Betsy Andreu Appreciation Society

[Digger]

Gentlemen, can we get back to the point of this thread? Worshipping someone's 15 minute brush with infamy.

No problem with Betsy then I see Scribe...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Gentlemen, can we get back to the point of this thread? Worshipping someone's 15 minute brush with infamy.

Good - bring it back to the point of the thread!

I dont worship Betsy. In fact I object to your tone.

I do however applaud her guts and morals that when faced with a difficult position that she tried not to be a part of that when questioned under oath she made a choice to tell the truth.

That is rare in this day and age and it is why I appreciate her testimony.

 

[scribe]

No problem with Betsy then I see Scribe...

Oy Vey! You guys can get pretty thick.

 

[Digger]

Oy Vey! You guys can get pretty thick.

For someone who says they believe her, you're tone is very strange. Is this how you percieve everyone who says something you don't want to hear....

 

[scribe]

Good - bring it back to the point of the thread!

I dont worship Betsy. In fact I object to your tone.

I do however applaud her guts and morals that when faced with a difficult position that she tried not to be a part of that when questioned under oath she made a choice to tell the truth.

That is rare in this day and age and it is why I appreciate her testimony.

She was under oath to tell the truth. I don't think it was optional.

I think you can say whatever you think in Italian courts. That would be interesting to see in action.

 

[Hugh Januss]

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.

troll alert I am at a loss for anything else to say in the face of this level of obtuse thinking.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

O, I am sorry I thought you said earlier the easiest, honorable, decent thing to do was lie? Maybe I was wrong....

Or maybe not.....

But you're using "the truth" as some big sexy religious type slogan. Life isn't like that. In honesty, given your relationship to Armstrong at the time and the position of trust you were given by being allowed in the room at the terrible time in his life; and the fact the doctor/patient relationship is a strictly private affair, and lastly, the fact the outside world wouldn't understand how doping was normal in the sport in the 1990s, the decent thing to do would be to have said you were not 100% sure about what you heard. Yes I suppose it would be sort of lying, but nevertheless the honorable course of action. That's my view.
.

 

[Anonymous]

Oy Vey! You guys can get pretty thick.

And you're pretty much always a something that rhymes with "thick."

 

[Anonymous]

You can keep repeating this mantra about "the truth" and pretending there were no other moral equations involved, but it's simply not true.

No, you said lying in sworn testimony was the right thing to do. You were clear and there is no amount of obfuscation on your part that will alter that fact.

 

[Race Radio]

Yes you are wrong. Never said it was easiest thing to do. The decent and most honourable of the decisions she could have made.

These things are a balance of competiting forces. There is no hard and fast answer, but I think that would have been best moral decision. Whatever the truth, she has to live with her decision. That can't be easy.

Troll

There is a hard and fast answer....it is called the law. Perjury is against the law.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

She was under oath to tell the truth. I don't think it was optional.

I think you can say whatever you think in Italian courts. That would be interesting to see in action.

It shouldnt be optional, but people do make choices, you can lie to protect Lance, like Stephanie did. Or you can decide to tell the truth.

And remember Lance made a choice too - when he was asked did any Doctors enter the room to discuss his condition while there were visitors there he said,
"Absolutley not.... that didn't happened"

 

[Anonymous]

Yes?

Are you saying there can never be a case where lying is moral? Are you a 4 year old or something?

In sworn testimony, yea that is what I am saying. See, there is a reason you go to jail for doing it. Are you stupid or something?

 

[scribe]

It shouldnt be optional, but people do make choices, you can lie to protect Lance, like Stephanie did. Or you can decide to tell the truth.

And remember Lance made a choice too - when he was asked did any Doctors enter the room to discuss his condition while there were visitors there he said,
"Absolutley not.... that didn't happened"

Stephanie lied to someone, not necessarily to protect Lance.

Didn't Lance just have brain surgery?

 

[Anonymous]

Stephanie lied to someone, not necessarily to protect Lance.

Didn't Lance just have brain surgery?

Yea, and they should have given him a Prickectomy while they were in there. Dang, we do need health care reform...

 

[scribe]

Yea, and they should have given him a Prickectomy while they were in there. Dang, we do need health care reform...

Digger is gonna love this material.

 

[Anonymous]

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 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.

No, see, unlike you and the Uniballer, she has morals that guide here actions. Its not the other way around.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes you are wrong. Never said it was easiest thing to do. The decent and most honourable of the decisions she could have made.

These things are a balance of competiting forces. There is no hard and fast answer, but I think that would have been best moral decision. Whatever the truth, she has to live with her decision. That can't be easy.

Really?

I think the perjury card is cover. You know as well as I do that it would have been fantastically easy just to say she might have misheard. She could even have repeated what she did hear but tagged that bit on the end. It wouldn't even be perjury. That would have been the moral thing to do.

"..fantastically easy to just to say she might have misheard"......

 

[Race Radio]

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 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.

Troll Alert

 

[Anonymous]

Betsy might have broken the law by denying Armstrong's right to privacy to have a conversation with his doctor without her spilling her guts to the world about it. He could have sued but chose not to on moral grounds.

Ok, that's just moronic. You really are nothing but a Troll. Ignoreland for you.

Everyone, I suggest putting him on "Ignore." He will die on the vine like the rest of them.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Betsy might have broken the law by denying Armstrong's right to privacy to have a conversation with his doctor without her spilling her guts to the world about it. He could have sued but chose not to on moral grounds.

The "moral ground" that according to sworn testimony he was the one who told her to stay?

 

[Hugh Januss]

The people who can't comprehend sophicated moral questions are all shouting troll - the online equivilent of shouting someone down.

Ahh nevermind it's too easy.

 

[Race Radio]

The people who can't comprehend sophicated moral questions are all shouting troll - the online equivilent of shouting someone down.

If you had a valid point then that would be shouting someone down. You are trolling. There is no other way to describe it. You were banned for it already using the Arbiter user name. You are a troll and add no value to this forum

 

[blackcat]

Ahh nevermind it's too easy.

yes, such sophistry

 

[Digger]

The people who can't comprehend sophicated moral questions are all shouting troll - the online equivilent of shouting someone down.

Just wondering what these words are that I've highlighted. Are you bilingual or something and are getting mixed up with your other main language?

 

[Race Radio]

Just wondering what these words are that I've highlighted. Are you bilingual or something and are getting mixed up with your other main language?

There is also the genius possibility