Betsy Andreu Appreciation Society

[bianchigirl]

Hilarious BPC - utterly offensive but hilarious - I am always delighted by the way that the fanboys, who once stuck rigidly to the 'there is no doping in the sport, there are just a few bad apples' line will now happily embrace the notion of a thoroughly dirty sport if that mitigates Armstrong's actions.

Interesting to see those worms wriggle on their hooks from 'never tested positive' to 'everyone was doing it' - but then those who are capable of such moral relativism would happily believe that lying is good, decent and proper particularly if it advances your career.

As for the insinuation that Ms Andreu somehow doesn't have a life outside the vicarious one she experiences as a bit player in the Armstrong Myth - I would ask BPC (and all his other guises) to ask the question of himself - how many hours does he spend on forums defending his hero? How many absorbing every morsel of every news story? How many logging in to find what other posters are saying to him and about him? How many feeling the thrill that somehow, by defending his hero, he is looked on fondly by the great one himself? How many spent living vicariously through the achievements of another?

 

[Jonathan]

The logic of the discussion reminds me of how Armstrong was defended against the accusations by Emma O'Reilly. The logic went something like this: O'Reilly was just implying things and spreading rumors, so there was no proof. If there was no proof, Armstrong had to be presumed innocent. If Armstrong was innocent, O'Reilly had to be lying.

You can substitute other names for O'Reilly's here, like for example Lemond. It is very unpleasant and a logical fallacy to make someone a liar by default like this.

 

[scribe]

The logic of the discussion reminds me of how Armstrong was defended against the accusations by Emma O'Reilly. The logic went something like this: O'Reilly was just implying things and spreading rumors, so there was no proof. If there was no proof, Armstrong had to be presumed innocent. If Armstrong was innocent, O'Reilly had to be lying.

You can substitute other names for O'Reilly's here, like for example Lemond. It is very unpleasant and a logical phallacy to make someone a liar by default like this.

Well. Just because someone says something, doesn't make it the truth. Same applies to Armstrong's testimony, in this instance.

 

[Ozzie2]

Forgive I can't edit- I on iPhone

what do you mean telling Betsy she is is_part_ of the story

you got it mixed up bro

You and I, we're "part of the story"

She IS the story.

As my son says......"derrr"

Not sure but I think that might be addressed to me.

Since I haven't witnessed a great attack on your character, merely the charge that you mixed up some information - though no one has said this on this forum - I don't buy into this notion that you are 'defending your good name'. I think it's more to do with being part of a story that is to do with one of the world's most famous people. It must be intriging to drop in on the endless chatter on the internet to see if the part of the story you are involved in is being mentioned. I wouldn't be able to resist it either - it would be fun to google away your own name. There isn't any great attack on your character from anywhere that I can see.



But you're using "the truth" as some big sexy religious type slogan. Life isn't like that. In honesty, given your relationship to Armstrong at the time and the position of trust you were given by being allowed in the room at the terrible time in his life; and the fact the doctor/patient relationship is a strictly private affair, and lastly, the fact the outside world wouldn't understand how doping was normal in the sport in the 1990s, the decent thing to do would be to have said you were not 100% sure about what you heard. Yes I suppose it would be sort of lying, but nevertheless the honorable course of action. That's my view.

Don't beat yourself up about it though. I just think you got the balance wrong in your judgment. I'm sure you meant well.

 

[blackcat]

The logic of the discussion reminds me of how Armstrong was defended against the accusations by Emma O'Reilly. The logic went something like this: O'Reilly was just implying things and spreading rumors, so there was no proof. If there was no proof, Armstrong had to be presumed innocent. If Armstrong was innocent, O'Reilly had to be lying.

You can substitute other names for O'Reilly's here, like for example Lemond. It is very unpleasant and a logical phallacy to make someone a liar by default like this.

is that the logical misconception of being well hung?

 

[Jonathan]

is that the logical misconception of being well hung?

Ooh, gotta correct that.

 

[Jonathan]

Well. Just because someone says something, doesn't make it the truth. Same applies to Armstrong's testimony, in this instance.

I have never seen proof that O'Reilly was lying, but that is different from saying that what she said must be true. Your conclusion is wrong: I showed that there is no basis call anyone a liar by default.

If you think the evidence against Armstrong is not convincing, you cannot use that as an argument to show that Betsy Andreu, Emma O'Reilly or Greg Lemond must be lying. Turning that around to mean you must believe them is is your leap in logic entirely; it's not what I argued.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Morals is a balance of competiting forces. There is no 'setting morals aside'. I think the most moral thing to do would have been to take the course of action I advocated.

Bull$h!t

So is driving over the speed limit. Sometimes you need to.

No, you never need to, but sometimes you get away with it.

 

[Eva Maria]

So is driving over the speed limit. Sometimes you need to.

You are equating perjury with speeding? We know you are only trolling but these type of statements only make you appear ***.


Benoit Joachim said "Johan Bruyneel's great gift is that he's a liar". I can see why BanPro used the "you might as well lie" as his latest talking point.

 

[Digger]

I think the perjury card is cover. You know as well as I do that it would have been fantastically easy just to say she might have misheard. She could even have repeated what she did hear but tagged that bit on the end. It wouldn't even be perjury. That would have been the moral thing to do.

To lie is to be moral...

 

[Anonymous]

It's such a good propaganda point, that. I have to say I am impressed with its power. I can lay out all the moral dilemmas involved, but you can just repeat that little line: 'are you saying its right to lie'?, and boom.

And the reason it is effective is that it is true. Sucks for you.

 

[bianchigirl]

Please explain to me exactly why protecting a fraud and a cheat and committing perjury is the 'moral thing to do'?

The chimp master must be paying you pretty well to spout this drivel - I don't blame you, you're obviously too in thrall to the Myth to make any kind of sensible judgement but your paymasters should really know better than to spread such rubbish.

 

[elapid]

I think the perjury card is cover. You know as well as I do that it would have been fantastically easy just to say she might have misheard. She could even have repeated what she did hear but tagged that bit on the end. It wouldn't even be perjury. That would have been the moral thing to do.

Why should she or anybody else lie? That is definitely not the moral thing to do. Betsy has maintained her stance and I for one commend her on her honesty and integrity. Why on earth should she lie to protect someone like Lance who has not displayed either of these two admirable qualities? Look at Lance's reaction to Betsy maintaining her stance - threats and bullying. That's really the actions of an honest, moral person ... not.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think the perjury card is cover. You know as well as I do that it would have been fantastically easy just to say she might have misheard. She could even have repeated what she did hear but tagged that bit on the end. It wouldn't even be perjury. That would have been the moral thing to do.

While it obviously is "fantastically easy" for you to lie, apparently it was not for someone with a higher moral code like Betsy seems to have.
I don't think that we will be able to convince you of this though. It would be like trying to teach a monkey calculus.

 

[scribe]

I never did *get* why that company was so determined not to pay. It's gotta be bad for business if your clientele think you are more interested in grinding axes rather than paying out legitimate winners.

Contracting them to secure payouts is bad for PR.

 

[Race Radio]

I think the perjury card is cover.

You call it a cover, most call it the law.

 

[Hugh Januss]

But you're using "the truth" as some big sexy religious type slogan. Life isn't like that. In honesty, given Betsy's relationship to Armstrong at the time and the position of trust she was given by being allowed in the room at the terrible time in his life; and the fact the doctor/patient relationship is a strictly private affair, and lastly, the fact the outside world wouldn't understand how doping was normal in the sport in the 1990s, the decent thing to do would have been to have said she was not 100% sure about what she heard. She wouldn't even have to lie - she could just have tagged on that bit about no being sure at the end. That would be the honorable course of action in my view.

Trust, loyalty and facing down an irresponsible company are all moral things to do.

Religion is sexy?
Fiancee of a teammate is hardly a close enough relationship to expect purjury.
Betsy is not a doctor so why are you bringing up doctor/patient confidentiality?
Lance should have made damn sure that everyone in the room was willing to perpetuate the lie before he opened his trap, but apparently he is so stuck on himself that he automatically expects that from everyone around him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Benoit Joachim said "Johan Bruyneel's great gift is that he's a liar". I can see why BanPro used the "you might as well lie" as his latest talking point.

I like it....

 

[Race Radio]

That's part of being a good leader. You have to motivate different people by telling them a lot of bull****. Particularly useful in cycling. Benoit Joachim was probably joking though.

Part of being a good leader is screwing your riders out of their bonuses?

 

[Race Radio]

Money disputes have always been there, and will always be there. Every team has them at some point.

That makes them ok? With a flexible moral structure like this you must have been all behind SCA not paying Armstrong.

 

[Race Radio]

The point is every team has these little money duspites from time to time - I don't know all the sides of the story. People like yourself are just trying to blow it up in order to further your case about the terrible nature of Bruyneel and Armstrong. It doesn't mean anything.

The usually hypocritical troll response. Your endless willingness to defend your man crush is impressive but misguided.

 

[Race Radio]

If we were to take your logic: Pay dispute = evil people, then virtually all the pro teams have been evil at some point.

If I were to take your logic then the SCA dispute was common business practice.

No matter how you try to twist it there is nothing defensible about screwing Salvodeli, Vasuer, Andreau, Joachim etc. I am sure they were all "Joking"

 

[Digger]

The point is every team has these little money duspites from time to time - I don't know all the sides of the story. People like yourself are just trying to blow it up in order to further your case about the terrible nature of Bruyneel and Armstrong. It doesn't mean anything.

What are 'duspites'? Some type of Mexican food maybe.

 

[Race Radio]

SCA were not running the team - so it was not a common situation - but general pay issues are always around. You saw what happened to Astana during the Giro.

So it was OK for the Borats to not pay?

 

[scribe]

Gentlemen, can we get back to the point of this thread? Worshipping someone's 15 minute brush with infamy.