Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
In there it will say (if Lancey said it) that the patient took bucket loads of EPO and was worried that it would affect his cancer treatment.

 

 

He did take EPO as part of his cancer treatment

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

yep. who would a credible witness be in this saga? I can't think of one. Maybe Betsy Andreu. She had nothing to gain from telling her story.

 

Good point. That her story about what she heard was corroborated by the friends she found solace in when she threatened to call off her wedding leant her some credence.

Posted

Good point. That her story about what she heard was corroborated by the friends she found solace in when she threatened to call off her wedding leant her some credence.

 

Yep, her conscience seems to have gotten the better of her, both with Frankie's drug use and with the Lance thing.

 

Looks like Mc Ilvain has received a subpoena. Did anyone mention that? Somebody wants to hear from her again..

 

Prosecutors have subpoenaed the woman who sources say is Stephanie McIlvain, a longtime liaison to Armstrong for one of his major sponsors, the eyewear company Oakley Inc.

http://www.nytimes.c...=3&pagewanted=1

Posted

Well then perhaps the frogs need to get out the pond then.

 

theres not much they can do. If the feds dont ask them for evidence, their samples mean nothing..

 

altho - i've always wondered why UCI never followed up on those positive tests?

Posted

This saga is starting to sound like a circus again, conspiracy theories, threats, supposedly illegal tapes, hearsay, procedural flaws etc.

 

Cant wait for the Hollywood version to hit the big screen :)

Posted
This saga is starting to sound like a circus again, conspiracy theories, threats, supposedly illegal tapes, hearsay, procedural flaws etc.

 

Cant wait for the Hollywood version to hit the big screen

 

Let's think of a name for such movie: "The Texas Ranger rides high" ;)

Posted

This saga is starting to sound like a circus again, conspiracy theories, threats, supposedly illegal tapes, hearsay, procedural flaws etc.

 

Cant wait for the Hollywood version to hit the big screen :)

 

With Matt Damon in the lead role?

 

You should read Matt Walsh's takes on the "drama" on www.atwistedspoke.com

Posted

All you legal experts out these need to take notice that this is a "federal grand jury". Way, waaaaaaaay different to a normal court. Different rules and they allow much wider evidence and apply different rules to what is admisable or not. Go and do some investigating...

 

(PS Thanks for starting a Lance thread. This Friday was kinda boring, but I'll go and get some fresh coffee before this heats up!)

Posted

All you legal experts out these need to take notice that this is a "federal grand jury". Way, waaaaaaaay different to a normal court. Different rules and they allow much wider evidence and apply different rules to what is admisable or not. Go and do some investigating...

 

(PS Thanks for starting a Lance thread. This Friday was kinda boring, but I'll go and get some fresh coffee before this heats up!)

 

True, a couple of hours of waterboarding and they'll all be singing like canaries. :-)

Posted

I have mixed feelings about Lance being busted. On the one hand you know he's guilty, but on the other hand you know it's gonna suck when he's found guilty because there would be nothing left to discuss. A bit like someone proving PowerBands are just plastic bracelets or that OJ really did it. Obvious, but much more fun when there's a bit of doubt left...

Posted

Im with Eldron, wont take a crappy laywer 20 seconds to have whatever is on that tape labeled as inadmissible. Its all circumstanial and based on heresay. And recorded without permission which by default would be considered inadmissable evidence. We have the same law in SA its only legal to record a conversation if you inform the party that the conversation is being recorded.

 

Quoted from the article

 

"McIlvain was in California during the conversation with LeMond. California law requires consent by both parties of a recording. Legal expert Laurie Levenson said in federal cases, however, taped conversations can be used as evidence as long as one of the parties â LeMond in this case â is aware of the taping."

Posted

(PS Thanks for starting a Lance thread. This Friday was kinda boring, but I'll go and get some fresh coffee before this heats up!)

 

You gonna get your barrista-in-training to make it? Or is he at school?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout