Betsy Stands By Her Testimony

B. Lafferty wrote:
"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.


What financial interest does the doctor have here (or anywhere)? He
testified that not only did he not recall any such conversation, but
went much further, stating that had such a conversation occured, he
certainly would have documented this (obviously) important data.

And I think everyone is correct: 3 days post-op is not typically when
medical history is taken. Perhaps by a physician new to the case, but
any new doc would absolutely include prior drug abuse as a MAJOR
component of his notes.

I work in the medical field. I've reviewed many patient charts. The
doctor will include ALL relevant data such as this in his dictation.
For example: 'MR Xxx's history is significant for the prior abuse of
Erythropoietin, HGH and anabolic steroids". This kind of stuff gets
dictated, transcribed and printed. And the chart typically can only be
reviewed by the patient when the doctor is standing in the room with
him. The patient can not remove any of these entries from the chart.

Frankie and Lance has obviously had some kind of falling-out (I know,
you seek evidence of this). They used to be good friends, and now they
are clearly not. Lance barely spoke to Frank when he was pulling
microphone duty for OLN. Also note that Lance and Tyler are no longer
the best of buds anymore. Does he even have any friends besides
Carmichael and Stapleton?

"RicodJour" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Judges and jurors make credibility determinations all the time with the help
of cross-examination designed to impune that very credibility. For a judge,
I suppose there is something of a learning curve although in-as-much-as
nearly all judges are former trial attorneys, they have some experience
regarding credibility issues.


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.

Not only have I missed the "fact" that you have taken no stance on the
issue, I don't care at all what your stance is, was or will be.


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.

I understand. It's very difficult for you to see anything being myopic and
living at the bottom of a deep pit.



R

wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
"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.


What financial interest does the doctor have here (or anywhere)? He
testified that not only did he not recall any such conversation, but
went much further, stating that had such a conversation occured, he
certainly would have documented this (obviously) important data.

Both Andreus apparently testified that the doctor present was not the one
you mention. They testified that they did not know the name of the doctor
who was present.


And I think everyone is correct: 3 days post-op is not typically when
medical history is taken. Perhaps by a physician new to the case, but
any new doc would absolutely include prior drug abuse as a MAJOR
component of his notes.

Medical history is more than just one question. There has been no
indication that I'm aware of that the physician present, whoever they were,
was taking a medical history from Armstrong. The best way to find out why
it wasn't noted in the chart is to ask the doctor who was present.


I work in the medical field. I've reviewed many patient charts. The
doctor will include ALL relevant data such as this in his dictation.
For example: 'MR Xxx's history is significant for the prior abuse of
Erythropoietin, HGH and anabolic steroids". This kind of stuff gets
dictated, transcribed and printed. And the chart typically can only be
reviewed by the patient when the doctor is standing in the room with
him. The patient can not remove any of these entries from the chart.

Frankie and Lance has obviously had some kind of falling-out (I know,
you seek evidence of this).

If it's so obvious, demonstrate it.

They used to be good friends, and now they
are clearly not. Lance barely spoke to Frank when he was pulling
microphone duty for OLN.

About 3 or 4 years ago, Frankie was intervieing Armstrong at the Tour and
they were joking about Armstrong's age reduced max HR. They seemed
comfortable with each other.

Also note that Lance and Tyler are no longer
the best of buds anymore. Does he even have any friends besides
Carmichael and Stapleton?

Of course he does.

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

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.


What financial interest does the doctor have here (or anywhere)? He
testified that not only did he not recall any such conversation, but
went much further, stating that had such a conversation occured, he
certainly would have documented this (obviously) important data.

And I think everyone is correct: 3 days post-op is not typically when
medical history is taken. Perhaps by a physician new to the case, but
any new doc would absolutely include prior drug abuse as a MAJOR
component of his notes.

Of course. Doctors are masters of covering their asses. They take
notes about everything to aid in diagnosis and treatment and in case it
is needed in a malpractice lawsuit. Apparently Hr Lafferty is of the
belief that the doctors in question would jeopardize their jobs and
licenses to protect Armstrong. What's a doctor's career and reputation
worth? Several million at a minimum I'd hazard. Reputation? Having
the kids beat up at school defending their dad's reputation? How much
would Armstrong have offered as a bribe? That's a question for you
Brian. I'm sure you don't believe the doctors are pathological liars
and that they were doing it, to use your phaseology, for monetary
interest. So how much does a doctor go for nowadays?

Strawman.


I work in the medical field. I've reviewed many patient charts. The
doctor will include ALL relevant data such as this in his dictation.
For example: 'MR Xxx's history is significant for the prior abuse of
Erythropoietin, HGH and anabolic steroids". This kind of stuff gets
dictated, transcribed and printed. And the chart typically can only be
reviewed by the patient when the doctor is standing in the room with
him. The patient can not remove any of these entries from the chart.

Frankie and Lance has obviously had some kind of falling-out (I know,
you seek evidence of this). They used to be good friends, and now they
are clearly not. Lance barely spoke to Frank when he was pulling
microphone duty for OLN. Also note that Lance and Tyler are no longer
the best of buds anymore. Does he even have any friends besides
Carmichael and Stapleton?

His ostensibly best friend, the guy nicknamed College, Korioth (sp?)
had a falling out with LA over something and they didn't speak for a
couple of years. LA keeps everybody at arms distance. That's why the
idea of him suddenly starting to spout highly sensitive information in
a room full of people is so ludicrous. Sr Lafferty has an amazing gift
of suspending disbelief in pursuit of his convictions. I would love to
have such a convenient conscience. Life would be a piece of cake.

A person recently out of surgery, on medications, some of it for pain,
thinking that he might compromise his treatment by giving a false answer
thereby increasing the odds of his dying , might well spill the beans.


R

B. Lafferty wrote:

A person recently out of surgery, on medications, some of it for pain,
thinking that he might compromise his treatment by giving a false answer
thereby increasing the odds of his dying , might well spill the beans.


R


A guy that is 3 days post-op from (I hate to say) simple subdural
tumors is not going to be on any "truth serum" kind of medication.
He's just simply healing from the surgery. Perhaps some pain meds such
as Percoset, etc, but nothing "heavy". The testimony described
Armstrong as perfectly lucid.

wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
roups.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.



What financial interest does the doctor have here (or anywhere)? He
testified that not only did he not recall any such conversation, but
went much further, stating that had such a conversation occured, he
certainly would have documented this (obviously) important data.

Let me open by saying that I agree the case against Armstrong is fishy, but:

The doctor is 1) a reasearch oncologist, IIRC, and 2) likely has a good
relationship with Armstrong, who ?runs? a multi-million dollar cancer
reasearch funding organization.

That said, the hospital room scenario described in "sworn testimony"
sounds ludicrous to me. More to the point, in Betsy Andreu's testimony
released by LA's lawyer(s), she repeatedly contradicts the (apparently)
sworn testimony of the Lemonds - namely, "no, I didn't tell them" that
LA did this, that, or the other damning thing which the Lemonds claimed
she had. When the witnesses against you can't agree on their sources,
and their stories are hard to believe as well, it does indeed hurt their
credibility.

Mark

wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:

A person recently out of surgery, on medications, some of it for pain,
thinking that he might compromise his treatment by giving a false answer
thereby increasing the odds of his dying , might well spill the beans.


R


A guy that is 3 days post-op from (I hate to say) simple subdural
tumors is not going to be on any "truth serum" kind of medication.
He's just simply healing from the surgery. Perhaps some pain meds such
as Percoset, etc, but nothing "heavy". The testimony described
Armstrong as perfectly lucid.

All to be looked at in evaluating testimony. What is interesting is that
David Walsh did not learn of this from the Andreus. So who else was there
who told Walsh that such admissions were made by Armstrong. Another Deep
Throat in the making. Maybe it was his mother or ex-girlfriend.

"Mark" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
groups.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.



What financial interest does the doctor have here (or anywhere)? He
testified that not only did he not recall any such conversation, but
went much further, stating that had such a conversation occured, he
certainly would have documented this (obviously) important data.

Let me open by saying that I agree the case against Armstrong is fishy,
but:

The doctor is 1) a reasearch oncologist, IIRC, and 2) likely has a good
relationship with Armstrong, who ?runs? a multi-million dollar cancer
reasearch funding organization.

That said, the hospital room scenario described in "sworn testimony"
sounds ludicrous to me. More to the point, in Betsy Andreu's testimony
released by LA's lawyer(s), she repeatedly contradicts the (apparently)
sworn testimony of the Lemonds - namely, "no, I didn't tell them" that LA
did this, that, or the other damning thing which the Lemonds claimed she
had. When the witnesses against you can't agree on their sources, and
their stories are hard to believe as well, it does indeed hurt their
credibility.

Mark


Have the complete transcripts been published anywhere?

"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.

As Alex has pointed out, there was NO reason to ask such questions AFTER a
procedure. On the other hand I don't believe that Frankie would have lied
under oathe. I DO believe that he might have misunderstood what was being
said.

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
k.net...
"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.

As Alex has pointed out, there was NO reason to ask such questions AFTER a
procedure. On the other hand I don't believe that Frankie would have lied
under oathe. I DO believe that he might have misunderstood what was being
said.

Right. That's likely. God are you delusional. Did you find the Merckx
1973 quotes proving that he accepted ASO money to not ride the Tour? Come
on ,Tom. Either or.