The Lance Deposition Tapes (Complete Testimony Now Available)

[D-Queued]

List already being compiled

Hi Dallas_

We were already growing a list in one of the other threads - though I believe it was overcome by PR types with post counts in single digits.

A recent addition to the list, again still from the SCA Deposition:

Q. Can you offer, or can you -- can you help explain to me why Ms. Andreu would make that story up?

A. Well, she said in her deposition she hates me.

...

Q. Okay. I'm -- obviously, you had a relationship with them. And you knew her, and you go back some time with her. And I'm asking if --

A. I knew her very little, not very well

1. Pretty sure that Betsy did not state categorically that she hates/hated Lance.

2. If he knew her so very little, why sit in witness through her depostion.

3. Doesn't the fact that Betsy held true to her memories, with his intimidating presence in front of her, further reinforce her version of the Indiana Hospital incident?

Dave.

 

[BotanyBay]

A. No, it didn't.How could it have taken place when I've never taken performance-enhancing drugs?

I think he was trying to be non-responsive, but in the area I bolded, he screwed-up and responded. He said it did not take place.

But we have McIlvain, Andreu and Andreu on record saying that it most definitely did take place.

I think he committed perjury. But I don't think Novitzky & friends will be pursuing that incident. Marion Jones and Tammy Thomas were charged with perjury directly relating to his investigation.

I'm not an attorney, but I doubt the feds have jurisdiction in regards to an act of perjury committed in a Texas law firm. Had it taken place in a federal courthouse, that'd be a different situation. Jones and Thomas were charged for lying within federal jurisdiction.

Now, if you were to bring the issue to the attention of the Austin D.A., and he was in the mood to hang Texas' favorite son from his boot straps, then you might see a perjury case. But I doubt it.

 

[Oldman]

He won't do time for perjury in that case because it was a civil case. Someone would need to open a separate criminal case based on new evidence to prove that point.
The USADA case is based on the items discussed and beaten to death: wire fraud, conspiracy to obtain or distribute controlled substances, misuse of Federal funds to obtain or distribute controlled substances, tax evasion, frauds related to the aforementioned crimes.
Perjury in this case would come if he's caught lying about the USADA issues. It's true his SCA testimony could be introduced and re-visited; drawing him into a position to commit prejury. If the information drawn from that is compelling enough the parties paying out the $5million in the SCA case may pursue him for civil fraud because they want their money back, plus damages. They could care less if he does time and would settle for the dough instead of the additional costs of pursuing a criminal sentence. LA would buy his way out in a non-disclosed settlement rather than going public. All of that may be a moot point when the other charges hit the fan.

 

[Oldbiker]

Hi Dallas_
We were already growing a list in one of the other threads - though I believe it was overcome by PR types with post counts in single digits.
A recent addition to the list, again still from the SCA Deposition:

1. Pretty sure that Betsy did not state categorically that she hates/hated Lance.
.......And what makes you so sure??
2. If he knew her so very little, why sit in witness through her depostion.
...... Because he wanted to see her lie???
3. Doesn't the fact that Betsy held true to her memories, with his intimidating presence in front of her, further reinforce her version of the Indiana Hospital incident?
..... No it does not!!!
Dave.

Dream on Dave

 

[D-Queued]

Dream on Dave

Feel free to offer rebuttal evidence.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

Feel free to offer rebuttal evidence.

Dave.

Dave, think we need an astroturf forum, so all the Public Strategies folks can go and spew <hint: perhaps refine> their talking points.

And don't get sucked in by JV. I think he rode with one of the Canucks you told me about on Prime Alliance. He knowz. Cognitive dissonance and self-denial methinks. Pity. But a prototypical case in how one can hold dual and contradictory opinions on the one subject.

edit: think it was the other Canuck, well, one aint on GC now, but he was w/ JV on said team. Anyway, you have deepish background on the other.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave, think we need an astroturf forum, so all the Public Strategies folks can go and spew <hint: perhaps refine> their talking points.

And don't get sucked in by JV. I think he rode with one of the Canucks you told me about on Prime Alliance. He knowz. Cognitive dissonance and self-denial methinks. Pity. But a prototypical case in how one can hold dual and contradictory opinions on the one subject.

I felt the response was a compliment. The closer you are to the target, the louder the screams.

Dave.

