A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stephanie McIlvain Hates Lance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 25th 10, 04:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fredmaster of Brainerd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default They can't let Stephanie walk

On Sep 23, 9:33*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

Whatever she did, she did with the advice of very-well-paid legal
counsel; it was not a decision she made on her own. In you're into
conspiracies (I'm suggesting that's a question and not a statement of
fact???) then your next move is to suggest that she's being promised the
moon by Oakley to protect Lance, basically taking the bullet for the
team. A high-stakes gamble that could either derail the entire process
(no perjury charges brought to bear on her, emboldening others to "not
recall" thing) or, if that fails, put her away for a while (with a
promise of significant compensation for her, er, work).

It could work.


I doubt that any responsible legal counsel for Oakley
would touch that with a hundred-foot pole. They could
easily arrange for her to have as good legal advice as
they can afford, but any quid pro quo for testimony
risks sending all of upper management within the
blast radius to jail.

Fredmaster Ben

Ads
  #22  
Old September 25th 10, 05:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,972
Default They can't let Stephanie walk


"Fredmaster of Brainerd" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

Whatever she did, she did with the advice of very-well-paid legal
counsel; it was not a decision she made on her own. In you're into
conspiracies (I'm suggesting that's a question and not a statement of
fact???) then your next move is to suggest that she's being promised
the
moon by Oakley to protect Lance, basically taking the bullet for the
team. A high-stakes gamble that could either derail the entire process
(no perjury charges brought to bear on her, emboldening others to "not
recall" thing) or, if that fails, put her away for a while (with a
promise of significant compensation for her, er, work).

It could work.

=========
I doubt that any responsible legal counsel for Oakley
would touch that with a hundred-foot pole. They could
easily arrange for her to have as good legal advice as
they can afford, but any quid pro quo for testimony
risks sending all of upper management within the
blast radius to jail.

Fredmaster Ben
=========

You're not into conspiracies like some. Relax your standards a bit. It
makes the normal mundane day-to-day stuff more interesting.

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


  #23  
Old September 26th 10, 07:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
BLafferty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 186
Default They can't let Stephanie walk

On 9/24/2010 10:01 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Brad Anders" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be
brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon.


========
IMO, wasting time charging and prosecuring her isn't a priority for
the "get Lance!" team. Why waste ammo on small fry when you've got the
prize in your sights?

Brad Anders
========

Brad: The issue with Stephanie is that it's the best publicly-documented
he-said she-said thing out there. Everybody knows about it, and in the
absence of any hard physical evidence, the entire case is going to hinge
on he-said she-said stuff. It has been assumed that people would be
coerced to testify (I say "coerced" because if they'd wanted to talk
about this stuff previously, they would have) due to the legal
ramifications of denying that you know something that the prosecutor
thinks you do. So they offer immunity. But immunity is not such a huge
deal if the bear has no teeth, and if the bear doesn't go after
Stephanie...

If I were Novitsky, I'd be throwing everything at Stephanie. No way
would I let her walk away claiming she doesn't recall, or she has no
recollection of any conversation in which Lance said he had taken PEDs.
That's not the sort of conversation you'd forget. If you don't go after
her, you're giving credibility to her version of the story, and letting
everyone else know they can say or not say whatever they want.

Her testimony cannot go unchallenged. Novitsky's no dummy, so I suspect
something will come of this.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


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.
  #24  
Old September 26th 10, 07:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fred Flintstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,038
Default They can't let Stephanie walk

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
  #25  
Old September 26th 10, 08:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
BLafferty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 186
Default They can't let Stephanie walk

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


****Tard, you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default
attempt at witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-)
  #26  
Old September 26th 10, 08:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,972
Default They can't let Stephanie walk

"Fred Flintstein" wrote in message
...
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


And that sends a signal to everyone else who hasn't yet testified. It
remains a he-said she-said situation with opportunities for
relatively-safe plausible deniability. Unless someone is worried about
physical evidence turning up, there's not much to come back to them.
That's not to say that Armstrong wouldn't have a problem himself if the
1999 samples play out badly for him, but there's nothing about those
samples that would cause problems for the others who have testified,
near as I can tell.

The lawyers here can argue this one back & forth as much as they want,
but at some point you have to think like a "normal" person and a
"normal" person who's been caught up in all of this and concerned about
the ramifications of "not recalling" things is going to feel great
comfort from a situation in which Stephanie walks. I certainly would,
even if I had nothing to hide.

At this point, I would be bringing in financial forensics specialists
and really put the hurt on the money players involved. Whether it's
Wiesel or Lance or whomever, if you've got reason to believe that $$$
were used inappropriately and start digging through the books, who knows
what you might find, and such a threat would be, I think, the easiest
path to a victory, or at least a plea bargain, for the prosecution.
Bring on the accountants. Nobody likes accountants. My apologies to
those here who are accountants.

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


  #27  
Old September 26th 10, 09:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fred Flintstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,038
Default They can't let Stephanie walk

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Fred Flintstein" wrote in message
...
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


And that sends a signal to everyone else who hasn't yet testified. It
remains a he-said she-said situation with opportunities for
relatively-safe plausible deniability. Unless someone is worried about
physical evidence turning up, there's not much to come back to them.
That's not to say that Armstrong wouldn't have a problem himself if the
1999 samples play out badly for him, but there's nothing about those
samples that would cause problems for the others who have testified,
near as I can tell.

The lawyers here can argue this one back & forth as much as they want,
but at some point you have to think like a "normal" person and a
"normal" person who's been caught up in all of this and concerned about
the ramifications of "not recalling" things is going to feel great
comfort from a situation in which Stephanie walks. I certainly would,
even if I had nothing to hide.

