What is so important about the Indiana Hospital "Incident"

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Turner29 said:
I think you are back filling because your statements clearly showed you had no clue regarding the magnitude and implications of the Bonds and Clemens cases, regardless of your living in Boston...

Birotte is intelligent. He knows what he is doing. ;)
Right. :D

And baseball isn't as american as apple pie?

Ok, Birotte is intelligent.

Please rank Birotte's political and self-promotional intelligence over his ethical intelligence.

I say that he is a moron. That doesn't even have to be qualified as a sarcastic comment given the context that the statement is now made in.

Lance is also an ethical moron, but he is intelligent.

Dave.
 
Feb 1, 2011
147
0
0
I believe that Lance's refusal to acknowledge the hospital incident has less to do with the legal implications and more to do with his myth making. He will admit that he doped during those TDF victories, but denies doping after and seems vague about doping before. He wants to believe and for us to believe that he achieved some things or could have achieved others without doping.
He also wants to maintain the myth that cancer changed him. It's what made him so driven, he would have us believe. After his "near death" experience he wanted to grab life by the horns and triumph. The flaw he admits is to being too driven. This is the classic answer to the interview question, what's your greatest weakness? - well maybe I work too hard.
Admitting to that hospital conversation also brings up that accusation that he somehow caused his own cancer by drug taking. I personally think this speculation is unfair (about as unfair as him hiding behind cancer), but it is an accusation that his most angry critics level against him. The very fact that his doctors were asking about PEDs raises the question in people's minds. Lance's 7 TDF victories have been taken away from him, but he still defines himself through his victory over cancer. It's the other half of his myth. That becomes tainted if people start to think he somehow brought it on himself. I think that's why he's so reluctant to discuss that day in the hospital room
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Nothing is important about Lance's 'hospital incident.' It's all just trivia about a phony sports celebrity. Enjoy the show.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
MarkvW said:
Nothing is important about Lance's 'hospital incident.' It's all just trivia about a phony sports celebrity. Enjoy the show.
The earth is 5 billion years old and exists in an endless universe..
 
The hospital "issue" represents to me that much simpler:






While suffering the burden of a deadly decease- I never questioned what I had to do what my job was required me to achieve results from it...............
 
Jun 27, 2009
373
0
0
Turner29 said:
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.
Silly question here... Can all his bluster and BS on the telly be construed as a "confession" in the legal sense? Would it not be, as suggested, a jury of 12 convicting him, assuming he gave the same statements under oath in a courthouse.. I could say the same things he did in a public arena, but recant them later, citing what I said as "entertainment value" or "under duress".. Of course there are masses of sworn testimony from others, but can his interview be considered a legal admission of guilt..?
:confused:
 
Turner29 said:
The hospital incident occurred in 1996. The SCA case testimony given by Betsy Andreu was in 2006.

A more seminal moment was in 1999, when the UCI accepted a back-dated prescription from Armstrong's camp and did not expel him from the Tour.
You are missing the point. Armstrong knows that the hospital incident, if it became public before he returns to the TDF wrecks his credibility about being clean. If it becomes public after he returns, is a direct assault on his credibility about having won his seven TDF's and having competed clean.

So when Betsy and Frankie testify about the hospital incident in 2006 it becomes a pivitol flashpoint from which all of LA's credibility flows. In that context it is seminal. Were it not so seminal LA would not have spent so much time attempting to vilify Betsy and Frankie.

It is also seminal because when LA sues SCA, it is the only evidence from any witness where LA has directly confessed to doping. At that time this was the strongest evidence LA was a doper.

The 1999 backdated script was simply an event that enabled LA to continue with the lie, and probably emboldened him to think he could get away with it.
 
FellOff said:
The question assumes all that - it asks specifically why he refused to discuss the hospital incident, when he did admit to doping in the seven TDF wins, and being a bully. He is obviously carefully, but unconvincingly, picking and choosing admissions. Some have suggested it is to protect himself from perjury charges, but he is already protected from that in this specific instance by the statute of limitations. His lawyers may have identified some potential loopholes in the S.O.L. laws and advised him to be wary, or maybe he just forgot which things he has to keep lying about?
You did not read the question to which my post was in response to very carefully. That question was as follows:

"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? "

In Texas where the SCA deposition took place there is a five year limitation for perjury (Which in itself is crazy, because lying under oath goes to the very heart of any reputable judicial system. I gather Texas does not take lying under oath seriously) So as you point out there can be no prosecution stemming from LA's 2006 testimony.

