B
B. Lafferty wrote:
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
of truth and justice are doping.
The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.
In other news, there was an exciting stage in the Vuelta
today.
Ben
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
of truth and justice are doping.
The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.
In other news, there was an exciting stage in the Vuelta
today.
Ben
M
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>
>
The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
personnel to liability.
OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
well be omitted from the written record.
During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
guys).
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>
>
The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
personnel to liability.
OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
well be omitted from the written record.
During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
guys).
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
B
B. Lafferty
Guest
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:daWNg.598$cf2.160@trndny07...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>
>
> The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
> treatment, absent an executed consent form.
> Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
> hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
> patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
> medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and personnel
> to liability.
There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what the
patient said. IIRC, here, Betsey Andreu testified hat she could not recall
the name of the doctor present during the conversation, but that she was
certain it was not the oncologist who at arbitration provided his afidavit
to Armstrong.
> OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
> point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of performance
> enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might well be
> omitted from the written record.
Such a statement coming from the patient, who is lucid and determined to
beat the disease, one could well be assumed to be truthful. Assuming also
that the question was asked by a physician working on the case, that would
tend to indicate that the physician had knowledge of the possible effects of
certain bnned substances.
> During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma. We
> were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
> obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
> in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
> subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
> guys).
Very different situation.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> http://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001
news:daWNg.598$cf2.160@trndny07...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>
>
> The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
> treatment, absent an executed consent form.
> Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
> hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
> patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
> medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and personnel
> to liability.
There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what the
patient said. IIRC, here, Betsey Andreu testified hat she could not recall
the name of the doctor present during the conversation, but that she was
certain it was not the oncologist who at arbitration provided his afidavit
to Armstrong.
> OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
> point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of performance
> enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might well be
> omitted from the written record.
Such a statement coming from the patient, who is lucid and determined to
beat the disease, one could well be assumed to be truthful. Assuming also
that the question was asked by a physician working on the case, that would
tend to indicate that the physician had knowledge of the possible effects of
certain bnned substances.
> During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma. We
> were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
> obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
> in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
> subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
> guys).
Very different situation.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> http://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001
A
Alexander de Large
Guest
On 13 Sep 2006 08:58:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes.
Says the resident nebula-malchick!
> So don't get
> your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
> Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.
Also, it's not a pleasant experience.
--
Naughty, naughty, naughty!
> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes.
Says the resident nebula-malchick!
> So don't get
> your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
> Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.
Also, it's not a pleasant experience.
--
Naughty, naughty, naughty!
P
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> >
> >
>
>
> The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
> treatment, absent an executed consent form.
> Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
> hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
> patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
> medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
> personnel to liability.
> OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
> point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
> performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
> well be omitted from the written record.
> During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
> We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
> obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
> in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
> subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
> guys).
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> http://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001
I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
to head to chemo.
And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
years ago.
Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
bad about someone wealthy.
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> >
> >
>
>
> The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
> treatment, absent an executed consent form.
> Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
> hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
> patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
> medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
> personnel to liability.
> OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
> point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
> performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
> well be omitted from the written record.
> During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
> We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
> obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
> in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
> subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
> guys).
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> http://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001
I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
to head to chemo.
And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
years ago.
Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
bad about someone wealthy.
B
B. Lafferty
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>
> Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
> and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
> up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
> of truth and justice are doping.
>
> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
> your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
> Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.
You're not saying that they made him care, are you??
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>
> Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
> and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
> up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
> of truth and justice are doping.
>
> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
> your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
> Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.
You're not saying that they made him care, are you??
B
[email protected] wrote:
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> > > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
> > treatment, absent an executed consent form.
> > Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
> > hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
> > patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
> > medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
> > personnel to liability.
> > OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
> > point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
> > performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
> > well be omitted from the written record.
> > During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
> > We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
> > obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
> > in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
> > subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
> > guys).
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > --
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> > http://www.dentaltwins.com
> > Brooklyn, NY
> > 718-258-5001
>
> I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
> treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
> seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
> doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
> reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
> Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
> to head to chemo.
>
> And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
> from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
> years ago.
>
> Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
> the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
> bad about someone wealthy.
How about you go and create another newsgroup just for this topic,
something along the lines of
alt.conspiracy.cycling.la.guilty
I'm sure that between Lafferty, duped%, dope% ad DA47 you guys can have
a great time over there.
and don't crosspost back here.
-bdbafh
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> > > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
> > treatment, absent an executed consent form.
> > Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
> > hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
> > patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
> > medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
> > personnel to liability.
> > OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
> > point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
> > performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
> > well be omitted from the written record.
> > During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
> > We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
> > obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
> > in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
> > subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
> > guys).
