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

[Race Radio]

Whilst the weight loss debate rages, this from cyclismag:

La légèreté n'est pas toujours un atout pour un coureur de Grand Tour. Selon le photographe James Startt, le manque de puissance de Lance Armstrong sur le Tour 2009 a une explication : "C'est peut être parce qu'au départ de ce Tour il pesait 2 kilos de moins qu'au départ des sept tours qu'il a dominés" (Vélo Magazine).
Pourtant, pendant des années, Lance Armstrong a justifié son retour au premier plan par une perte de 10 kg. Dans son livre "La grande imposture" (Editions Hugo&Cie), Jean-Pierre De Mondenard donne une petite synthèse de l'évolution du poids du Texan : en 1993, juste après son titre de champion du monde, il pèse 75,1 kg. Au départ du Tour 2003 l'aiguille de la balance s'arrêtait sur 74 kg et sur 77,2 kg en 2004. En février 2009, L.A. comptait sur le Giro pour perdre du poids. "Et j'espère arriver en juillet, au départ du Tour, avec mes 74 kg d'autrefois", avait-il déclaré à L'Équipe.
Si on en croit James Startt, la cure d'amaigrissement a été trop forte.

moins=less. Now where does that leave the (spurious, as the article points out) weight loss argument?

I know you know your stuff Bianchigirl. You do realize the cyclismag article is talking about Armstrong not Wiggens?

Dramatic weight loss often results in loss of power, as evidence by Armstrong's poor TT's during this years Tour. Wiggens also lost large amount or power, but his climbing improved dramatically.

 

[blackcat]

I know you know your stuff Bianchigirl. You do realize the cyclismag article is talking about Armstrong not Wiggens?

Dramatic weight loss often results in loss of power, as evidence by Armstrong's poor TT's during this years Tour. Wiggens also lost large amount or power, but his climbing improved dramatically.

I do not deny Wiggins the opportunity to dope like his competitors. He has every right to compete on a level playing field. I do resent being told by Wiggins, he is clean.

If you have a look at Wiggins history, came 5th in 2005 Worlds chrono, came 5th also in the 2007 chrono in the Tour. Think he won a Dunkirk chrono circa 2006. And a l'Avenir prologue.

They are not the results of a timetrialler.

This year, his timetrialling has improved if anything. More consistent.

Timetriallers are a different breed to pursuit riders. Bartko and Lehmann, yeah, they may have been good prologue riders. I reckon riders like Renshaw would have been equivalent riders to Wiggins in the pursuit. The tt is alot more O2. Unfortunately, in the pros, that means charging. Wiggins was not dominant previously.

To me, he has maintained his power, and dropped perhaps 5kgs, and is now climbing. Gives Cancellara carte blanche, to try and win the Tour, after dropping 8kg. He is a better doped rider than a doped Wiggins imo. Wiggins has a crappy palmares. Look at the riders on the track. No class. Mcgee was the last track endurance rider, with class.

 

[ProTour]

Getting back to the original topic....I noticed that big mouth Betsy felt compelled to STFU after Greg posted this strongly worded PowerPost near the end of the comments:


Betsy – you have a strongly held belief, and an opinion, but in the US we only convict through appropriate formal processes. Many people with considerable resources have taken shots at Lance’s reputation formally and informally. The facts remain that Lance is innocent by definition (RPI, Webster, or Constitution, whichever source you choose). Your willful disregard for the conclusion of governing bodies and legal boards of arbitration shows a lack of character and credibility. You have an opinion, you have stated it formally, it was deemed to be irrelevant or not credible by folks who have the authority to make these judgements. It is incumbent upon you to accept the judgments of reviewing bodies that your claims do not constitute proof of cheating. Myriad explanations for the words you either heard or thought you heard make sense, and do not lead to the conclusion that Lance cheated or doped. Your insistence on a matter is embarrassing, not to Lance, but to you. It is the kind of behaviour you expect from school girls on the playground who got dumped by a guy who was really popular, so they take some sort of scorched earth approach to defaming his character. Facts are that you are not a medical professional, and you are not qualified to comment on the substance of a physician’s discussion with their patient. You do not have the skills to interpret what is being said, nor do you have the context of previous discussions or later discussions to know the context of the words. This is one of the reasons we have laws in the US protecting speech between patients and physicians, and we also have laws against slander. I do not know if your continued insistance on speaking against Lance meet the legal definitions required for defamation of character or slander, but they meet my personal definition of morally reproachable actions. You have destroyed your own credibility and character through your unscrupulous behavior, and should be ashamed.


And nobody hardly even contested anything Greg said afterward, although Ulrich and Boonen posers got in some smart replies at the end.

And nobody in this forum contested anything Greg said either, they just backed off themselves and said silly things like: "I don't like what that Greg guy said, it made me angry. whaaa."