However LA's reaction to the Andreu's testimony, calling Betsy a liar and crazy, and saying Frankie was "just sticking up for his old lady" and then his vindictive bullying is strong evidence that could invite punitive damages in a civil lawsuit, should Betsy and Frankie chose to sue. It could also form the basis of similar act evidence in some of the other ongoing lawsuits, particularly Landis's whistleblower suit and the Sunday Time suit, when it comes to the issue of punitive damages, given Armstong's allegations against Landis and the Times.

So the hospital incident as my original post indicates "kicks off a whole bunch of other things" which was the nub of my post to begin with. Therefore the question, if read properly does not assume the answer. My post is responsive to the question.
 
Oct 12, 2012
10
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
In Texas where the SCA deposition took place there is a five year limitation for perjury (Which in itself is crazy, because lying under oath goes to the very heart of any reputable judicial system. I gather Texas does not take lying under oath seriously) So as you point out there can be no prosecution.
I wonder which is worse, having a clear statute of limitations--a feature of all US state laws as well as Federal law, not just the law of Texas, so you may as well generalize the complaint--or simply refusing to prosecute perjury at all, no matter how scary the (apparently theoretical) penalty.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/alan_shanoff/2011/01/14/16894621.html

Glass houses, stones, etc.

Now, let's to the chase. You seem to be laboring to imply that despite all the attention paid to it, the "hospital incident" no longer has much if any impact on LA's current legal situation, though you are strangely reluctant to just say it straight.

OK, I will stipulate that that is the case. So probably will most of the US readers here who have a passing familiarity with the laws in this area.

The reason we care about the "hospital incident" is that the question goes to that heart of LA's character and to questions of moral justice if not legal liability-topics which are of interest to many of us if not you.

So can we please quit trolling this? We grant your point, congrats, now can we just move on?
 
In Texas where the SCA deposition took place there is a five year limitation for perjury (Which in itself is crazy, because lying under oath goes to the very heart of any reputable judicial system. I gather Texas does not take lying under oath seriously) So as you point out there can be no prosecution stemming from LA's 2006 testimony.
The Federal SOL is 5 years, so they apparently don't "take lying under oath seriously" either. Texas has a 2 year SOL (in some rare instances 3 years). The Federal SOL can, in some instances, be tolled, but even SCA's attorney has acknowledged that there is no possibility of a perjury charge for Armstrong in this case.

Even if the SOL hadn't expired, the doping issue is a red herring because the original contract had no prohibition for doping. So the materiality requirement for perjury wouldn't be met. Perjury isn't so easily proved. We all know Barry Bonds lied about his steroid use, but he didn't get convicted of perjury.
 

Bat Man

BANNED
Jan 21, 2013
49
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
You did not read the question to which my post was in response to very carefully. That question was as follows:

"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? "

In Texas where the SCA deposition took place there is a five year limitation for perjury (Which in itself is crazy, because lying under oath goes to the very heart of any reputable judicial system. I gather Texas does not take lying under oath seriously) So as you point out there can be no prosecution stemming from LA's 2006 testimony.

However LA's reaction to the Andreu's testimony, calling Betsy a liar and crazy, and saying Frankie was "just sticking up for his old lady" and then his vindictive bullying is strong evidence that could invite punitive damages in a civil lawsuit, should Betsy and Frankie chose to sue. It could also form the basis of similar act evidence in some of the other ongoing lawsuits, particularly Landis's whistleblower suit and the Sunday Time suit, when it comes to the issue of punitive damages, given Armstong's allegations against Landis and the Times.

So the hospital incident as my original post indicates "kicks off a whole bunch of other things" which was the nub of my post to begin with. Therefore the question, if read properly does not assume the answer. My post is responsive to the question.
According to Betsy, he never called her a liar. That's why she couldn't sue him.
 
