Stephanie McIlvain Hates Lance

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
As for "years later" I thought this was all about things past, as in
during the USPS time period?

Betsy is 1996, that's Motorola. USPS is 1998.

Fred Flintstein

"Fred Flintstein" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
As for "years later" I thought this was all about things past, as in
during the USPS time period?

Betsy is 1996, that's Motorola. USPS is 1998.

Fred Flintstein

Right, I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise. I wonder how wide the
supboenas will go? I remember very well the excited phone call I got
from the guy who was the Trek team coordinator at the time, almost
foaming at the mouth over the fact that he'd gotten Trek to help sign
Lance a contract with the USPS team. I even have photos from my visit to
Lance's first training camp with the team. I will admit that I didn't
see the future then, not in the slightest. Lance was just a guy with an
interesting past but I certainly didn't visualize what he might
accomplish. This other guy did. Whether he knows anything at all about
stuff relevant to this case, I have no idea. He was certainly an
excellent judge of talent though, and to be around pro cyclists that
much...

(Nope, just checked, not of my photos from that training camp show any
cyclists with syringes they forgot to pull out of their arms when
leaving their rooms for a ride).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"BLafferty" wrote in message
...
On 9/26/2010 2:40 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote:
If the US Attorney has enough evidence from others to obtain a
perjury
conviction, I think he will go after her. It has nothing to do with
Armstrong. It has to do with lying to a Federal grand jury. That is
something US Attorneys will generally not tolerate. Ask Tammy.

Dumbass,

Aren't you the guy that was certain that Floyd was in the **** for
hackign the French lab's computer?

I think the qualifier you put on that statement means we both know
that she's not going to go down for perjury.

Fred Flintstein

... you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default attempt at
witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-)

"Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get
go down for perjury?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-)

On Sep 26, 2:46*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

I see we're on the same page regarding the money at least.

On the Stephanie issue though, the problem is that without physical
evidence, we have nothing but contradictory statements and no way to
prove who's lying. You say "The prosecutors will go after someone who
provably lies to a grand jury." I'm saying there's no there there. Not
yet anyway. Not until someone comes up with a way to corroborate
testimony with photos or receipts detailing or whatever. They're working
their weakest angle first, which doesn't make sense. Make the case the
other way around (enough financial forensics to prove that something
happened) and then your "witnesses" are under pressure to say a lot more
than "I don't recall" because they become part of a cover-up.

But you are correct that we don't actually know what Stephanie testified
to, and there could be reasons that I don't understand for her attorney
suggesting that, publicly, she sticks to a different story than what she
tells the grand jury. I'll leave it for you or Brian or whomever to fill
in the reasons why that might be.

I don't think her attorney would advise doing that.
I just mean that it matters _exactly_ what she said
and we don't have a direct quote, we have her lawyer
saying she said she had no personal knowledge of
doping by Mr. Armstrong, and what that means leaves
enough room for interpretation that I at least am
totally uncomfortable pontificating about whether
she lied or not.

Not sure the Libby case is relevant here; I think most are reasonably
comfortable with assumptions that the prosecution's actions were being
called from high-up (by "most" I mean people on both left & right). I
don't think Lance has that kind of pull. Do you?

I don't agree on Libby. I think the prosecutor brought and
tried the case he thought he could win, and declined to
bring charges against people when he thought the case
would be unprovable, that is when people could get away
with "I don't recall" to a reasonable doubt, which is why I
think it's relevant.

Whether the prosecutor thought those people were lying is
somewhat extraneous - it doesn't matter what he thinks, only
what he thinks he can prove. IMO, there was certainly
obstruction of that investigation, but with enough fog that some
of the obstructors got away with it. From Cheney's complaints
about Libby taking the fall for other people, I think he agreed,
in a sense.

Fredmaster Ben

On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/26/2010 2:40 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote:
If the US Attorney has enough evidence from others to obtain a
perjury
conviction, I think he will go after her. It has nothing to do with
Armstrong. It has to do with lying to a Federal grand jury. That is
something US Attorneys will generally not tolerate. Ask Tammy.

Dumbass,

Aren't you the guy that was certain that Floyd was in the **** for
hackign the French lab's computer?

I think the qualifier you put on that statement means we both know
that she's not going to go down for perjury.

Fred Flintstein

... you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default attempt at
witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-)

"Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get
go down for perjury?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-)

I have two predictions:

1) She doesn't go down for perjury.
2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response.

Fred Flintstein

On 9/27/2010 4:02 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/26/2010 2:40 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote:
If the US Attorney has enough evidence from others to obtain a
perjury
conviction, I think he will go after her. It has nothing to do with
Armstrong. It has to do with lying to a Federal grand jury. That is
something US Attorneys will generally not tolerate. Ask Tammy.

Dumbass,

Aren't you the guy that was certain that Floyd was in the **** for
hackign the French lab's computer?

I think the qualifier you put on that statement means we both know
that she's not going to go down for perjury.

Fred Flintstein

... you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default attempt at
witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-)

"Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get
go down for perjury?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-)

I have two predictions:

1) She doesn't go down for perjury.
2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response.

Fred Flintstein

I have predictions, too.

1. We'll all know what happens within two years.
2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a
****Tard. :-)

"BLafferty" wrote in message
...
On 9/27/2010 4:02 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/26/2010 2:40 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote:
If the US Attorney has enough evidence from others to obtain a
perjury
conviction, I think he will go after her. It has nothing to do with
Armstrong. It has to do with lying to a Federal grand jury. That is
something US Attorneys will generally not tolerate. Ask Tammy.

Dumbass,

Aren't you the guy that was certain that Floyd was in the **** for
hackign the French lab's computer?

I think the qualifier you put on that statement means we both know
that she's not going to go down for perjury.

Fred Flintstein

... you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default attempt at
witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-)

"Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get
go down for perjury?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-)

I have two predictions:

1) She doesn't go down for perjury.
2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response.

Fred Flintstein

I have predictions, too.

1. We'll all know what happens within two years.
2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a ...

Brian: You are in a position to hazard a reasonable guess on whether or not
they'll attempt to nail Stephanie on perjury. I'm not talking about the big
picture here, just this one thing. What do you think?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles

BLafferty wrote:
On 9/27/2010 4:02 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

"Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get
go down for perjury?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-)

I have two predictions:

1) She doesn't go down for perjury.
2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response.

Fred Flintstein

I have predictions, too.

1. We'll all know what happens within two years.
2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a
****Tard. :-)

I think that qualifies as a major candyass. Thanks.

She won't go down for perjury.

Fred Flintstein

Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote:
On 9/27/2010 4:02 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

"Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get
go down for perjury?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-)

I have two predictions:

1) She doesn't go down for perjury.
2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response.

Fred Flintstein

I have predictions, too.

1. We'll all know what happens within two years.
2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a
****Tard. :-)

I think that qualifies as a major candyass. Thanks.

She won't go down for perjury.


He has a history of candyassing in this precise way. It's why he'll
never be able to convincingly say "I told you so".

"I candyassed you so" doesn't have the same ring.

On 9/27/2010 10:07 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote:
On 9/27/2010 4:02 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

"Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get
go down for perjury?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-)

I have two predictions:

1) She doesn't go down for perjury.
2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response.

Fred Flintstein

I have predictions, too.

1. We'll all know what happens within two years.
2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a
****Tard. :-)

I think that qualifies as a major candyass. Thanks.

She won't go down for perjury.

Fred Flintstein
Whatever, ****Tard.