Betsy Andreu Appreciation Society

[Hugh Januss]

Yes? That doesn't mean she has the right to reveal his private conversations with his doctor, would have been the law suit.

If he invited her to be there then it was not a private conversation was it. LA was so full of himself that he probably couldn't comprehend that someone would struggle with having to lie to protect Him.

 

[scribe]

If he invited her to be there then it was not a private conversation was it. LA was so full of himself that he probably couldn't comprehend that someone would struggle with having to lie to protect Him.

Oh man. You gotta give BPC some credit. He can kick up some irrational reactions out of other forum goers.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You are in need of help. Honestly you're nuts, and not in a funny way.

That is cruel I think he is pretty funny, for a troll.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Oh man. You gotta give BPC some credit. He can kick up some irrational reactions out of other forum goers.

Could you go into any detail about what you found irrational in my statements?

 

[Digger]

Could you go into any detail about what you found irrational in my statements?

Scribe struggles with the detail side of things.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh man. You gotta give BPC some credit. He can kick up some irrational reactions out of other forum goers.

BPC'c argument is that a private citizen overhearing a discussion between a patient and their Doctor should be precluded as it is against Doctor Patient confidentiality.

His argument could make sence if he proves that Betsy Andreu was indeed Lances Doctor.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Scribe struggles with the detail side of things.

I keep forgetting that. I guess I should let him slide if he doesn't feel like tackling my question.

 

[elapid]

Back to this line again. I thought we dealt with that? Spin is not a matter of lying, it's putting interpretation on the facts. You'll note that I am not lying but you could say I am spinning a line by putting my interpretation of what happened and drawing conclusions from this.

In any event, we're not actually talking about facts in the recent part of the thread. We're talking about morals and what would have been the best moral course of action. You take the view that, despite not a chance in hell of being prosecuted for perjury, it was right for Betsy to betray the trust of Armstrong and his conversation with his doctor, and it was moral to potentially damage his reputation with the ignorant public who are unaware of the doping procedures of cycling in the 1990s. I take a different moral view to that.

Some people can only reply to this by repeating their little mantra about 'the truth', saying I am a troll or highlighting spelling mistakes. This apparently means I am 'owned'. Alrighty then...

I'll repeat:

No more wrong than it is for Betsy to tell the truth! She was there, you weren't. Your entire argument is based on the heresay of a man with few morals and little integrity.

 

[workingclasshero]

All I can see is people saying troll and highlighting spelling mistakes. Where is this great argument they are making?

keep digging

lance is going to fall into your hole

 

[scribe]

I keep forgetting that. I guess I should let him slide if he doesn't feel like tackling my question.

Let it slide then. I don't feel like it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Back to this line again. I thought we dealt with that? Spin is not a matter of lying, it's putting interpretation on the facts. You'll note that I am not lying but you could say I am spinning a line by putting my interpretation of what happened and drawing conclusions from this.

In any event, we're not actually talking about facts in the recent part of the thread. We're talking about morals and what would have been the best moral course of action. You take the view that, despite not a chance in hell of being prosecuted for perjury, it was right for Betsy to betray the trust of Armstrong and his conversation with his doctor, and it was moral to potentially damage his reputation with the ignorant public who are unaware of the doping procedures of cycling in the 1990s. I take a different moral view to that.

Some people can only reply to this by repeating their little mantra about 'the truth', saying I am a troll or highlighting spelling mistakes. This apparently means I am 'owned'. Alrighty then...

Well you make it difficult to question your moral judgement when you say it is the easiest, decent and honorable to lie for Lance.
And then later that it easy to tell the truth!

 

[Race Radio]

The best part of this thread is some of the new fans get to see a master at work.

The return of House. King of trolls

 

[Digger]

Digger, I don't mind you being here, but you're not very helpful to those trying to convict me of trolling. All you're doing is throwing out little one liners of abuse that have nothing to do with anything. I'd give your pals a break and lay off it a bit.

I'm merely experimenting with you, to see if you understand English.
Because from the start, I, along with others, presented facts and backed them up. You just disregarded this with utter disdain, as if it was an inconvenience. So I gave up trying to reason with you, by presenting substantiated facts. And seeing how more desperate you have progessively become on this thread, I'm enjoying you. It's not funny, but it is entertaining. I also believe, on a more serious note, that you've been an absolute d*** towards Betsy Andreu, and you deserve the abuse you get from the other posters, obviously including myself.

