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

[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.

Everything you do is attack the messenger - Rarely do you actually focus on the message.

 

[Anonymous]

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

Wasn't there 30+ cyclists involved in the Puerto scandal? Does anyone have the entire list of those involved?

 

[hfer07]

Gonna drag down the forum soon just for the Arbiter! Can't wait to get the fun started but I have to finish reading these posts first.

Betsy

Just wanted to express my support & and admiration to you and your husband for being honest and have the courage to fight for what is "right". Many opinions have been thrown around looking for details on that "hospital confession", but for me what is clear-and perhaps many people- is that you stood behind what you've heard, saw & testified many times, while "others" have simply switched, lied,or denied what took place.- that takes a lot of character & personal values, considering the opposition you & Andrew were up against.
I am personally not interested anymore in the details of LA's doping activities, but rather the entire concept of a "society's roll model built on lies & impunity" and for that, I deeply admire your campaign.

 

[scribe]

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.

Yes. I accept F&B testified about what they heard honestly. I generally accept that would suggest LA used PEDs in the early 90's, in spite of the lack of physical evidence AND his denial.

Interestingly, it wasn't decided these testimonies rose to the level of proof that LA doped to win his TdF.

 

[scribe]

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

Positive tests would be great, and I fault the UCI for not getting that done properly, if these individuals had doped before. But it seems to me they pulled down enough other physical evidence to warrant sanctions. If one of those were LA, I'd accept that as fact. But it didn't happen that way. There is still time though, he is still competing professionally. On we go!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

....Interestingly, it wasn't decided these testimonies rose to the level of proof that LA doped to win his TdF.

Maybe I am reading the above wrong, but Lances confession was in 1996, so it was well before his TdF wins.

Also this wasn't a doping investigation - this was a company trying to get out of having to pay $5 million - they probably coundn't care less if he doped or not. Also all of the testimony was meant to be secret.

 

[scribe]

Maybe I am reading the above wrong, but Lances confession was in 1996, so it was well before his TdF wins.

Also this wasn't a doping investigation - this was a company trying to get out of having to pay $5 million - they probably coundn't care less if he doped or not. Also all of the testimony was meant to be secret.

I am under the impression they didn't want to pay him the bonus because they claimed he doped to win the tour. But newspaper articles floating around the web have a way of painting a slightly different picture.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am under the impression they didn't want to pay him the bonus because they claimed he doped to win the tour. But newspaper articles floating around the web have a way of painting a slightly different picture.

SCA had to pay $5 million for the 2004 victory - but they withheld paying as they were investigating the claims made in LA Confidential - of course LA than sued them which is how it all started.

 

[Izoard]

This incident was the "secret" that so many cycling knew about. When The Troll (David) called me ...

You may not be able to answer this bluntly, but is there a reason why David is The Troll? Just curious how that nickname came up.

 

[Race Radio]

You may not be able to answer this bluntly, but is there a reason why David is The Troll? Just curious how that nickname came up.

It is Armstrong name for anyone who questions the myth.

 

[Race Radio]

Betsy, it's worth noting that some of the anti Armstrong fanatics you associate with here believe Armstrong's seven tour wins were a "myth". Your husband, who admits to taking EPO but didn't win the ToF, may have something to say about that.

Be careful not to be too flattered by these people. Some have their own rather personal and bitter agendas and are just using you.

Thank you for proving my point. Question the Armstrong myth and the groupies label you a "Fanatic".

Armstrong asked you to believe in miracles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DxtxQQLkJ0

I choose to believe in reality.

I am sure Betsy can share plenty of stories of Armstrong fans with "personal and bitter agendas" who attacked her for telling the truth.

 

[pedaling squares]

Be careful not to be too flattered by these people. Some have their own rather personal and bitter agendas and are just using you.

Using her? Ok, for what gain? The glory of having one's opinion posted in an open forum...... using a pseudonym?! Honest, my surname is not "Squares".

 

[Ozzie2]

Using her? Ok, for what gain? The glory of having one's opinion posted in an open forum...... using a pseudonym?! Honest, my surname is not "Squares".

Amen to that

I mean, the longer one posts here, the most desperate, damaged and deranged they appaer

take this whack-job Ozzie2 as case in point!

 

[Digger]

Yes. I accept F&B testified about what they heard honestly. I generally accept that would suggest LA used PEDs in the early 90's, in spite of the lack of physical evidence AND his denial.

