Road Cycling · Public discussion
Truth Catching Up With Armstrong?
Thread navigation
Jump through the discussion
Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.
Thread details
What we know about this thread
- Original section
- Road Cycling
- Published
- 13 September 2006
- Last activity
- 14 September 2006
- Original author
- B. Lafferty
- Posts
- 33
- Discussion status
- Public discussion
- Total views
- 837
- Views / 30 days
- 0
- Topics
The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.
-
-
B. Lafferty said:
Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
of truth and justice are doping.The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.In other news, there was an exciting stage in the Vuelta
today.Ben
-
B. Lafferty said:
The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
personnel to liability.
OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
well be omitted from the written record.
During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
guys).Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001 -
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:daWNg.598$cf2.160@trndny07...Quoted message said:
B. Lafferty said:
The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and personnel
to liability.There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what the
patient said. IIRC, here, Betsey Andreu testified hat she could not recall
the name of the doctor present during the conversation, but that she was
certain it was not the oncologist who at arbitration provided his afidavit
to Armstrong.Quoted message said:
OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of performance
enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might well be
omitted from the written record.Such a statement coming from the patient, who is lucid and determined to
beat the disease, one could well be assumed to be truthful. Assuming also
that the question was asked by a physician working on the case, that would
tend to indicate that the physician had knowledge of the possible effects of
certain bnned substances.Quoted message said:
During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma. We
were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
guys).Very different situation.
Quoted message said:
Steve--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001 -
Quoted message said:
The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
nebulous what we call "truth" becomes.Says the resident nebula-malchick!
Quoted message said:
So don't get
your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.Also, it's not a pleasant experience.
--
Naughty, naughty, naughty! -
Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:
B. Lafferty said:
The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
personnel to liability.
OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
well be omitted from the written record.
During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
guys).Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
to head to chemo.And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
years ago.Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
bad about someone wealthy. -
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
B. Lafferty said:
Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
of truth and justice are doping.The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.You're not saying that they made him care, are you??
-
Quoted message said:
Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:
B. Lafferty said:
The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
personnel to liability.
OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
well be omitted from the written record.
During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
guys).Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
to head to chemo.And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
years ago.Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
bad about someone wealthy.How about you go and create another newsgroup just for this topic,
something along the lines ofalt.conspiracy.cycling.la.guilty
I'm sure that between Lafferty, duped%, dope% ad DA47 you guys can have
a great time over there.and don't crosspost back here.
-bdbafh
-
B. Lafferty said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
B. Lafferty said:
Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
of truth and justice are doping.The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.You're not saying that they made him care, are you??
If you're going to be obtuse, please try to make sense while doing so.
-
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:
B. Lafferty wrote:
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_ylt=AuUftJIINOwXm5VLgQczLdl.grcF?slug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>
>The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
personnel to liability.
OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
well be omitted from the written record.
During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned
later
in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on
these
guys).Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
to head to chemo.And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
years ago.Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
bad about someone wealthy.How about you go and create another newsgroup just for this topic,
something along the lines ofalt.conspiracy.cycling.la.guilty
I'm sure that between Lafferty, duped%, dope% ad DA47 you guys can have
a great time over there.and don't crosspost back here.
-bdbafh
This is`only made possible by the culture of doping in the sport. Sometimes
reality bites. -
Quoted message said:
The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
nebulous what we call "truth" becomes.Well I suppose you could always study the background radiation.
-
In article
<[email hidden]>,
Fred FredburgerQuoted message said:
B. Lafferty said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
B. Lafferty wrote:
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_ylt=AuUftJIINOwXm5VLgQczLdl.grcF?slug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
Using the logic of the Millar Line, if Armstrong doped,
and the forces of truth and justice are finally catching
up to Armstrong, there's only one conclusion: the forces
of truth and justice are doping.The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
nebulous what we call "truth" becomes. So don't get
your hopes up for forcing everyone's eyes open
Clockwork-Orange style and making them care.You're not saying that they made him care, are you??
If you're going to be obtuse, please try to make sense while doing so.
.... or at least better quality nonsense.
--
Michael Press -
In article
<[email hidden]>,Quoted message said:
How about you go and create another newsgroup just for this topic,
something along the lines ofalt.conspiracy.cycling.la.guilty
I'm sure that between Lafferty, duped%, dope% ad DA47 you guys can have
a great time over there.and don't crosspost back here.
and mountain bike dud.
--
Michael Press -
B. Lafferty said:
There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what the
patient said.Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?Counselor Lafferty, the court is not convinced that you
have standing to press a suit in this matter. The court
also has some very important TV to watch.Ben
-
B. Lafferty said:
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:daWNg.598$cf2.160@trndny07...Quoted message said:
B. Lafferty said:
The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and personnel
to liability.There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
for the doctor.Not to argue the legalities with you, Counselor, but what if the doctor
maintains that there is no third party present to his knowledge and memory?Steve
If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what the
Quoted message said:
patient said. IIRC, here, Betsey Andreu testified hat she could not recall
the name of the doctor present during the conversation, but that she was
certain it was not the oncologist who at arbitration provided his afidavit
to Armstrong.Quoted message said:
OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of performance
enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might well be
omitted from the written record.Such a statement coming from the patient, who is lucid and determined to
beat the disease, one could well be assumed to be truthful. Assuming also
that the question was asked by a physician working on the case, that would
tend to indicate that the physician had knowledge of the possible effects of
certain bnned substances.Quoted message said:
During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma. We
were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
guys).Very different situation.
Quoted message said:
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001 -
Quoted message said:
Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:
B. Lafferty said:
The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
personnel to liability.
OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
well be omitted from the written record.
During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
guys).Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
to head to chemo.Surely.
Quoted message said:
And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
years ago.I hope so.
Quoted message said:
Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
bad about someone wealthy.Well, it would be interesting to find that surgeon or oncologist. If
it turns out that there was a third party and the record is at some
point subpoenaed, that would about do it.Steve
Quoted message said:
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001 -
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
B. Lafferty said:
There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what
the
patient said.Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?The way it generally works with arbirtaion proceedings is that a part
wishing to compel the appearance of a non-party witness prepares a subpoena,
goes to the court of law having statutory juristiction over arbitration
matters, and asks a judge there to sign the subpoena. Once that is done,
the subpoena is served in the usual maner required by statute. It can be a
bit of a pain when one must serve and seek enforcement of a subpoena in
another state, but that 's part of why we attorneys earn our big bucks. :-)Quoted message said:
Counselor Lafferty, the court is not convinced that you
have standing to press a suit in this matter. The court
also has some very important TV to watch.Ben
-
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:KhZNg.606$cf2.565@trndny07...Quoted message said:
B. Lafferty said:
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:daWNg.598$cf2.160@trndny07...Quoted message said:
B. Lafferty wrote:
The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and personnel
to liability.There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
for the doctor.Not to argue the legalities with you, Counselor, but what if the doctor
maintains that there is no third party present to his knowledge and
memory?Steve
Then the judge holds a hearing to determine if anyone else was present.
Whether the doctor remembers it or not, the issue is whether the presence of
a third party prevents the patient from asserting the privilege. The
privelege is the patient's t assert, not the doctor. If the patient
authorizes the doctor to testify, the patient has waived his/her privilge. -
B. Lafferty said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:
Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?The way it generally works with arbirtaion proceedings is that a part
wishing to compel the appearance of a non-party witness prepares a subpoena,What's being arbitrated?
-
Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:
Quoted message said:
Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:
B. Lafferty wrote:
The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
treatment, absent an executed consent form.
Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
personnel to liability.
OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
well be omitted from the written record.
During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned later
in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on these
guys).Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
to head to chemo.Surely.
Quoted message said:
And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
years ago.I hope so.
Quoted message said:
Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
bad about someone wealthy.Well, it would be interesting to find that surgeon or oncologist. If
it turns out that there was a third party and the record is at some
point subpoenaed, that would about do it.Steve
Quoted message said:
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001I don't know how medical records can enter into the court process.
Wouldn't it be logical to just subpeona Armstrong's charts from the
time he was in the hospital? Or (even in court) does he have to give
his permission?
Active in the last 60 minutes
Active in this thread
0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total
No signed-in users are active right now.
No known search crawlers active right now.