andreau on npr

gym.gravity said:

said he told the truth under oath.

It's not like he's going to say "Yeah, I perjured myself because my
wife hates the [censored]."
Bill C

gym.gravity said:

said he told the truth under oath.

What would you expect him to say? He had two options. One of which
involved a likely divorce.

Quoted message said:

gym.gravity said:

said he told the truth under oath.

What would you expect him to say? He had two options. One of which
involved a likely divorce.

But WHY does she hate him? That's the interesting part. Anyone know? I
bet it's over money. As in Frankie didn't get enough cause Lance hogged
it all.

Quoted message said:

gym.gravity said:

said he told the truth under oath.

What would you expect him to say? He had two options. One of which
involved a likely divorce.

But WHY does she hate him? That's the interesting part. Anyone know? I
bet it's over money. As in Frankie didn't get enough cause Lance hogged
it all.

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

gym.gravity said:

said he told the truth under oath.

It's not like he's going to say "Yeah, I perjured myself because my
wife hates the [censored]."
Bill C

Go to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863 and
listen to the entire program. What I find particularly interesting is that
the McIlvain testified that the incident in the hospital room did not take
place. Not only is there a transcript (from a recording?) of a conversation
between McIlvain and Greg Lemond in which she says Armstrong made the
statement the Andreus claim he did, but there was sworn testimony from James
Startt that at the Tour she admitted to him also that Armstrong had made
those statements.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gym.gravity said:

said he told the truth under oath.

What would you expect him to say? He had two options. One of which
involved a likely divorce.

But WHY does she hate him? That's the interesting part. Anyone know? I
bet it's over money. As in Frankie didn't get enough cause Lance hogged
it all.

Armstrong is really one of the rbr regulars posting under a pseudonym that
gave Frankie a hard time during the infamous rain jacket thread. Or maybe
a better way to say it is that one of the rbr regulars who gave Andreu such
a hard time raced under the pseudonym of Lance Armstrong. My guess is we
can figure out who it is by seeing which regular has posted the strongest
dislike of Sheryl Crow, maybe the one who posted the pics of her topless.
Hide in plain sight, just like the trilateralists. (Think about it,
Armstrong was so dominant in the Tour not because of doping, but because of
all the great strategies he learned here.) Anyway, Betsy has never
forgiven Armstrong/rbr regular for that insulting behavior.

I would tell you that I have to shoot you now that you know, but that would
just get Henry going.

--
Bill Asher

Quoted message said:

gym.gravity said:

said he told the truth under oath.

What would you expect him to say? He had two options. One of which
involved a likely divorce.

Y'know, there is the possibility that everyone in that case
told the truth. Or, what they thought was the truth. The
conversation happened 10 years ago. People don't remember
things perfectly over that long a time - that goes for the
Andreus and the doctors both. It's easier to forget a
conversation than fictitiously remember it, of course.
It's also likely that the Andreus have talked about it with
each other in the interim; it's not surprising their stories
agree. Not a nefarious collusion, rather that people's
recollections converge when they reinforce each other's
remembered version.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gym.gravity said:

said he told the truth under oath.

What would you expect him to say? He had two options. One of which
involved a likely divorce.

Y'know, there is the possibility that everyone in that case
told the truth. Or, what they thought was the truth. The
conversation happened 10 years ago. People don't remember
things perfectly over that long a time - that goes for the
Andreus and the doctors both. It's easier to forget a
conversation than fictitiously remember it, of course.
It's also likely that the Andreus have talked about it with
each other in the interim; it's not surprising their stories
agree. Not a nefarious collusion, rather that people's
recollections converge when they reinforce each other's
remembered version.

Andreu testified that Armstrong brought up the topic of the hospital
statement about a year after it happened while they were on a training ride.
Listen to the program if you haven't already. It is interesting. Also,
Armstrong's lawyer, Herman, makes no mention of a settlement and makes it
sound as though the arbitrators ruled on the doping claim, which we now know
they did not.

Remember this was a civil case. Andreau was a witness for an insurance
company. Consider how much was paid for his expert testimony. Or not paid
for by Armstrong.
In either event, the judge did rule for Armstrong.

"Jubilado" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Remember this was a civil case. Andreau was a witness for an insurance
company. Consider how much was paid for his expert testimony. Or not
paid for by Armstrong.
In either event, the judge did rule for Armstrong.

Wrong on points:
1. Frankie Andreu was not paid for his testimony. He, and his wife,
appeared under subpoena.
2. AFAK, Andreu was not qualified as an expert witness. He simply testified
as an eye witness to an event.
3. The case was settled before the arbitrators (3 of them) could issue
findings and conclusions.

