Betsy Stands By Her Testimony

"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article t,
says...

LOL. Sorry....

Some places take patient privacy seriously. What's so funny about that?
-----------------
Alex

There is not doctor patient privilege (privacy issue) when the patient makes
his/her comment in from of third parties not in the employ of or under the
supervision of the physician present. Privacy isn't an issue here at all.

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
In article ,
says...

I am certainly not a Lance supporter but her testimony, unlike a lot of
other stories about Lance doping, doesn't make any sense to me. I have had
many medical procedures and the doctors have always been extremely
protective about my privacy, even asking me if it was OK if my wife stayed
in the room for discussions. I can't think of a situation where a doctor
would ask a patient such invasive questions in a room full of people. The
fact that someone was taking a medical history after he had been operated on
makes it even sillier.

Some people miss these obvious questions that need to be asked. I also
question why a doctor would be asking questions after surgery. The time
to ask was before the surgery, not after. Also, if this was a new doctor,
he could easily look up the patients prior history

Asking a bike racer if he doped, in front of a room full of people, is
like asking the patient, in front of his grandchildren, whether he
consorted with prostitutes. You're unlikely to get a real answer if
you get an answer at all.

R

"RicodJour" wrote in message
ps.com...
Alex Rodriguez wrote:
In article ,

says...

I am certainly not a Lance supporter but her testimony, unlike a lot of
other stories about Lance doping, doesn't make any sense to me. I have
had
many medical procedures and the doctors have always been extremely
protective about my privacy, even asking me if it was OK if my wife
stayed
in the room for discussions. I can't think of a situation where a
doctor
would ask a patient such invasive questions in a room full of people.
The
fact that someone was taking a medical history after he had been
operated on
makes it even sillier.

Some people miss these obvious questions that need to be asked. I also
question why a doctor would be asking questions after surgery. The time
to ask was before the surgery, not after. Also, if this was a new
doctor,
he could easily look up the patients prior history

Asking a bike racer if he doped, in front of a room full of people, is
like asking the patient, in front of his grandchildren, whether he
consorted with prostitutes. You're unlikely to get a real answer if
you get an answer at all.

Terrible analogy. All those present had serious, long term connection with
the pro cycling business. Why, it's even rumored that one of them settled a
doping case out of court. Not many grand children of young age have been
with prostitutes.

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article t,
says...

LOL. Sorry....

Some places take patient privacy seriously. What's so funny about that?
-----------------
Alex

There is not doctor patient privilege (privacy issue) when the patient makes
his/her comment in from of third parties not in the employ of or under the
supervision of the physician present. Privacy isn't an issue here at all.

Well, it is, in the sense that IF the questions were asked at all. As
has been pointed out, there would have been no need to ask, especially
after a procedure instead of before. It's all sour grapes - the
Andreus are just missing publicity and have decided to claim some for
themselves. It's all a bunch of hoo-haw that doesn't mean anything in
2006.

N.

B. Lafferty wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

Asking a bike racer if he doped, in front of a room full of people, is
like asking the patient, in front of his grandchildren, whether he
consorted with prostitutes. You're unlikely to get a real answer if
you get an answer at all.

Terrible analogy. All those present had serious, long term connection with
the pro cycling business. Why, it's even rumored that one of them settled a
doping case out of court. Not many grand children of young age have been
with prostitutes.

It's not about sex versus drugs, or who is in what business, it's about
privacy and what someone would admit in front of a room full of people.
Lance, being about as private of a person as can be, would not answer
such a question in front of a room full of people. A doctor would not
ask such a question in front of a room full of people. There are
privacy laws and doctors take them seriously. It's ingrained.

Would a reasonable lawyer (notice I didn't say you) ask a "customer"
potentially catastophically damaging questions in front of witnesses?

Hi, I'm Marcia and I'll be your wait person, are you ready to order?
Sammy Gravano, how many people did you whack?
Would you like a few moments?
No, we're ready. I musta bumped 15 before I was thirty, then I lost
track. I'll have the chicken basket with a coke.

In your world only.

R

"Nancy2" wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article t,
says...

LOL. Sorry....

