What is so important about the Indiana Hospital "Incident"

Oct 8, 2012
237
0
0
What about Stephanie McIlvain?

Stephanie McIlvain, the Oakley rep who gave federal testimony in the Armstrong case. She also is notoriously known for threatening assault towards Betsy Andreu and acting like she was against Armstrong in an effort to get info from Greg Lemond.

Now, that McIlvain has provided testimony that is clearly false, is she liable legally? If Armstrong throws her under the bus too, is she going to jail for perjury?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Big Daddy said:
Stephanie McIlvain, the Oakley rep who gave federal testimony in the Armstrong case. She also is notoriously known for threatening assault towards Betsy Andreu and acting like she was against Armstrong in an effort to get info from Greg Lemond.

Now, that McIlvain has provided testimony that is clearly false, is she liable legally? If Armstrong throws her under the bus too, is she going to jail for perjury?
Depends on SOL. This affects Armstrong too and it may be why he lied about doping after 2005.
 
Sep 30, 2009
117
0
0
Sorry to start a new thread on this, but, I'm still unclear as to why the incident in the hospital is so critical to all of this. Is it just for Betsy's vindication, or, does it kick off a whole bunch of other things like, statute of limitations? He admitted last night to doping in the early 90s last night, so, not sure why the hospital discussion is still so important.

Any ideas?
 
Big Daddy said:
Now, that McIlvain has provided testimony that is clearly false, is she liable legally? If Armstrong throws her under the bus too, is she going to jail for perjury?
I'm not aware of any reason to think she gave false testimony, and more particularly to think she could be found guilty of perjury. She simply said (9 years after the incident in the hospital room) that she didn't hear Armstrong admit to taking PEDs. Presumably her subsequent testimony has been consistent or she was given immunity from previous false testimony. So how could she be convicted of perjury? It is entirely plausible that she either didn't hear it or didn't remember it.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
I'm certainly not the designated person to be answering this, but since I'm here (unusually enough) I'll give it a go and I'm sure that I'll be corrected if I get it wrong....

Both LA and others have previously testified under oath that the conversation in question did not take place at all, so admitting to it now would be to admit to perjury, for which, I believe, there is no SOL.

Also, iirc he admitted last night to having doped since "the mid 90's". Confirming the veracity of Betsy's story about the hospital conversation would 'prove' that he had been taking various other banned substances even before the "mid 90's". That would lead, for example, to questions also being asked about his Oslo title.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I'm certainly not the designated person to be answering this, but since I'm here (unusually enough) I'll give it a go and I'm sure that I'll be corrected if I get it wrong....

Both LA and others have previously testified under oath that the conversation in question did not take place at all, so admitting to it now would be to admit to perjury, for which, I believe, there is no SOL.

Also, iirc he admitted last night to having doped since "the mid 90's". Confirming the veracity of Betsy's story about the hospital conversation would 'prove' that he had been taking various other banned substances even before the "mid 90's". That would lead, for example, to questions also being asked about his Oslo title.

How would Betsy's story put his doping at a time before the "mid 90's"?

in most jurisdictions the statute of limitations for perjury is five years. That explains, in part, why he's willing to talk now. The Fed's could attempt to claim an ongoing conspiracy between 2006 and now which would nullify the SOL but that's a tall order.
 
58teeth said:
Sorry to start a new thread on this, but, I'm still unclear as to why the incident in the hospital is so critical to all of this. Is it just for Betsy's vindication, or, does it kick off a whole bunch of other things like, statute of limitations? He admitted last night to doping in the early 90s last night, so, not sure why the hospital discussion is still so important.

Any ideas?
Before this gets shut/moved, it is a good question. Here are reasons this is so important:

- It is the start of the great public lie.

- It confirms that he started doping early in his career.

- It underscores the complicity/perjury/complicity of McIlvain/Oakley, the Indiana Hospital, and various handlers, etc.

