More on the Betsy Andreu & Lance. Now with Sally Jenkins

[scribe]

The way I looked at this case was what had people to gain & lose by testifying.

We have discussed Lance and Stephanie, who although I accept lied I feel a some sympathy for as she was placed in a difficult situation.

Frankie had nothing to gain and everything to lose. He is still working within cycling and a blacklisted reporter doesn't usually survive very long in the sport.
As for Betsy, nothing to gain but a gigantic headache- and she would suffer to if her husband was blacklisted.

The other question is why should they lie to protect LA
ance?

I agree. So that pretty much leaves a 5 million dollar lie by LA. Again, the funniest part is he needlessly put himself in that situation. If his lawyers had advised him to wait until the tour was certified, none if it would have came to be.

Lets move on to LA actually calling F&B liars. He did that under oath, no? Bothersome and unnecessary. BUT, lets assume LA had no idea who leaked the details of what happened in his recovery room from the surgery to that book. It is pretty powerful to have your friends and colleagues betray you when you had no idea you were gonna live or die, much less survive and thrive. For all he knew, it might have been F&B who leaked the doctors meeting off in the first place. I'd be in a pretty dark and bitter place too.

 

[Ozzie2]

I am a minute into it now and I can't stop rolling my eyes. Lemond is going on about all the people he doesn't like and apparently called someone who also needed to apologize.

you know maybe we needed spoilers on those mp3s

i mean i feel a little dirty listening to this

this is personal stuff, and he said "no, your note being recorded"

i am up to that point. i think i'll stop. i know there are 2 sides of every story and she's talking openly about personal stuff

and Gl is talking about his parents knowing its being recorded?

but then theres the tabloid person in me who's really enjoying this
and listening to that interwivew with betsy and those 3 guys really opened my eyes to this whole sport- not that i was under much of an illusion

this is like "to drug or not to drug", another ethical dilemma (as in last night when i went to see GI-Joe...do I get up and leave this violent rubbish or stay because it is compelling)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I agree. So that pretty much leaves a 5 million dollar lie by LA. Again, the funniest part is he needlessly put himself in that situation. If his lawyers had advised him to wait until the tour was certified, none if it would have came to be.

Lets move on to LA actually calling F&B liars. He did that under oath, no? Bothersome and unnecessary. BUT, lets assume LA had no idea who leaked the details of what happened in his recovery room from the surgery to that book. It is pretty powerful to have your friends and colleagues betray you when you had no idea you were gonna live or die, much less survive and thrive. For all he knew, it might have been F&B who leaked the doctors meeting off in the first place. I'd be in a pretty dark and bitter place too.

The depositions weren't meant to be made public - my theory on all this is that SCA leaked it little by little to get a quick settlement from LA.

The story of the confession didnt come out for about 8 years. It appears a lot of people had heard it - but at that stage it would have been hearsay or rumour.

It would have been an ignored footnote in LA Confidential had SCA not brought it to light.

 

[elizab]

That's a pretty sweeping statement. You've personally spoke with all of his patients to make that claim? Or has Dr. Nichols, in some sort of legal or medical document, admitted as such? If so, please post a link to said documentation.

Sweeping statement to whom? I was in that room. Nichols wasn't in that room at the time the aforementioned incident took place. Lance testified no doctors ever entered that room in direct conflict to my testimony, Frankie's and even Stephanie's - and indirectly to James Startt's. Nichols wrote an affidavit that this incident didn't happen with him present. That is not incorrect since he was not present. And if you believe lance then it's impossible Nichols was present because lance testified no doctors ever entered.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sweeping statement to whom? I was in that room. Nichols wasn't in that room at the time the aforementioned incident took place. Lance testified no doctors ever entered that room in direct conflict to my testimony, Frankie's and even Stephanie's - and indirectly to James Startt's. Nichols wrote an affidavit that this incident didn't happen with him present. That is not incorrect since he was not present. And if you believe lance then it's impossible Nichols was present because lance testified no doctors ever entered.