At this point, I would be bringing in financial forensics specialists
and really put the hurt on the money players involved. Whether it's
Wiesel or Lance or whomever, if you've got reason to believe that $$$
were used inappropriately and start digging through the books, who knows
what you might find, and such a threat would be, I think, the easiest
path to a victory, or at least a plea bargain, for the prosecution.
Bring on the accountants. Nobody likes accountants. My apologies to
those here who are accountants.

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


Given that you have no clear proof that she lied, I think
that's a huge overreaction. Remember, she isn't the least
bit relevant to what might have happened years later.

If you are going to go fishing, only a dumbass casts into
a rain barrel.

Fred Flintstein
  #28  
Old September 26th 10, 09:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fredmaster of Brainerd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default They can't let Stephanie walk

On Sep 26, 12:12*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"Fred Flintstein" wrote in message
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


And that sends a signal to everyone else who hasn't yet testified. It
remains a he-said she-said situation with opportunities for
relatively-safe plausible deniability. Unless someone is worried about
physical evidence turning up, there's not much to come back to them.
That's not to say that Armstrong wouldn't have a problem himself if the
1999 samples play out badly for him, but there's nothing about those
samples that would cause problems for the others who have testified,
near as I can tell.

The lawyers here can argue this one back & forth as much as they want,
but at some point you have to think like a "normal" person and a
"normal" person who's been caught up in all of this and concerned about
the ramifications of "not recalling" things is going to feel great
comfort from a situation in which Stephanie walks. I certainly would,
even if I had nothing to hide.

At this point, I would be bringing in financial forensics specialists
and really put the hurt on the money players involved. Whether it's
Wiesel or Lance or whomever, if you've got reason to believe that $$$
were used inappropriately and start digging through the books, who knows
what you might find, and such a threat would be, I think, the easiest
path to a victory, or at least a plea bargain, for the prosecution.
Bring on the accountants. Nobody likes accountants. My apologies to
those here who are accountants.


Signal, shmignal.

If you read what Lafferty said literally, I think it's
pretty much correct, and not inconsistent with what
Flintstein said either. The prosecutors will go after
someone who provably lies to a grand jury. Forget
what signal McIlvain's testimony sent. If you are a
potential witness in this case, you are well advised
to tell the truth and the whole truth if there is a possibility
that evidence exists that will contradict your evasion.

That doesn't mean you can't say "I don't recall" about
something that happened 10-15 years ago. It means
that if last year you told your 5 best friends about X and
this year you say you don't recall X, you may be in deep
trouble. Remember that we don't actually know what
McIlvain literally said (and the literalities matter) and
so our ideas about whether she dissembled in her
testimony are based mostly on our presumptions.

Again to bring up the Scooter Libby case, there was a
lot of documentary evidence that Libby had been so
deeply involved that his lack of recollection was not
believable. Similar evidence did not exist against Karl
Rove, for example, which is why he skated and did not
get indicted.

As for the accountants, the money trail has always been
the best angle for uncovering illicit behavior, even though
it is not as media-friendly as whether "OMG LANCE
confessed to doping on his near-death-bed!!"
Especially since somewhere down in the murk, this is
supposed to be a fraud case.

Fredfollowthemoney Ben
  #29  
Old September 26th 10, 10:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,972
Default They can't let Stephanie walk


"Fred Flintstein" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Fred Flintstein" wrote in message
...
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


And that sends a signal to everyone else who hasn't yet testified. It
remains a he-said she-said situation with opportunities for
relatively-safe plausible deniability. Unless someone is worried
about physical evidence turning up, there's not much to come back to
them. That's not to say that Armstrong wouldn't have a problem
himself if the 1999 samples play out badly for him, but there's
nothing about those samples that would cause problems for the others
who have testified, near as I can tell.

The lawyers here can argue this one back & forth as much as they
want, but at some point you have to think like a "normal" person and
a "normal" person who's been caught up in all of this and concerned
about the ramifications of "not recalling" things is going to feel
great comfort from a situation in which Stephanie walks. I certainly
would, even if I had nothing to hide.

At this point, I would be bringing in financial forensics specialists
and really put the hurt on the money players involved. Whether it's
Wiesel or Lance or whomever, if you've got reason to believe that $$$
were used inappropriately and start digging through the books, who
knows what you might find, and such a threat would be, I think, the
easiest path to a victory, or at least a plea bargain, for the
prosecution. Bring on the accountants. Nobody likes accountants. My
apologies to those here who are accountants.

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


Given that you have no clear proof that she lied, I think
that's a huge overreaction. Remember, she isn't the least
bit relevant to what might have happened years later.


But that's my point. We have contradictory statements, but no clear
proof as to who lied.

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

If you are going to go fishing, only a dumbass casts into
a rain barrel.

Fred Flintstein


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


  #30  
Old September 26th 10, 10:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fred Flintstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,038
Default They can't let Stephanie walk

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
Especially since somewhere down in the murk, this is
supposed to be a fraud case.


Oh yeah, fraud. And given that US Postal certainly saw tremendous
benefit from an association with a multiple Tour de France
winner and cancer philanthropist, I can't wait until Novitsky
stops screwing around and gets down to the fraud angle.

What I wonder about is whether Novitsky has to justify his time
to anyone. And when that person will consider pulling the plug.

Fred Flintstein
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
McIlvain subpoenaed by feds Magilla Gorilla[_2_] Racing 10 September 16th 10 10:58 PM
Lance hates whistleblowers Frankie VDB Racing 2 September 14th 10 05:14 AM
What Will McIlvain Tell A Grand Jury? B. Lafferty[_3_] Racing 12 July 27th 10 03:34 AM
Stephanie Flanders interview Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] UK 2 July 28th 09 01:37 AM
Lance Armstrong hates Plano Texas explorer Racing 25 August 3rd 04 02:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.