- It is a 'pure' reaction from Betsy to first learning, from his own lips, that her fiancee's buddy is a doper. It is the nature of this pure reaction that allows the truth to survive above all. (this is why it is so easy to keep the story consistent)

- The reaction comes from someone completely outside the sport, who isn't motivated by the sport, itself, or its leadership or any other relationships or agendas.

- The episode was recounted during Betsy's SCA deposition - thus a matter of court record - with Lance in attendance to intimidate her

- Frankie recounted a corroborating version during his SCA deposition

- Stephanie 'allegedly' perjured herself in her deposition

- Lance's subsequent SCA deposition then mocked Betsy and Frankie relating to this story - thus demonstrating his intimidation tactics to quell the truth

Dave.
 
eleven said:
How would Betsy's story put his doping at a time before the "mid 90's"?

in most jurisdictions the statute of limitations for perjury is five years. That explains, in part, why he's willing to talk now. The Fed's could attempt to claim an ongoing conspiracy between 2006 and now which would nullify the SOL but that's a tall order.
Do the math. When did Lace seek Cancer treatment? Mid '90s?

Ergo, doping occurred before that.

Dave.
 
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
the main reason is because it reveals his doping as a possible cause of his cancer. The narrative he can't lose is that he may have doped but he still overcame cancer and is a genuine inspiration to the cancer community. If he has any hope of redemption, it will be in the cancer community and Livestrong.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Good question.
D-queued gave some good answers.

But if this ends up in court: how does Lance think he can currently compete with Betsy in terms of credibility?
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
D-Queued said:
Before this gets shut/moved, it is a good question. Here are reasons this is so important:

- It is the start of the great public lie.

- It confirms that he started doping early in his career.

- It underscores the complicity/perjury/complicity of McIlvain/Oakley, the Indiana Hospital, and various handlers, etc.

- It is a 'pure' reaction from Betsy to first learning, from his own lips, that her fiancee's buddy is a doper. It is the nature of this pure reaction that allows the truth to survive above all. (this is why it is so easy to keep the story consistent)

- The reaction comes from someone completely outside the sport, who isn't motivated by the sport, itself, or its leadership or any other relationships or agendas.

- The episode was recounted during Betsy's SCA deposition - thus a matter of court record - with Lance in attendance to intimidate her

- Frankie recounted a corroborating version during his SCA deposition

- Stephanie 'allegedly' perjured herself in her deposition

- Lance's subsequent SCA deposition then mocked Betsy and Frankie relating to this story - thus demonstrating his intimidation tactics to quell the truth

Dave.
All good stuff. Didn't they also depose Lance's doctor who also denied the statements (Doctor Patient priviledge was waived by the presence of the Andreus), and everyone else who was in the room kept their mouths shut too.

After the SCA lawsuit Livestrong gave a $500,000 contribution to the hospital.

If Lance tells the truth, he's going to burn Stephanie, Oakley, the doctors in that room, and the hospital. So he has to maintain that lie.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Last night, Armstrong admitted doping going back to the mid-1990s. Lance Armstrong was diagnosed in October, 1996.

This is consistent with Betsy Andreu's testimony.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
WinterRider said:
All good stuff. Didn't they also depose Lance's doctor who also denied the statements (Doctor Patient priviledge was waived by the presence of the Andreus), and everyone else who was in the room kept their mouths shut too.

After the SCA lawsuit Livestrong gave a $500,000 contribution to the hospital.

If Lance tells the truth, he's going to burn Stephanie, Oakley, the doctors in that room, and the hospital. So he has to maintain that lie.
Lance does not give a **** about them. All he cares about is himself and perjury charges.

Assuming that other witnesses were well-coached by counsel, they did not make an unequivocal statement such as: "I never heard Lance Armstrong state that he used PEDs."

Rather, they probably said something like: "To my best recollection, I do not remember..."

While this may seem like splitting hairs, legally, the difference is huge. Those witnesses have nothing to worry about. It is only Armstrong who has worries, because under deposition, he unequivocally denied using PEDs.
 
