|
News in May
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 17:25
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:16
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Rinhoth wrote:
Saw your reply now Isso.
I just think they'll need quite a bit of proof before targeting her, and they will also need to prove that she knew about it.
But why? Why would they need evidence to target her? Landis alleged she witnessed at least two of the exchanges. If they're investigating Landis' allegations, it's impossible not to question her.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Rinhoth |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:23
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 300
Joined: 11-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Rinhoth wrote:
Saw your reply now Isso.
I just think they'll need quite a bit of proof before targeting her, and they will also need to prove that she knew about it.
But why? Why would they need evidence to target her? Landis alleged she witnessed at least two of the exchanges. If they're investigating Landis' allegations, it's impossible not to question her.
Yeah, of course, but before pressuring her in the way you suggested. They can't charge her on the basis of the Landis allegations alone, they'll need something more.
and one last thing, what is the probability that someone would get jailtime for obstuction in such a small case as this really is in law. It's not murder.
If children have the ability to ignore all odds and percentages, then maybe we can all learn from them. When you think about it, what other choice is there but to hope? We have two options, medically and emotionally: give up, or Fight Like Hell.
-Lance Armstrong
 |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:28
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Rinhoth wrote:
Yeah, of course, but before pressuring her in the way you suggested. They can't charge her on the basis of the Landis allegations alone, they'll need something more.
Once again. You're not getting it. Not charging her. Questioning her. And she has to answer. She has to. She cannot in any way get out of it. She has to answer the questions.
Rinhoth wrote:
and one last thing, what is the probability that someone would get jailtime for obstuction in such a small case as this really is in law. It's not murder.
She doesn't need to go in. She just needs to be aware of the possibility.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Rinhoth |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:33
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 300
Joined: 11-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Rinhoth wrote:
Yeah, of course, but before pressuring her in the way you suggested. They can't charge her on the basis of the Landis allegations alone, they'll need something more.
Once again. You're not getting it. Not charging her. Questioning her. And she has to answer. She has to. She cannot in any way get out of it. She has to answer the questions.
Rinhoth wrote:
and one last thing, what is the probability that someone would get jailtime for obstuction in such a small case as this really is in law. It's not murder.
She doesn't need to go in. She just needs to be aware of the possibility.
I get what you mean, but in a normal questioning, she does not have to answer. For that she needs to be subpoenaed to appear before a judge, and for this they'll need more than circumstancial evidence. Thee big flaw with american law, obstruction is only if you lie in an official hearing.
If children have the ability to ignore all odds and percentages, then maybe we can all learn from them. When you think about it, what other choice is there but to hope? We have two options, medically and emotionally: give up, or Fight Like Hell.
-Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:40
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
domestique's need dope as much as leaders
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:40
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Rinhoth wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Rinhoth wrote:
Yeah, of course, but before pressuring her in the way you suggested. They can't charge her on the basis of the Landis allegations alone, they'll need something more.
Once again. You're not getting it. Not charging her. Questioning her. And she has to answer. She has to. She cannot in any way get out of it. She has to answer the questions.
Rinhoth wrote:
and one last thing, what is the probability that someone would get jailtime for obstuction in such a small case as this really is in law. It's not murder.
She doesn't need to go in. She just needs to be aware of the possibility.
I get what you mean, but in a normal questioning, she does not have to answer. For that she needs to be subpoenaed to appear before a judge, and for this they'll need more than circumstancial evidence. Thee big flaw with american law, obstruction is only if you lie in an official hearing.
Again. The feds are involved. This is already an official investigation 
KenL wrote:
I believe American's have this "fifth amendment" clause that protects them from providing testimony that would incriminate themselves.
But she's done nothing illegal. So she can't plead the fifth, as pleading the fifth is in effect saying "I'm guilty of something illegal and I can't answer questions without inevitably explaining what I'm guilty of"
KenL wrote:
If so, she could just claim the "fifth" like they do in movies...
Movies are in no way, shape or form, realistic.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Rinhoth |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:40
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 300
Joined: 11-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
KenL wrote:
I believe American's have this "fifth amendment" clause that protects them from providing testimony that would incriminate themselves. If so, she could just claim the "fifth" like they do in movies...It would sure point guilt in LA's corner but would protect her and make the this point inadmissible. The LA-Johann mafia has wiggled out too many times to think that they won't again...
This story will only come out properly when LA keels over from premature old age (20 years tops) set on by the deformation of his organs from abuse. A death bed confession when he couldn't give a "Texas Rats a** about his legacy.  
