“There’s a lot I don’t know about Lance Armstrong, which I’m honest about in the book—and I’m not just referring to doping.”
You really think you were honest in your book?
I’m still scratching my head by what your lawyer meant when he told my lawyer you performed “due diligence” when writing your book. I would think that my husband, Frankie, and I would’ve been contacted by you since you chose to write about us regarding an incident we were involved in with Lance Armstrong when he admitted to using performance enhancing drugs in front of six of his friends in response to a doctor’s question in a hospital conference room at Indiana University Hospital in October 1996. You did no such thing which makes me wonder about your “diligence” in writing this book - not to mention integrity.
On page 61 of this book which you are now touting, you have written the following passage which is outright misleading, false and inaccurate so much so that the English publishers of this same book agreed to change the passage so as not to be sued for libel:
“(At the trial, none of the eight other people who had been in that hospital room, including Armstrong’s primary cancer physician, backed up the Andreus’ testimony, nor did Armstrong’s written medical history.”
I will correct you on these five points:
1) There weren’t eight people in that room, there were seven people other than the doctors who entered.
2) Of the seven people in that room, only four were deposed and/or testified: Lance himself, Stephanie McIlvain, and my husband, Frankie Andreu, and I. Therefore, it’s incorrect to suggest the other three people did not back up our testimonies. The other three persons - Chris and Paige Carmichael as well as Lisa Shiels Bela were not deposed, did not sign affidavits nor would they even testify during this arbitration trial.
3) Stephanie McIlvain did indeed corroborate our testimonies to different degrees - first, in a conversation with Greg LeMond which was admitted as evidence, and, secondly, in her deposition when she stated that 2 men did enter the hospital room in order to ask Lance Armstrong questions. It was when the questions were asked that she didn’t hear anything at all. However, Lance’s attorney, Tim Herman, stated I misunderstood the doctors in this hospital room incident when Lance testified no doctors ever even entered this room where we were all present.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863 :
On the key issue of what was asked and what was said in the hospital room, Betsy Andreu insists she heard a doctor ask about performance-enhancing drugs, and heard Armstrong answer with a list of banned substances. Frankie Andreu insists he heard Armstrong respond with a list, too. Still Armstrong’s lawyer, Tim Herman, says the Andreu’s could have heard wrong.
“Mr. Armstrong was taking steroids at the time, as part of his post-operative treatment,” Herman said. “It’s very possible that there could’ve been mention of steroids and epo in this conversation with these two doctors indicating either the current regimen, or the regimen that Armstrong was gonna be subject to after this surgery, or when he got out of the hospital.”
The obvious question which arises is this: how was it possible for me to have misunderstood those doctors - as Lance’s attorney suggests - when Lance himself testified they were never present at this incident? How could I have misunderstood a doctor(s) Lance himself testified was never present which is in direct contradiction to his own attorney?
4) Lance’s primary care physician is not limited to Craig Nichols. Larry Einhorn, was also considered his primary care physician as well. No affidavit was ever offered by him or any of the other doctors who worked with Lance. Craig Nichols did indeed sign an affidavit this hospital incident never occurred. He was not present at this incident so it is correct to say it didn’t occur with him there. But it is incorrect, false and disingenuous to say it didn’t occur because he wasn’t present in that room.
5) The medical records presented for this incident by Lance at this arbitration case did not even include the date of this aforementioned hospital incident.
I must ask: what is your definition of “due diligence”, sir? If you read all the depositions and testimonies in the Lance/SCA arbitration case, certainly you would’ve seen all these conflicts in statements by Lance and his attorneys. Certainly you would’ve questioned Stephanie McIlvain’s deposition as well. Have you indeed read all of Lance’s medical records? I do wonder from whom and where you got your information regarding us and this incident- which is so lacking in honesty and due diligence that it’s mind boggling.
Journalists are supposed to be arbiters of the truth. Supposed to be. I understand in this instance the devil is in the details and details are annoying; the truth gets in the way of the lie.
Maybe you can shed some light as to why the truth doesn’t matter to some journalists - is it for access? for financial gain (such as writing favorable books)? for privilege?
The truth matters. Maybe not to some journalists - certainly not those who claim to know the truth but for tens of thousands of dollars will “…write whatever they want me to write.”
But it matters to those who tell it and those who want to know it.
Posted by: betsyandreu June 17th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram