to VeloNews. Interesting letter. I see also that Chris Carmichael has
stated that he and his wife did not hear what Frankie and Betsey heard.
IIRC, Armstrong is a major investor in CTS Training--did financial interest
close the Carmichaels ears?
To whom it may concern,
On October 21, 2005 my clients, Frankie and Betsy Andreu were subpoenaed by
a Texas Arbitration Panel in the matter of Lance Armstrong, et al. v. SCA
Promotions. The Andreus responded that they would not willingly comply with
the Texas subpoena. The subpoena, however, was confirmed on October 22,
2005, in an ex parte proceeding by a Michigan State Court, and the Andreus
were compelled to answer the subpoenas under penalty of contempt of court.
On October 25th, in compliance with the subpoenas, my clients truthfully
answered specific questions regarding statements made by Mr. Armstrong on
October 27, 1996 in Indiana University Hospital. That particular
conversation had been previously reported by David Walsh in a book entitled
L.A. Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong. The Andreus were not the
source of the information reported in the Walsh book.
In recent days, my clients have come under attack for their motivations and
the accuracy of their recollection. These attacks are unwarranted. My
clients remain steadfast in the truthfulness of their testimony. The Andreus
stand nothing to gain by their testimony and in nearly 10 years, the Andreus
have never sought to profit from their information. The Andreus had no
interest in the outcome of the arbitration matter involving Mr. Armstrong.
Present in the hospital room were seven people including Mr. Armstrong.
Contrary to recent reports, neither Mr. Armstrong's mother nor Dr. Craig
Nichols were present. Other than Mr. Armstrong, only three people were
deposed regarding this incident.
It is unfortunate that transcripts from testimony provided in closed legal
proceedings were released eight months after testimony was given and after a
confidential settlement was agreed upon between SCA Promotions and Mr.
Armstrong. My clients were unaware, shocked and disappointed when their
confidential depositions were made public after being provided assurances by
both parties that their testimonies were provided for the limited purpose of
the arbitration matter and sealed pursuant to an order of the Texas
Arbitration Panel.
The Andreus decline further comment on the matter.
Adam Paskoff, Esq.
New York, New York