Where is Kristin Armstrong in all of this?

Looks like the readers of runners world are fed up with her. Look at the comments under her recent column, at least half of them are negative:

http://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/steady-girl

She's written at least three columns lately that have employed subtle defiance, evasion, and cloying bids for forgiveness. Finally, as the above poster notes about her recent column on being "steady" during "chaos," some of the readers are beginning to tear her a new one. Up to now she's been getting mostly adulatory comments from her New Age followers. RW so far seems to have no problem continuing with publishing her. She seems to have a large and loyal (ka-ching) following.

Cycling guy wrote:

Looks like the readers of runners world are fed up with her. Look at the comments under her recent column, at least half of them are negative:

http://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/steady-girl

We don't see any comments. Looks like they've been disabled.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Looks like the readers of runners world are fed up with her. Look at the comments under her recent column, at least half of them are negative:

http://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/steady-girl

We don't see any comments. Looks like they've been disabled.[/quote]

I think that is a technical problem, I can see them:

caliletulle (signed in using yahoo)

yeah, hiding EPO in your baby's carriage is pretty amazing!

Reply · 2 · Like · 20 hours ago

Bobby Jahn · Michigan

Yeah. Kristin Armstrong is pretty good with her "lies."

Reply · 1 · Like · 13 hours ago

caliletulle (signed in using yahoo)

It sounds like Kristin takes GOOD care of herself, considering ALL her articles are about herself. Does she ever do anything to compensate all those cycling folks who were crushed by the Armstrong Fraud?

No problem seeing comments. Check again.

http://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/steady-girl

[/quote]

We don't see any comments. Looks like they've been disabled.[/quote]

Here is her childrens book:

http://www.amazon.com/Lance-Armstrong-Race-Aboard-Reading/dp/044842407X/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358691634&sr=1-8&keywords=kristin+armstrong

Surprisingly, no one called her out yet.

Why is her last name still Armstrong? Feeding off his fame? All these yrs. she KNEW he was doping. LA said so himself on Oprah. And yet she decided to keep his name..and his money..while she wrote her garbage on RW.

Its a known fact that she not only knew but also aided and abetted LA in his drug use.

What does all this say about Runners World. Glad readers are asking serious questions about her association with the rag.

Also:

LA had to tell his kids he was a cheater.

Don't you think those kids will ask her if she knew, and what she knew and why she said and did nothing. And later on, why she kept accepting his money?

I don't think she KNEW, definitely couldn't testify on the matter. perhaps she suspected but thought he was doing other things like drinking.

sleepingbagsally wrote:

I don't think she KNEW, definitely couldn't testify on the matter. perhaps she suspected but thought he was doing other things like drinking.

Are you stupid or lying?

bingo wrote: Are you stupid or lying?

Look in the mirror, stupid one.

Spousal privilege (also called marital privilege or husband-wife privilege[1]) is a term used in the law of evidence to describe two separate privileges: the communications privilege and the testimonial privilege.

The spousal communications privilege or confidences privilege is a form of privileged communication which protects the contents of confidential communications between spouses during their marriage from testimonial disclosure. The privilege applies in civil and criminal cases.

Both the witness-spouse and the party-spouse hold the spousal communications privilege, so either may invoke it to prevent the other from testifying about a confidential communication made during marriage.

The communications privilege begins on marriage, and cannot be invoked to protect confidential communications between now-married spouses which occurred prior to their marriage. Unlike testimonial privilege, the communications privilege survives the end of a marriage, and may be asserted by a spouse to protect confidential communications that were made during the marriage—even after divorce or death.

Bing-Bang,

Did Lance screw up that spousal protection when he started mentioning Kristin and his conversations? I think she may be open to perjury with her LeMond testimony, particularly after interview II.

She was hiding drugs in her baby carriage and handing them out on the course, "spousal privilege" doesn't apply. Just like the other guy you're either stupid or lying, but I guess that's all you sorry fan boys have left.

:D She's running Sunday errands. Freak out much? She's also hot and wet and wondering when loverboy is going to show...

I feel sorry for the REAL Kristin Armstrong--the Armstrong with the real gold medal they didn't take away because she didn't cheat.

I can just imagine the shit she's going to have to put up with ("for the thousandth time, No, I'm not Lance's wife").

where was sheryl crow??????I wont listen to her crap any more.

Cycling guy wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

Looks like the readers of runners world are fed up with her. Look at the comments under her recent column, at least half of them are negative:

http://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/steady-girl

We don't see any comments. Looks like they've been disabled.

I think that is a technical problem, I can see them:

caliletulle (signed in using yahoo)

yeah, hiding EPO in your baby's carriage is pretty amazing!

Reply · 2 · Like · 20 hours ago

Bobby Jahn · Michigan

Yeah. Kristin Armstrong is pretty good with her "lies."

Reply · 1 · Like · 13 hours ago

caliletulle (signed in using yahoo)

It sounds like Kristin takes GOOD care of herself, considering ALL her articles are about herself. Does she ever do anything to compensate all those cycling folks who were crushed by the Armstrong Fraud?[/quote]

The responses from the readers are a million times better than the actual article. Caliletulle and Candice Flores need to get a life, but their responses to each and every positive post were worth the five minutes of my life that I was afraid I had lost.

Bing-Bang, doesn't mean Kristin couldn't be sued for the ill-begotten divorce proceeds she has received.

How is this different than a Ponzi schemer donating large $$$$ to charities. Charities have been ordered to pay back donations received.

Nutella1 wrote:

rojo wrote:

To the best of my knoweldge, she has never issued a statement about her role with Lance.

She did. Here:

http://milemarkers.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/how-light-gets

Essentially, it is a non statement. "His decisions were his". She also states that she has a NDA with Lance.

She does not address that she was "rolling the joints" as described in USADA's RD.

Not sure if she should be subject to an investigation. For me she is simply a gold digger who did everything she had to do to keep the money coming without any moral grounds.

The NDA would not be legal to require her to not ever reveal illegal activity by Lance.

People think NDA's are this ironclad thing. They aren't. They are largely unenforceable and really serve just to tell people to keep trade, business and personal things private...but they can't require you to have knowledge of a crime and not talk about it.