Also it should be noted that Lances own lawyer made a claim that perhaps those in the room had misheard the Doctors - that the mention of steroids and EPO was to do with his post operative care.

But when Lance was asked under oath - he stated that no Doctors entered the room with those people present - contrary to the scenario his lawyer was trying to insinuate.

 

[Ozzie2]

ding ding ding ding ding

Thank you doctor for noting that relevant point there on what LANCE himself said. never mind what the lawyer or doctor or fanboys say 6 years later

Thank you Eliza for reminding those of us who speculate onwhat might have happened that...."I was in that room."

i mean dang. thread. flippin. closed.

(as such i would also like to thank that drop kick "writer/ journo" for posting her stupid incoherant dribble on that newspapers website - if she didn't then this thread wouldnt be here and Eliza woulndt have drifted by here to PUT THE AMBIGUITY OF THE MATTER TO BED.

I mean FFS, how much clearer can it be? It either did or didn't happen as she says and we can all make up our own minds as to the integrity of the lady telling us what really happened.

personally i have my opinion. being basically why would a person voluntarily bring all this headache onto themselves- all the while trying to avoid the headache, if they were lying and had an axe to grind and were malicious? I don't see anythign malicious in this. in fact i think it is very sad the whole affair, for all involved.

it either did or it didn't happen as she says, the rest is just superflous or substantiating

 

[elizab]

Ozzie2, that said since this is old stuff, do you want me to ignore it or answer Scribe's questions?
To put one thing to rest: Greg submitted that taped conversation of Stephanie as evidence during the SCA trial. All the stuff got leaked. CBC even obtained the videos of the depositions! http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/ (click on "watch documentary" on the right). To blame Greg is just dumb. I'm grateful he recorded her. If only I had recorded the 4 hour conversation I had with her when she called me 2 years ago sobbing how sorry she was.
I understand the interest that might be here for this particular incident because lance has never been held accountable for any of the descrepancies in testimony by him or those who testified for him.

 

[Anonymous]

Countless? I count three, two of which he won for tens of millions of $$$$$. The third is with Trek. He will win that next year.

Compare that with Lance's legal entanglements.

Pearl Izumi
David Walsh
Filippo Simeoni
Frankie Andreau
Mike Anderson
London Sunday Times
SCA
Pierre Ballester
Jeff Spencer
L'Équipe
Animal Charity Collar Group
Editions de la Martiniere

Armstrong easily wins the spoiled child competition.

Unfair argument. The enterprise of Lance Armstrong is far more vast than that of LeMond and as such it would be normal for more "legal entanglements".

BTW, what was his legal issue with Jeff Spencer?

 

[Digger]

Ozzie2, that said since this is old stuff, do you want me to ignore it or answer Scribe's questions?
To put one thing to rest: Greg submitted that taped conversation of Stephanie as evidence during the SCA trial. All the stuff got leaked. CBC even obtained the videos of the depositions! http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/ (click on "watch documentary" on the right). To blame Greg is just dumb. I'm grateful he recorded her. If only I had recorded the 4 hour conversation I had with her when she called me 2 years ago sobbing how sorry she was.
I understand the interest that might be here for this particular incident because lance has never been held accountable for any of the descrepancies in testimony by him or those who testified for him.

There's some really powerful stuff on that tape between Stephanie and Greg. Like where she says the thing that annoys her the most is how he has given so much false hope to people, and that as a mother of a child with a handicap, she found this so hard to stomach. And this is a woman who knew him so well.

 

[Digger]

Unfair argument. The enterprise of Lance Armstrong is far more vast than that of LeMond and as such it would be normal for more "legal entanglements".

BTW, what was his legal issue with Jeff Spencer?

Lol...because he's right, that's your retort!!!

Not sure his legal problem with Jeff, but Jeff was filmed by French TV dumping used syringes, blood soasked compresses and Actovegin for USP.