I'm guesssin that Betsy realized Lance is innocent by definition and she didn't want to be back in a courtroom again, being sued for slander against Lance for her "morally reproachable" statements.

 

[ProTour]

Sorry to interupt all you guys who were looking at, talking about, and posting pictures of half naked skinny dudes and their legs.

 

[runninboy]

Getting back to the original topic....I noticed that big mouth Betsy felt compelled to STFU after Greg posted this strongly worded PowerPost near the end of the comments:


Betsy – you have a strongly held belief, and an opinion, but in the US we only convict through appropriate formal processes. Many people with considerable resources have taken shots at Lance’s reputation formally and informally. The facts remain that Lance is innocent by definition (RPI, Webster, or Constitution, whichever source you choose). QUOTE]



well la dee friggin da
You do realize by the same standards of definition Al Capone was merely a tax cheat and O J Simpson is not guilty of murder.
Of course some people realize that we are human beings with brains and what goes on in a court of law often bears no resemblance to reality outside the courtroom .
we are in fact allowed ( in America anyway) to express our displeasure in the shortcomings in the system and question the process and the individuals involved

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Getting back to the original topic....I noticed that big mouth Betsy felt compelled to STFU after Greg posted this strongly worded PowerPost near the end of the comments:
...........
And nobody hardly even contested anything Greg said afterward, although Ulrich and Boonen posers got in some smart replies at the end.

And nobody in this forum contested anything Greg said either, they just backed off themselves and said silly things like: "I don't like what that Greg guy said, it made me angry. whaaa."

I'm guesssin that Betsy realized Lance is innocent by definition and she didn't want to be back in a courtroom again, being sued for slander against Lance for her "morally reproachable" statements.

You have brought up an interesting point - if Betsys & Frankie's comments were untrue it would be slander- why hasn't Lance sued to protect his good name and character? ... Interesting.

I find it interesting too that Greg finds Betsy taking the stand and under oath tell the truth and refuse to lie to protect Lance as "morally reproachable".

The reason why Greg's comments didn't get much comment on this forum is probably because- well its a forum, not a Court of Law.
I notice Greg mentions the Constitution yet appears to have forgotten the First Amendment - the right to free speech.
While Greg is entitled to his views he is not entitled to tell people how they should form their opinion.

Also what was noteworthy in the comments section you refer to, Sally Jenkins appeared to - as you politley put it- STFU once Betsy questioned Sallys objectivity and integrity.

I notice that you called Betsy a "big mouth" - I know that the truth hurts - but is there any need to take it so personally?

 

[Digger]

Getting back to the original topic....I noticed that big mouth Betsy felt compelled to STFU after Greg posted this strongly worded PowerPost near the end of the comments:


Betsy – you have a strongly held belief, and an opinion, but in the US we only convict through appropriate formal processes. Many people with considerable resources have taken shots at Lance’s reputation formally and informally. The facts remain that Lance is innocent by definition (RPI, Webster, or Constitution, whichever source you choose). Your willful disregard for the conclusion of governing bodies and legal boards of arbitration shows a lack of character and credibility. You have an opinion, you have stated it formally, it was deemed to be irrelevant or not credible by folks who have the authority to make these judgements. It is incumbent upon you to accept the judgments of reviewing bodies that your claims do not constitute proof of cheating. Myriad explanations for the words you either heard or thought you heard make sense, and do not lead to the conclusion that Lance cheated or doped. Your insistence on a matter is embarrassing, not to Lance, but to you. It is the kind of behaviour you expect from school girls on the playground who got dumped by a guy who was really popular, so they take some sort of scorched earth approach to defaming his character. Facts are that you are not a medical professional, and you are not qualified to comment on the substance of a physician’s discussion with their patient. You do not have the skills to interpret what is being said, nor do you have the context of previous discussions or later discussions to know the context of the words. This is one of the reasons we have laws in the US protecting speech between patients and physicians, and we also have laws against slander. I do not know if your continued insistance on speaking against Lance meet the legal definitions required for defamation of character or slander, but they meet my personal definition of morally reproachable actions. You have destroyed your own credibility and character through your unscrupulous behavior, and should be ashamed.


And nobody hardly even contested anything Greg said afterward, although Ulrich and Boonen posers got in some smart replies at the end.

And nobody in this forum contested anything Greg said either, they just backed off themselves and said silly things like: "I don't like what that Greg guy said, it made me angry. whaaa."

I'm guesssin that Betsy realized Lance is innocent by definition and she didn't want to be back in a courtroom again, being sued for slander against Lance for her "morally reproachable" statements.

I was one of the people who posted, AFTER Greg. I neither mentioned Ullrich, nor Pantani, or made any other stupid references. I did however make a coherent and substantiated argument as to why he was wrong.
I am not Reid Rothschild BTW!!!!