 

[mwbyrd]

The USADA case is based on the items discussed and beaten to death: wire fraud, conspiracy to obtain or distribute controlled substances, misuse of Federal funds to obtain or distribute controlled substances, tax evasion, frauds related to the aforementioned crimes.

But is the USPS a federal agency? I guess it could be argued either way based on this article: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm

They make $1 Billion a year in profit?? Wow..

 

[BotanyBay]

Feel free to offer rebuttal evidence.

Dave.

It's a busy day, Dave. They've got to cover RoadBikeReview, Velonews, Velonation, and VelocityNation. And Public Strategies ain't paying overtime.
Give em a break!

 

[BroDeal]

On a related note, let's say that the feds retest Armstrong's old samples and prove without a doubt that Armstrong lied during the SCA deposition. What recourse does SCA have? Would the settlement agreement preclude SCA from suing? Can SCA sue and claim that the settlement came about because Armstrong lied and therefore it should not be binding?

 

[D-Queued]

It's a busy day, Dave. They've got to cover RoadBikeReview, Velonews, Velonation, and VelocityNation. And Public Strategies ain't paying overtime.
Give em a break!

The same group that tried to bury the last list of perjurious testimony citations seem to have joined us to confirm that:

Hammer meet nail.

Back to Betsy's testimony. Let the record show that it was, in fact, Herman who stated Betsy hated Lance, and not Betsy at all:

"Well," Herman replied, ... You obviously hate Lance."

She - allegedly someone who Lance did not know very well - was also present when Lance took a clandestine meeting with Doc Ferrari (from SI.com, June 16, 2007):

Betsy Andreu testified that she and Frankie were passengers in Armstrong's car when he pulled off the highway outside Milano in March 1999, so he could spend an hour in a van with Michele Ferrari, the notorious Italian doctor who once said, "EPO is not dangerous..."

Armstrong never denied the specific incident, nor provided any proof that it did not occur.

I am sure the rebuttal evidence from PR is coming - maybe next year. No point holding your breath about it.

Dave.

 

[Martin318is]

I have brought the "Lance Perjury" thread across to here because they are discussing exactly the same topic - his evidence, its validity and what will happen as a result of it.

 

[TexPat]

On a related note, let's say that the feds retest Armstrong's old samples and prove without a doubt that Armstrong lied during the SCA deposition. What recourse does SCA have? Would the settlement agreement preclude SCA from suing? Can SCA sue and claim that the settlement came about because Armstrong lied and therefore it should not be binding?

That's a damn good question. Where is Bob Hamman?

 

[Oldman]

Dave, think we need an astroturf forum, so all the Public Strategies folks can go and spew <hint: perhaps refine> their talking points.

And don't get sucked in by JV. I think he rode with one of the Canucks you told me about on Prime Alliance. He knowz. Cognitive dissonance and self-denial methinks. Pity. But a prototypical case in how one can hold dual and contradictory opinions on the one subject.

edit: think it was the other Canuck, well, one aint on GC now, but he was w/ JV on said team. Anyway, you have deepish background on the other.

More than one Prime Alliance alum told me the team punted one of them. The guy carried a cooler with him on the road. Finally one of the riders told him "he's dirty and should go home...plus you suck and get dropped". The majority of the guys were squeaky clean but...

 

[Nederick]

If it is shown through the investigation that the good name of USPS has been tainted by that cycling team, then I'd love to hear what Cliff Clavin would then have to say about it.

 

[Oldman]

On a related note, let's say that the feds retest Armstrong's old samples and prove without a doubt that Armstrong lied during the SCA deposition. What recourse does SCA have? Would the settlement agreement preclude SCA from suing? Can SCA sue and claim that the settlement came about because Armstrong lied and therefore it should not be binding?

Bro-I think it would go like-
He won't do time for perjury in that case because it was a civil case. Someone would need to open a separate criminal case based on new evidence to prove that point.
The USADA case is based on the items discussed and beaten to death: wire fraud, conspiracy to obtain or distribute controlled substances, misuse of Federal funds to obtain or distribute controlled substances, tax evasion, frauds related to the aforementioned crimes.
Perjury in this case would come if he's caught lying about the USADA issues. It's true his SCA testimony could be introduced and re-visited; drawing him into a position to commit prejury. If the information drawn from that is compelling enough the parties paying out the $5million in the SCA case may pursue him for civil fraud because they want their money back, plus damages. They could care less if he does time and would settle for the dough instead of the additional costs of pursuing a criminal sentence. LA would buy his way out in a non-disclosed settlement rather than going public. All of that may be a moot point when the other charges hit the fan.