The lies never end with Wonderboy. Carmichael was doping Wonderboy before the 'mid-90's.'

I'm guessing there's a legal reason why Carmichael or even Rene Wenzel aren't deposed regarding the hospital incident. They would have contributed to the notion Wonderboy was doping for years prior to him giving himself cancer.

As has been the situation throughout this mess, Wonderboy has treated the courts like his b!tch lied, artfully rearranged the truth, and gotten away with it.
 
DirtyWorks said:
The lies never end with Wonderboy. Carmichael was doping Wonderboy before the 'mid-90's.'

I'm guessing there's a legal reason why Carmichael or even Rene Wenzel aren't deposed regarding the hospital incident. They would have contributed to the notion Wonderboy was doping for years prior to him giving himself cancer.

As has been the situation throughout this mess, Wonderboy has treated the courts like his b!tch lied, artfully rearranged the truth, and gotten away with it.
Beat me to it DW, thanks & good stuff. Yeah, iirc Carmichael was "working with" Wonderboy in the late 80's early 90's? Carmichael is a joke imo.
 
WinterRider said:
All good stuff. Didn't they also depose Lance's doctor who also denied the statements (Doctor Patient priviledge was waived by the presence of the Andreus), and everyone else who was in the room kept their mouths shut too.

After the SCA lawsuit Livestrong gave a $500,000 contribution to the hospital.

If Lance tells the truth, he's going to burn Stephanie, Oakley, the doctors in that room, and the hospital. So he has to maintain that lie.
Hi,

I have most of the depositions, and I don't have one for/from any physician.

There was one physician that has stated Lance did not tell him what Betsy and Frankie have testified on.

But, I don't think that statement(s) was in testimony.

The event was in a teaching hospital, where many physicians, specialists, residents, interns and medical students are present along with all of the other professionals.

That one physician, alone, has testified he did not hear these statements misses the obvious.

1. Was he even in the hospital that day?
2. On that day, or on any other, did he personally take a medical history on Lance?
3. Was he present at all times when other medical professionals were attending to Lance?
4. Who are all of the other medical professionals that had access to Lance?
5. Were any of them in the room that day?
6. Of those, did any of them ask the questions that have been testified to?
7. Is it possible that another physician or medical professional could have asked Lance questions related to his medical history
8. If so, where are the notes that were taken from any such interaction?
9. Whether asked directly by a medical professional or not, is it possible that Lance could have volunteered the alleged information to a medical professional at the Indiana Hospital?
10. Will the hospital release its medical records on Lance?
11. Will Lance agree to release his medical records?
12. Has the hospital or any of its current or former staff ever received a donation from Lance directly, or from any foundation or fund that he is involved in?

Answering those questions would be a good start.

Dave.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
Benotti69 said:
If Armstrong gets a hospital in trouble LieStrong might find itself no longer welcome.
That's definitely a good angle. Given the hospital backed him up, he has to keep as tight a lid on the whole story as possible.

In all likelyhood he bribed the hospital to stay quiet using Livestrong money.

If that comes out in the press, even without definitive proof, the damage to Livestrong, and Lance's only remaining shred of credibility, takes a HUGE blow.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
D-Queued said:
Hi,

I have most of the depositions, and I don't have one for/from any physician.

There was one physician that has stated Lance did not tell him what Betsy and Frankie have testified on.

But, I don't think that statement(s) was in testimony.

The event was in a teaching hospital, where many physicians, specialists, residents, interns and medical students are present along with all of the other professionals.

That one physician, alone, has testified he did not hear these statements misses the obvious.

