Interesting article on Lance's hospital bed confession story



Dumbass a écrit :
> I noticed that this has never been posted here. It lays out the story
>
> well:
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863
>
>

Having read the article, this exchange (from the deposition of
Armstrong) seemed curious :

QUESTION: Did any medical person ask you, while you were at the
Indiana University Hospital, whether you had ever used any sort of
performance-enhancing drugs or substances?

ARMSTRONG: No. Absolutely not.


Should we believe that a dedicated and conscientious doctor, who is
aware that athletes do sometimes use performance enhancing drugs, would
fail to ask such a question ? That it would not be in the scope of a
normal interview and recording of a patient's history ? That it is good
medical practice to avoid asking this kind of question ? My doctor often
asks questions that may well be embarassing to answer, but that's the
way he does it.

I just find the exchange paints the picture of a doctor who lacked the
common inquisitiveness found in other medical practitioners I know.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

- "Someone who knows too much finds it hard not to lie.?"
- Wittgenstein, L.
 
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:40:48 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I just find the exchange paints the picture of a doctor who lacked the
>common inquisitiveness found in other medical practitioners I know.


Funny, I would take the opposite tack. The original question strikes
me as a set-up. The doctors I have known and worked with would have
put the question differently and non-commitally, if, in fact, they
asked the question at all. More likely is that a nurse or nurse
practiioner would sit down and go through a list of relevant drugs,
one by one if the list was even reasonably reasonable in length and
the doctor would focus on those that he or she found important to
follow through on.

There are other drugs that are probably of greater concern that the
question wouldn't cover, so why choose such a question? It would only
then lead to the question that should be asked, which is, "What
drugs?" And it would only damage any kind of doctor-patient
relationship to no particular end.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:40:48 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dumbass a écrit :
>> I noticed that this has never been posted here. It lays out the story
>>
>> well:
>>
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863
>>
>>

>Having read the article, this exchange (from the deposition of
>Armstrong) seemed curious :
>
> QUESTION: Did any medical person ask you, while you were at the
> Indiana University Hospital, whether you had ever used any sort of
> performance-enhancing drugs or substances?
>
> ARMSTRONG: No. Absolutely not.
>
>
>Should we believe that a dedicated and conscientious doctor, who is
>aware that athletes do sometimes use performance enhancing drugs, would
>fail to ask such a question ? That it would not be in the scope of a
>normal interview and recording of a patient's history ? That it is good
>medical practice to avoid asking this kind of question ? My doctor often
>asks questions that may well be embarassing to answer, but that's the
>way he does it.
>
>I just find the exchange paints the picture of a doctor who lacked the
>common inquisitiveness found in other medical practitioners I know.


What's curious is that the testimony from the other side had a doctor asking
about drug use in a room full of people, family and friends. No doctor I know is
stupid enough to do that and expect an honest answer.

Neither is plausible.

Ron
 
RonSonic wrote:

> What's curious is that the testimony from the other side had a doctor asking
> about drug use in a room full of people, family and friends. No doctor I know is
> stupid enough to do that and expect an honest answer.


My wife is medical. She snorted when she heard that story. "No way!".
"Anyone who did that (asked such a question with unrelated others in
the room) would get in so much trouble!".

Sure, it could have happened. But very unlikely. The usual way to "get
history" is one-on-one, excluding even spouses (maybe _especially_
spouses) and close blood relations. Maybe a nurse present at most, and
yes the object is to get an honest answer to prevent problems with drug
interactions, among other considerations.

IOW, the question would certainly be asked, but not in front of
hangers-on.

Even in this age of no privacy, there are places where confidentiality
rules, and this is one of them. Not to say med history confidentiality
has never been breached. But a patient complaint (if the patient knows
enough to complain) regarding such an incident would be very bad for
the doc and they certainly know that.

Another comment from the wife was "totally unprofessional" IRT Betsy's
story. --D-y
 
On 15 Aug 2006 08:28:45 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>RonSonic wrote:
>
>> What's curious is that the testimony from the other side had a doctor asking
>> about drug use in a room full of people, family and friends. No doctor I know is
>> stupid enough to do that and expect an honest answer.