Incidentally, Lemond has been around for a decade more than Lance. He has never had a doping allegation. And in all that time, he is only on his third lawsuit. Whereas your boy is around ten years fewer, been in business alot less time and has three times the amount of lawsuits. One of Greg's lawsuits was against a company who were scr** ing people in who had made investments in the company - how dare he?!!! Should he just have let the company do what they wanted???

 

[Ozzie2]

Ozzie2, that said since this is old stuff, do you want me to ignore it or answer Scribe's questions?.

truly Elizab, I don't feel as though I am in_any_position to ask anyone here, least of all yourself! to put up for my sake or some joker like scribe's sake

i can't say ignore it, but what can you say that hasn't already been said, when it seems those who are banging for an answer don't want to hear it anyway.

i've heard enough to know what i believe is right.

true points on the taping. yeah me too sometimes wished i had a tape of it, but then i reflected about what kind of person would i have been to do that. a prudent person, or a sneaky person?

on one hand i feel sorry for stephanie, on others not. ditto GregL

all i know is there are 3 sides to every story, and having been on the wrong end of perception try to give people the benefit of the doubt where possible.

eventually the truth, logic, evidence- is overwhelming. as i see it in this case.

thus for me the whole affair is tragic, the lies and the spun lies

hearing about phil anderson was another sad case for me, being an aussie, he was a real trailbreaker. but no amount of success in life compensates for failure in teh home, so that is sad.

ditto the comment on cadel- surely not too? i gotta dig on that but am afraid what i might find

thanks for listening.

 

[Eva Maria]

Unfair argument. The enterprise of Lance Armstrong is far more vast than that of LeMond and as such it would be normal for more "legal entanglements".

BTW, what was his legal issue with Jeff Spencer?

So Lemond's three lawsuits make him a spoiled child but Armstrong's many lawsuits make him a good businessman? Most would say that position is hypocritical.

Jeff Spencer was the USPS/Disco Chiropractor. He was the same guy who was filmed driving an unmarked car miles out of the way to dump 160 syringes and used bags of Actovgin. He started marketing some voodoo, biofeedback, Elctrostim device. He made the mistake of using Armstrong's picture in some of his marketing materials. Armstrong fired off a suit to his old dope dumbing buddy.

 

[coffeebean2]

Sweeping statement to whom? I was in that room. Nichols wasn't in that room at the time the aforementioned incident took place. Lance testified no doctors ever entered that room in direct conflict to my testimony, Frankie's and even Stephanie's - and indirectly to James Startt's. Nichols wrote an affidavit that this incident didn't happen with him present. That is not incorrect since he was not present. And if you believe lance then it's impossible Nichols was present because lance testified no doctors ever entered.

In your post, you stated "He also happens to be a doctor who never asks his patients what medications or drugs his patients are using."

I asked you to post links to either a legal document or a medical journal (or document) that corroborates your statement.

So, either post said links or retract that "sweeping statement."

 

[Digger]

In your post, you stated "He also happens to be a doctor who never asks his patients what medications or drugs his patients are using."

I asked you to post links to either a legal document or a medical journal (or document) that corroborates your statement.

So, either post said links or retract that "sweeping statement."

Coffeebean if you had any idea about the SCA case, you would know that Betsy said this in jest.
Asking Lance if he had used PEDs was a very reasonable question for an athlete with Cancer. But Nicholls said in his testimony that this was a question which would never be asked. An absolutely nonsensical statement.

 

[coffeebean2]

To put one thing to rest: Greg submitted that taped conversation of Stephanie as evidence during the SCA trial.

If there are any legal types on this board, please explain to me how someone who is testifying can submit evidence. Is that possible during a civil trial? I thought only the lawyers can submit evidence.

Second - how is it possible Greg Lemond was not prosecuted for taping his conversation with Stephanie McIlvain or was allowed in the SCA trial? From what I've found, it is against Minnesota law to tape a conversation without prior consent. Listening to the conversation, I didn't hear either Lemond or Stephanie give consent. I'm assuming Lemond was calling from his home in Minnesota.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=626A.02&year=2008

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In your post, you stated "He also happens to be a doctor who never asks his patients what medications or drugs his patients are using."

I asked you to post links to either a legal document or a medical journal (or document) that corroborates your statement.

So, either post said links or retract that "sweeping statement."

Here you go:

"Though doctors are under a professional obligation to record all matters regarding a patient's medical history in his/her notes, it would be unusual to ask a professional athlete who has been diagnosed with testicular cancer whether or not he has used performance enhancing drugs. I have treated other athletes with testicular cancer and don't recall ever asking them whether or not they have used performance enhancing drug's"

And here is a link to the article.
http://www.velonews.com/article/10088

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If there are any legal types on this board, please explain to me how someone who is testifying can submit evidence. Is that possible during a civil trial? I thought only the lawyers can submit evidence.

Second - how is it possible Greg Lemond was not prosecuted for taping his conversation with Stephanie McIlvain or was allowed in the SCA trial? From what I've found, it is against Minnesota law to tape a conversation without prior consent. Listening to the conversation, I didn't hear either Lemond or Stephanie give consent. I'm assuming Lemond was calling from his home in Minnesota.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=626A.02&year=2008

Well the evidence of the tape was allowed in the testimony.

Now it is in the public domain - if it was illegal I would assume it could not be released - but I don't know as I am just a humble gynecologist who looks after 3 Pro Tour teams.

Also the link you provided was from 2008- the conversation was recorded in 2004.

 

[coffeebean2]

Coffeebean if you had any idea about the SCA case, you would know that Betsy said this in jest.
Asking Lance if he had used PEDs was a very reasonable question for an athlete with Cancer. But Nicholls said in his testimony that this was a question which would never be asked. An absolutely nonsensical statement.

In jest, huh...

Agreed - asking Lance if he had used PEDs was a very reasonable question for an athlete with Cancer. Dr. Nichols submitted an affadavit. In the affadavit, Dr. Nichols stated "Lance Armstrong never admitted, suggested or indicated that he has ever taken performance-enhancing drugs. Had this been disclosed to me, I would have recorded it, or been aware of it, as a pertinent aspect of Lance Armstrong's past medical history as I always do," Nichols said. "Had I been present at any such 'confession,' I would most certainly have vividly recalled the fact," Nichols said. "I would have recorded such a confession as a matter of form, as indeed, would have my colleagues. None was recorded."" (http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/first-edition-cycling-news-for-june-24-2006).

Please post a link or links to the transcript where Dr. Nichols stated this was a question which would never be asked.

I find it incredible that 2 doctors allegedly asked Armstrong about using PEDs, Armstrong allegedly replied as doing so, yet said PEDs are not in his medical history, per Dr. Nichols' affadavit.

 

[Digger]

In jest, huh...

Agreed - asking Lance if he had used PEDs was a very reasonable question for an athlete with Cancer. Dr. Nichols submitted an affadavit. In the affadavit, Dr. Nichols stated "Lance Armstrong never admitted, suggested or indicated that he has ever taken performance-enhancing drugs. Had this been disclosed to me, I would have recorded it, or been aware of it, as a pertinent aspect of Lance Armstrong's past medical history as I always do," Nichols said. "Had I been present at any such 'confession,' I would most certainly have vividly recalled the fact," Nichols said. "I would have recorded such a confession as a matter of form, as indeed, would have my colleagues. None was recorded."" (http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/first-edition-cycling-news-for-june-24-2006).

Please post a link or links to the transcript where Dr. Nichols stated this was a question which would never be asked.

I find it incredible that 2 doctors allegedly asked Armstrong about using PEDs, Armstrong allegedly replied as doing so, yet said PEDs are not in his medical history, per Dr. Nichols' affadavit.

"I have treated other athletes with testicular cancer and don't recall ever asking them whether or not they have used performance enhancing drug's". Thanks to the good Doctor for this quote...


Are you aware that Nicholls was not even his doctor at the time?