Some places take patient privacy seriously. What's so funny about
that?
-----------------
Alex

There is not doctor patient privilege (privacy issue) when the patient
makes
his/her comment in from of third parties not in the employ of or under
the
supervision of the physician present. Privacy isn't an issue here at
all.

Well, it is, in the sense that IF the questions were asked at all. As
has been pointed out, there would have been no need to ask, especially
after a procedure instead of before. It's all sour grapes - the
Andreus are just missing publicity and have decided to claim some for
themselves. It's all a bunch of hoo-haw that doesn't mean anything in
2006.

How simplistic of you. Clearly, you know nothing of the Andreus.

N.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
ups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

Asking a bike racer if he doped, in front of a room full of people, is
like asking the patient, in front of his grandchildren, whether he
consorted with prostitutes. You're unlikely to get a real answer if
you get an answer at all.

Terrible analogy. All those present had serious, long term connection
with
the pro cycling business. Why, it's even rumored that one of them
settled a
doping case out of court. Not many grand children of young age have been
with prostitutes.

It's not about sex versus drugs, or who is in what business, it's about
privacy and what someone would admit in front of a room full of people.
Lance, being about as private of a person as can be, would not answer
such a question in front of a room full of people. A doctor would not
ask such a question in front of a room full of people. There are
privacy laws and doctors take them seriously. It's ingrained.

Apparently the doctor did, to judge from the sworn testimony of two people.
Those who said the conversation did not occur have a current monetary
interest in not recalling such statements from Armstrong. As the Andreus
attorney pointed out, the Andreus had no interest in making what they knew
public, and did not, for over ten years. They only testified because they
were compelled to after failing to quash subpoenas.


Would a reasonable lawyer (notice I didn't say you) ask a "customer"
potentially catastophically damaging questions in front of witnesses?

Doctors aren't lawyers. The question is not damaging from a medical point
of view.

Hi, I'm Marcia and I'll be your wait person, are you ready to order?
Sammy Gravano, how many people did you whack?
Would you like a few moments?
No, we're ready. I musta bumped 15 before I was thirty, then I lost
track. I'll have the chicken basket with a coke.

In your world only.

R

B. Lafferty wrote:

Apparently the doctor did, to judge from the sworn testimony of two people.
Those who said the conversation did not occur have a current monetary
interest in not recalling such statements from Armstrong.

I was wondering when you were going to get to the "money corrupts"
crutch you stand on.

Everyone has a vested interest, themselves being the biggest interest.
Money is frequently involved, people frequently have jobs. This does
not a liar nor saint make. I'm sure on Mount Saint Lafferty where all
work is pro bono, you're above that degrading task of earning money.
Good for you!

R

"RicodJour" wrote in message
oups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:

Apparently the doctor did, to judge from the sworn testimony of two
people.
Those who said the conversation did not occur have a current monetary
interest in not recalling such statements from Armstrong.

I was wondering when you were going to get to the "money corrupts"
crutch you stand on.

Everyone has a vested interest, themselves being the biggest interest.
Money is frequently involved, people frequently have jobs.

This is all part of witness credibility. The fact that Armstrong is a major
investor in CTS and has been linked to doping in another legal action
(though not as a party) would have an impact on credibility.


This does
not a liar nor saint make. I'm sure on Mount Saint Lafferty where all
work is pro bono, you're above that degrading task of earning money.
Good for you!

Strawman. Not interesting.


R

B. Lafferty wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

Everyone has a vested interest, themselves being the biggest interest.
Money is frequently involved, people frequently have jobs.

This is all part of witness credibility. The fact that Armstrong is a major
investor in CTS and has been linked to doping in another legal action
(though not as a party) would have an impact on credibility.

Is that a learned trait? The kingly ability to proclaim the aura of
credibility on incredible happenings? Credible people can have
incredible statements. Like the Andreus hospital semi-mass hysteria.

You seem to conveniently miss the fact that I have not taken a stance
on the Armstrong doping issue. Did he, didn't he? I don't know.

It's your silly born again righteousness over highly questionable
events and activities that I take exception to. I'm not sure if you
want a conviction, regardless of the proof, so you can prove you are
right or because a burning bush told you the answer. It all looks the
same from here.

R