 

[pedaling squares]

Morals is a balance of competiting forces. There is no 'setting morals aside'. I think the most moral thing to do would have been to take the course of action I advocated.

So is driving over the speed limit. Sometimes you need to.

This is a fantastic example of taking snippets of a post and working them to suit your argument. Surely you understood that I meant that the course of action you advocated was not only immoral, but illegal. And you compare lying under oath to exceeding the speed limit.. hell of a rebuttal.

One assumes you are either thirteen, or your prescription needs filling.

 

[pedaling squares]

I question your moral judgment to claim this was a great moral thing to do. As Scribe says, she was obligated to tell the truth in any event. It was the easiest and least gutsy thing to do of the options on the table.

Clearly none of the others in this forum can help you in your struggle with the truth. Come out of the basement and ask your parents if telling the truth is the easy path, and if it is ok to lie under oath.

 

[elizab]

Perjury is hardly ever prosecuted and certainly wouldn't have been in this case. You don't see Armstrong getting prosecuted, do you? She could have completely protected herself legally by simply tagging on that she wasn't certain.

All this moral grandstanding about the law is bunkum. True morals go beyond legal technicalities. Indeed, the worst criminals in history hide behind legal technicalities to get them off. We never hear all this stuff about the law then.

Perjury is rarely if ever tried in an arbitration case. Just because it's not doesn't mean the truth should be ignored.

Perjury IS, however, tried in federal court cases. Martha Stewart and Marion Jones are the two highest profile cases that come to mind. Never mind it's why Bill Clinton was impeached. So PCB, are you saying should I be called to testify in a federal court of law that lance doped I should lie as you suggest I should?

 

[Jonathan]

Well you've made it very difficult for yourself now by already admitting the incident did happen. It's a mess. You'll have to consult your lawyers about whether its feasible to pull it off. I can't really help you.

I don't see what the problem with that is. It happened, as we evidently all agree now, so the best thing is to admit that it happened.

 

[Jonathan]

The return of House. King of trolls

I remember someone called Gearhead who was worse (or better, if you will).

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well you've made it very difficult for yourself now by already admitting the incident did happen. It's a mess. You'll have to consult your lawyers about whether its feasible to pull it off. I can't really help you.

Switching gears a little bit, have you ever wondered why LA admitted to this in front of other people? I'm interested what your take on it is. What do you think was his psychological state? I'm not saying he didn't say he - I think he did - but the biggest reason I think people have difficulty with it is you'd think LA would not have been so careless. So why do you think he was? Was he doped up from the treatments or something? Have you ever thought about why he might have decided to say it?

I don't believe that Betsy was really asking you for advice on how to commit perjury, although I guess it never hurts to check with an expert.
I am curious however, and so I'll ask you. Have you ever (or indeed are you now) considered a career in politics? You seem to have the requisit adjustable moral code to go far in that field.

Following your gear change I have to observe that you seem to be the only one "struggling" with anything here. As to why LA would have said what he did I can only think that his giant ego cannot comprehend that anyone in his "inner circle" would have a problem with lying to protect him. Look at how many seem to do just that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well you've made it very difficult for yourself now by already admitting the incident did happen. It's a mess. You'll have to consult your lawyers about whether its feasible to pull it off. I can't really help you.

I would assume Betsy wont be to upset that you can't help her.

Why will she need a lawyer? Is Lance suing?? I must have missed that twitter. Thats great news as it is nearly 4 years since the SCA case, I thought it might have slipped his mind.

I presume Versus have the rights? Frankies post case interview should be fun!

 

[Dude17]

Following your gear change I have to observe that you seem to be the only one "struggling" with anything here. As to why LA would have said what he did I can only think that his giant ego cannot comprehend that anyone in his "inner circle" would have a problem with lying to protect him. Look at how many seem to do just that.

Why WOULDN'T he say what he said? I'll assume that he did say he had used EPO (or whatever the exact thing he said) in the past. You're talking to your doctors who are working with you on fighting cancer. Your prognosis isn't that good (if mythology is to be believed, and I don't doubt that part of it). Why the f*** wouldn't you tell the truth to your doctors no matter who was in the room?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why WOULDN'T he say what he said? I'll assume that he did say he had used EPO (or whatever the exact thing he said) in the past. You're talking to your doctors who are working with you on fighting cancer. Your prognosis isn't that good (if mythology is to be believed, and I don't doubt that part of it). Why the f*** wouldn't you tell the truth to your doctors no matter who was in the room?

Good point - also it wasnt like he knew the Doctors were going to ask him if he used PED's.