It may be an expensive litigation considering all the piling on that could occur with Lance's empire and they may write it off as a bad bet.

 

[Neworld]

\. It's true his SCA testimony could be introduced and re-visited; drawing him into a position to commit prejury. If the information drawn from that is compelling enough the parties paying out the $5million in the SCA case may pursue him for civil fraud because they want their money back, plus damages. They could care less if he does time and would settle for the dough instead of the additional costs of pursuing a criminal sentence..

It may be an expensive litigation considering all the piling on that could occur with Lance's empire and they may write it off as a bad bet.

Could be true. Or SCA will wait in the wings and let the FDA do all the hard work, save their legal bills and then issue a revisitation of the case and win the 5Mil plus interest.

NW

 

[Oldman]

Could be true. Or SCA will wait in the wings and let the FDA do all the hard work, save their legal bills and then issue a revisitation of the case and win the 5Mil plus interest.

NW

Ya got to be in it ta win it. Claiming that money after multiple appeals is what adds to the litigation cost unless they could achieve significant damages as well. USADA isn't crafting a case for them and isn't concerned about future evidence being admissable, either. If your in it just for the money it will be classice risk/reward accounting that decides.

 

[Race Radio]

That's a damn good question. Where is Bob Hamman?

Bob is still in the game. He is following all of this closely. The challenge for Bob is by the time he can get a decision Wonderboy might not have anything left.

 

[TexPat]

Bob is still in the game. He is following all of this closely. The challenge for Bob is by the time he can get a decision Wonderboy might not have anything left.

Yes, but I reckon Bob, like many, will have a deep sense of satisfaction, which is priceless.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I hope vultures like SCA don't get a penny out of Armstrong. It was really lame of them to try to get out of paying bonus money that they had already promised. Really lame.

This will be an interesting thing to keep an eye on. Most US states have their own laws regarding arbitration. Lance prevailed in the SCA case because SCA's contract did not provide language that would allow surrender/return of his bonus for using PED's to win the event. Now, if the outcome of the Fed case shows he used the PED's, and the title is revoked, they will be full gas to seek a new ruling on their arbitration, starting again and probably winning, as Lance will not be the "winner" any longer.

For that to occur, I would imagine the USADA would need to prevail and withstand a probable CAS appeal, for the year in question.

This precise and exact ruling may be hard to get, and somewhat unnecessary, as there are easier ways to "skin the cat", so to speak.

 

[Polish]

I hope vultures like SCA don't get a penny out of Armstrong. It was really lame of them to try to get out of paying bonus money that they had already promised. Really lame.

+1

Their business probably suffered after they tried to renege on Lance and lost.
Are they even still in business? Still selling insurance?
Have they learned to add doping clauses lol?

Can't treat your customers like that and expect to do well.

 

[BroDeal]

I hope vultures like SCA don't get a penny out of Armstrong. It was really lame of them to try to get out of paying bonus money that they had already promised. Really lame.

When a professional arsonist takes out fire insurance on the home he plans to burn down, I am outraged that the insurance vultures balk at paying. Outraged I tell you.

 

[Dallas_]

Maybe, just maybe Novitzky is obliged to persue all crimes detected. In that case he may hand perjury files to another relevant authority to persue.

dallas

 

[BroDeal]

This will be an interesting thing to keep an eye on. Most US states have their own laws regarding arbitration. Lance prevailed in the SCA case because SCA's contract did not provide language that would allow surrender/return of his bonus for using PED's to win the event. Now, if the outcome of the Fed case shows he used the PED's, and the title is revoked, they will be full gas to seek a new ruling on their arbitration, starting again and probably winning, as Lance will not be the "winner" any longer.

For that to occur, I would imagine the USADA would need to prevail and withstand a probable CAS appeal, for the year in question.

This precise and exact ruling may be hard to get, and somewhat unnecessary, as there are easier ways to "skin the cat", so to speak.

It seems to me SCA should sue for insurance fraud. Tailwind Sports took out the insurance policy knowing full well that they intended to cheat to win. Arsonist taking out fire insurance.