McIlvain's Taped Conversation With Lemond

MagillaGorilla wrote:

"Why hasn't the doctor been found"???? Because he doesn't want to be
found, dumbass. Also, a doctor is under no obligation to disclose this
information to an arbitration Panel. How would SCA's attorneys even
find this doctor? Armstrong probably had interactions of all levells
with numerous specialists during his stay at Indiana.

If you went to the hospital to visit a friend with cancer would you know
the names of all the medical people who entered and left the room? No.

Why do I need to point out the obvious to you?

Dear Magilla: If a med. person did ask "the question" in front of
several other people, none related to the patient, and there was a
response from the patient more or less as is alleged, I would think the
"doctor" could be compelled to testify, as any privilege of
confidential communication has been breached. Unless the hospital
records have been altered, persons working with LA can be ID'd.

As I've said before, in the first place, asking a med. history question
with *anyone* present, even spouses or other close relatives, is so
completely unprofessional that this occurence must be doubted.

I would think one of the females supposedly present would remember the
questioner's name. Since they're all calling each other IRT their
stories, and recording the conversations by tape or transcription, it
just seems strange to me that the best witness has not been ID'd and
brought forward, or even *mentioned* past the briefest reference to
him. I say "best witness" as, unlike any of the others mentioned, this
doc/whatever can be assumed, for instance, not to have a deep and
abiding personal hatred for Lance Armstrong.

Lance's supposed response would have been transcribed into medical
records-- where is that evidence?

I'll agree the doctor doesn't much want to be found. If the alleged
incident occurred, there will undoubtedly be some amount of coverup. At
some point, the questioner would be exposed; the hospital has
well-oiled mechanisms in place to take the hit.

Did you hear Pound's NPR interview? His stance on "proving" doping, and
how WADA's protocol for "proof" came to be, is a big, big problem IMHO.
Or, which of your rights will you be glad to cast aside when they come
for you? As an outspoken kind of guy, I would think you'd have offended
any number of people down through the years-- this is Lance's real sin,
after all... right, Brian?

Jailhouse confessions are fine and dandy, as far as they go. After,
let's have some compelling, real evidence-- something a whole lot
closer to real "proof", like an affirmative statement from the doc, or
something real from med records. --D-y

wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:


"Why hasn't the doctor been found"???? Because he doesn't want to be
found, dumbass. Also, a doctor is under no obligation to disclose this
information to an arbitration Panel. How would SCA's attorneys even
find this doctor? Armstrong probably had interactions of all levells
with numerous specialists during his stay at Indiana.

If you went to the hospital to visit a friend with cancer would you know
the names of all the medical people who entered and left the room? No.

Why do I need to point out the obvious to you?


Dear Magilla: If a med. person did ask "the question" in front of
several other people, none related to the patient, and there was a
response from the patient more or less as is alleged, I would think the
"doctor" could be compelled to testify, as any privilege of
confidential communication has been breached. Unless the hospital
records have been altered, persons working with LA can be ID'd.


I don't know who told you that because a physician said something in
front of others that the doctor somehow waived the patient's
confidentiality. What happened is Lance waived HIS confidentiality for
that moment in time, and that has NOTHING to do with the doctor's
obligation to maintain confidentiality.

Second, only one doctor testified at the SCA hearing. There were many
doctors involved in Lance's treatment. One doctor was called as a
witness by Lance. SCA had no right to subpeona a medical doctor because
of confidentiality. And you don't subpeona people not knowing what
their testimony would be (doctors cannot be deposed in this type of
arbitration given that the medical records were made available and there
was no mention of previous doping use).




As I've said before, in the first place, asking a med. history question
with *anyone* present, even spouses or other close relatives, is so
completely unprofessional that this occurence must be doubted.

It's done all the time. You clearly have little real world experience
in this area.



I would think one of the females supposedly present would remember the
questioner's name. Since they're all calling each other IRT their
stories, and recording the conversations by tape or transcription, it
just seems strange to me that the best witness has not been ID'd and
brought forward, or even *mentioned* past the briefest reference to
him. I say "best witness" as, unlike any of the others mentioned, this
doc/whatever can be assumed, for instance, not to have a deep and
abiding personal hatred for Lance Armstrong.