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > --
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> > http://www.dentaltwins.com
> > Brooklyn, NY
> > 718-258-5001
>
> I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
> treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
> seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
> doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
> reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
> Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
> to head to chemo.
>
> And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
> from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
> years ago.
>
> Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
> the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
> bad about someone wealthy.
How about you go and create another newsgroup just for this topic,
something along the lines of
alt.conspiracy.cycling.la.guilty
I'm sure that between Lafferty, duped%, dope% ad DA47 you guys can have
a great time over there.
and don't crosspost back here.
-bdbafh
F
Fred Fredburger
Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>> Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
>> and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
>> up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
>> of truth and justice are doping.
>>
>> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
>> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
>> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
>> your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
>> Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.
>
> You're not saying that they made him care, are you??
If you're going to be obtuse, please try to make sense while doing so.
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>> Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
>> and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
>> up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
>> of truth and justice are doping.
>>
>> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
>> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
>> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
>> your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
>> Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.
>
> You're not saying that they made him care, are you??
If you're going to be obtuse, please try to make sense while doing so.
B
B. Lafferty
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> > > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>> > treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>> > Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
>> > hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>> > patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>> > medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
>> > personnel to liability.
>> > OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
>> > point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
>> > performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
>> > well be omitted from the written record.
>> > During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
>> > We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
>> > obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned
>> > later
>> > in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
>> > subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on
>> > these
>> > guys).
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
>> > http://www.dentaltwins.com
>> > Brooklyn, NY
>> > 718-258-5001
>>
>> I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
>> treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
>> seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
>> doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
>> reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
>> Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
>> to head to chemo.
>>
>> And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
>> from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
>> years ago.
>>
>> Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
>> the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
>> bad about someone wealthy.
>
> How about you go and create another newsgroup just for this topic,
> something along the lines of
>
> alt.conspiracy.cycling.la.guilty
>
> I'm sure that between Lafferty, duped%, dope% ad DA47 you guys can have
> a great time over there.
>
> and don't crosspost back here.
>
> -bdbafh
>
This is`only made possible by the culture of doping in the sport. Sometimes
reality bites.
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> > > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>> > treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>> > Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
>> > hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>> > patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>> > medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
>> > personnel to liability.
>> > OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
>> > point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
>> > performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
>> > well be omitted from the written record.
>> > During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
>> > We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
>> > obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned
>> > later
>> > in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
>> > subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on
>> > these
>> > guys).
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
>> > http://www.dentaltwins.com
>> > Brooklyn, NY
>> > 718-258-5001
>>
>> I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
>> treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
>> seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
>> doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
>> reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
>> Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
>> to head to chemo.
>>
>> And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
>> from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
>> years ago.
>>
>> Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
>> the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
>> bad about someone wealthy.
>
> How about you go and create another newsgroup just for this topic,
> something along the lines of
>
> alt.conspiracy.cycling.la.guilty
>
> I'm sure that between Lafferty, duped%, dope% ad DA47 you guys can have
> a great time over there.
>
> and don't crosspost back here.
>
> -bdbafh
>
This is`only made possible by the culture of doping in the sport. Sometimes
reality bites.
D
Donald Munro
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes.
Well I suppose you could always study the background radiation.
> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes.
Well I suppose you could always study the background radiation.
M
Michael Press
Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> >> Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
> >> and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
> >> up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
> >> of truth and justice are doping.
> >>
> >> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
> >> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
> >> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
> >> your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
> >> Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.
> >
> > You're not saying that they made him care, are you??
>
> If you're going to be obtuse, please try to make sense while doing so.
.... or at least better quality nonsense.
--
Michael Press
<[email protected]>,
Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> >> Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
> >> and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
> >> up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
> >> of truth and justice are doping.
> >>
> >> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
> >> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
> >> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
> >> your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
> >> Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.
> >
> > You're not saying that they made him care, are you??
>
> If you're going to be obtuse, please try to make sense while doing so.
.... or at least better quality nonsense.
--
Michael Press
M
Michael Press
Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> How about you go and create another newsgroup just for this topic,
> something along the lines of
>
> alt.conspiracy.cycling.la.guilty
>
> I'm sure that between Lafferty, duped%, dope% ad DA47 you guys can have
> a great time over there.
>
> and don't crosspost back here.
and mountain bike dud.
--
Michael Press
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> How about you go and create another newsgroup just for this topic,
> something along the lines of
>
> alt.conspiracy.cycling.la.guilty
>
> I'm sure that between Lafferty, duped%, dope% ad DA47 you guys can have
> a great time over there.
>
> and don't crosspost back here.
and mountain bike dud.
--
Michael Press
B
B. Lafferty wrote:
> There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
> third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
> for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what the
> patient said.
Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Counselor Lafferty, the court is not convinced that you
have standing to press a suit in this matter. The court
also has some very important TV to watch.