So Protour come back on this forum, outline where you think Betsy lied, and lets discuss it.

 

[keen_but_slow]

I do not believe that Wiggins doped, but this picture has clearly been doctored. No cyclist has legs like that.

Shot with an 18mm lens and cropped into portrait would be my guess. Do the same with a low tripod and people appear "towering". It is, for example, how you would make Danilo DiLuca not look like a hobbit.

 

[bianchigirl]

There are so many mistruths, idiocies and elisions in Greg's post I'm not surprised Betsy didn't deign to favour it with a response - it's the kind of typical chauvinistic, uninformed twaddle that men spout when they've lost an argument to a woman.

As for Betsy opinion being 'irrelevant' or 'not credible' - this has never been adjudged by any governing body or board of arbitration and the SCA ruling was made on the basis that Armstrong was the winner of the TdF not on whether he was doping or not. Besides, since when were the bodies involved in that case anything to do with the running of the sport?

Like I say, a lot of pompous wind and spittle because he didn't like being bested by a woman - but no need to make up lies, is there? Personally I find lying morally reprehensible whether perpetrated by Armstrong or his minions. In fact, if I were Betsy I'd look at that post extremely carefully and then consult my lawyer.

 

[Digger]

There are so many mistruths, idiocies and elisions in Greg's post I'm not surprised Betsy didn't deign to favour it with a response - it's the kind of typical chauvinistic, uninformed twaddle that men spout when they've lost an argument to a woman.
As for Betsy opinion being 'irrelevant' or 'not credible' - this has never been adjudged by any governing body or board of arbitration and the SCA ruling was made on the basis that Armstrong was the winner of the TdF not on whether he was doping or not. Besides, since when were the bodies involved in that case anything to do with the running of the sport?

Like I say, a lot of pompous wind and spittle because he didn't like being bested by a woman - but no need to make up lies, is there? Personally I find lying morally reprehensible whether perpetrated by Armstrong or his minions. In fact, if I were Betsy I'd look at that post extremely carefully and then consult my lawyer.

Bianchigirl I won't be in a hurry to get into an argument with you!!!

 

[Anonymous]

I'm guesssin that Betsy realized Lance is innocent by definition and she didn't want to be back in a courtroom again, being sued for slander against Lance for her "morally reproachable" statements.

Dang, you really are THAT clueless, aren't you? Its funny, The Uniballer sued everyone until the conclusion of that trial. Now his lawyer has been put out to pasture and he stays as far as possible away from a courtroom. What a useless bag of water you are.

 

[M Sport]

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.

First point. Armstrong didn't win. The case was settled before a decision was reached. True, he got paid the money but had he actually won a decision the amount including damages could have been double.

Secondly. Scribe did have a point. Had SCA proved he doped the contract would have been voided and they wouldn't have had to pay, even though he did win the tours. And remember, the burden of proof in a civil dispute is lower than a criminal or anti-doping case. So they actually came a lot closer then people realise to having the contract voided.

 

[53 x 11]

I do not believe that Wiggins doped, but this picture has clearly been doctored. No cyclist has legs like that.

He lost weight on his upper body, not his legs.

Ehhhhh?

Sorry miss, but you is wrong.

Frank says "WINNER"

 

[elapid]

Secondly. Scribe did have a point. Had SCA proved he doped the contract would have been voided and they wouldn't have had to pay, even though he did win the tours. And remember, the burden of proof in a civil dispute is lower than a criminal or anti-doping case. So they actually came a lot closer then people realise to having the contract voided.

No, I believe you are wrong. SCA Promotions introduced the doping allegations in an attempt to discredit Armstrong's TdF wins and in doing so avoid paying out $5 million. However, the doping allegations had no bearing on the outcome of the trial because it became a contractual dispute. The contract was well written and binding - if Armstrong was declared the winner of the TdF, which he was by the UCI, then he won his $5 million. Simple as that.

 

[Digger]

First point. Armstrong didn't win. The case was settled before a decision was reached. True, he got paid the money but had he actually won a decision the amount including damages could have been double.

Secondly. Scribe did have a point. Had SCA proved he doped the contract would have been voided and they wouldn't have had to pay, even though he did win the tours. And remember, the burden of proof in a civil dispute is lower than a criminal or anti-doping case. So they actually came a lot closer then people realise to having the contract voided.

No this is not true. Lawyers for SCA were aware six months prior to the case that they would've had to pay up, but they felt it was in the interests of the public to know what they now knew.

 

[bianchigirl]

Precisely - had the UCI declared his win invalid for doping (yeah, right, like that would ever happen) then the payment would not have been made. The doping allegations were in fact neither proved or disproved.

