VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:55:36 07/01/06 Sat
Author: weezy
Subject: reasonable doubt

"BORROWED" from the DP new forum:

Source: <a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/tour-de-f...sto917726.shtml">http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/tour-de-f...sto917726.shtml</a>

Andreu stands by Lance testimony

The wife of Lance Armstrong's former cycling team mate on Friday insisted she told the truth when she testified under oath that the seven-times Tour de France winner admitted taking banned drugs.

"My testimony is honest and truthful and accurate and I stand by it," Betsy Andreu, wife of former U.S. Postal Service cyclist Frankie Andreu, told Reuters in a telephone interview.

That was the only statement Andreu made for the record, leaving response to Armstrong's strong denials and challenges to the credibility of her testimony to her lawyer.

"The Armstrong camp is continuing to vilify (my clients), in the press, through TV, radio, and the Internet," said lawyer Adam Paskoff.

"We're simply trying to clarify the record to uphold the testimony of Frankie and Betsy Andreu."

The Andreus testified eight months ago under subpoena in a civil suit brought by Armstrong against SCA Insurance, which refused to pay a $5 million policy taken out by team owners to pay a bonus to Armstrong for winning the 2004 Tour de France.

Betsy Andreu testified that when visiting Armstrong in Indiana University hospital after his cancer surgery in 1996, he told a doctor he had used EPO (erythropoietin), testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone.

RECORD VICTORY

Armstrong, who retired last July after his record seventh Tour victory, has always denied taking banned substances and described allegations in the testimony as reported last week in French newspaper Le Monde as "stale, unfounded and untrue."

"They are not terribly fond of their credibility being attacked," Paskoff said about the Andreus.

"They never had a beef with Armstrong. They had no position in the outcome of his private lawsuits," the lawyer said, adding that the Andreus initially resisted giving testimony.

"The Andreus were subpoenaed by a Texas arbitraton panel. We went to the parties and said Texas does not have jurisdiction upon the Andreus. They will not testify," Paskoff explained, noting the Andreus lived in Michigan.

"One of the parties took the Texas subpoena and went into a Michigan court ... that subpoena was legitimate and had binding power on the Andreus."

The outcome of the civil suit was a victory for Armstrong, the Texan disclosing last week the company had been ordered to pay $7.5 million.

VERY UPSETTING

The subpoenaed testimony was supposed to be confidential, said Paskoff, who called the leaks "extremely disturbing."

"That's very upsetting to us," he said. "We tried to follow the rules and no one else seems to want to do that.

"We're not a party to this arbitration. We had no stake in it. We couldn't care if Lance Armstrong won or lost or if SCA won or lost. The Andreus were dragged into this."

Paskoff said Armstrong had attacked the Andreus by saying those conversations never happened.

"I would question the accuracy of his [Lance's] testimony," Paskoff said. "That was three days after brain surgery. Presumably he was under a lot of medications, and he's talking about what happened for sure, or did not happen in a hospital room?"Armstrong said in a statement a week ago: "The event reported in France never happened and the evidence presented to the panel proved it never happened."

MY COMMENTS:

talk about someone NOT knowing when to keep his mouth shut!!

In response to Armstrong's response to the Andreuses' testimony from the SCA arbitration matter, "Paskoff [attorney for the Andreuses] said [that] Armstrong had attacked the Andreus by saying those conversations never happened. 'I would question the accuracy of his [Lance's] testimony,' Paskoff said. 'That was three days after brain surgery. Presumably he was under a lot of medications, and he's talking about what happened for sure, or did not happen in a hospital room?'
Armstrong said in a statement a week ago: 'The event reported in France never happened and the evidence presented to the panel proved it never happened.' "

Paskoff has just voiced perhaps the strongest reason to doubt the truth of words Armstrong is alleged to have uttered.

Paskoff is challenging Armstrong's ability to remember what Armstrong might or might not have said in hospital under medication 72 hours after brain surgery.

Well, if such incapacity is true, then how can Armstrong be held to have even known what was fact or fancy AT THAT TIME such that Armstrong could be presumed to have known and been able to recall and recount accurately the truth about anything that had gone on before?

i mean, Paskoff and the Andreuses can't have it both ways -- EITHER Lance was NOT so medicated 72 hours after brain surgery that he could remember and recount at the moment and now the pre-surgery years and the post-surgery "conversation" OR Lance WAS so medicated 72 hours after brain surgery that he could not remember and recount at the moment and now the pre-surgery years and the post-surgery "conversation" -- but not one of each!!

No way do i believe that Lance was not so medicated 72 hours after brain surgery that he could remember and recount at that moment past events from the pre-surgery years BUT AT THE SAME TIME also so medicated 72 hours after brain surgery that he could not remember and recount now the post-surgery "conversation."

Maybe one of our resident legal gurus would comment on this and try to turn my gibberish into sense (or nonsense).

(<a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=367&st=200)">http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=367&st=200)</a>

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.