>
>My wife is medical. She snorted when she heard that story. "No way!".
>"Anyone who did that (asked such a question with unrelated others in
>the room) would get in so much trouble!".
>
>Sure, it could have happened. But very unlikely. The usual way to "get
>history" is one-on-one, excluding even spouses (maybe _especially_
>spouses) and close blood relations. Maybe a nurse present at most, and
>yes the object is to get an honest answer to prevent problems with drug
>interactions, among other considerations.
>
>IOW, the question would certainly be asked, but not in front of
>hangers-on.
>
>Even in this age of no privacy, there are places where confidentiality
>rules, and this is one of them. Not to say med history confidentiality
>has never been breached. But a patient complaint (if the patient knows
>enough to complain) regarding such an incident would be very bad for
>the doc and they certainly know that.
>
>Another comment from the wife was "totally unprofessional" IRT Betsy's
>story. --D-y


I've had doctors make a show of pushing the door and setting down the pen and
closing the folder for questions regarding illegal drugs. The idea that one
would ask in front of family and team mates is absurd.

Ron
 
RonSonic a écrit :
> On 15 Aug 2006 08:28:45 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What's curious is that the testimony from the other side had a doctor asking
>>> about drug use in a room full of people, family and friends. No doctor I know is
>>> stupid enough to do that and expect an honest answer.
>>>

>> My wife is medical. She snorted when she heard that story. "No way!".
>> "Anyone who did that (asked such a question with unrelated others in
>> the room) would get in so much trouble!".
>>
>> Sure, it could have happened. But very unlikely. The usual way to "get
>> history" is one-on-one, excluding even spouses (maybe _especially_
>> spouses) and close blood relations. Maybe a nurse present at most, and
>> yes the object is to get an honest answer to prevent problems with drug
>> interactions, among other considerations.
>>
>> IOW, the question would certainly be asked, but not in front of
>> hangers-on.
>>
>> Even in this age of no privacy, there are places where confidentiality
>> rules, and this is one of them. Not to say med history confidentiality
>> has never been breached. But a patient complaint (if the patient knows
>> enough to complain) regarding such an incident would be very bad for
>> the doc and they certainly know that.
>>
>> Another comment from the wife was "totally unprofessional" IRT Betsy's
>> story. --D-y
>>

>
> I've had doctors make a show of pushing the door and setting down the pen and
> closing the folder for questions regarding illegal drugs. The idea that one
> would ask in front of family and team mates is absurd.
>
> Ron
>

Hey guys, none of what I quoted Armstrong as saying has anything to do
with whether others were present !

Don't you find it still odd that no doctor, EVEN IN PRIVATE, asked the
question.
 
Sandy wrote:

> >

> Hey guys, none of what I quoted Armstrong as saying has anything to do
> with whether others were present !
>
> Don't you find it still odd that no doctor, EVEN IN PRIVATE, asked the
> question.


Nope, not at all. What he may or may not have taken in the past had no
bearing on the treatment he was about to undergo, so I don't imagine
they would've cared one hoot and wouldn't have asked the question.

Fred
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dumbass a écrit :
> > I noticed that this has never been posted here. It lays out the story
> >
> > well:
> >
> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863
> >
> >

> Having read the article, this exchange (from the deposition of
> Armstrong) seemed curious :
>
> QUESTION: Did any medical person ask you, while you were at the
> Indiana University Hospital, whether you had ever used any sort of
> performance-enhancing drugs or substances?
>
> ARMSTRONG: No. Absolutely not.
>
>
> Should we believe that a dedicated and conscientious doctor, who is
> aware that athletes do sometimes use performance enhancing drugs, would
> fail to ask such a question ? That it would not be in the scope of a
> normal interview and recording of a patient's history ? That it is good
> medical practice to avoid asking this kind of question ? My doctor often
> asks questions that may well be embarassing to answer, but that's the
> way he does it.
>
> I just find the exchange paints the picture of a doctor who lacked the
> common inquisitiveness found in other medical practitioners I know.


Anyone, a public figure too, may keep his medical records
confidential. Rather than say that or `None of your
business', Armstrong said what he said. What is the
problem with that?

--
Michael Press
 
Funny how these mystery doctors were never identified, yet the insurance company
seem have know that Frankie and his wife were in the room. Seems real strange
they never uncovered the indentities of these doctors?

Questions is, what is Frankie and his wifes motives?


"Dumbass" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I noticed that this has never been posted here. It lays out the story
>
>well:
>
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863
 
Sandy wrote:
> Hey guys, none of what I quoted Armstrong as saying has anything to do
> with whether others were present !
>
> Don't you find it still odd that no doctor, EVEN IN PRIVATE, asked the
> question.


Took a couple of tries, thanks for sticking with it, Sandy <g>. You do
that for a living, I guess?

No, not odd to not be asked that specific question. In fact, I never
thought about it in that particular shade of meaning. When I do think
of it in that way, it makes the idea of asking specifically about PE
substances even more unlikely. Sounds more like a WADA or personal
curiousity question than a medical one. IOW, (as a layman) I'd think
docs would be more worried about immediate unfavorable reactions to
something a patient might currently "have on board", or perhaps a
history of alcohol abuse resulting in liver damage, or a "history" that
would indicate a compromised immune system. --D-y
 
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dumbass a écrit :
>> I noticed that this has never been posted here. It lays out the story
>>
>> well:
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863
>>
>>

> Having read the article, this exchange (from the deposition of Armstrong)
> seemed curious :
>
> QUESTION: Did any medical person ask you, while you were at the
> Indiana University Hospital, whether you had ever used any sort of
> performance-enhancing drugs or substances?
>
> ARMSTRONG: No. Absolutely not.
>
> Should we believe that a dedicated and conscientious doctor, who is aware
> that athletes do sometimes use performance enhancing drugs, would fail to
> ask such a question?


To what end? Do you suppose that someone was simply interested if he had
ever used performance enhancing drugs, none of which stay in the blood more
than a couple of days?
 
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:40:48 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:

>Having read the article, this exchange (from the deposition of
>Armstrong) seemed curious :
>
> QUESTION: Did any medical person ask you, while you were at the
> Indiana University Hospital, whether you had ever used any sort of
> performance-enhancing drugs or substances?
>
> ARMSTRONG: No. Absolutely not.
>
>
>Should we believe that a dedicated and conscientious doctor, who is
>aware that athletes do sometimes use performance enhancing drugs, would
>fail to ask such a question ?


Having read the article, this exchange (from the deposition of
Frankie Andreu) seemed curious :

"QUESTION: Were you surprised when Mr. Armstrong said he had taken
those various performance-enhancing drugs?

ANDREU: Yeah. I was surprised."

Should we believe that an experienced professional cyclist, who is
aware that athletes do sometimes use performance enhancing drugs,
would be SURPISED to learn another professional cyclist and colleague
used them? I don't think so.

So, what is up with that? Either Frankie is pure as the driven snow
and the sole clean pro cyclist on earth, or he is full of ****. Having
watched two other supposed angels - Tyler and Landis - fall on their
faces, I would think that this is so much sanctimonious **** from
another phony bullshitter and wonder what the real motive is.
 
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Having read the article, this exchange (from the deposition of
> Frankie Andreu) seemed curious :
>
> "QUESTION: Were you surprised when Mr. Armstrong said he had taken
> those various performance-enhancing drugs?
>
> ANDREU: Yeah. I was surprised."
>
> Should we believe that an experienced professional cyclist, who is
> aware that athletes do sometimes use performance enhancing drugs,
> would be SURPISED to learn another professional cyclist and colleague
> used them? I don't think so.
>
> So, what is up with that? Either Frankie is pure as the driven snow
> and the sole clean pro cyclist on earth, or he is full of ****. Having
> watched two other supposed angels - Tyler and Landis - fall on their
> faces, I would think that this is so much sanctimonious **** from
> another phony bullshitter and wonder what the real motive is.


How do you know that was the context of Andreu's answer?
 
> No, not odd to not be asked that specific question. In fact, I never
> thought about it in that particular shade of meaning. When I do think
> of it in that way, it makes the idea of asking specifically about PE
> substances even more unlikely. Sounds more like a WADA or personal
> curiousity question than a medical one. IOW, (as a layman) I'd think
> docs would be more worried about immediate unfavorable reactions to
> something a patient might currently "have on board", or perhaps a
> history of alcohol abuse resulting in liver damage, or a "history" that
> would indicate a compromised immune system. --D-y


Didn't Pantani almost die in the hospital because he didn't divulge
everything he was on?
 
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:05:03 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic a écrit :
>> On 15 Aug 2006 08:28:45 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> RonSonic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What's curious is that the testimony from the other side had a doctor asking
>>>> about drug use in a room full of people, family and friends. No doctor I know is
>>>> stupid enough to do that and expect an honest answer.
>>>>
>>> My wife is medical. She snorted when she heard that story. "No way!".
>>> "Anyone who did that (asked such a question with unrelated others in
>>> the room) would get in so much trouble!".
>>>
>>> Sure, it could have happened. But very unlikely. The usual way to "get
>>> history" is one-on-one, excluding even spouses (maybe _especially_
>>> spouses) and close blood relations. Maybe a nurse present at most, and
>>> yes the object is to get an honest answer to prevent problems with drug
>>> interactions, among other considerations.
>>>
>>> IOW, the question would certainly be asked, but not in front of
>>> hangers-on.
>>>
>>> Even in this age of no privacy, there are places where confidentiality
>>> rules, and this is one of them. Not to say med history confidentiality
>>> has never been breached. But a patient complaint (if the patient knows
>>> enough to complain) regarding such an incident would be very bad for
>>> the doc and they certainly know that.
>>>
>>> Another comment from the wife was "totally unprofessional" IRT Betsy's
>>> story. --D-y
>>>

>>
>> I've had doctors make a show of pushing the door and setting down the pen and
>> closing the folder for questions regarding illegal drugs. The idea that one
>> would ask in front of family and team mates is absurd.
>>
>> Ron
>>

>Hey guys, none of what I quoted Armstrong as saying has anything to do
>with whether others were present !
>
>Don't you find it still odd that no doctor, EVEN IN PRIVATE, asked the
>question.


Like I said, that is implausible. Should I spend more time typing about
something you've clearly and explicitly stated?

Ron
 
Sir Topham Hatt wrote:
> Funny how these mystery doctors were never identified, yet the insurance company
> seem have know that Frankie and his wife were in the room. Seems real strange
> they never uncovered the indentities of these doctors?
>
> Questions is, what is Frankie and his wifes motives?
>
>


They weren't voluntary witnesses, they were subpoenaed. Given the
example of Rashoman, some of it is likely to be faulty memory or point
of view. What someone says, and what someone else hears are often
very different things. Still, this seems like a pretty darned major
disconnect. We'll assume the Andreu's are off Lance's Christmas card
list.

Since there was conflicting testimony, and the Insurance company paid
off following presentation of evidence, Lance's claim to have won the
proceeding is a reasonable conclusion to make, even if there was no
formal finding. It obviously seemed better to settle than to rely on
the Andreu testimony to carry the day based on the preponderance of
evidence standard.

Given a chance, this dog didn't hunt.

-dB
 
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:08:19 -0500, "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>How do you know that was the context of Andreu's answer?


I don't. I suppose the statement could be interpreted as: "I was
surprised that Armstrong broke the Omerta code and admitted his use of
performance enhancing drugs" instead of: "I was surprised to discover
that Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs."
 
[email protected] wrote:
> What someone says, and what someone else hears are often
> very different things.


Along with what someone remembers. Memory for events several years
ago, even important events, is faulty -- even without any hidden
agendas or ulterior motives.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Sir Topham Hatt wrote:
> > Funny how these mystery doctors were never identified, yet the insurance company
> > seem have know that Frankie and his wife were in the room. Seems real strange
> > they never uncovered the indentities of these doctors?
> >
> > Questions is, what is Frankie and his wifes motives?
> >
> >

>
> They weren't voluntary witnesses, they were subpoenaed. Given the
> example of Rashoman, some of it is likely to be faulty memory or point
> of view. What someone says, and what someone else hears are often
> very different things. Still, this seems like a pretty darned major
> disconnect. We'll assume the Andreu's are off Lance's Christmas card
> list.
>
> Since there was conflicting testimony, and the Insurance company paid
> off following presentation of evidence, Lance's claim to have won the
> proceeding is a reasonable conclusion to make, even if there was no
> formal finding. It obviously seemed better to settle than to rely on
> the Andreu testimony to carry the day based on the preponderance of
> evidence standard.


I read that the judge said that the issue of doping was irrelevant
since the contract did not cover doping. The case was not decided
based on any ruling about the doping allegations one way or the other.

>
> Given a chance, this dog didn't hunt.
>
> -dB
 

Similar threads