Interestingly, it wasn't decided these testimonies rose to the level of proof that LA doped to win his TdF.

So a denial means alot to you....

Operation Puerto, most of them denied.

Lack of physical evidence? Michael Ashenden, TV cameras with Actovigen, Doping doctor, testimonies, Michael Anderson, Emma O'Reilly, Julien De Vriese, Bullying of clean riders, Stephen Swart, Floyd telling Martin Dugard, IM Conversations. And you tell me there's more evidence against Operation Puerto riders...

Denying this evidence exist or not wanting it to be true, doesn't mean it's not there. Willful ignorance and that's your chioce. You may as well be believing in Aliens- but if it keeps you happy, go for it.

By the way, how do you explain how EPO got into his urine?

 

[bianchigirl]

Scribe, the testimony didn't have to achieve any level of proof because the SCA case was to do with insurance not doping.

 

[scribe]

Scribe, the testimony didn't have to achieve any level of proof because the SCA case was to do with insurance not doping.

They (SCA) were trying not to pay the bonus fee insured by them (SCA) due to doping allegations.

 

[bianchigirl]

The ruling on the SCA case was made on whether or not he was the designated winner of the race in question (the Tour) not whether he doped. And, as we know, you can dope and win the Tour with impunity.

 

[elapid]

Using her? Ok, for what gain? The glory of having one's opinion posted in an open forum...... using a pseudonym?! Honest, my surname is not "Squares".

Is your first name really Pedaling?

 

[scribe]

We might be splitting hairs here, because ultimately that is what happened in the trial being that the tour winner was certified and they paid. But leading up to that point, they were definitely trying NOT to pay on the basis of winning via cheating. I have learned that SCA insures on the basis of likelihood/odds that a winner will be in position to claim a prize. They insured (for a premium a fraction of the payout) Lance's contractual bonus on the basis that there were a certain statistical likelihood he would win. When the allegations were flowing that he doped to win, SCAs statistical bet on Armstrong, in their eyes, was undermined and unpay-able.

 

[elapid]

We might be splitting hairs here, because ultimately that is what happened in the trial being that the tour winner was certified and they paid. But leading up to that point, they were definitely trying NOT to pay on the basis of winning via cheating. I have learned that SCA insures on the basis of likelihood/odds that a winner will be in position to claim a prize. They insured (for a premium a fraction of the payout) Lance's contractual bonus on the basis that there were a certain statistical likelihood he would win. When the allegations were flowing that he doped to win, SCAs statistical bet on Armstrong, in their eyes, was undermined and unpay-able.

I think you are splitting hairs a little. You are correct in that it came down to a contractual dispute and that is why Armstrong won. SCA Promotions tried to argue that his wins were not legitimate because of alleged doping practices, for which the factual and circumstantial evidence was quite damning. However, this meant naught in the trial because the contract stated that Armstrong would get the $5 million if he won the 2004 TdF and because the UCI declared him the winner, he gets the $5 million. It really was that simple.

 

[scribe]

It ended that simply, to be sure. Which makes it all the more comical that LA needlessly exposed himself under trial conditions.

 

[podilato]

I don't think he needlessly exposed himself. He resorts to the old politicians trick that if you tell a lie long enough and loudly enough it becomes the truth.

The fact that wether he doped or not is even still debated shows this.

 

[elapid]

The SCA Promotions trial did a lot of damage to Lance's image. Prior to this trial, he would sue anyone that wrote or said anything potentially libel. Since this trial, I don't think he has sued anyone. Too much dirty laundry was aired and he doesn't want to make this mistake again.

 

[Digger]

It ended that simply, to be sure. Which makes it all the more comical that LA needlessly exposed himself under trial conditions.

Bill Stapleton, his agent and friend, is on tape, prior to the trial, as saying the best result for them is that Betsy retracts the statement and all this goes away, because otherwise we could end up in a French courtroom and it 'blows the whole sport apart'.

Why do you believe he doped in the 90s and not later?

 

[Cobber]

Bill Stapleton, his agent and friend, is on tape, prior to the trial, as saying the best result for them is that Betsy retracts the statement and all this goes away, because otherwise we could end up in a French courtroom and it 'blows the whole sport apart'.

Why do you believe he doped in the 90s and not later?

Because Lance lost ALL THAT WEIGHT! He didn't need to dope for his tour wins because he lost so much weight during his illness!

Kind of funny really. He doped when he was an average TdF rider pre-'96 but didn't need to dope from '99-2005.