The lawyer of Frankie and Betsy Andreu, whose court testimony in 2005 gave rise to the latest allegati🍨ons aꦜgainst Lance Armstrong, has said that the Andreus were "shocked and disappointed when their confidential depositions were made public."

According to Adam Paskoff of Paskoff & Tamber, LLP, the Andreus testimony was given r𝓡eluctantly in th꧒e first place. "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," Paskoff said in a statement. When the subpoena was confirmed, "the Andreus were compelled to answer the subpoenas under penalty of contempt of court."

SCA Promotions had acted as the insurer for a $5 million bonus offered by Tailwind Sports, owner of Armstrong's US Postal team, in the event that Armstrong won the 2004 Tour de France. When allegations were made in David Walsh and Pierre Ballester's book L.A. Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong that Armstrong had used perf💃ormance-enhancing drugs, SCA Promotions refused to pay the bonus and Armstrong and Tailwind sued.

In their subsequent testimony, the Andreus "truthfully answered specific questions regarding statements made by Mr. Armstrong on October 27, 1996 in Indiana University Ho🍌spital," said Paskoff, adding that they were not the source of a report of the conversation in Walsh and Ballester's book.

Pꩲaskoff defended the Andreus against allegations that they had some motive for by testifying against Armstrong. "My clients remain steadfast in the truthfulness of their testimony," he said. "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. Arms🔯trong. Contrary to recent reports, neither Mr. Armstrong's mother nor Dr. Craig Nichols were present."

Paskoff concluded that it was "unfortunate that transcripts from testimony provided in closed legal proceedings were released" and added that the Andreus were "unaware, shocked and disappointed when their confidential depositions were made public afte꧋r 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."