibility?
It appears perfectly good for the Food & Drug Administration to subpoena people and documents from relevant sources like Trek and Nike.

So now we need a "few" people to back up the accomplice? What is the set number?
We know at least one other - from the time frame that Floyd was there has backed up what he has to say.

You mentioned - aviation investigations earlier, how many incidents are solved on witness testimony?
Answer: very few, because where possible they rely on data from the FDR or CVR as more compelling.
Which is why the FDA are going through the records obtained from Nike, Trek and LeMond.

 

[thehog]

The other problem for Miss. Stephanie is that the Feds are in possession of several other recordings whereby she's recorded with her own consent admitting she heard exactly that Armstrong used drugs. The recordings the public have heard are not the only ones in existence. In fact the others are far more compelling and stated in a far more relaxed state.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

It pretty much can be ruled out
During Lances testimony when asked if Doctors entered the room he said:

QUESTION: Do you have any recollection while these individuals were there that a doctor or doctors came into the room and discussed with you your medical treatment or your condition?
ARMSTRONG: Absolutely not. That didn't happen.
QUESTION: Did any medical person ask you, while you were at the Indiana University Hospital, whether you had ever used any sort of performance-enhancing drugs or substances?
ARMSTRONG: No. Absolutely not.

The Andreus cannot have misheard something if it did not take place.

 

[Rupert]

Floyd's credibility

What is wrong with Floyds credibility?

In the absence of corroboration, it's not very good, since he has such a well-established record of lying, under oath and otherwise. He says as much himself. Not that his words aren't worth looking into, just that on their own they probably don't hold up in court very well. Aside from his record of lying, there's the apparent attempt to blackmail his way into the Tour of California and the possibility that he could profit from this financially (not that it would be worth it).

...at least one other..

So far, if there aren't more that's probably not enough. Maybe. Who said there's a "set number?" I don't think there is any such thing. Depends on what it takes to convince a judge and/or jury that a crime has been committed (fraud, perjury, whatever). That's what counts, not what it takes to convince readers of "the clinic."

My take on this whole thing is that unless a lot more substantiated evidence (which might include firsthand testimony from teammates/others) comes out, there is not much more out there now (as far as we know) than David Walsh has published before, and that's not enough to convict anyone. Floyd's story is more of the same, with more details, but Floyd's word is probably not good enough to prove anything by itself. Use of the 1999 samples seems like a likely path since they might stand up as evidence in this proceeding even if they don't meet standards required to prove doping under the sporting rules and procedures. It will be interesting to see what comes out of all this, but I won't be shocked either way.

If there was hard evidence that was damning available right now, and it was admissible according to the appropriate rules, most of these discussions wouldn't be happening. Time will tell, and I suspect it will be a while before this is over. Remains to be seen what they come up with. I just hope it's definitive one way or the other (although I doubt innocence can be proved definitively - guilt probably can).

I appreciate your discussion, lots of people shout here more than they think... I was a bit surprised, though, that you object to doubting Floyd's credibility.

 

[Cordon Bleu]

Rupert, I dont recall any rules about or rules defining "direct knowledge" in the federal rules of evidence.

 

[Rupert]

Exactly

...You mentioned - aviation investigations earlier, how many incidents are solved on witness testimony?
Answer: very few, because where possible they rely on data from the FDR or CVR as more compelling.
Which is why the FDA are going through the records obtained from Nike, Trek and LeMond.

That's my point, that the witnesses they have so far aren't enough, so they need more of something (more witnesses or other types of evidence). If they can tie Trek money to EPO purchases, that would really be something...

 

[Rupert]

rules of evidence

Rupert, I dont recall any rules about or rules defining "direct knowledge" in the federal rules of evidence.

I don't know the Federal Rules of Evidence, but aren't there restrictions or limitations on "hearsay." Or at least hearsay would seem to carry less weight than direct knowledge, if it's admissible at all. I don't pretend to know much about the law through my extensive experience watching Law and Order.

 

[thehog]

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.

I like how you raise objection to Floyd's credibility based on his previous lies but don't apply the same rule set to Stephanie's account. She has changed her story more times than Floyd and involved herself in all sorts of rumor mongering. There's no one backing her account up other than the man himself.

