E
eduardoSC
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> 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?
House Un-American Activities Committee.
During the SCA Promotions lawsuit, wasn't testimony given by several
who were with the Andreu's and Armstrong during this exchange with the
doctor - directly refuting the Andreu's claim of an admission of
performance enhancing drug use by Armstrong (or at least, that they had
no recollection of such an admission by Armstrong at that time) ?
Wasn't that counter-testimony key to the suit being decided in
Armstrong's favor?
> 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?
House Un-American Activities Committee.
During the SCA Promotions lawsuit, wasn't testimony given by several
who were with the Andreu's and Armstrong during this exchange with the
doctor - directly refuting the Andreu's claim of an admission of
performance enhancing drug use by Armstrong (or at least, that they had
no recollection of such an admission by Armstrong at that time) ?
Wasn't that counter-testimony key to the suit being decided in
Armstrong's favor?