Betsy Stands By Her Testimony

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by B. Lafferty, Jun 30, 2006.

  1. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    Tags:


  2. 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 shit" 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.
     
  3. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    <photoshoppper@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1151706903.126957.202690@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
    > 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 shit" 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.

    >
     
  4. Tim Lines

    Tim Lines Guest

    photoshoppper@gmail.com 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.
     
  5. Mad Dog

    Mad Dog Guest

  6. "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
    news:swhpg.756$PE1.358@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > 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.
     
  7. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Frank Drackman" <Frankdrack@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:3OadnfGrcO5YLzjZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
    >
    > "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
    > news:swhpg.756$PE1.358@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >> 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....
     
  8. "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
    news:TUipg.791$PE1.784@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Frank Drackman" <Frankdrack@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:3OadnfGrcO5YLzjZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
    >>
    >> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
    >> news:swhpg.756$PE1.358@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >>> 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?
     
  9. In article <3OadnfGrcO5YLzjZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com>, Frankdrack@yahoo.com
    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
     
  10. In article <TUipg.791$PE1.784@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Magni@Italia.com says...

    >LOL. Sorry....


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

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
    news:e8gtg2$53p$7@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
    > In article <TUipg.791$PE1.784@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > Magni@Italia.com 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.
     
  12. RicodJour

    RicodJour Guest

    Alex Rodriguez wrote:
    > In article <3OadnfGrcO5YLzjZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com>, Frankdrack@yahoo.com
    > 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
     
  13. Nancy2

    Nancy2 Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
    > news:e8gtg2$53p$7@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
    > > In article <TUipg.791$PE1.784@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > > Magni@Italia.com 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.
     
  14. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
    news:1152131567.673873.272610@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >> "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
    >> news:e8gtg2$53p$7@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
    >> > In article <TUipg.791$PE1.784@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    >> > Magni@Italia.com 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.
    >
     
  15. RicodJour

    RicodJour Guest

    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
     
  16. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
    news:1152137769.900075.299660@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.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
    >
     
  17. RicodJour

    RicodJour Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> 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
     
  18. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
    news:1152140393.378034.276360@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> 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
    >
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    <photoshoppper@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1152143742.458050.257420@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...