Professional Cycling For the Fans - Andreu vs. Armstrong - new voicemail tape emerges

"Betsy Andreu has told the Los Angeles Times that US Food and Drug Administration agent Jeff Novitzky who is leading an investigation into the existence of doping in professional cycling in the US - including the specific allegations made by Floyd Landis - is in possession of voicemail recordings left on her answering machine by McIlvain.

According to Andreu, the tapes indicate that McIlvain lied when testifying during the SCA case. Andreu says the voicemails are consistent with other telephone conversations she had with McIlvain during which, according to the LA Times report, she claims McIlvain apologised to her for lying about her previous testimony."

McIlvain and Oakley probably thought that once the SCA case was over, everything would be swept up under the rug. I would say that Stephanie McIlvain is in some deep, deep doo doo. Questions abound. Did Armstrong have any contact whatsoever with her or Oakley reps to ensure her "job"? The question is now, is she going to lie to cover up a lie?

Article here:
http://road.cc/content/news/22388-andreus-vs-armstrong-kicks-again

^^^^^^Dick Pound........... I didn't know you were here at BF. Are you and Greg LeMond seeing the same shink?

Johan Bruyneel...is... is that you?... Damn, BF is becoming a Monster!

LOL!! Read the article and it says that this has already gone through the court process in relation to the 6th Tour win and the court found in Lance's favor! Doesn't that sort of set a precedence? To go at the same allegations would be double jeopardy would it not? I'm pretty new here and believe that many if not all the top riders cheat somehow or another. Same in all sports but someone sure comes off like a jilted lover all over this forum in relation to Lance.

"Betsy Andreu has told the Los Angeles Times that US Food and Drug Administration agent Jeff Novitzky who is leading an investigation into the existence of doping in professional cycling in the US - including the specific allegations made by Floyd Landis - is in possession of voicemail recordings left on her answering machine by McIlvain.

According to Andreu, the tapes indicate that McIlvain lied when testifying during the SCA case. Andreu says the voicemails are consistent with other telephone conversations she had with McIlvain during which, according to the LA Times report, she claims McIlvain apologised to her for lying about her previous testimony."

McIlvain and Oakley probably thought that once the SCA case was over, everything would be swept up under the rug. I would say that Stephanie McIlvain is in some deep, deep doo doo. Questions abound. Did Armstrong have any contact whatsoever with her or Oakley reps to ensure her "job"? The question is now, is she going to lie to cover up a lie?

Article here:
http://road.cc/content/news/22388-andreus-vs-armstrong-kicks-again

Blah, Blah, BlahBlahBlah, Blah Blah. It's amazing how someone rides a few Cat3 round-de-rounds and they declare themselves a world class expert on cycling. This is not a cycling thread, wrong forum. Call Oprah, or maybe even Judge Judy, gossip forums open at 5. Yet another weak reprint from the internet.

It's pretty amusing how strongly the Armstrong groupies here are arguing against justice.

LOL!! Read the article and it says that this has already gone through the court process in relation to the 6th Tour win ...
No.

... and the court found in Lance's favor!
No

Doesn't that sort of set a precedence?
No

To go at the same allegations would be double jeopardy would it not?
No.
But thanks for the contribution.

LOL!! Read the article and it says that this has already gone through the court process in relation to the 6th Tour win and the court found in Lance's favor! Doesn't that sort of set a precedence? To go at the same allegations would be double jeopardy would it not? I'm pretty new here and believe that many if not all the top riders cheat somehow or another. Same in all sports but someone sure comes off like a jilted lover all over this forum in relation to Lance.

You do not understand what happened in that court proceeding. The judge ruling in Armstrong's favor was not a determination of if Lance doped or not. The judge ruled in Lance's favor because he determined that the money that was owed Lance was to be paid by the guarantor of the prize money which was an insurance company. The insurance company was trying to get out of paying because they heard that Lance may have cheated by doping.

The judge ruled that the insurance company did not have the jurisdiction or right to decide if Armstrong was the winner of the TDF and since the ruling body called the UCI considered Armstrong the winner. The insurance company did not have the jurisdiction or authority to challenge Lance's victory status.

