What is so important about the Indiana Hospital "Incident"

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
ulrichw said:
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).
He is only protecting himself for perjury charges.
 
Turner29 said:
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.
Agreed. And, if Betsy's testimony would achieve the status of 'unimportant', that could only be a good thing as it would mean that the slow wheels of justice finally turned and Lance got stuck under them.

Dave.
 
Jul 26, 2009
42
0
0
red_flanders said:
My view is that (in addition to the other reasons listed) he needs to claim this to cling to some legitimacy as a guy who could have been GT competitive w/o dope.
I don't think so: I think he made it amply clear that he felt he wasn't doing anything his main competitors weren't doing, so I'm not sure that he would feel the need to find legitimacy as a clean rider. His point was, it was as much a part of the sport as filling your tires with air. I would imagine in his mind, he won on a level playing field, which is as much legitimacy as any rider could have in that era.

He pretty much explicitly admitted all of the things that he was said to have conveyed in the hospital room. He said he'd used cortisone, and then progressed to epo, testosterone and hgh, all before coming down with cancer (and thus before the hospital conversation).

I think the fear of legal proceedings was the primary motivator in not being forthright with his answer here.
 
ulrichw said:
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.
While I think there is a kernel of truth to this, I think she, like many, saw the interview as more of the same sociopath only with new carefully constructed and rehearsed phrases. Talk about reliving a nightmare. That was it.

IMHO, if Landis' suit reaches a payout, he should split what's left, after the Lawyers take most of it, with her, the soigneur, and the guy living in NZ because he was honest. How to do that equitably? I don't know. But, talk about a team effort.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
Turner29 said:
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.
I really think that he's trying to keep the waters muddy enough that the Press can't start openly questioning what the hospital did, and what that donation was really about.

Its the same tactic he has employed for 15 years to keep his doping exploits out of the front pages, except now he is applying it to stories of misuse of the Livestrong charity and brand.

Once Livestrong is implicated and destroyed he has nothing left, he'll fight that fight to the end just like he said he always does. And that's why Betsy didn't get her admission.
 
ulrichw said:
I don't think so: I think he made it amply clear that he felt he wasn't doing anything his main competitors weren't doing,
...
His point was, it was as much a part of the sport as filling your tires with air. I would imagine in his mind, he won on a level playing field, which is as much legitimacy as any rider could have in that era.
This is getting old. This is a sh!tty excuse from a perpetual cheat.

ulrichw said:
so I'm not sure that he would feel the need to find legitimacy as a clean rider.
Which he couldn't because he's nowhere near the rider Lemond was. Nowhere. Nationally ranked? Probably. Grand Tour material without doping? No way.

ulrichw said:
He pretty much explicitly admitted all of the things that he was said to have conveyed in the hospital room. He said he'd used cortisone, and then progressed to epo, testosterone and hgh, all before coming down with cancer (and thus before the hospital conversation).

I think the fear of legal proceedings was the primary motivator in not being forthright with his answer here.
It was as carefully constructed a message as legally possible and nowhere near the truth. Among other things, his time doping with Chris Carmichael should have been mentioned if this was, in fact, a confession.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
ulrichw said:
I don't think so: I think he made it amply clear that he felt he wasn't doing anything his main competitors weren't doing, so I'm not sure that he would feel the need to find legitimacy as a clean rider. His point was, it was as much a part of the sport as filling your tires with air. I would imagine in his mind, he won on a level playing field, which is as much legitimacy as any rider could have in that era.

He pretty much explicitly admitted all of the things that he was said to have conveyed in the hospital room. He said he'd used cortisone, and then progressed to epo, testosterone and hgh, all before coming down with cancer (and thus before the hospital conversation).

I think the fear of legal proceedings was the primary motivator in not being forthright with his answer here.
I disagree. He wants to continue his public life, and he wants to keep the role of amazing sportsman as part of his image. His goal is to admit that he doped, but claim that with or without dope he was and is an amazing athlete. Being "clean" in 2009 and still getting on the podium at 38 years old would allow this to be true.

I mean really, anyone who could podium that race clean is amazing, at 38 its a stunning achievement, even with a tarnished past.

The problem for lance is that there is no way its true, he just doesn't seem to realize that we all know that now.
 
WinterRider said:
... Press can't start openly questioning what the hospital did, and what that donation was really about.
And why can't they now? The scale of the lying is really epic. The fraud has so many shocking parts, this one would draw a huge number of readers, again.