 

[Rupert]

Good point

I like how you raise objection to Floyd's credibility based on his previous lies but don't apply the same rule set to Stephanie's account. She has changed her story more times than Floyd and involved herself in all sorts of rumor mongering. There's no one backing her account up other than the man himself.

Good point. The main difference between her and Floyd is that Floyd has (I think) changed the story he told under oath, and Stephanie has stuck to her story (in official testimony), except when "gossipping." I think there's a difference in scale - Floyd has testified to his innocence in official proceeding (not sure it it was ever in court), written books proclaiming his innocence, and now changed his story. Stephanie's B-SSing was done on a smaller scale, in drunken (and sober) phone calls and private conversations. And I'm not saying she's particularly credible, just that it's possible (not likely) the Andreus are wrong. If we're going to compare credibility, the Andreus come out way ahead of all the others. And they're probably right. But it's possible they aren't. Which is why more evidence is needed. And there's still an ongoing investigation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In the absence of corroboration, it's not very good, since he has such a well-established record of lying, under oath and otherwise. He says as much himself. Not that his words aren't worth looking into, just that on their own they probably don't hold up in court very well. Aside from his record of lying, there's the apparent attempt to blackmail his way into the Tour of California and the possibility that he could profit from this financially (not that it would be worth it).


So far, if there aren't more that's probably not enough. Maybe. Who said there's a "set number?" I don't think there is any such thing. Depends on what it takes to convince a judge and/or jury that a crime has been committed (fraud, perjury, whatever). That's what counts, not what it takes to convince readers of "the clinic."

My take on this whole thing is that unless a lot more substantiated evidence (which might include firsthand testimony from teammates/others) comes out, there is not much more out there now (as far as we know) than David Walsh has published before, and that's not enough to convict anyone. Floyd's story is more of the same, with more details, but Floyd's word is probably not good enough to prove anything by itself. Use of the 1999 samples seems like a likely path since they might stand up as evidence in this proceeding even if they don't meet standards required to prove doping under the sporting rules and procedures. It will be interesting to see what comes out of all this, but I won't be shocked either way.

If there was hard evidence that was damning available right now, and it was admissible according to the appropriate rules, most of these discussions wouldn't be happening. Time will tell, and I suspect it will be a while before this is over. Remains to be seen what they come up with. I just hope it's definitive one way or the other (although I doubt innocence can be proved definitively - guilt probably can).

I appreciate your discussion, lots of people shout here more than they think... I was a bit surprised, though, that you object to doubting Floyd's credibility.

Again, what you appear to be forgetting here is that this is only at the investigation and discovery stage - this is not yet a trial or anything else.

I am looking at what has been offered to the investigation, thusfar - while your opinion appears to be hanging on what is or is not admissable.

Floyds details are a lot more than David Walshs - as he states how the doping was paid for and who got paid.
Why do you think one of Lance very few public statements so far has been to deny he was an owner in Tailwind?


To the Blue - Floyds credibility, really simple.
What Floyd said pre May was 'incredible', not backed up in any way.
What he has admitted to since then is the oppposite and is far more credible.
He can't be lying when he said "I did dope' and 'I didn't dope' and by the time Novitzky (ex IRS) is finished going through the papertrail Floyd will probably not be needed to be called.
As for the 'blackmail' - read the emails.

 

[Rupert]

Investigation

You're right. I believe a Grand Jury is meant to decide if there is enough evidence to even convene a trial. So we'll see in time. I hope it gets sorted out one way or the other with some sort of certainty. If the whole things ends with no trial things left up in the air, probably forever. If it does go to a trial it will probably be long and ugly, with Lance using his huge resources to fight it and drag things out as long as possible. Not sure there is a good ending possible here... In the meantime I just hope it's really getting better out there ie the sport really is getting cleaner.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're right. I believe a Grand Jury is meant to decide if there is enough evidence to even convene a trial. So we'll see in time. I hope it gets sorted out one way or the other with some sort of certainty. If the whole things ends with no trial things left up in the air, probably forever. If it does go to a trial it will probably be long and ugly, with Lance using his huge resources to fight it and drag things out as long as possible. Not sure there is a good ending possible here... In the meantime I just hope it's really getting better out there ie the sport really is getting cleaner.

