Armstrong's friend McIlvain talks to grand jury

[steve]

Armstrong's friend McIlvain talks to grand jury  
Lance Armstrong's friend Stephanie McIlvain testified yesterday before a federal grand jury hearing evidence associated with Floyd Landis' allegations that Armstrong doped.
 
McIlvain worked with Oakley eyewear as a liaison to US cyclist Armstrong and the two are close friends. She appeared before the panel with her attorney, Thomas Bienert, according to the Associated Press' sources.
 
Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5762/Armstrongs-friend-McIlvain-talks-to-grand-jury.aspx
 

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by steve .

Armstrong's friend McIlvain talks to grand jury  
Lance Armstrong's friend Stephanie McIlvain testified yesterday before a federal grand jury hearing evidence associated with Floyd Landis' allegations that Armstrong doped.
 
McIlvain worked with Oakley eyewear as a liaison to US cyclist Armstrong and the two are close friends. She appeared before the panel with her attorney, Thomas Bienert, according to the Associated Press' sources.
 
Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5762/Armstrongs-friend-McIlvain-talks-to-grand-jury.aspx
 

It's now becoming serious.
Feds, grandjury etc.
 

 

[genedan]

I'm not sure how important this is to the investigation, and as of now I think it's still a bunch of "he said, she said."
 
What the Feds really need are travel logs, doctor receipts, records, vials, blood bags - physical evidence. Not sure how they're going to handle the 1999 samples, though.

 

[techlogik]

Serious...hardly. It is Floyd against everyone else's word.

Quoted from article:

"She confirmed," her attorney Tom Bienert told the Los Angeles Times, "she had no personal knowledge of Lance Armstrong using or taking performance-enhancing drugs."

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5762/Armstrong-supported-in-investigation-by-friend-McIlvain.aspx#ixzz17XitBc00

Well, another person who had "no knowledge".

Many cases in court are hearsay. Ask any prosecutor...a lot of he said she said stuff and no physical stuff. Can't rule out the case because there is no physical evidence, but it certainly would help...but it is kind of old/late and samples etc...where are they? It is too easy for the lawyers to say the sampling handling, testing procedures etc..and whatever else they can come up with has no validity.

Oh well...more waste of money and time for some reason.