Betsy Stands By Her Testimony

[B. Lafferty]

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns

This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.

 

[[email protected]]

One generally must stand by their testimony once they give it in court,
right?

The question is, did she offer this testimony as original trestimony,
or was she confirming statements that she'd already made in the past
(and under oath). Perhaps she was so resistant to testify because she'd
"talked some ****" in the past, and felt she had to keep her side of
the story consistent?

I wonder how long ago they all had their falling out? Was it over
Frankie getting sacked? I mean, he is close to 40 years old now. He
had to fade sometime.

B. Lafferty wrote:
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>
> This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.

 

[B. Lafferty]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One generally must stand by their testimony once they give it in court,
> right?
>
> The question is, did she offer this testimony as original trestimony,
> or was she confirming statements that she'd already made in the past
> (and under oath). Perhaps she was so resistant to testify because she'd
> "talked some ****" in the past, and felt she had to keep her side of
> the story consistent?

You should be able to figure that out from her attorney's letter in VeloNews
this week.
>
> I wonder how long ago they all had their falling out?

What falling out. Cite please.

> Was it over
> Frankie getting sacked? I mean, he is close to 40 years old now. He
> had to fade sometime.

He retired at the end of 2000.
"After racing nine Tours de France and spending eleven years as a European
professional I have decided to retire," Andreu said in a statement released
on December 22. "After the highlights of the last two years my thoughts were
that I should retire while I'm still at the top. As much as I will miss
racing I am looking forward to many new opportunities."


>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>>
>> This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.
>

 

[Tim Lines]

[email protected] wrote:
> One generally must stand by their testimony once they give it in court,
> right?

Well, OK, but with the stipulation that you're comment can only be
considered true if we confine the discussion to the planet Earth. On
planet Lafferty, all bets are off.

 

[Mad Dog]

B. Lafferty says...

>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns

>This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.

How many new keyboards have you had to buy today, Brian?

 

[Frank Drackman]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>
> This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.
>

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.

My drug store has to get my permission to announce over the store's audio
system that my meds are ready and only one customer is allowed at the
prescription counter at a time so that you can't learn what meds another
customer is purchasing. I just can't picture a doctor walking into a room
and start asking questions about past drug history.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Frank Drackman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>>
>> This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> My drug store has to get my permission to announce over the store's audio
> system that my meds are ready and only one customer is allowed at the
> prescription counter at a time so that you can't learn what meds another
> customer is purchasing. I just can't picture a doctor walking into a room
> and start asking questions about past drug history.
>
LOL. Sorry....

 

[Frank Drackman]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank Drackman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>>>
>>> This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> My drug store has to get my permission to announce over the store's audio
>> system that my meds are ready and only one customer is allowed at the
>> prescription counter at a time so that you can't learn what meds another
>> customer is purchasing. I just can't picture a doctor walking into a
>> room and start asking questions about past drug history.
>>
> LOL. Sorry....

LOL at what?

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
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
-----------------
Alex

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

>LOL. Sorry....

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

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] 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.

 

[RicodJour]

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> 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

 

[Nancy2]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] 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]

"Nancy2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] 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]

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

 

[B. Lafferty]

"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
>

 

[RicodJour]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> 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

 

[B. Lafferty]

"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> 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
>

 

[[email protected]]

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.

 

[B. Lafferty]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.