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.