Sad to hear about Barry though  ...This now conflicts with my goodbye LA view...Part of me wants to see it disappear because of Barry (Why? you are a super D for C-sake).
The fifth amendment doesn't matter in the cas of Kristin, as a testimony would not incriminate her, unless she herself has used, or personally bought/held illegal drugs.
If children have the ability to ignore all odds and percentages, then maybe we can all learn from them. When you think about it, what other choice is there but to hope? We have two options, medically and emotionally: give up, or Fight Like Hell.
-Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Rinhoth |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:43
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 300
Joined: 11-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Again. The feds are involved. This is already an official investigation
Yes, but to get her to confess anything, they will need to get enough evidence against her to subpoena her to appear in front of a judge, therefore, she should not be their immediate priority, although they should take hear in for a questioning. They won't get anything unless they can get that subpoena.
If children have the ability to ignore all odds and percentages, then maybe we can all learn from them. When you think about it, what other choice is there but to hope? We have two options, medically and emotionally: give up, or Fight Like Hell.
-Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:46
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
That's where we disagree. I'm pretty sure they can easily get a subpoena with the current information, as she is an absolutely vital witness to both sides.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| valverde321 |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:46
|
World Champion
Posts: 12986
Joined: 20-05-2009
PCM$: 530.00
|
I hope Barry has been clean for his whole career. This actually shocked me to the bone. He seems so innocent of everything and yet he's being accused. But I guess one might act all nice but hide the serpent within.
(BTW this is the first cycling story to make news in Canada for about 3 months. Unfortunetely its terrible news.)
I hate LAndis.
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:47
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
KenL wrote:
I believe American's have this "fifth amendment" clause that protects them from providing testimony that would incriminate themselves.
But she's done nothing illegal. So she can't plead the fifth, as pleading the fifth is in effect saying "I'm guilty of something illegal and I can't answer questions without inevitably explaining what I'm guilty of"
If they can only prove she knew Lance took drugs (I assume you are talking about his ex-wife, again I didn't look all the way up), and did not witness any illegal activity herself, she can hide behind spousal privilege. |
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:48
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
That's where we disagree. I'm pretty sure they can easily get a subpoena with the current information, as she is an absolutely vital witness to both sides.
Depends on a lot, most of all the judge. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:50
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
issoisso wrote:
KenL wrote:
I believe American's have this "fifth amendment" clause that protects them from providing testimony that would incriminate themselves.
But she's done nothing illegal. So she can't plead the fifth, as pleading the fifth is in effect saying "I'm guilty of something illegal and I can't answer questions without inevitably explaining what I'm guilty of"
If they can only prove she knew Lance took drugs (I assume you are talking about his ex-wife, again I didn't look all the way up), and did not witness any illegal activity herself, she can hide behind spousal privilege.
*slaps*
How dare you not read everything and still reply? 
As I said above, I did some digging and I can 100% confirm that she is no longer covered by spousal privilege. Spousal privilege does not apply according to when they were married, but according to when the investigation takes place.
KenL wrote:
Point taken about the Fifth...However, the taking away of her children comments kinda suggests she has committed some crime or offense...
The whole point is that obstruction of justice is a crime.
Edited by issoisso on 21-05-2010 22:51
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Rinhoth |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:52
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 300
Joined: 11-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
That's where we disagree. I'm pretty sure they can easily get a subpoena with the current information, as she is an absolutely vital witness to both sides.
Let's hope they can, but for some reason I doubt she will talk, at least for a while. Lance's setup seems almost watertight. If he has doped, then I'm impressed with how they've managed to contain all evidence.
If children have the ability to ignore all odds and percentages, then maybe we can all learn from them. When you think about it, what other choice is there but to hope? We have two options, medically and emotionally: give up, or Fight Like Hell.
-Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:53
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
issoisso wrote:
KenL wrote:
I believe American's have this "fifth amendment" clause that protects them from providing testimony that would incriminate themselves.
But she's done nothing illegal. So she can't plead the fifth, as pleading the fifth is in effect saying "I'm guilty of something illegal and I can't answer questions without inevitably explaining what I'm guilty of"
If they can only prove she knew Lance took drugs (I assume you are talking about his ex-wife, again I didn't look all the way up), and did not witness any illegal activity herself, she can hide behind spousal privilege.
*slaps*
How dare you not read everything and still reply?
As I said above, I did some digging and I can 100% confirm that she is no longer covered by spousal privilege. Spousal privilege does not apply according to when they were married, but according to when the investigation takes place.