Thats an astute observation.

Whenever the Fabricator says its a waste of taxpayers money it should be remembered that the FDA should not discontinue pursuing Armstrong just because he has "huge resources" and the ability to "drag things out".

 

[tubularglue]

I sometimes want to hit myself over the head with a bat when reading the forum, this makes me stop and start thinking again

Thank god for my group ride in the am

 

[Darryl Webster]

Straying slightly of topic , thinking aloud as it were, it occures to me that beyond He said/ she said testemony, positive retroagative tests of Lance and any of his team during any race samples the phyisical evidence thats most likely to be of most benifit in "mining" the case is phone records, particularly mobiles were placed calls show there location is strong corrobaration of place and dates and and electronic wire tranfers as well as foresic examination of business accounts, certain personal accounts and business practices/models.
Forensic examination of hard drives would also likely be a source of collabrative comunications. Ive a hunch Landis was able to provide far more than were privy to and wasnt there several weeks communicaton with Norvetsky before the Emails were "leaked".
By the time the formal anouncement of the investigation is it not likey rather a lot of investigation had been going on prior?.
The law dont normally announce a case or think theyve got a case till theyve got a case surely?

The degree of web that seems to be emerging, creating clear conflicts of interest in business/ sport ethics and implementation.
Its almost possible to sugest UCI, ASO, USCA , Pharmstrong, even the bloody Phil @ Paul show, were bordering on being one large cartel with there gold mine investment...not to mention absalute loyalty to "the cause".
The lack of atack by the UCI on the shaniningans of certain doctors is such that one might one to add them to the cartel.
Pat, MQuack`s place at the IOC trough would to any ethical person look questionable but if ya look at IOC`s history he fits the MO perfectly.
Weasals the lot of em.


Excuse the ramble As you were,

 

[Tubeless]

Good point. The main difference between her and Floyd is that Floyd has (I think) changed the story he told under oath, and Stephanie has stuck to her story (in official testimony), except when "gossipping." I think there's a difference in scale - Floyd has testified to his innocence in official proceeding (not sure it it was ever in court), written books proclaiming his innocence, and now changed his story. Stephanie's B-SSing was done on a smaller scale, in drunken (and sober) phone calls and private conversations. And I'm not saying she's particularly credible, just that it's possible (not likely) the Andreus are wrong. If we're going to compare credibility, the Andreus come out way ahead of all the others. And they're probably right. But it's possible they aren't. Which is why more evidence is needed. And there's still an ongoing investigation.

So you're saying that if you lie under oath but speak the truth outside of the courtroom, that gives Floyd, but not Stephanie serious credibility issues?

Landis lied to save his own a**, Stephanie lied under employer / client pressure. Do you know why prosceutors often focus on a motive in a criminal proceeding?

And the Andreaus, who have told the same story under oath and outside the courtroom are suspect because they're married? What's the basis on which they'd be wrong? Motive for them to remember wrong / lie?

You're qualifiying your statements in more ways than we can count, yet you keep saying there needs to be proof that can stand in a real proceeding, and there isn't any? The defense just needs reasonable doubt?

 

[dbrower]

we don't really know, do we?

No, Brandt, we don't know, now do we?

But that doesn't usually stop the speculation.

-dB

 

[Cloxxki]

I'm wondering. Whether Novitsky will call Stephanie back for perjury even before the main players get to have had their say. What if perjury based on other sworn testimonies looks likely. He calls her back to the stand, now she's defendant herself. She lies twice now, several years in prison are awaiting her.
This might help further witnesses to be honest. I bet the FEDs hate to call witnesses on their lies all the time, stuffing jails with lying witnesses who never wanted to be part of the case they got to do time for.
They might have Stephanie convicted before the big guns go on trial, or just have the case there, for everyone to wonder what evidense came up in earlier grand jury hearings, or documents.

 

[redtreviso]

I'm wondering. Whether Novitsky will call Stephanie back for perjury even before the main players get to have had their say. What if perjury based on other sworn testimonies looks likely. He calls her back to the stand, now she's defendant herself. She lies twice now, several years in prison are awaiting her.
This might help further witnesses to be honest. I bet the FEDs hate to call witnesses on their lies all the time, stuffing jails with lying witnesses who never wanted to be part of the case they got to do time for.
They might have Stephanie convicted before the big guns go on trial, or just have the case there, for everyone to wonder what evidense came up in earlier grand jury hearings, or documents.

obstruction and probation would be more likely

 

[davestoller]

It pretty much can be ruled out
During Lances testimony when asked if Doctors entered the room he said:


The Andreus cannot have misheard something if it did not take place.

At this point I think it is fair to say that the two of them could have misheard anything.

Remember a few basic things--how likely is it that a physician would go into a room and take a history with a room full of guests/visitors? 0% likely.

Extremely extremely unlikely.

And that if I recall from testiminy, it was on a weekend, because they were talking about the COwboys game, which means that the attendings the boss doctors would have only been making rounds, not going in and taking a complete history.

And why oh why would anyone have been asking a question like this in 1996? DO you dope and what dopoing products have you used? WHat MD back then would have the knowledge or suspician of anything like this going on? Unlikely. And because of the private nature of the question, like asking a guy if he had sex outside the marriage with his wife present...

But forget unlikely...

Several other people said it didnt happen.

But riddle me this--
lets say it DID happen.
Why do the Andreus care?

 

[Digger]

At this point I think it is fair to say that the two of them could have misheard anything.

Remember a few basic things--how likely is it that a physician would go into a room and take a history with a room full of guests/visitors? 0% likely.

Extremely extremely unlikely.

And that if I recall from testiminy, it was on a weekend, because they were talking about the COwboys game, which means that the attendings the boss doctors would have only been making rounds, not going in and taking a complete history.

And why oh why would anyone have been asking a question like this in 1996? DO you dope and what dopoing products have you used? WHat MD back then would have the knowledge or suspician of anything like this going on? Unlikely. And because of the private nature of the question, like asking a guy if he had sex outside the marriage with his wife present...

But forget unlikely...

Several other people said it didnt happen.

But riddle me this--
lets say it DID happen.
Why do the Andreus care?

Name them.

 

[Digger]

didn't emma work as a mule in one instance. travel with package

Yeah went to Spain to collect a package from Johan, and then took it to Lance in France. She was sh**less driving through the border. She also noted tht Johan was nicer to her that day than he had been for ages. She gave the package to Lance in a MacDonalds car park. She noted that, eventhough she was late, Lance could not have been more understanding. This was notable because normally he was a complete a** about such things. Of course Lance also told Emma that 'you now know enough to bring me down' on another occasion.
Look my take on the phone conversation....I believe 100 percent that it happened. Betsy and Frankie;s story has not changed one jot. Stephanie has admitted it happened. Stapleton is on tape as tacitly accepting that it happened. Lance's then gf has never been questioned. Dr. Nicholls wasn't even there. So we are left with Lance denying it. And even lance and his lawyers can't get their story right. Truth should not change.

But the lance defenders are acting as if this is the only piece of evidence. It is damning, but it is merely one piece of a stack.

 

[Race Radio]

At this point I think it is fair to say that the two of them could have misheard anything.

Remember a few basic things--how likely is it that a physician would go into a room and take a history with a room full of guests/visitors? 0% likely.

Extremely extremely unlikely.

And that if I recall from testiminy, it was on a weekend, because they were talking about the COwboys game, which means that the attendings the boss doctors would have only been making rounds, not going in and taking a complete history.

And why oh why would anyone have been asking a question like this in 1996? DO you dope and what dopoing products have you used? WHat MD back then would have the knowledge or suspician of anything like this going on? Unlikely. And because of the private nature of the question, like asking a guy if he had sex outside the marriage with his wife present...

But forget unlikely...

Several other people said it didnt happen.

But riddle me this--
lets say it DID happen.
Why do the Andreus care?