Imagine if someone could tell the story of the for-profit cancer scam/shield well. Another huge story.

What is wrong with getting it all out there?
 
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.
Amen! A hospital that has doctors interacting with patients and the hospital seemingly has no idea who is dealing with what patients.

Yeah, that happens all the time:rolleyes:
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
And why can't they now? The scale of the lying is really epic. The fraud has so many shocking parts, this one would draw a huge number of readers, again.

Imagine if someone could tell the story of the for-profit cancer scam/shield well. Another huge story.

What is wrong with getting it all out there?
Armstrongs reputation is in tatters, but not the hospital's. I think the press won't want to risk negative repercussions as there little hard evidence.
 
Jan 18, 2013
1
0
0
I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take a shot...

Stephanie McIlvain may have perjured herself when she testified to the Grand Jury in 2010. If that's the case, then it could be suggested that her perjury to protect Lance Armstrong indicates a conspiracy between McIlvain and Armstrong to hide the true facts that Armstrong covered up in his own 2005 SCA testimony.

I believe that in the case of conspiracy, the statute of limitations is reset and Armstrong could face a renewed perjury charge.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Tournado said:
I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take a shot...

Stephanie McIlvain may have perjured herself when she testified to the Grand Jury in 2010. If that's the case, then it could be suggested that her perjury to protect Lance Armstrong indicates a conspiracy between McIlvain and Armstrong to hide the true facts that Armstrong covered up in his own 2005 SCA testimony.

I believe that in the case of conspiracy, the statute of limitations is reset and Armstrong could face a renewed perjury charge.
I would suggest the opposite. In fact, most Grand Jury witnesses receive immunity for testimony. Thus, Stephanie McIlvain most likely told the truth before the Federal Grand Jury in 2010.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
Turner29 said:
I would suggest the opposite. In fact, most Grand Jury witnesses receive immunity for testimony. Thus, Stephanie McIlvain most likely told the truth before the Federal Grand Jury in 2010.
She certainly told them something, she was in there for 7 hours. I would love to know what went on.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
WinterRider said:
I really think that he's trying to keep the waters muddy enough that the Press can't start openly questioning what the hospital did, and what that donation was really about.

Its the same tactic he has employed for 15 years to keep his doping exploits out of the front pages, except now he is applying it to stories of misuse of the Livestrong charity and brand.

Once Livestrong is implicated and destroyed he has nothing left, he'll fight that fight to the end just like he said he always does. And that's why Betsy didn't get her admission.
He does not give a **** about Livestrong. All he cares about is Lance Armstrong.

Scenario 1, Continued Denial - Lance is a pariah, without income, bleeding money to lawyers and settlements. He already has resigned from Livestrong. He is also facing the possibility of Federal Indictment. He has no celebrity status and the jet-set life is gone.

Scenario 2, "Confess" - Lance has future earnings potential -- books movies, public appearances. Maybe even gets some endorsements back. Still has to pay back large sums of money, but minimizes lawyers fees. Public sentiment, while not high, is enough to dissuade Federal prosecution and he works out a deal with them. Suddenly he is celebrity again, back in the jet-set.

Note option 2 provides fame and fortune regardless of Livestrong.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
WinterRider said:
She certainly told them something, she was in there for 7 hours. I would love to know what went on.
She told the truth. Keep in mind, however, that her real damning testimony was in regard to drug trafficking and possible money laundering.

The Feds really don't care that she lied in a civil deposition. All that did was provide the Feds leverage against her.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
Turner29 said:
He does not give a **** about Livestrong. All he cares about is Lance Armstrong.

Scenario 1, Continued Denial - Lance is a pariah, without income, bleeding money to lawyers and settlements. He already has resigned from Livestrong. He is also facing the possibility of Federal Indictment. He has no celebrity status and the jet-set life is gone.

Scenario 2, "Confess" - Lance has future earnings potential -- books movies, public appearances. Maybe even gets some endorsements back. Still has to pay back large sums of money, but minimizes lawyers fees. Public sentiment, while not high, is enough to dissuade Federal prosecution and he works out a deal with them. Suddenly he is celebrity again, back in the jet-set.

Note option 2 provides fame and fortune regardless of Livestrong.
He is still trying to ride this out rather than confess. That much is obvious from last night's performance. In this scenario Livestrong and his "good works" will be key to retaining a shred of his public persona. He was even trying to talk up Lance the humanitarian last night.