1. Was he even in the hospital that day?
2. On that day, or on any other, did he personally take a medical history on Lance?
3. Was he present at all times when other medical professionals were attending to Lance?
4. Who are all of the other medical professionals that had access to Lance?
5. Were any of them in the room that day?
6. Of those, did any of them ask the questions that have been testified to?
7. Is it possible that another physician or medical professional could have asked Lance questions related to his medical history
8. If so, where are the notes that were taken from any such interaction?
9. Whether asked directly by a medical professional or not, is it possible that Lance could have volunteered the alleged information to a medical professional at the Indiana Hospital?
10. Will the hospital release its medical records on Lance?
11. Will Lance agree to release his medical records?
12. Has the hospital or any of its current or former staff ever received a donation from Lance directly, or from any foundation or fund that he is involved in?

Answering those questions would be a good start.

Dave.
Betsy has always stated that there was a room full of doctors. My understanding has always been that the hospital claimed there was no way to know who was there, and they couldn't even produce a list of people for the SCA lawyers to talk to. Almost certainly a coverup.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
WinterRider said:
Betsy has always stated that there was a room full of doctors. My understanding has always been that the hospital claimed there was no way to know who was there, and they couldn't even produce a list of people for the SCA lawyers to talk to. Almost certainly a coverup.
Spot on and unless one of those doctors comes clean, this will remain Andreu vs. Armstrong.
 
Jul 26, 2009
42
0
0
58teeth said:
Sorry to start a new thread on this, but, I'm still unclear as to why the incident in the hospital is so critical to all of this. Is it just for Betsy's vindication, or, does it kick off a whole bunch of other things like, statute of limitations? He admitted last night to doping in the early 90s last night, so, not sure why the hospital discussion is still so important.

Any ideas?
IMO you're more on the right track than many other posters in this thread.

The reason the incident is so important is because of who raised this issue: Betsy Andreu.

The hospital incident was the prime incident that pitted Lance against the Andreus and v.v. (although there were of course other reasons, too). For Betsy, closure can only come in the form of an admission by Lance that the events happened the way she described.

I personally think Lance came about as close to admitting those events as he could without coming right out and saying it. There's no doubt in my mind that he chose to protect someone (probably primarily himself, perhaps other people involved) by not admitting the incidents outright. I actually felt like he was trying to find a way to say that Betsy was right, without saying something that could later be used against him in legal proceedings (of course, I may be giving him too much credit).
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
D-Queued said:
Hi,

I have most of the depositions, and I don't have one for/from any physician.

There was one physician that has stated Lance did not tell him what Betsy and Frankie have testified on.

But, I don't think that statement(s) was in testimony.

The event was in a teaching hospital, where many physicians, specialists, residents, interns and medical students are present along with all of the other professionals.

That one physician, alone, has testified he did not hear these statements misses the obvious.

1. Was he even in the hospital that day?
2. On that day, or on any other, did he personally take a medical history on Lance?
3. Was he present at all times when other medical professionals were attending to Lance?
4. Who are all of the other medical professionals that had access to Lance?
5. Were any of them in the room that day?
6. Of those, did any of them ask the questions that have been testified to?
7. Is it possible that another physician or medical professional could have asked Lance questions related to his medical history
8. If so, where are the notes that were taken from any such interaction?
9. Whether asked directly by a medical professional or not, is it possible that Lance could have volunteered the alleged information to a medical professional at the Indiana Hospital?
10. Will the hospital release its medical records on Lance?
11. Will Lance agree to release his medical records?
12. Has the hospital or any of its current or former staff ever received a donation from Lance directly, or from any foundation or fund that he is involved in?

Answering those questions would be a good start.

Dave.
Forest for the trees:

1) The hospital covered for Lance.

2) The even occurred 17 years ago.

3) Given the SCA case, I doubt any hard evidence still exists.

That Lance made a "donation" to the hospital is established fact. You can make of that whatever you want; however, there is no hard evidence it was hush money. This does not mean it was not.

Bottom line: again, this is Armstrong vs. Andreu, at least regarding perjury.

Regarding SCA Promotions and their attempt at recovery? Given what Armstrong admitted to last night -- doping in every Tour victory -- Betsy Andreu's testimony is unimportant regarding the SCA's attempts to recover money paid to Armstrong.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY