More on the Betsy Andreu & Lance. Now with Sally Jenkins

[scribe]

Also remember that James Stratt said he had been told by Stephanie on previous occasion that she heard the confession.

Also it is understandable that while she might like the guy she is genuinely worried about what may happen to GH's kids.
Her own son has autism - so she can probably relate a lot more than any of us.

I feel a lot of sympathy for her as - like the Andreus she was put in a position she did not want to be in.

She sounded very willing in that taped conversation. I don't feel the least bit sorry.

 

[Digger]

When a person claims two different things at different times regarding the same issue, you have to assume she is either not telling the truth or is recollecting them differently. I believe she is doing one or the other.

Okay do you realise this:
You believe Betsy and Frankie when they say they heard that conversation.
But when Stephanie backs up what they said, almost to the word, you believe she's not telling the truth.



Straw, clutching, at, spring to mind

 

[scribe]

Okay do you realise this:
You believe Betsy and Frankie when they say they heard that conversation.
But when Stephanie backs up what they said, almost to the word, you believe she's not telling the truth.



Straw, clutching, at, spring to mind

What do you want from me? I have admitted F&B told the truth. I think this Stephanie person lacks proper credibility. I think it is likely LA used PEDs in the 90s at some point, without much evidence to back it up.

Let's not make try to make my views on the situation into some sort of invisible enemy. It dilutes your cause.

 

[Digger]

What do you want from me? I have admitted F&B told the truth. I think this Stephanie person lacks proper credibility. I think it is likely LA used PEDs in the 90s at some point, without much evidence to back it up.
Let's not make try to make my views on the situation into some sort of invisible enemy. It dilutes your cause.

What do you want? A picture of him injecting his arm, with the needle marked EPO?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

When a person claims two different things at different times regarding the same issue, you have to assume she is either not telling the truth or is recollecting them differently. I believe she is doing one or the other.

No - she lied! Pretty simple....

She either lied under oath when she said "no" - that her only client for the company she worked for confessed to taking PED's.

Or she lied:
On the tape wth GL and to James Stratt and to B. Andreu over a 4 hour fone call.

She was not lying all the time - it is quite simple, it is one or the other.

 

[Anonymous]

Okay do you realise this:
You believe Betsy and Frankie when they say they heard that conversation.
But when Stephanie backs up what they said, almost to the word, you believe she's not telling the truth.



Straw, clutching, at, spring to mind

Subtle character assassination is an art, and he thinks he is good at it. The reality is that the point isn't to say "yea" or "nay," it is to discredit in very indirect ways, the character of those who accuse Mr Armstrong. Some people are blatant about it, and some are much less direct. Either way, the basic message is the same, produce propaganda in an effort to cover and/or deflect accusations about the doping of Mr Armstrong.

 

[Digger]

She sounded very willing in that taped conversation. I don't feel the least bit sorry.

You don't feel sorry for a woman who was a single parent, raising a child with Autism, who was put under extreme pressure by her employer to lie?

 

[scribe]

What do you want? A picture of him injecting his arm, with the needle marked EPO?

It hasn't been produced yet, and with the passage of time, it is becoming more unlikely he ever will have to worry about it much. The real kicker is that he is back, giving blood and urine and racing at the top level of the sport. I cannot conclude that he is a total fraud as some others are eager to do.

 

[Digger]

Subtle character assassination is an art, and he thinks he is good at it. The reality is that the point isn't to say "yea" or "nay," it is to discredit in very indirect ways, the character of those who accuse Mr Armstrong. Some people are blatant about it, and some are much less direct. Either way, the basic message is the same, produce propaganda in an effort to cover and deflect accusations about the doping of Mr Armstrong.

Yeah it's very difficult to disagree with your post above. Absolutely.

 

[scribe]

You don't feel sorry for a woman who was a single parent, raising a child with Autism, who was put under extreme pressure by her employer to lie?

You can't back up that statement.

 

[Digger]

It hasn't been produced yet, and with the passage of time, it is becoming more unlikely he ever will have to worry about it much. The real kicker is that he is back, giving blood and urine and racing at the top level of the sport. I cannot conclude that he is a total fraud as some others are eager to do.

Operation Puerto ring a bell...Are they innocent in your eyes?

 

[scribe]

Operation Puerto ring a bell...Are they innocent in your eyes?

Connections like that are much more defined and easy to establish. I would like for cycling to work with authorities to go on more search and seizure to help eradicate the cheats from professional cycling. I am confident they did a good job in sanctioning those individuals in that situation.