Don't let the facts get in the way of the smokescreen

The doctor who came into the room was not Lance's Doctor. In fact Dr. Nichols was not even working with Lance yet.

The Doctor asked everyone in the room to leave, Lance said no they can stay. The Doctor asked again for them to leave and Lance said no, they can all stay. He gave his implement consent.

It would be completely unusual for the doctor NOT to ask Armstrong this questions. Armstrong had just entered the hospital and the Doctors were astonished at how fast cancer had spread throughout his body. It is common, if not mandatory, for a doctor to ask a patient what drugs they have been taking.

Please tell us who has said it did not happen. Stephanie has told many people it did, Stapleton has agreed on tape that it did, Frankie and Betsy said it did. Only Lance has said he could not recall.

Why do the Andeus care? Nice spin. Frankie and Betsy kept quite about this for close to a decade until they were forced to testify under oath. They care that some groupies have tried to cast them as liars.

Would you care if there was a media campaign that cast you a liar when you were not? Would you just let this happen? Good thing Frankie and Betsy are not as weak.

 

[buckwheat]

At this point I think it is fair to say that the two of them could have misheard anything.

Remember a few basic things--how likely is it that a physician would go into a room and take a history with a room full of guests/visitors? 0% likely.

Extremely extremely unlikely.

And that if I recall from testiminy, it was on a weekend, because they were talking about the COwboys game, which means that the attendings the boss doctors would have only been making rounds, not going in and taking a complete history.

And why oh why would anyone have been asking a question like this in 1996? DO you dope and what dopoing products have you used? WHat MD back then would have the knowledge or suspician of anything like this going on? Unlikely. And because of the private nature of the question, like asking a guy if he had sex outside the marriage with his wife present...

But forget unlikely...

Several other people said it didnt happen.

But riddle me this--
lets say it DID happen.
Why do the Andreus care?

You're joking about lack of awareness of PED use.

Do you know the name Ben Johnson?

Are you aware of the performance of the E. German womens swimming team back in '76.

How old are you?

You act as though PED use has just come into general public awareness.

Also, doctors are some of the biggest users and abusers of all types of prescription drugs. You know why? Doctors know they work well and there is infinitely greater quality control than street drugs. Who would know this better than a doctor who has been given extensive training in pharmacology?

 

[Tubeless]

Don't let the facts get in the way of the smokescreen

The doctor who came into the room was not Lance's Doctor. In fact Dr. Nichols was not even working with Lance yet.

The Doctor asked everyone in the room to leave, Lance said no they can stay. The Doctor asked again for them to leave and Lance said no, they can all stay. He gave his implement consent.

It would be completely unusual for the doctor NOT to ask Armstrong this questions. Armstrong had just entered the hospital and the Doctors were astonished at how fast cancer had spread throughout his body. It is common, if not mandatory, for a doctor to ask a patient what drugs they have been taking.

Please tell us who has said it did not happen. Stephanie has told many people it did, Stapleton has agreed on tape that it did, Frankie and Betsy said it did. Only Lance has said he could not recall.

Why do the Andeus care? Nice spin. Frankie and Betsy kept quite about this for close to a decade until they were forced to testify under oath. They care that some groupies have tried to cast them as liars.

Would you care if there was a media campaign that cast you a liar when you were not? Would you just let this happen? Good thing Frankie and Betsy are not as weak.

And to add to this -

As reported by her lawyer, Stephanie took the arrow for Lance in her testimony. Some are calculating it's now Betsy's & Frankie's word against Stephanie's & Lance's. But if Stephanie is charged with perjury / obstruction of justice, there's zero chance that Lance will come to her rescue and risk perjuring himself. Then who is left to corraborate Stephanie's version of the story?

Stephanie's lawyer must have calculated that a poor recollection of events that took place 14 years ago is good enough to save her from being charged. But her memory has been sharp in multiple "gossip" sessions, and she did not hestitate in her deposition in the SCA case:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

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.

--------------

Stephanie must have been very nervous before her GJ apperance. If her lawyer's version of her testimony is correct, she's a total wreck now. It does not make legal sense for her to not fully cooperate - but the stakes must be higher that we realize.