Jan 23, 2013
239
0
0
I have a couple of questions that I hope someone on the forum could help me with:

1. Why did anyone interview Betsy Andreau in the first place?

2. Why would she divulge information about the conversation she heard in the hospital room?

I applaud her for telling the truth, even though she must have known it would have negative effects on her husband's career.

I think everyone of us (people in general) have a secret we keep in order to help keep the peace in our lives (family, profession, etc.). Sometimes it is best to keep quiet to prevent the boat from rocking, so to speak.
 
TheBean said:
I have a couple of questions that I hope someone on the forum could help me with:

1. Why did anyone interview Betsy Andreau in the first place?

2. Why would she divulge information about the conversation she heard in the hospital room?

I applaud her for telling the truth, even though she must have known it would have negative effects on her husband's career.

I think everyone of us (people in general) have a secret we keep in order to help keep the peace in our lives (family, profession, etc.). Sometimes it is best to keep quiet to prevent the boat from rocking, so to speak.
Apparently you are more willing to commit perjury than she was.

Why did they ask? Because SCA believed that they could have the contract nullified if they could confirm doping.

why did she answer? First, she didn't volunteer, she was subpoenaed. Second, she was under oath.

This is pretty well known. And criticizing someone for telling the truth under oath is a strange road to go down.

During her deposition (conducted in a hotel room at the Detroit Airport), Lance showed up for added intimidation.

Dave.
 
Jan 23, 2013
239
0
0
Thanks, D-Qued.

I have been following the story loosely, obviously.

I didn't realize she was under oath. That fact, alone, clears up my confusion.

Lying under oath is not acceptable, I agree.
 
Sep 29, 2012
422
0
0
TheBean said:
Thanks, D-Qued.

I have been following the story loosely, obviously.

I didn't realize she was under oath. That fact, alone, clears up my confusion.

Lying under oath is not acceptable, I agree.
One of the things that people criticize Betsy for is supposedly breaking a confidence that Armstrong uttered from his hospital bed.

Ignoring the fact that she was under oath as noted above, the discussion also did not take place in the way suggested.

It was in a conference room in the hospital where Armstrong and his entourage were watching a football game. People were going in and out of the room in what was described as a fairly casual setting. Not exactly the sort of place one would normally think was the scene of a highly confidential discussion that was to be kept quiet.
 
purcell said:
One of the things that people criticize Betsy for is supposedly breaking a confidence that Armstrong uttered from his hospital bed.

Ignoring the fact that she was under oath as noted above, the discussion also did not take place in the way suggested.

It was in a conference room in the hospital where Armstrong and his entourage were watching a football game. People were going in and out of the room in what was described as a fairly casual setting. Not exactly the sort of place one would normally think was the scene of a highly confidential discussion that was to be kept quiet.
Pretty sure the open nature was part of what caught Betsy by surprise.

You may recall that Betsy had suggested that they leave the room while the medical staff person/people attended. Lance protested, and told them it was ok and that they should stay.

Like, doesn't everyone already know that I dope?

Dave.
 
Sep 29, 2012
422
0
0
D-Queued said:
Pretty sure the open nature was part of what caught Betsy by surprise.

You may recall that Betsy had suggested that they leave the room while the medical staff person/people attended. Lance protested, and told them it was ok and that they should stay.

Like, doesn't everyone already know that I dope?

Dave.
Yup, the details of the setting were set out in one of the affidavits attached to the RD. can't remember which one but I presume one of the Andreu's.
 
Bat Man said:
According to Betsy, he never called her a liar. That's why she couldn't sue him.
You don't have to say to a person "you are a liar" to defame them. The portion of LA's SCA testimony about Betsy's testimony was pretty clear, that if he did not call her a liar, per se, he was clearly saying she was untruthful. That is what Betsy would need to prove defamation.

It would be disengenuous in the extreme for you to suggest because LA "didn't call her a liar" per se, that she was not defamed. Look at the substance of LA's testimony in its proper context. Forget semantics!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts