McIlvain's Taped Conversation With Lemond

RonSonic wrote:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:06:55 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:


nobody wrote:


On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:14:41 -0500, RonSonic
wrote:



Whatever are you babbling on about. I was a PI working life and health insurance
fraud. I've got no illusions about what physicians do. I am also aware that they
are smart enough to not write something that might not want to be written. They
don't ask questions about those things in a roomful of people.

See these are two things that go together: a sensitive question the doctor needs
answered for his own use, but not for the record and keeping that discussion
private.

It didn't happen.

Ron


I've got a medical background and that's what I'm trying to tell him. He
seems to think I'm on one side or the other or for doping. I'm not.

Plus there's no medical reason for an MD to ask him what illegal durgs he
took the prev. year and MD's in 1996 did not know to ask a bike racer about
such things. What question would he ask to have LA answer with four illegal
PEDs? "What enhancing meds did you take last year?" Yeah, right. As you say
MDs do -not- what to know that ****e, let alone ask it or write it down. It
has no bearing on his treatment for testicular cancer. People seem to think
those things caused it, but there is no evidence for that. Enhance the
growth? Maybe, but so what. They're still going to do the treatment/sgy.

Lance is cagey. There's no way he's answering that question directly. He'd
make the MD tell him the reason then he'd make up his own mind what to say
and then, only in hypotheticals. Cyclists hid this ****e even from the
person they're living with.

It -might- have happened, but the average jury won't find it credible after
the defense stages it just so.

The thing that makes me wonder most and is the most shakey is that a
housewife would remember those names without coaching. Even a 3rd year law
student would bring that out and make her look st00pid.




You're trying to figure out what happened in that room through bizarre
logic that has no basis in the facts. And you have yet to tell me why 3
people - WITNESSES - including Lance's agent at Oakley would lie about it.


That's their problem, not mine.

No bizarre logic on this side. We're only talking about the way things actually
happen in the real world of medical practice.


You make it sound like doctors NEVER ask questions out of curiosity and
that 100% of their questions have total relevance and are recorded 100%
of the time. Nothing like that is the reality. Doctors ask frivolous
questions all the time and never record any answer in the records.


Doctors don't usually ask frivolous questions about sensitive subjects. True,
they may well be less savvy than lawyers about this, they are also more
intelligent generally and more considerate of the long term welfare of their
client.


3 witnesses said a doctor did precisely that. However, the doctor might
not have considered it frivolous. Why are you trying to disprove
witness testimony from 3 people with hypothetical scenarios based on
generalizations that aren't even necessarily true?

I'M TELLING YOU WHAT ACTUAL WITNESSES SAID. WHO ****ING CARES WHAT
DOCTORS DO OR DON'T NORMALLY DO.


Magilla

RonSonic wrote:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:06:55 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

SNIP


As a
matter of fact, if you asked an MD if they did this, they would think
the question itself is stupid because the answer is so obvious.


Probably most adults have had conversations with a doctor where he very
pointedly closes the folder and puts down the pen before he asks the next
question. He doesn't ask those questions in a roomful of people.

HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WITH FAMILY MEMBERS BEING PRESENT. LANCE SAID THEY
COULD STAY AND THE DOCTOR HEARD LANCE SAY THIS.


Magilla

RonSonic wrote:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:06:55 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:


The one where a former team mate his ****y wife and a jilted product placement
only tell the truth?

Ron


That's hilarious how you leave out the most compelling motive that
exists for lying about whether this admission occurred or not. Aren't
you forgetting someone?

As for McIlvain, what was she "jilted" about? You just make these facts up.

And just because a teammate has a ****y wife, that's not motive to lie
about something so specific and somehow have it independently
corroborated by an Oakley rep that has no relationship to either of the
other 2 witnesses.


Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:
RonSonic wrote:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:06:55 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

As a matter of fact, if you asked an MD if they did this, they would think
the question itself is stupid because the answer is so obvious.


Probably most adults have had conversations with a doctor where he very
pointedly closes the folder and puts down the pen before he asks the next
question. He doesn't ask those questions in a roomful of people.

HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WITH FAMILY MEMBERS BEING PRESENT. LANCE SAID THEY COULD STAY AND THE DOCTOR HEARD LANCE SAY THIS.

I was wondering when you were going to break out the ALL CAPS. That's
usually the first sign that you're starting to lose it. You have these
patterns that are quite recognizable. You take months off, hardly a
post, then reappear with a vengeance (vendetta?), and based on the
sheer volume of your posting you apparently feel that you are
"winning".

Unfortunately, like Lemond's virtual wins, your wins mean very little
to other people. After your bout of posting mania passes, and you
either refill the prescription or the meth runs out, you drop out of
sight again. Quite predictable, really. Don't take this post as a
personal attack, it's not. The meth thing was meant in jest, and the
rest simply an observation.

Exactly which doctor was it that heard Lance say that the people could
stay? You are good, very good, with the facts that support your
theories, and bad, very bad, with the facts that don't. Unfortunately
logic doesn't allow you to pick and choose which facts to ignore. So
please stick with the program even if it hurts. Thanks.

R

RicodJour wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

RonSonic wrote:


On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:06:55 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:


As a matter of fact, if you asked an MD if they did this, they would think
the question itself is stupid because the answer is so obvious.


Probably most adults have had conversations with a doctor where he very
pointedly closes the folder and puts down the pen before he asks the next
question. He doesn't ask those questions in a roomful of people.

HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WITH FAMILY MEMBERS BEING PRESENT. LANCE SAID THEY COULD STAY AND THE DOCTOR HEARD LANCE SAY THIS.


I was wondering when you were going to break out the ALL CAPS. That's
usually the first sign that you're starting to lose it. You have these
patterns that are quite recognizable. You take months off, hardly a
post, then reappear with a vengeance (vendetta?), and based on the
sheer volume of your posting you apparently feel that you are
"winning".

Unfortunately, like Lemond's virtual wins, your wins mean very little
to other people. After your bout of posting mania passes, and you
either refill the prescription or the meth runs out, you drop out of
sight again. Quite predictable, really. Don't take this post as a
personal attack, it's not. The meth thing was meant in jest, and the
rest simply an observation.

Exactly which doctor was it that heard Lance say that the people could
stay? You are good, very good, with the facts that support your
theories, and bad, very bad, with the facts that don't. Unfortunately
logic doesn't allow you to pick and choose which facts to ignore. So
please stick with the program even if it hurts. Thanks.

R



I run a banana factory in Costa Rica. No meth.

Magilla

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:


RonSonic wrote:


On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:57:42 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:



SNIP


Some private investigator you are. You have no answer for what McIlvain
said to LeMond in that phone call. Why did she say she heard it to
LeMond if in fact it didn't happen?


I've got no answer for what unrelated parties gossiping on the phone have to
say. I've got no interest in questioning a recorded conversation that, if not
simply illegal, sounds like someone trying to stir up some mud.

Ron


Unrelated parties? McIlvain was there and said she heard it. Why would
she want to "stir up mud?" She was Lance's ****ing rep at Oakley,
douchebag. She has no motive to lie.

It does not sound ANYTHING like someone trying to stir up mud. It
sounds like McIlvain heard it and simply confirmed that she did to LeMond.

Speculating about motives, then drawing conclusions is ludicrous.


Dude, you're the one speculating about why both Andreu's and McIlvain
are lying - 3 separate people with no motive to fabricate such a thing.
You're the one doing the speculating - I'm just repeating to you what
McIlvain ****ing said in that recorded phone call, so there is no
speculation on my part.

You keep asking "what motive does X have to lie?" That
is speculating about motive. You then tacitly conclude
that they have no motive to lie, and therefore what
they say happened actually did happen.

Your turn. Show where I am speculating about who is and
is not lying.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

RonSonic wrote:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:57:34 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:


RonSonic wrote:


On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:57:42 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:



SNIP


Some private investigator you are. You have no answer for what McIlvain
said to LeMond in that phone call. Why did she say she heard it to
LeMond if in fact it didn't happen?


I've got no answer for what unrelated parties gossiping on the phone have to
say. I've got no interest in questioning a recorded conversation that, if not
simply illegal, sounds like someone trying to stir up some mud.

Ron


Unrelated parties? McIlvain was there and said she heard it. Why would
she want to "stir up mud?" She was Lance's ****ing rep at Oakley,
douchebag. She has no motive to lie.


What's with this psychic crap. How the hell can you know that.

Hey assshole, of course I don't know that for a fact. But it's more
likely she wasn't lying because she has no motive and her story is
corroborated by 2 other independent witnesses.

I think it's obvious who the liars are.

One other independent witness, since Frankie and Betsy
cannot be presumed to be independent. People who live
together say plenty, and I am not suggesting they
cooked up a story.

--
Michael Press

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:29:01 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

RonSonic wrote:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:57:34 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:


RonSonic wrote:


On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:57:42 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:



SNIP


Some private investigator you are. You have no answer for what McIlvain
said to LeMond in that phone call. Why did she say she heard it to
LeMond if in fact it didn't happen?


I've got no answer for what unrelated parties gossiping on the phone have to
say. I've got no interest in questioning a recorded conversation that, if not
simply illegal, sounds like someone trying to stir up some mud.

Ron


Unrelated parties? McIlvain was there and said she heard it. Why would
she want to "stir up mud?" She was Lance's ****ing rep at Oakley,
douchebag. She has no motive to lie.


What's with this psychic crap. How the hell can you know that.

Hey assshole, of course I don't know that for a fact. But it's more
likely she wasn't lying because she has no motive and her story is
corroborated by 2 other independent witnesses.

Why do you keep saying she has no motive?

Hell, for all we know Lance gave her the clap.

Ron