Ben
> There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
> third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
> for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what the
> patient said.
Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Counselor Lafferty, the court is not convinced that you
have standing to press a suit in this matter. The court
also has some very important TV to watch.
Ben
M
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:daWNg.598$cf2.160@trndny07...
>
>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>>
>>
>>The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>>Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
>>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and personnel
>>to liability.
>
>
> There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
> third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
> for the doctor.
Not to argue the legalities with you, Counselor, but what if the doctor
maintains that there is no third party present to his knowledge and memory?
Steve
If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what the
> patient said. IIRC, here, Betsey Andreu testified hat she could not recall
> the name of the doctor present during the conversation, but that she was
> certain it was not the oncologist who at arbitration provided his afidavit
> to Armstrong.
>
>
>>OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
>>point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of performance
>>enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might well be
>>omitted from the written record.
>
>
> Such a statement coming from the patient, who is lucid and determined to
> beat the disease, one could well be assumed to be truthful. Assuming also
> that the question was asked by a physician working on the case, that would
> tend to indicate that the physician had knowledge of the possible effects of
> certain bnned substances.
>
>
>
>>During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma. We
>>were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
>>obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
>>in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
>>subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
>>guys).
>
>
> Very different situation.
>
>>Steve
>>
>>--
>>Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
>>http://www.dentaltwins.com
>>Brooklyn, NY
>>718-258-5001
>
>
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:daWNg.598$cf2.160@trndny07...
>
>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>>
>>
>>The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>>Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
>>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and personnel
>>to liability.
>
>
> There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
> third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
> for the doctor.
Not to argue the legalities with you, Counselor, but what if the doctor
maintains that there is no third party present to his knowledge and memory?
Steve
If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what the
> patient said. IIRC, here, Betsey Andreu testified hat she could not recall
> the name of the doctor present during the conversation, but that she was
> certain it was not the oncologist who at arbitration provided his afidavit
> to Armstrong.
>
>
>>OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
>>point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of performance
>>enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might well be
>>omitted from the written record.
>
>
> Such a statement coming from the patient, who is lucid and determined to
> beat the disease, one could well be assumed to be truthful. Assuming also
> that the question was asked by a physician working on the case, that would
> tend to indicate that the physician had knowledge of the possible effects of
> certain bnned substances.
>
>
>
>>During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma. We
>>were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
>>obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
>>in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
>>subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
>>guys).
>
>
> Very different situation.
>
>>Steve
>>
>>--
>>Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
>>http://www.dentaltwins.com
>>Brooklyn, NY
>>718-258-5001
>
>
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
M
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>> Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
>>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
>>personnel to liability.
>> OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
>>point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
>>performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
>>well be omitted from the written record.
>> During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
>>We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
>>obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
>>in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
>>subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
>>guys).
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>--
>>Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
>>http://www.dentaltwins.com
>>Brooklyn, NY
>>718-258-5001
>
>
> I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
> treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
> seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
> doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
> reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
> Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
> to head to chemo.
Surely.
>
> And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
> from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
> years ago.
I hope so.
>
> Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
> the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
> bad about someone wealthy.
Well, it would be interesting to find that surgeon or oncologist. If
it turns out that there was a third party and the record is at some
point subpoenaed, that would about do it.
Steve
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>> Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
>>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
>>personnel to liability.
>> OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
>>point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
>>performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
>>well be omitted from the written record.
>> During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
>>We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
>>obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
>>in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
>>subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
>>guys).
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>--
>>Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
>>http://www.dentaltwins.com
>>Brooklyn, NY
>>718-258-5001
>
>
> I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
> treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
> seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
> doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
> reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
> Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
> to head to chemo.
Surely.
>
> And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
> from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
> years ago.
I hope so.
>
> Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
> the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
> bad about someone wealthy.
Well, it would be interesting to find that surgeon or oncologist. If
it turns out that there was a third party and the record is at some
point subpoenaed, that would about do it.
Steve
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
B
B. Lafferty
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
>> third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
>> for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what
>> the
>> patient said.
>
> Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
> Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
> Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
The way it generally works with arbirtaion proceedings is that a part
wishing to compel the appearance of a non-party witness prepares a subpoena,
goes to the court of law having statutory juristiction over arbitration
matters, and asks a judge there to sign the subpoena. Once that is done,
the subpoena is served in the usual maner required by statute. It can be a
bit of a pain when one must serve and seek enforcement of a subpoena in
another state, but that 's part of why we attorneys earn our big bucks.
>
> Counselor Lafferty, the court is not convinced that you
> have standing to press a suit in this matter. The court
> also has some very important TV to watch.
>
> Ben
>
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
>> third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
>> for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what
>> the
>> patient said.