Okay - what was the name of the dental hygeinist that cleaned your teeth
or the nurse who bandaged your wounds in the ER 4 years ago? What was
the name of the asssistant to you eye doctor? What was the name of the
vet tech who helped with your pet 2 years ago?

You clearly have no idea about how memory works.


Lance's supposed response would have been transcribed into medical
records-- where is that evidence?

Doctors routinely leave out statements of culpability by patients,
particularly when this has little to do with diagnosis, prognosis or
treatment.


I'll agree the doctor doesn't much want to be found. If the alleged
incident occurred, there will undoubtedly be some amount of coverup. At
some point, the questioner would be exposed; the hospital has
well-oiled mechanisms in place to take the hit.

The doctor will never be found unless he wants to be found. All the
witnesses stated he was a male doctor, as opposed to a female doctor.

Did you hear Pound's NPR interview? His stance on "proving" doping, and
how WADA's protocol for "proof" came to be, is a big, big problem IMHO.
Or, which of your rights will you be glad to cast aside when they come
for you?

So, what's the "big problem" (aside from you stating there is one)?


Magilla

On 21 Nov 2006 19:41:46 -0800, "
wrote:


nobody wrote:
In fact it sounds like one of them is pretending to have heard something to
see if they can draw out something damaging from the other one.

What is that called? How about, 'fishing expedition'. ;-p

We've been over and over... hello, Brian!

Where is the doctor who supposedly asked this sensitive question in
front of an audience? Why hasn't he been found, pray tell? Where is the
statement from the man or woman who asked the question? Why don't any
of the named witnesses remember who (supposedly) asked the question?
Employees in hospitals wear name tags. --D-y

Of all of the alleged witnesses, ONE of them took notes, stuck them in a folder
with name, date and time that was added to LA's file at that hospital. That
person is the one nobody can name? Nobody's heard from?

That's bull****.

Ron

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:14:49 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

wrote:

nobody wrote:

In fact it sounds like one of them is pretending to have heard something to
see if they can draw out something damaging from the other one.

What is that called? How about, 'fishing expedition'. ;-p


We've been over and over... hello, Brian!

Where is the doctor who supposedly asked this sensitive question in
front of an audience? Why hasn't he been found, pray tell? Where is the
statement from the man or woman who asked the question? Why don't any
of the named witnesses remember who (supposedly) asked the question?
Employees in hospitals wear name tags. --D-y



"Why hasn't the doctor been found"???? Because he doesn't want to be
found, dumbass. Also, a doctor is under no obligation to disclose this
information to an arbitration Panel. How would SCA's attorneys even
find this doctor?

By requesting LA's medical records during the period in question under whatever
discovery process applies. Dumbass.

Armstrong probably had interactions of all levells
with numerous specialists during his stay at Indiana.

If you went to the hospital to visit a friend with cancer would you know
the names of all the medical people who entered and left the room? No.

But if you were conducting an investigation into fraud and there was reason to
believe that there was an admission to such fraud to be found in the medical
records of that hospital you would've found it. Or I would've found it. You'd
still be playing with your banana.

Ron

MagillaGorilla wrote:

I don't know who told you that because a physician said something in
front of others that the doctor somehow waived the patient's
confidentiality. What happened is Lance waived HIS confidentiality for
that moment in time, and that has NOTHING to do with the doctor's
obligation to maintain confidentiality.

Where is the citation for "Lance waived his confidentiality"?

Second, only one doctor testified at the SCA hearing. There were many
doctors involved in Lance's treatment. One doctor was called as a
witness by Lance. SCA had no right to subpeona a medical doctor because
of confidentiality. And you don't subpeona people not knowing what
their testimony would be (doctors cannot be deposed in this type of
arbitration given that the medical records were made available and there
was no mention of previous doping use).

Given your assertions on what is allowed and what is not allowed, "the
medical records were made available and there was no mention of
previous doping use" says it all. IMHO, of course.

It's [asking medical history questions in front of bystanders] done all the time. You clearly have little real world experience in this area.

Very little, personally. My wife was an RN, for the last five years has
been a CRNA. She's always worked in real hospitals; neural ward, adult
and pedi ICU, in trauma hospitals and Ben Taub (Houston). She snorted
"No way!" when I related the Betsy Andreu assertions.