 

[Digger]

Connections like that are much more defined and easy to establish. I would like for cycling to work with authorities to go on more search and seizure to help eradicate the cheats from professional cycling. I am confident they did a good job in sanctioning those individuals in that situation.

But those athletes proved how poor the tests are...so you talking about Lance back with his urine and blood tests doesn't mean sh**.
He dumped Catlin.
He worked with the biggest doping doc in the history of the sport, until his first retirement.
He still won't answer a question as simple as 'what is your VO2 Max?' So saying he only doped at some stage in the 90s is rather strange...or blind.

 

[Digger]

You can't back up that statement.

Yes I can...it's on tape and is something she has alluded to with others

 

[Jonathan]

It hasn't been produced yet, and with the passage of time, it is becoming more unlikely he ever will have to worry about it much.

Quite the opposite; with the passing of time, it is more likely that Armstrong's doping use will become an accepted fact.

 

[scribe]

But those athletes proved how poor the tests are...so you talking about Lance back with his urine and blood tests doesn't mean sh**.
He dumped Catlin.
He worked with the biggest doping doc in the history of the sport, until his first retirement.
He still won't answer a question as simple as 'what is your VO2 Max?' So saying he only doped at some stage in the 90s is rather strange...or blind.

Then your beef should be with UCI, WADA, and IOC and other authorities; for failing to provide adequate testing to keep up with the cheating. It is too easy to single out an individual cyclist because you don't care for their character. Which I can appreciate that you don't care for the man.

 

[scribe]

Yes I can...it's on tape and is something she has alluded to with others

It's on tape that she lied under oath, as you are suggesting? I am not interested in hear say.

 

[scribe]

Quite the opposite; with the passing of time, it is more likely that Armstrong's doping use will become an accepted fact.

Based on character assassination and hear say? I don't think more Lemond stings will steer public perception that much.

It is surely getting to be more difficult to substantiate claims with physical proof.

 

[peloton]

That powerful stuff was offset by some of her other observations regarding other people like Hincapie, et al. Look at the reversal on Hincapie in her twitter I posted. Combine all that with the conflicting testimony and stories and you have someone who is simply unreliable, un-credible, and hardly worth a listen to in formulating opinions.

+1
That comment about Hincapies baby really blew me off.

 

[Anonymous]

It's on tape that she lied under oath, as you are suggesting? I am not interested in hear say.

Inadmissible evidence and hearsay are two different things completely. However, if I knew what "hear say" was, I might think you had a point unless of course you mean "hearsay" in which case you are not using the correct term because you can listen to what she says on the tape yourself.<breathe><breathe> You don't have to take anyone's word about it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Based on character assassination and hear say? I don't think more Lemond stings will steer public perception that much.

It is surely getting to be more difficult to substantiate claims with physical proof.

Again...

Betsy Andeu said she heard the confession - thats not hearsay.
Frankie Andreu said he heard the confession - thats not hearsay.

You have heard the tape from Stephanie.
You can accept one of her admissions - whichever is up to you.

 

[Anonymous]

Again...

Betsy Andeu said she heard the confession - thats not hearsay.
Frankie Andreu said he heard the confession - thats not hearsay.

You have heard the tape from Stephanie.
You can accept one of her admissions - whichever is up to you.

And listening to Stephanie on tape is not "hearsay." It is merely inadmissible evidence. As far as I know, Stephanie has never suggested that is not her on the tape. Barring that, if you listen to it and are not relying on someone else to tell you what it says, you have no hearsay. Considering the fact that the audio is available, the "hearsay" sidestep is just more obfuscation. And lets face it, obscuring the facts here IS the point of arguments made by people such as scribe.

 

[Digger]

Based on character assassination and hear say? I don't think more Lemond stings will steer public perception that much.

It is surely getting to be more difficult to substantiate claims with physical proof.

But why do you accept the athletes in Operation Puerto are guilty?
No positive tests.

 

[Anonymous]

But why do you accept the athletes in Operation Puerto are guilty?
No positive tests.

Because he has no stake in protecting THOSE cyclists...

 

[Digger]

It's on tape that she lied under oath, as you are suggesting? I am not interested in hear say.

When one person says it, and has first hand knowledge/ experience of it, how exactly is that 'hear say'?
You're not interested in much that doesn't support your preconceived hypothesis. You accept he doped at some stage in the 90s, but you reckon he decided to then go clean, and this so happened to coincide with his most successful period on a bike.