US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[ChrisE]

You're good. One might refer to the SCA trial where she was called in to lie for Lance and ended up telling the truth.

Why was she asked anything about what she heard in 1996? SCA was about winning tours starting 3 years later.

Why was she involved in the latest investigation? What does LA in 1996 have to do with it?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The doctor/patient relationship is viewed globally as extremely personal and confidential. If you are a guest in the room of a seriously ill patient it's not seen as good ethics to break that confidentiality. You of all people should understand this.

The Doctor/Patient confidentiality thing is well... its between the Doctor and the patient.

The feds probably rejected her evidence because either she broke this famous ethical code, or she thought there was nothing wrong with pretending to have broken it. Someone like this would never stand up in court as credible.

Can you point out where the Feds "rejected" what Betsy said? Thanks.

 

[TheNightRider]

The Doctor/Patient confidentiality thing is well... its between the Doctor and the patient.

Exactly.

Can you point out where the Feds "rejected" what Betsy said? Thanks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...vestigation-dropped-no-charges_n_1253621.html

 

[Spider1964]

The doctor/patient relationship is viewed globally as extremely personal and confidential. If you are a guest in the room of a seriously ill patient it's not seen as good ethics to break that confidentiality. You of all people should understand this.

The feds probably rejected her evidence because either she broke this famous ethical code, or she thought there was nothing wrong with pretending to have broken it. Someone like this would never stand up in court as credible.

Are you implying that Dr Maserati is a real doctor?

 

[thehog]

Would you trust someone who claims to reveal people's private conversations with their doctor in their hospital bed? That is a betrayal of trust like no other in my book. No wonder the Feds were suspicious of her.

Well everyone in the room that day revealed what that heard - did they all betray the word of the Doctor?

Some say he did, some say he didn't. Who do we trust?

The Doctor who recieved a donation shortly after the SCA trial then disappeared from view or the person who stayed faithful to her word?

You do the math on that one.

 

[Race Radio]

If the feds thought she lied on the stand, they would have pursued perjury charges. They obviously viewed her as a credible witness who could confirm Armstrong's story, whereas they were not interested in Betsy due to her credibility problems.

Even a troll knows that the Feds seldom file perjury charges for civil cases.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Exactly.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...vestigation-dropped-no-charges_n_1253621.html

Can you point out where in that article it says the Feds "rejected" what Betsy said? thanks.

Are you implying that Dr Maserati is a real doctor?

I thought they were implying that Betsy was a Doctor?

 

[TheNightRider]

Even a troll knows that the Feds seldom file perjury charges for civil cases.

I was refering to Stephanie talking to the grand jury.

But if the feds seldom file perjury for civil cases, why did Betsy lie that she would be in big trouble if she preserved the ethical foundation of the doctor/patient relationship? Has she been misleading people for years on this?

 

[TheNightRider]

Can you point out where in that article it says the Feds "rejected" what Betsy said? thanks.

It's implicit in their decision. Thanks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's implicit in their decision. Thanks.

So why did you link an article that said nothing?

Can you give us a link to "their decision" then - because there has been quite a debate about that here and you would help clear that up, thanks.

 

[TheNightRider]

So why did you link an article that said nothing?

Can you give us a link to "their decision" then - because there has been quite a debate about that here and you would help clear that up, thanks.

The article said no charges on any front - perjury, tax avading, drug smuggling etc - were filed. Usually in criminal cases this means they could not find the evidence. That's how the system works.

Of course, we can debate conspiracy theories, just as people debate what happened to WT7, but we must be frank and admit the likihood is there just wasn't enough credibile evidence. The socalled witnesses were riddled with ethical problems and so forth. I'm just glad the whole thing is over and LA has been officially cleared. It's great for the sport.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Are you implying that Dr Maserati is a real doctor?

no he was prob. fused.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The article said no charges on any front - perjury, tax avading, drug smuggling etc - were filed. Usually in criminal cases this means they could not find the evidence. That's how the system works.

Of course, we can debate conspiracy theories, just as people debate what happened to WT7, but we must be frank and admit the likihood is there just wasn't enough credibile evidence. The socalled witnesses were riddled with ethical problems and so forth. I'm just glad the whole thing is over and LA has been officially cleared. It's great for the sport.

Ah, ok - so you just made up the bits why the case was dropped and that the Feds rejected Betsys evidence. Thanks.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Somebody's job is to derail the thread and get it closed....

 

[Race Radio]

Ah, ok - so you just made up the bits why the case was dropped and that the Feds rejected Betsys evidence. Thanks.

NO! didn't you read this Interview with Jeff Novitzky? He said they were going to have Betsy in front of the Grand Jury but she would not go in without a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken

Jeff Novtizky: I saw Betsy popping Twinkies in her mouth like they were Tic Tacs!

 

[Ferminal]

Ok, back to where we...err... were.

 

[stephens]

[Mod: Doctor/Patient confidentiality] Not *only* between the doctors and patients though. There are many people who come into contact with health related information about others and it is a violation of health privacy laws (hipaa) for them to disclose that information to anyone other than those the patient has authorized (other doctors for example).

I'm not saying hipaa applies in this case. I'm just saying that our concept of privacy in this regard extends to more than just doctors and patients.

 

[Velodude]

...this was not a usual decision of a Federal Attorney.

All the speculation from the qualified and well informed as to Federal Attorney's undisclosed reasons to drop the case did not include lack of evidence. In support of the contrary the gob smacked investigators claimed the case was strong and further witnesses were to be addressed.

Armstrong has not been officially cleared. Only an acquittal would clear him. That did not occur. The Feds could re-commence this case at any time within the statute of limitations if there was political will in support.

Armstrong still has the Qui Tam writ by a private individual case, the IRS tax probe into Livestrong and USADA/WADA prospective doping charges to contend with.

That is why the man is not c-o-c-k-a-hoop after the Feds dropped the case for political only reasons.

 

[Race Radio]

[Mod: Doctor/Patient confidentiality] Not *only* between the doctors and patients though. There are many people who come into contact with health related information about others and it is a violation of health privacy laws (hipaa) for them to disclose that information to anyone other than those the patient has authorized (other doctors for example).

I'm not saying hipaa applies in this case. I'm just saying that our concept of privacy in this regard extends to more than just doctors and patients.

You right, It does not apply. Still it would have been classier if Stephanie stayed quite like Betsy did until she was subpoenaed to testify in the SCA case

 

[Dr. Maserati]

[Mod: Doctor/Patient confidentiality] Not *only* between the doctors and patients though. There are many people who come into contact with health related information about others and it is a violation of health privacy laws (hipaa) for them to disclose that information to anyone other than those the patient has authorized (other doctors for example).

I'm not saying hipaa applies in this case. I'm just saying that our concept of privacy in this regard extends to more than just doctors and patients.

Either HIPPA applies in this instance or it does not (hint; it doesn't)

Anyway, Armstrongs whole point was that no Doctors entered the room and he would never use PEDs so how could he admit to it?.... Although his lawyer did let him down by suggesting Betsy may have misheard the conversation with the Doctors.

 

[Cal_Joe]

You are commended on using the word "usually" because this was not a usual decision of a Federal Attorney.

All the speculation from the qualified and well informed as to Federal Attorney's undisclosed reasons to drop the case did not include lack of evidence. In support of the contrary the gob smacked investigators claimed the case was strong and further witnesses were to be addressed.

Armstrong has not been officially cleared. Only an acquittal would clear him. That did not occur. The Feds could re-commence this case at any time within the statute of limitations if there was political will in support.

Armstrong still has the Qui Tam writ by a private individual case, the IRS tax probe into Livestrong and USADA/WADA prospective doping charges to contend with.

That is why the man is not c-o-c-k-a-hoop after the Feds dropped the case for political only reasons.

RE the bolded part, I think you answered your own question.

By the way, if you can provide any info on exactly who is qualified and who is well informed and why their "speculations" should be elevated to a status a wee bit higher than speculation... well, inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Race Radio]

RE the bolded part, I think you answered your own question.

By the way, if you can provide any info on exactly who is qualified and who is well informed and why their "speculations" should be elevated to a status a wee bit higher than speculation... well, inquiring minds want to know.

You are probably right. The Wall Street Journal, NPR, Sports Illustrated, all just tabloids out to smear an American hero.

 

[Velodude]

RE the bolded part, I think you answered your own question.

By the way, if you can provide any info on exactly who is qualified and who is well informed and why their "speculations" should be elevated to a status a wee bit higher than speculation... well, inquiring minds want to know.

Of course, I was referring primarily to myself

Your inquiring mind tends to over-inquire into the peripheral minutiae of those who appear not to support the person you support.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

You can honestly say?

As for Betsy, on the one hand she's proven to be tough and has had to put up with a lot of abuse she doesn't deserve. And I know she kind of got dragged in to it by being questioned about a conversation she may have overheard. But I can't help but put myself in those shoes and I can honestly say that I would have viewed that conversation as none of my business and would have never revealed the contents of that conversation to anyone. "I don't recall" and if pressed about my presence there, I'd have continued, "I don't know man, I don't make a point of listening to conversations between a patient and their doctors since it's a private thing," would have been my reply if asked. I mean, what business would it have been of mine?

If I felt bad about the situation and really wanted to clean up cycling, I'd have pressed Lance to come clean himself, harassed him about it privately for years, I'd have campaigned against doping in other ways, heck maybe even worked with the doping authorities to develop ways to catch these guys red handed. But there is just something untoward about revealing a man's words, especially words (allegedly) spoken in such desperate times, and I could have never done it.

Oy veh! Betsy wasn't married to Frankie at the time and she had no idea that cyclists were dosing themselves with the whole medicine chest as Armstrong was. She correctly surmised that there was a good chance the $hit your boy was taking gave him cancer.

She was shocked that it was possible Frankie was doing the same stuff as your boy and wasn't sure if she would marry him because of it. She even confided to her close friends at the time, that she was thinking of calling off the wedding.

This is all old news anyway and you're ridiculous about everything Armstrong related.. Give it up....

 

[aphronesis]

...this was not a usual decision of a Federal Attorney.

All the speculation from the qualified and well informed as to Federal Attorney's undisclosed reasons to drop the case did not include lack of evidence. In support of the contrary the gob smacked investigators claimed the case was strong and further witnesses were to be addressed.

Armstrong has not been officially cleared. Only an acquittal would clear him. That did not occur. The Feds could re-commence this case at any time within the statute of limitations if there was political will in support.

Armstrong still has the Qui Tam writ by a private individual case, the IRS tax probe into Livestrong and USADA/WADA prospective doping charges to contend with.

That is why the man is not c-o-c-k-a-hoop after the Feds dropped the case for political only reasons.

Sure, but at the same time, a wealth of evidence does not mean a coherent case, let alone a winnable one. As you know. How many years do you think it would take to trace and verify the various criminal connections or charges--even as they've been set out in the clinic? How long would the GJ need to sit before they could see through-lines through all of this. Which case would it have been in the end?

And is it not a usual decision for a federal attorney? Or is it simply unusual to jaded cycling fans with a vested interest in the outcome?