I've seen at least a couple of physicians on "reality" shows talk about
how they don't let *anyone* else in on such questioning sessions, in
order to get an honest answer ("I make a big show of closing the
door"). I'm not a doctor, either; I would think this effort at getting
an accurate answer would figure in diagnosis and treatment, if only to
prevent harmful interactions.

You can make claims about common practice but asking medical history
questions in front of bystanders is entirely unprofessional. Another
comment from my wife: "They would be in so much trouble!" meaning the
doc and nurse/other employees, if present.

Okay - what was the name of the dental hygeinist that cleaned your teeth
or the nurse who bandaged your wounds in the ER 4 years ago? What was
the name of the asssistant to you eye doctor? What was the name of the
vet tech who helped with your pet 2 years ago?

You clearly have no idea about how memory works.

There are written records, is the point. Also, the recollections of
other employees who would remember, since they are of course familiar
with people they see often.

Doctors routinely leave out statements of culpability by patients,
particularly when this has little to do with diagnosis, prognosis or
treatment.

You've read the many assertions here to the effect that Lance gave
himself cancer by doping. In this case, history would be directly
connected to diagnosis, with some "research" aspect applying-- since
this possible linkage between doping and disease is very much of
interest in the sporting and medical communities. Prognosis, affected,
also: "If we manage to cure you, are you going to start taking HGH and
steroids again, or maybe even take them while being treated?" I mean,
some people are psychoactively involved with steroids, no?

The doctor will never be found unless he wants to be found. All the
witnesses stated he was a male doctor, as opposed to a female doctor.

The hospital may yet push him out to the edge of their property line
with his name, address, and home phone number hastily scribbled on a
note pinned to his chest.

So, what's the "big problem" [Pound interview, NPR] (aside from you stating there is one)?

Gosh, is my stating there is a problem a problem for you?

The problem is establishing guilt. Pound recounted having someone
(Conte? who was in a whole heap of trouble, facing possible jail time)
tell him a story about Marion Jones-- having prepared a shot for her,
how she proceded to inject herself in the thigh with steroids or
whatever. So, Marion Jones is a doper! It's all downhill from there.

Did you read (Bill C and I have both posted links to coverage of this
sordid mess; me at least two or three times) the part about "giving
false testimony" IRT the Houston crime lab's activities related to DNA
evidence? And how many convictions have been overturned? Underlings
forced to lie in order to keep a job, and/or be able to find another
doing the same work?

Yeah, it's about maintaining a high standard of proof.

I found this refreshing, in a way:

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...ters&type=lgns

It seems Heras can't get an analysis of his B sample. First I've heard
g! (that was the refreshing part, that he's successfully gone public,
with Reuters as a forum) This is obviously part of the push, as plainly
related by Pound in the NPR interview, to do away with those
troublesome B samples. Well, what if someone they *know* is a doper
gets off? Then (the real bottom line with what Pound's game is)
sponsorship money might be affected!

Too bad-- they were doing so well with the hematocrit limit. But no, it
has to be test, test, test, in support of stupid rules that the testing
can't support in the first place (duh!). The fault for the current mess
is the making rules that can't be fairly and openly enforced with
the technology currently available. Again, if you know the guy next to
you can take an "unfair" advantage with little chance of being caught,
you are placed in a very bad position by bad rules. Period.

Don't you think relying on police to catch dopers is actually
humiliating for WADA, in spite of carefully fashioned rhetoric for
public consumption to the contrary? --D-y

B. Lafferty wrote:
...
Later in the same conversation with Stephanie McIlvain,
Greg LeMond related how he had been forced to make
a statement of support for Armstrong in 2001,
...
After having been forced to retract this statement (his
criticism of L.A. for working with Michele Ferrari,)
Greg LeMond was discouraged and totally deflated.
...
"What scares me is to think that you've got Lance, Trek
and Thom Weisel who all want one thing, which is to
**** you."
...

This is some very funny ****. Thanks.

Are you implying Lemond's current problems are not enough dope -- he
isn't taking his medication?

RonSonic wrote:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:14:49 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:


wrote:


nobody wrote:


In fact it sounds like one of them is pretending to have heard something to
see if they can draw out something damaging from the other one.

What is that called? How about, 'fishing expedition'. ;-p


We've been over and over... hello, Brian!

Where is the doctor who supposedly asked this sensitive question in
front of an audience? Why hasn't he been found, pray tell? Where is the
statement from the man or woman who asked the question? Why don't any
of the named witnesses remember who (supposedly) asked the question?
Employees in hospitals wear name tags. --D-y



"Why hasn't the doctor been found"???? Because he doesn't want to be
found, dumbass. Also, a doctor is under no obligation to disclose this
information to an arbitration Panel. How would SCA's attorneys even
find this doctor?


By requesting LA's medical records during the period in question under whatever
discovery process applies. Dumbass.

Why would SCA be entitled to medical records from 1996? Lance provided
his medical records because he knew they didn't contan any such
admissions by the doctors. How do you know the doctor who asked him the
question was just a visiting specialist or top department head who had
no real hands-on involvement in Lance's care ...or didn't just ask him
the question out of curiosity's sake?

Do you think doctor's write everything down under all circumstances? If
you do, you're an idiot.



Armstrong probably had interactions of all levells
with numerous specialists during his stay at Indiana.

If you went to the hospital to visit a friend with cancer would you know
the names of all the medical people who entered and left the room? No.


But if you were conducting an investigation into fraud and there was reason to
believe that there was an admission to such fraud to be found in the medical
records of that hospital you would've found it. Or I would've found it. You'd
still be playing with your banana.

Ron

Hey dumbass...SCA had no authority to subpeona Lance's medical records
or his doctors from 1996.

Magilla

wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:


I don't know who told you that because a physician said something in
front of others that the doctor somehow waived the patient's
confidentiality. What happened is Lance waived HIS confidentiality for
that moment in time, and that has NOTHING to do with the doctor's
obligation to maintain confidentiality.


Where is the citation for "Lance waived his confidentiality"?

Lance waived his confidentiality. Why would a doctor need to write this
down given that the disclosure came from Lance (not the doctor)? Lance
is free to talk about his medical condition with anyone he wants at any
time, inside or outside a hospital.


Magilla

wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:


It's [asking medical history questions in front of bystanders] done all the time. You clearly have little real world experience in this area.


Very little, personally. My wife was an RN, for the last five years has
been a CRNA. She's always worked in real hospitals; neural ward, adult
and pedi ICU, in trauma hospitals and Ben Taub (Houston). She snorted
"No way!" when I related the Betsy Andreu assertions.

I've seen at least a couple of physicians on "reality" shows talk about
how they don't let *anyone* else in on such questioning sessions, in
order to get an honest answer ("I make a big show of closing the
door"). I'm not a doctor, either; I would think this effort at getting
an accurate answer would figure in diagnosis and treatment, if only to
prevent harmful interactions.

You can make claims about common practice but asking medical history
questions in front of bystanders is entirely unprofessional. Another
comment from my wife: "They would be in so much trouble!" meaning the
doc and nurse/other employees, if present.



Your wife doesn't sound credible because it's done all the time. In
fact, the only people allowed to visit in hospitals is immediate family
(or in some cases close friends). Very rarely do physicians consider
such people as the same as the general public and in the vast majority
of cases family are kept updated by the medical team for a variety of
reasons.

Also, who said the question was a formal "medical history" question? It
appears to have been a general question by one of the doctors, perhaps
even asked out of curiosity's sake. And when he heard the answer and
realized the significance of it, decided it would be best to not include
it in the records. This is done all the time by doctors.

Ask your wife. And tell her to answer truthfully this time.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Do you think doctor's write everything down under all circumstances? If
you do, you're an idiot.

(excuse me, Ron) I think doctors talk into little recording devices,
completely describing detail of interactions with patients, at length,
even for pediatric checkups and "colds", and then someone else writes
it down later. This is called "transcribing". The writing down part,
that is. (sarcasm turned down a notch)

The substance is transferred to permanent medical records which can be
read later. Liability/memory issues are thus addressed in a
professional manner.

At least, that's my real world experience. I'm beginning to wonder what
kind of medical crowd you hang with, Maggy! --D-y