So the court ruling in Lance's favor was not whether he doped or not but whether or not an insurance company has the right to determine if someone is the rightful winner of a professional sporting event. In essence, the judged ruled that the insurance company could not challenge the UCI's ruling that Lance was the TDF winner. And that the determination of cheating by doping remained the responsibility and authority of the UCI.

You do not understand what happened in that court proceeding. The judge ruling in Armstrong's favor was not a determination of if Lance doped or not. The judge ruled in Lance's favor because he determined that the money that was owed Lance was to be paid by the guarantor of the prize money which was an insurance company. The insurance company was trying to get out of paying because they heard that Lance may have cheated by doping.

The judge ruled that the insurance company did not have the jurisdiction or right to decide if Armstrong was the winner of the TDF and since the ruling body called the UCI considered Armstrong the winner. The insurance company did not have the jurisdiction or authority to challenge Lance's victory status.

So the court ruling in Lance's favor was not whether he doped or not but whether or not an insurance company has the right to determine if someone is the rightful winner of a professional sporting event. In essence, the judged ruled that the insurance company could not challenge the UCI's ruling that Lance was the TDF winner. And that the determination of cheating by doping remained the responsibility and authority of the UCI.

Cool Hezz, and you are right I did not know what happened just went by the article provided. What you said makes perfect sense to me. I still wonder at all the hatred towards Lance that get's displayed. Professional sports are entertainment to me it I suspect most of our top athletes cheat because that is the norm. Not saying it's right or that I like it but just what I feel goes on. If the perception is that everyone is cheating is it so wrong to go that route yourself?? I ask this even though for me it would be. I guess I just try not to judge others if I don't walk in their shoes.

No.

No

No

No.
But thanks for the contribution.

And thanks to Hezz for explaining the actual specifics of the case.

And thanks to Hezz for explaining the actual specifics of the case.

Since you bothered to write out your entire post I assumed you already had ample reason to believe what you wrote was true. I was merely alerting others to your errors. If you wanted information perhaps you should have asked a question rather than posting your fanciful version of events.

The judge ruled that the insurance company did not have the jurisdiction or right to decide if Armstrong was the winner of the TDF and since the ruling body called the UCI considered Armstrong the winner. The insurance company did not have the jurisdiction or authority to challenge Lance's victory status.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I've only recently begun to follow professional cycling closely, but my impression is that almost all of this ground has been previously covered and that the only new element is what may be unreported income from the sale of team bikes. Any thoughts?

Since you bothered to write out your entire post I assumed you already had ample reason to believe what you wrote was true. I was merely alerting others to your errors. If you wanted information perhaps you should have asked a question rather than posting your fanciful version of events. LOL!, I'm just starting to get a feel for what a touchy subject this is for so many. I'm curious as to what the truth but others seem to be following it with a passion. Oh and my comments were not meant to be "fanciful" as you put it. But with such little info in the article it just goes to show how one can interpret it their own way. No big deal though, cheers.

Extensive new interview with Betsy Andreu.

Makes for interesting reading, if you want to know her side of the story:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5699/Betsy-Andreu-speaks-about-Lance-Armstrongs-involvement-in-the-Floyd-Landis-investigation.aspx

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I've only recently begun to follow professional cycling closely, but my impression is that almost all of this ground has been previously covered and that the only new element is what may be unreported income from the sale of team bikes. Any thoughts?

I read this book this spring:

http://www.amazon.com/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1284780942&sr=8-1

So far what is leaking out in the press about the Novitzky investigation is pretty much following this book, page by page.

A more condensed version is in the current Men's Journal magazine (not online). I read that story the other night -- it's a pretty comprehensive summary of the "case against Lance."

Yeah, it seems like same old, same old except for the sale of the bikes.

VN: What factored into your decision to take on someone like Lance Armstrong, and what motivates you to keep going?

BA: We didn’t decide to “take him on”. We decided not to lie for him.

