Statement from Adam Paskoff, lawyer to Frankie and Betsy Andreu, June 26, 2006
Statement concerning Frankie and Betsy Andreu
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 t he 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. Any future inquiries should be directed to:
Adam Paskoff, Esq.
June 27, 2006 - Carmichael
defends Armstrong, Armstrong answers L'Equipe & LeMond
(All rights reserved/Copyright Knapp Communications Pty Limited 2006)