Jubilado said:

Remember this was a civil case. Andreau was a witness for an insurance
company. Consider how much was paid for his expert testimony. Or not paid
for by Armstrong.
In either event, the judge did rule for Armstrong.

My guess is that he was paid nothing, since he fought the subpeona back
in Michigan. And I think giving testmony about what was said in a
hospital room is far from "expert".

Also, people seem to think the Andreaus were somehow instrumental in
the outcome of the case. Lance's camp would probably like everyone to
think that. Do we really know the bulk of the reason for the outcome?
My thoughts were that the insurance company hired lawyers who didn't
have a lot of good ideas on places to go and "hunt" for decent
evidence. They should have hired Lafferty as a consultant.

William Asher said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gym.gravity wrote:
> said he told the truth under oath.

What would you expect him to say? He had two options. One of which
involved a likely divorce.

But WHY does she hate him? That's the interesting part. Anyone know? I
bet it's over money. As in Frankie didn't get enough cause Lance hogged
it all.

Armstrong is really one of the rbr regulars posting under a pseudonym that
gave Frankie a hard time during the infamous rain jacket thread. Or maybe
a better way to say it is that one of the rbr regulars who gave Andreu such
a hard time raced under the pseudonym of Lance Armstrong. My guess is we
can figure out who it is by seeing which regular has posted the strongest
dislike of Sheryl Crow, maybe the one who posted the pics of her topless.
Hide in plain sight, just like the trilateralists. (Think about it,
Armstrong was so dominant in the Tour not because of doping, but because of
all the great strategies he learned here.) Anyway, Betsy has never
forgiven Armstrong/rbr regular for that insulting behavior.

I would tell you that I have to shoot you now that you know, but that would
just get Henry going.

--
Bill Asher

Just curious, when did the rain jacket thread occur? I must have been
on my August-June hiatus.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My thoughts were that the insurance company hired lawyers who didn't
have a lot of good ideas on places to go and "hunt" for decent
evidence. They should have hired Lafferty as a consultant.

Judging from the outcome they did.

"gym.gravity" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

said he told the truth under oath.

Simple. He & she heard Lance discussing with the doctors the meds that he
was using post op.

William Asher said:

Armstrong is really one of the rbr regulars posting under a pseudonym that
gave Frankie a hard time during the infamous rain jacket thread. Or maybe
a better way to say it is that one of the rbr regulars who gave Andreu such
a hard time raced under the pseudonym of Lance Armstrong. My guess is we
can figure out who it is by seeing which regular has posted the strongest
dislike of Sheryl Crow, maybe the one who posted the pics of her topless.
Hide in plain sight, just like the trilateralists. (Think about it,
Armstrong was so dominant in the Tour not because of doping, but because of
all the great strategies he learned here.)

You mean he was koached by kunich ? How come he still used all that aero
gear on the TT's ?

Be real. An interstate subpeona to an uninvolved party in an insurance
case! The Andreau's couldn't have fought very hard.

The arbitrators didn't issue conclusions, because there weren't any. The
insurance company conceded (settled for no gain).

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jubilado" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Remember this was a civil case. Andreau was a witness for an insurance
company. Consider how much was paid for his expert testimony. Or not
paid for by Armstrong.
In either event, the judge did rule for Armstrong.

Wrong on points:
1. Frankie Andreu was not paid for his testimony. He, and his wife,
appeared under subpoena.
2. AFAK, Andreu was not qualified as an expert witness. He simply
testified as an eye witness to an event.
3. The case was settled before the arbitrators (3 of them) could issue
findings and conclusions.

"sTEVE" <h90943@hotmaildotcom> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"gym.gravity" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

said he told the truth under oath.

Simple. He & she heard Lance discussing with the doctors the meds that he
was using post op.

Right. Including human growth hormone. Interesting that when Armstrong's
attorney, Herman, spouted that line he didn't mention growth hormone either.

"Jubilado" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The arbitrators didn't issue conclusions, because there weren't any. The
insurance company conceded (settled for no gain).

The reason being, of course, that they had no case and had it gone to court
they'd have lost big time.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jubilado" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The arbitrators didn't issue conclusions, because there weren't any. The
insurance company conceded (settled for no gain).

The reason being, of course, that they had no case and had it gone to
court they'd have lost big time.

Eunuch, the case would only "go to court" for confirmation of an arbitration
award. It was tried at a hearing before three arbitrators who were charged
with making an award to one of the parties. They didn't have to do that
because the case was settled at the close of testimony---apparently because
the arbitrators (not a court) ruled that SCA was an insurer and as such had
treble potential liability. Settling was a simply business decision.