These days deciding not to lie is called 'having an ax to grind'.

what I'm not sure of is Betsy's testimony implicates lance using PEDS pre cancer.
How does that affect the investigation of US postal and Discovery team?

what I'm not sure of is Betsy's testimony implicates lance using PEDS pre cancer.
How does that affect the investigation of US postal and Discovery team?

I think the the important thing about Betsy's testimony is that it's not about ancient history (what happened back in the 90's, when "everyone was doing it."). It's about whether anyone committed perjury when they testified in Lance's lawsuit against SCA Promotions; and this was just a couple of years ago (2007?). Lance was suing to get his Tour de France bonus ($5M), and Betsy testified that he had admitted using PEDs while in the hospital. She said that Stephanie McIlvain would corroborate her story, but under oath, Stephanie didn't. Allegedly, there are tapes of Stephanie admitting, in voicemails to Greg Lemond and Betsy Andreu, that she lied. The implication is that her employer (Oakley) persuaded her *not* to testify against Lance, or that Lance pressured her directly.

So: was Stephanie telling the truth when she left voicemails saying she witnessed the PEDS conversation? Or was she telling the truth when she testified -- she can't have it both ways.

It's seems to me that this is useful to the prosecutors because it's recent; it occurred on U.S. soil; and it's worth going after. Even if you don't care about Lance doping, surely you would care about wealthy athletes putting pressure on people to change their testimony in a legal case. I think this is a case of the prosecutors going after the "coverup" even if they can't go after the "crime."

Cool Hezz, and you are right I did not know what happened just went by the article provided. What you said makes perfect sense to me. I still wonder at all the hatred towards Lance that get's displayed. Professional sports are entertainment to me it I suspect most of our top athletes cheat because that is the norm. Not saying it's right or that I like it but just what I feel goes on. If the perception is that everyone is cheating is it so wrong to go that route yourself?? I ask this even though for me it would be. I guess I just try not to judge others if I don't walk in their shoes.

Thanks for your response jamesdak. I myself did not understand the nature of this case for a long time either.

In a way the judge was able to sidestep the real issue of if Lance doped or not. Most likely because he knew that this case was a can of worms that could set a precedent which would cause problems for sports in the long run if any agency owing money to a professional sports winner could withhold if they thought or heard rumors of cheating. It could also flood the legal system with expensive and difficult to determine lawsuits.

The reason for much of the Armstrong hate is that many long time cycling fans have studied cycling and Armstrong in detail over years. Reading many books with insider information. What they come to discover is that the media representation of Armstrong is very much distorted.

It is starting to become clear that Armstrong not only used performance enhancing drugs in a long term and systematic way but that he used his influence and financial power to destroy others who sought to tell the truth about the inner sanctums of cycling. So Armstrong may not just be a doper, but in fact, a criminal.

It's pretty amusing how strongly the Armstrong groupies here are arguing against justice.

It's pretty amusing how strongly the Armstrong haters here are arguing against innocence without proof.

It's pretty amusing how strongly the Armstrong haters here are arguing against innocence without proof.

It is more amusing that you think there is no proof.

Show the proof.

what I'm not sure of is Betsy's testimony implicates lance using PEDS pre cancer.
How does that affect the investigation of US postal and Discovery team?Good question.

I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty of perjury or use of PEDS. I just wondered if Betsy's testimony is germane to the case that Novitsky is working.
And as far as I can tell, her testimony had nothing to do with the SCA claim that lance doped to win his 6 tours.

I don't know what the statute of limitation of perjury is in the US, but I guess it's more a case of divide&conquer - threatening people with criminal action who are close to Armstrong to make them turn on him and testify about things that can be linked to him more directly.

I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty of perjury or use of PEDS. I just wondered if Betsy's testimony is germane to the case that Novitsky is working.
And as far as I can tell, her testimony had nothing to do with the SCA claim that lance doped to win his 6 tours.

How could it not be germane. She heard Lance admit with his own mouth that he had used PED to his doctors.