 

[coffeebean2]

Thanks for providing the link. I wish I could read the entire affadavit or testimony instead of just bits and pieces. I'm wondering if Dr. Nichols gives reasons as to why it would be unusual to ask unless, and I'm speculating here, the possible link between PEDs and testicular cancer were not known at the time? Hence, if not known, would not be asked? Pure speculation on my part.

 

[coffeebean2]

"I have treated other athletes with testicular cancer and don't recall ever asking them whether or not they have used performance enhancing drug's". Thanks to the good Doctor for this quote...


Are you aware that Nicholls was not even his doctor at the time?

Then Dr. Nichols lied in his affadavit, as he stated he began Armstrong's chemotherapy on the day of the alleged confession. Also, the alleged confession took place in a room at the Indiana University Medical Center. It is my understanding, Armstrong went to the Indiana University Medical Center to be treated by Dr. Nichols. So, why would Armstrong be at the Indiana University Medical Center if Dr. Nichols wasn't his doctor?

 

[coffeebean2]

Well the evidence of the tape was allowed in the testimony.

Now it is in the public domain - if it was illegal I would assume it could not be released - but I don't know as I am just a humble gynecologist who looks after 3 Pro Tour teams.

Also the link you provided was from 2008- the conversation was recorded in 2004.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=626A.02&year=2004

After an admittedly quick review of the 2004 statute, it doesn't seem to be much different from 2008.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks for providing the link. I wish I could read the entire affadavit or testimony instead of just bits and pieces. I'm wondering if Dr. Nichols gives reasons as to why it would be unusual to ask unless, and I'm speculating here, the possible link between PEDs and testicular cancer were not known at the time? Hence, if not known, would not be asked? Pure speculation on my part.

Yes we could speculate about that as it is an interesting question.

But the testimony of Dr. Nichols is interesting as he wasn't in the room at the time - so it wasn't a lie to say he didnt hear the confession that Lance took PED's.

It was two other Doctors that were present - although what is interesting from Lances statements were that when asked if Doctors had entered the room while the visitors were there he said "Absolutley not" - which is in contrast to many of the questions that were asked by LA's lawyer.

 

[Anonymous]

So Lemond's three lawsuits make him a spoiled child but Armstrong's many lawsuits make him a good businessman? Most would say that position is hypocritical.

Jeff Spencer was the USPS/Disco Chiropractor. He was the same guy who was filmed driving an unmarked car miles out of the way to dump 160 syringes and used bags of Actovgin. He started marketing some voodoo, biofeedback, Elctrostim device. He made the mistake of using Armstrong's picture in some of his marketing materials. Armstrong fired off a suit to his old dope dumbing buddy.

For the record I did not call either GL or LA a spoiled child, you did. Defending one's self from unauthorized use of likeness is legitimate, which I believe was the deal with Pearl Izumi too. I'm not defending LA but you would have to admit his is a much larger target.

I'm surprised about Spencer. I knew some athletes back in the early 1980's that worked with Jeff. At that time he was pretty well known in the Pro Motocross scene in the US. He struck me as a very smart and articulate guy. Kind of a "mad professor" with all his ideas.

 

[Anonymous]

Lol...because he's right, that's your retort!!!

Not sure his legal problem with Jeff, but Jeff was filmed by French TV dumping used syringes, blood soasked compresses and Actovegin for USP.

Incidentally, Lemond has been around for a decade more than Lance. He has never had a doping allegation. And in all that time, he is only on his third lawsuit. Whereas your boy is around ten years fewer, been in business alot less time and has three times the amount of lawsuits. One of Greg's lawsuits was against a company who were scr** ing people in who had made investments in the company - how dare he?!!! Should he just have let the company do what they wanted???

Easy Digger... I'm just saying the idea that GL is a better guy than LA because he sues less often is weak. LA is not "my boy". I think it's clear that LA is not a real nice guy. But we can still discuss this stuff and be fair about it, can we not?