I agree that his best shot going forward is your Scenario 2. But he's too stupid to realize that, or the legal liability is too high.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
WinterRider said:
He is still trying to ride this out rather than confess. That much is obvious from last night's performance. In this scenario Livestrong and his "good works" will be key to retaining a shred of his public persona. He was even trying to talk up Lance the humanitarian last night.

I agree that his best shot going forward is your Scenario 2. But he's too stupid to realize that, or the legal liability is too high.
My Scenario 2 is what he is doing! He is not that stupid.

Last night was a confession to everything except:

1) One relatively minor incident that might (and I say might) lead to perjury charges.

2) Anything to do with Ferrari and what "other riders" were doing. This, in the Feds eye, is the big one: CONSPIRACY. MONEY LAUNDERING.

He said he doped in all 7 Tours. Clearly, he is not concerned about $30 Million to USPS and $15 Million to SCA and by implication, is will to provide restitution.

There is something bigger out there and the only thing that makes sense is jail.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
Turner29 said:
My Scenario 2 is what he is doing! He is not that stupid.

That was a confession to everything except:

1) One relatively minor incident that might (and I say might) lead to perjury charges.

2) Anything to do with Ferrari and what "other riders" were doing. This, in the Feds eye, is the big one.

He said he doped in all 7 Tours. Clearly, he is not concerned about $30 Million to USPS and $15 Million to SCA.

There is something bigger out there and the only thing that makes sense is jail.
That was not a confession. He admitted only to "some" of the things already detailed in exhaustive detail in USADA's reasoned decision. To confess to anything less would have been absurd.

He did not confess to doping in 2009/2010, even though the blood passport he lauded during his confession gives a 1/1,000,000 chance he wasn't doping in the comeback. And other than that he tried to dismiss as many claims as he could.

The whole thing was pathetic, and almost the entire MSM saw it that way.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
WinterRider said:
That was not a confession. He admitted only to "some" of the things already detailed in exhaustive detail in USADA's reasoned decision. To confess to anything less would have been absurd.

He did not confess to doping in 2009/2010, even though the blood passport he lauded during his confession gives a 1/1,000,000 chance he wasn't doping in the comeback. And other than that he tried to dismiss as many claims as he could.

The whole thing was pathetic, and almost the entire MSM saw it that way.
It was an "confession" that fulfills his goals under my Scenario 2.

I never said it was a full or even true confession. Regardless of what you think of Lance Armstrong, no person in their right mind is to confess criminal activities to Oprah.

Regardless of what many people here think, last night, Lance Armstrong did enough to prevent a jury of 12 from convicting him.

Trust me, tonight we will here more about his children, "hoping for, but not expecting forgiveness..." with a few more tidbits to keep the audience watching.
 
Turner29 said:
Last night was a confession to everything except:
Then you saw a completely different interview. What's the motivation for covering for Wonderboy? Please share. Because that's what's going on.

I agree with you that it was an effort to try to stay out of a trial situation. I don't know if it will work though.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Then you saw a completely different interview. What's the motivation for covering for Wonderboy? Please share. Because that's what's going on.
For the tenth time, to avoid CRIMINAL charges. That was pretty obvious last night. He confessed to CIVIL matters -- doping to win the Tour de France.

If he admits Betsy Andreu's testimony is correct, that is criminal perjury.

Regarding Ferrari, again -- conspiracy, drug trafficking, money laundering.

Clearly, he tried to paint himself as just a "rider" and not a partial team owner. Why? Conspiracy charges.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
DirtyWorks said:
Then you saw a completely different interview. What's the motivation for covering for Wonderboy? Please share. Because that's what's going on.

I agree with you that it was an effort to try to stay out of a trial situation. I don't know if it will work though.
Of course it will work. Oprah will get on the Ophone to Obama and bingo all charges dropped, 7 wins back, USADA in the garbage can. Easy.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Turner29 said:
For the tenth time, to avoid CRIMINAL charges. That was pretty obvious last night. He confessed to CIVIL matters -- doping to win the Tour de France.

If he admits Betsy Andreu's testimony is correct, that is criminal perjury.

Regarding Ferrari, again -- conspiracy, drug trafficking, money laundering.

Clearly, he tried to paint himself as just a "rider" and not a partial team owner. Why? Conspiracy charges.
An Amercian 'doping' in France can also come under 'drug trafficking' ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY