Posted on 09/16/2010 8:13:41 AM PDT by truthandlife
Wow!! This is like fifth hand information! And, it’s 14 years old!!!!
Cheaters prosper.
Hearsay.
More Lance drugth doo-wa.
Dr./Patient privilege!
Inadmissible!
Armstrong is the White Whale to Lemond’s Ahab. It’s been driving Greg insane for years.
And a guy can’t have an honest discussion with his attending physician without a knucklehead blabbing to the world.
Sounds like a major HIPPA violation.
You can go to JAIL for that, news agency can get fined big bucks for that.
Shameless that someone would report what you told your doctor...
Oh my, there’s possibly doping in cycling?
Who’d have known?
Who’d have cared?
However, what I found funny was this:
McIlvain responded: "If I was subpoenaed, I would. ... I'm not going to lie. ... I was in that room.
Coupled with this: In a 2005 Texas civil case deposition, McIlvain denied ever hearing Armstrong make an admission of using performance-enhancing drugs or doping.
Since the tape was made in 2004, and the deposition was made in 2005, either McIlvain lied to Lemond, or she lied to Lemond, on that tape. Because she said both that she heard Armstrong, and that she would not LIE if she was called to testify.
But the next year when called to testify, she said she didn't hear him. So either "I heard Armstrong" was a lie, or "I won't lie" was a lie.
On the other hand, maybe Armstrong DID talk about performance-enhancing drugs. There are drugs that enhance your performance but that were not illegal in 1996; Also, he might have been ASKED about them, and talked about how different ones could effect his cancer-treatment, without saying he actually USED them.
Or, maybe he had actually USED them at some point before his cancer treatment, in which case his insistance that he NEVER used them would be a lie, but would hardly make a difference unless he used them after his cancer treatment.
*Yawn*
He won all his Tours after his cancer treatments.
Also, didn’t the cancer treatment itself involve using drugs that are normally considered performance-enhancing? In which case the discussion could well have been about what types of drugs were being used, and whether they would disqualify him from racing.
No privilege if the statement was made in the presence of a third party who is not part of the physician's health care staff.
If he knowingly made the statement to his doctor in the presence of a third party, the physician is still bound to confidentiality, but the third party is not.
LOL....our replies were virtually identical, and came right after each other, so I had to check out your profile page. Looks like we signed up on FR one day apart....welcome aboard, noob! ;-)
So, she committed perjury in the deposition?
In the 2005 case? It would appear so, if what she told LeMond is the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.