It'll be a different matter in the Lemond-Trek case, however, where allegations of doping go very much to the heart of the matter. Since Lemond continues his winning streak regarding court cases I wouldn't bet against him having the same kind of damaging effect on Armstrong's reputation that he had on Landis.

 

[scribe]

No this is not true. Lawyers for SCA were aware six months prior to the case that they would've had to pay up, but they felt it was in the interests of the public to know what they now knew.

HAHAHAHA

And they were willing to pay legal fees and interest in their social campaign!

Thanks for the laugh. Give me something to grin about today.

 

[Digger]

Precisely - had the UCI declared his win invalid for doping (yeah, right, like that would ever happen) then the payment would not have been made. The doping allegations were in fact neither proved or disproved.

It'll be a different matter in the Lemond-Trek case, however, where allegations of doping go very much to the heart of the matter. Since Lemond continues his winning streak regarding court cases I wouldn't bet against him having the same kind of damaging effect on Armstrong's reputation that he had on Landis.

Will Lance doping be central to the trek case Bgirl?

 

[Digger]

HAHAHAHA

And they were willing to pay legal fees and interest in their social campaign!

Thanks for the laugh. Give me something to grin about today.

It's true, not bothered what you believe, as you are in a fantasy world anyway. You've shown yourself time and time again to not know sh** about this case, and most other things. So maybe you should find out about it, FOR YOURSELF, before you come out with statements like above.

I find it interesting that you laugh at my post above, yet you believe Lance only doped in the 1990s, yet was clean when he won the Tour. I think a rider to be worse whilst doped is rather impressive. Now that's funny.

 

[elizab]

Couple of things:
1. I didn't know that a "Greg" replied to the Washington City Paper in the comment section because this whole thing took place about a month ago. His comments are stupid. I can't and don't have a desire to combat all the insults the lance sycophants hurl at me.
2. Digger is right with the SCA case. The turning point with that case was when lance fought to have SCA ruled an insurance company something SCA never was. When SCA lost that battle, they knew doping was a non issue that it was a matter of contract law. But because what came out of that case was so damaging to lance, they continued on with the trial. The problem is I don't think prosecutors go after perjury in arbitration. Any legal people out there can you chime in here? Perjury in state and federal court is a whole other ballgame.
So Digger is right. SCA knew they'd have to pay up so why not pay up with a bang....

 

[Race Radio]

SCA was trying to bluff their way out of a bad hand. They thought that Armstrong would not take the risk of exposing his doping and would settle for less.

Little did they know that Armstrong loves money more then his reputation. He knew no matter what was said his loyal groupies would continue to believe the myth. Judging from some of the posts on this thread he was right.

 

[blackcat]

Betsy, your husband took EPO but he didn't win the tour de france. I know you are obviously very bitter at Armstrong because of this court case thing, but even still, do you agree with others here that Armstrong's 7 tour victories were a "myth" because he might have taken EPO during some of them?

lol might have taken.

Yes Betsy, you bitter and twisted shrew. <eyes roll>

We oughta start a Betsy Andreu appreciation thread, the woman is a marvel, more character in her little fingernail, than Armstrong.

 

[Digger]

Betsy, your husband took EPO but he didn't win the tour de france. I know you are obviously very bitter at Armstrong because of this court case thing, but even still, do you agree with others here that Armstrong's 7 tour victories were a "myth" because he might have taken EPO during some of them?

Are you for real?

You think Betsy is telling lies?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Betsy, your husband took EPO but he didn't win the tour de france. I know you are obviously very bitter at Armstrong because of this court case thing, but even still, do you agree with others here that Armstrong's 7 tour victories were a "myth" because he might have taken EPO during some of them?

You may not understand the rules of how the Tour de France works. The winner is the person with the least overall time - not the one who takes EPO.
Betsy doesn't sound the least bit bitter - she was very angry at her husband for having taken EPO..

I would assume she is frustrated at having to deal with people like yourself and Greg from the comment box - who appear to be interested in making this issue personal. There has been a lot of debate and discussion on thgis topic - yet you are more interested in getting a comment from Betsy instead of disputing the facts - are you a lawyer and if so who do you work for?

 

[Digger]

You can be telling the truth and still be bitter about something. It's hard to imagine that Betsy would not be upset with Armstrong due to their dispute. Are you saying she bares no ill feelings to Armstrong? That would be strange.

The point is, even as someone who feels this way, does she think Armstrong's achievements are a "myth", as the trolls here often say?? I don't think they are a myth just because he may have taken EPO at some point, in line with most other riders at the time. I'd like her view on this.

So you believe he doped for some of his wins, but was clean for others?

What exactly is it about Betsy that you perceive as bitter? The way she tells the truth? The way you perceive Betsy as being bitter, because Frankie once took EPO and never won the Tour, is total fabrication and make belief. You can't dispute what Betsy says, so you try and paint her as being bitter.