Is Novitizky's case about use of PEDS pre 1999 ? that's all I'm asking.
What is the scope of his investigation? is he investigating Lance from his days at
Motorola onward? USPS & Discovery? Astana? Use of PEDS? Influence at USPS?
Fraud? it gets rather murky.

Show the proof.

Have you not been paying attention for the last few years? How many times has the entire chronology been posted on BF? I'm guessing somewhere between 10 and 20 times.

Just because you don't want to acknowledge the documented facts of the case doesn't mean they don't exist.

Have you not been paying attention for the last few years? How many times has the entire chronology been posted on BF? I'm guessing somewhere between 10 and 20 times.

Just because you don't want to acknowledge the documented facts of the case doesn't mean they don't exist.

In that case Novitzky should just come here, print out some threads and show them to the judge. That would save tax payers a lot of money!!!

In that case Novitzky should just come here, print out some threads and show them to the judge. That would save tax payers a lot of money!!!

Ha, you are right about that. Unfortunately, it would not meek the rules of evidence. They must have direct testimony from first hand sources. And first hand experts.

I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty of perjury or use of PEDS. I just wondered if Betsy's testimony is germane to the case that Novitsky is working.
And as far as I can tell, her testimony had nothing to do with the SCA claim that lance doped to win his 6 tours.


Is Novitizky's case about use of PEDS pre 1999 ? that's all I'm asking.
What is the scope of his investigation? is he investigating Lance from his days at
Motorola onward? USPS & Discovery? Astana? Use of PEDS? Influence at USPS?
Fraud? it gets rather murky.
I hear you.
Even if we agree that BA's account is factual, that story has nothing to do with him supposedly
taking PEDs while on USPS and DISCO or his supposed strong-arming others to use PEDs.

I hear you.
Even if we agree that BA's account is factual, that story has nothing to do with him supposedly
taking PEDs while on USPS and DISCO or his supposed strong-arming others to use PEDs.

This is true, but in a court of law it is often necessary to establish or prove a persons behavior or MO. So if they can prove that Lance doped prior to the Postal days in helps add credibility to his doping behavior. They can also establish Lance as a liar with this information. So if they can sway the jury that Lance is a liar it will weaken all of his arguments to the contrary that he never doped with US Postal.

Is Novitizky's case about use of PEDS pre 1999 ? that's all I'm asking.
What is the scope of his investigation? is he investigating Lance from his days at
Motorola onward? USPS & Discovery? Astana? Use of PEDS? Influence at USPS?
Fraud? it gets rather murky.

Yes, it is rather murky. From what many of us have been able to glean from the media. The scope of the investigation has several avenues. Tax fraud ( Armstrong may have received payment in kind for PED which was not declared as income), government funds fraud (misusing government funds for illegal activities), racketeering (illegal profiteering from using illegal means or activities in an organized and organizational way), distribution of illegal substances (selling or giving PED's to others), extortion (using his fame and economic position to silence or hurt others through their employers), obstruction of justice (lying and withholding of information).

This is the same guy that went after Bonds. He's a pitbull. He'll get something. The issue is doping before his cancer vs doping after. The only damning evidence, imo, is BA - and that only addresses up to his cancer. The problems for LA is that he has publicly stated that he has "never" used PEDs. If he's shown to have used PEDs even before his TDF victories then his legacy is blown to hell.

As I amn't an American I don't have an emotional investment in the legacy of Lance Armstrong so here's my take on all this.

Do I believe LA doped post cancer? Probably. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt up until Landis 'came out'. Not a very credible witness but the level of detail had a certain ring of truth to it. A bit like an actor who always claimed to be straight eventually confirming he was gay.

Does all this matter to me? Yes, but not as much as it obviously matters to some.

what I'm not sure of is Betsy's testimony implicates lance using PEDS pre cancer.
How does that affect the investigation of US postal and Discovery team?

The risk for Armstrong is perjury, or lying to a federal agent. To the extent he continues to maintain he never took PEDS, her testimony contradicts that.

As shown by the Balco investigation, its easier to get a conviction on the cover up/ perjury.

So Armstrong needs to STFU.

EDIT: Should have read the whole thread Bengeboy beat me to the punch