It varies by state statute, but it always covers any conversation that occurred during the period they were married. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:55
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
issoisso wrote:
KenL wrote:
I believe American's have this "fifth amendment" clause that protects them from providing testimony that would incriminate themselves.
But she's done nothing illegal. So she can't plead the fifth, as pleading the fifth is in effect saying "I'm guilty of something illegal and I can't answer questions without inevitably explaining what I'm guilty of"
If they can only prove she knew Lance took drugs (I assume you are talking about his ex-wife, again I didn't look all the way up), and did not witness any illegal activity herself, she can hide behind spousal privilege.
*slaps*
How dare you not read everything and still reply?
As I said above, I did some digging and I can 100% confirm that she is no longer covered by spousal privilege. Spousal privilege does not apply according to when they were married, but according to when the investigation takes place.
It varies by state statute, but it always covers any conversation that occurred during the period they were married.
I'm telling you it doesn't. Took me a while to find an answer, believe me.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 21-05-2010 22:55
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
issoisso wrote:
KenL wrote:
I believe American's have this "fifth amendment" clause that protects them from providing testimony that would incriminate themselves.
But she's done nothing illegal. So she can't plead the fifth, as pleading the fifth is in effect saying "I'm guilty of something illegal and I can't answer questions without inevitably explaining what I'm guilty of"
If they can only prove she knew Lance took drugs (I assume you are talking about his ex-wife, again I didn't look all the way up), and did not witness any illegal activity herself, she can hide behind spousal privilege.
*slaps*
How dare you not read everything and still reply?
As I said above, I did some digging and I can 100% confirm that she is no longer covered by spousal privilege. Spousal privilege does not apply according to when they were married, but according to when the investigation takes place.
It varies by state statute, but it always covers any conversation that occurred during the period they were married.
I'm telling you it doesn't. Took me a while to find an answer, believe
me.
Show me where you found it then. If that was true it would contradict the entire idea of the rule.
Edited by Deadpool on 21-05-2010 22:56
|
| |
|
|
| spudde |
Posted on 21-05-2010 23:01
|
Free Agent
Posts: 130
Joined: 08-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't see how they can really say a "talk or there is a possibility of going to jail" line to Armstrong's former wife immediately when they in fact don't know that anything has happened. I mean, I would think that it is unlikely that she would be the one to tell everything she has seen ( if indeed she has seen something) first. If no other cyclist accused here verifies something Landis has said, I don't see how she would have any reason to do anything. All the encounters Landis has said to have happened, only Floyd, Lance and his wife were apparently present (according to Landis). So how can anyone say that the wife was actually present during these encounters as Lance isn't going to throw her under the bus and Floyd is the one telling the story so his word isn't really cutting it. Of course there is the danger if they go to her first that she says something that will be contradicted later on in the investigation but if the questions are related to these encounters with Landis, I don't see how they can prove anything. However, if they get more information from another cyclist that she was present during some activities, it wouldn't be so easy for her to get out of the hook.
Also, I don't think it is out of Landis' reach to tell a story just to pull the wife into the investigation with a lie if he suspects or knows that she knows relevant things. The guy already put up a fund for his innocence claims, effectively stealing people's money when he in fact knew that he cheated. Just how selfish can you be to do that? ... That is why I don't even know if I believe everything Landis has said as it wouldn't be exactly out of character to lie to gain some sick pleasure for him. |
| |
|
|
| fenian_1234 |
Posted on 22-05-2010 00:15
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4790
Joined: 06-12-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
This is getting bizarre.
The facts are (imo  ) that Landis is mostly telling the truth this time - and if you doubt that, then you probably believed Floyd didn't dope in the first place and you are not worth talking to.
For me, I just wish he'd kept his mouth shut. I don't think doping will ever be eradicated, and all this does is draw even more negative publicitity to the sport and push us further away from my dream of having start-finish coverage of most races on TV at the expense of tennis or U12 Football. |
| |
|
|
| Quavis |
Posted on 22-05-2010 00:32
|
Amateur
Posts: 12
Joined: 20-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm pretty sure Deadpool is correct on this one and there is no way they can force Kristen to testify about this as it would fall under spousal privilege as it occured while they were married.
I believe if Kristen wanted to talk to the Feds about it, she could and it would be admissible, but as mentioned the breakup didn't seem that nasty and I don't believe she would. (I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't clauses in the divorce so that she really can't).
Either way, I still really don't see the Fed's having much of a case to look into in this one. Unlike BALCO, which was owned and operated in the US, just about everything here seems to have occurred overseas and not within US jurisdiction. |
| |
|