>
> Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
> Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
> Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
The way it generally works with arbirtaion proceedings is that a part
wishing to compel the appearance of a non-party witness prepares a subpoena,
goes to the court of law having statutory juristiction over arbitration
matters, and asks a judge there to sign the subpoena. Once that is done,
the subpoena is served in the usual maner required by statute. It can be a
bit of a pain when one must serve and seek enforcement of a subpoena in
another state, but that 's part of why we attorneys earn our big bucks.
>
> Counselor Lafferty, the court is not convinced that you
> have standing to press a suit in this matter. The court
> also has some very important TV to watch.
>
> Ben
>
B
B. Lafferty
Guest
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:KhZNg.606$cf2.565@trndny07...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:daWNg.598$cf2.160@trndny07...
>>
>>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>>>
>>>
>>>The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>>>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>>>Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
>>>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>>>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>>>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and personnel
>>>to liability.
>>
>>
>> There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
>> third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
>> for the doctor.
>
> Not to argue the legalities with you, Counselor, but what if the doctor
> maintains that there is no third party present to his knowledge and
> memory?
>
> Steve
Then the judge holds a hearing to determine if anyone else was present.
Whether the doctor remembers it or not, the issue is whether the presence of
a third party prevents the patient from asserting the privilege. The
privelege is the patient's t assert, not the doctor. If the patient
authorizes the doctor to testify, the patient has waived his/her privilge.
news:KhZNg.606$cf2.565@trndny07...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:daWNg.598$cf2.160@trndny07...
>>
>>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>>>
>>>
>>>The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>>>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>>>Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
>>>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>>>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>>>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and personnel
>>>to liability.
>>
>>
>> There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
>> third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
>> for the doctor.
>
> Not to argue the legalities with you, Counselor, but what if the doctor
> maintains that there is no third party present to his knowledge and
> memory?
>
> Steve
Then the judge holds a hearing to determine if anyone else was present.
Whether the doctor remembers it or not, the issue is whether the presence of
a third party prevents the patient from asserting the privilege. The
privelege is the patient's t assert, not the doctor. If the patient
authorizes the doctor to testify, the patient has waived his/her privilge.
B
B. Lafferty wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
> > Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
> > Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
>
> The way it generally works with arbirtaion proceedings is that a part
> wishing to compel the appearance of a non-party witness prepares a subpoena,
What's being arbitrated?
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
> > Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
> > Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
>
> The way it generally works with arbirtaion proceedings is that a part
> wishing to compel the appearance of a non-party witness prepares a subpoena,
What's being arbitrated?
P
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >
> >>B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
> >>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
> >> Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
> >>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
> >>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
> >>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
> >>personnel to liability.
> >> OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
> >>point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
> >>performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
> >>well be omitted from the written record.
> >> During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
> >>We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
> >>obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
> >>in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
> >>subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
> >>guys).
> >>
> >>Steve
> >>
> >>--
> >>Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> >>http://www.dentaltwins.com
> >>Brooklyn, NY
> >>718-258-5001
> >
> >
> > I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
> > treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
> > seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
> > doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
> > reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
> > Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
> > to head to chemo.
>
>
>
> Surely.
> >
> > And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
> > from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
> > years ago.
>
>
> I hope so.
> >
> > Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
> > the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
> > bad about someone wealthy.
>
>
> Well, it would be interesting to find that surgeon or oncologist. If
> it turns out that there was a third party and the record is at some
> point subpoenaed, that would about do it.
>
> Steve
> >
>
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> http://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001
I don't know how medical records can enter into the court process.
Wouldn't it be logical to just subpeona Armstrong's charts from the
time he was in the hospital? Or (even in court) does he have to give
his permission?
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >
> >>B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
> >>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
> >> Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
> >>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
> >>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
> >>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
> >>personnel to liability.
> >> OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
> >>point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
> >>performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
> >>well be omitted from the written record.
> >> During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
> >>We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
> >>obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
> >>in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
> >>subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
> >>guys).
> >>
> >>Steve
> >>
> >>--
> >>Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> >>http://www.dentaltwins.com
> >>Brooklyn, NY
> >>718-258-5001
> >
> >
> > I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
> > treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
> > seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
> > doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
> > reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
> > Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
> > to head to chemo.
>
>
>
> Surely.
> >
> > And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
> > from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
> > years ago.
>
>
> I hope so.
> >
> > Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
> > the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
> > bad about someone wealthy.
>
>
> Well, it would be interesting to find that surgeon or oncologist. If
> it turns out that there was a third party and the record is at some
> point subpoenaed, that would about do it.
>
> Steve
> >
>
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> http://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001
I don't know how medical records can enter into the court process.
Wouldn't it be logical to just subpeona Armstrong's charts from the
time he was in the hospital? Or (even in court) does he have to give
his permission?
