• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
She is being used by people who believe all of Armstrong's achievements were a total myth and a con. So I think her opinion on it is relevent. The opinion of her husband would be even better though, as at least he has ridden on EPO and along side Armstrong, thus could make a better judgment than her.

Used? When someone likes you say she has a big mouth & should STFU it is more like abused!
And for what - daring to tell the truth.

Betsy isn't being used by anyone - she is defending her good name and character.

As for LA - we have only had the lid lifted on his his achievements for one Tour de France - and guess what they found, 6 of his samples contained EPI and he was positive for corticoids.
 
BanProCycling said:
It's difficult to believe he would not have taken EPO in some way during his first few wins. At that time every single GC contender was taking EPO, and there was no test for it, so the question is more 'why wouldn't he have taken it?' I can't think of a resaon why he would not.

After that time it's difficult to tell. Being so consistent for so long, and not getting caught, kinda makes me feel he was not significantly doped up for most of his wins. In the later wins I think it was more down to the technology, the epic training for this single event, a great team and great tactics, and a mental approach that nobody could match.

You are so clueless it is beyond belief. Even though you clearly haven't a clue, will you use your common sense, his performances in 04, 05 were every bit as dominant as previous years, when you concede he doped. Do you have any idea of the benefit of EPO, yet you believe he was as strong without EPO as he was with it.
What's your basis for saying he had better technology or used 'epic training'?
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
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?

Bjarne Riis?

Also, I am beginning to think this poster isn't BA. We've learned very little from the appearance but have been treated to the same old stale commentary running up and down the board.
 
BanProCycling said:
She is being used by people who believe all of Armstrong's achievements were a total myth and a con. So I think her opinion on it is relevent. The opinion of her husband would be even better though, as at least he has ridden on EPO and along side Armstrong, thus could make a better judgment than her.

They were.

You say her opinion is relevant, yet you speak ill of her at every turn.

Frankie, her husband, also testified about the EPO.
 
BanProCycling said:
She is being used by people who believe all of Armstrong's achievements were a total myth and a con. So I think her opinion on it is relevent. The opinion of her husband would be even better though, as at least he has ridden on EPO and along side Armstrong, thus could make a better judgment than her.

Apologies, I double posted.
 
scribe said:
Bjarne Riis?

Also, I am beginning to think this poster isn't BA. We've learned very little from the appearance but have been treated to the same old stale commentary running up and down the board.

What difference would it make to you? You'd find fault with it and disregard it anyway. Always find fault with the messenger, rarely look at the message.
And the reason you're doubting that this could be Betsy? Because she showed that you were wrong about the SCA case. Surely you'd be used to this though....
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
scribe said:
Bjarne Riis?

Also, I am beginning to think this poster isn't BA. We've learned very little from the appearance but have been treated to the same old stale commentary running up and down the board.

Yes- Bjarne Riis and Jan and Marco - so? Are people trying suggest that there is 1 vial of EPO given out per year and whoever got it is the winner?
My point is simply that if everyone who took EPO won the Tour in the 90s almost everyone would have been wearing yellow and the organisers would need a massive podium to fit eveeryone on it.

I have ne reason to think it is Betsy on here as she has been consistent with what she has posted and indeed revealed some things about the case that I did not know.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
Being so consistent for so long, and not getting caught, kinda makes me feel he was not significantly doped up for most of his wins. In the later wins I think it was more down to the technology, the epic training for this single event, a great team and great tactics, and a mental approach that nobody could match.

I think enough riders have shown us that one can dope for years without testing positive, so your first point is not very sound. You are right that he was one of the very best at preparing for the tour, and he had a great team that used smart tactics, and he usually had good luck (ie no flats/crashes at the wrong time). But there were other great riders who came to these tours well prepared and with great teams. Most have been revealed as dopers, so how did Lance keep riding them off his wheel? Hmmmmm.

Doping is one of the things about Lance that bothers me the least. Hell, many riders that I really liked were dopers. It's the way he treats others that bothers me.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
Visit site
Digger, the doping issue is absolutely central to the Lemond-Trek case because the sidelining of the Lemond brand can, according to Lemond, be directly traced to his comments about the Armstrong/Ferrari relationship and Armstrong instructing Trek to break him as a result.
 
bianchigirl said:
Digger, the doping issue is absolutely central to the Lemond-Trek case because the sidelining of the Lemond brand can, according to Lemond, be directly traced to his comments about the Armstrong/Ferrari relationship and Armstrong instructing Trek to break him as a result.

I'm delighted that it is central Bianchigirl. I am very interested about the incident where Kirstin was at the dinner table and apparently Lance was talking about putting Trek under pressure to dump Lemond.
 
BanProCycling said:
Which is disputed, but I've already said there is no logical evidence why he wouldn't have taken EPO in the 1999 tour, given all GC contenders, and even most of the rest of the field, were using it. Any serious rider at that time had to take it. That is not the question.

And your basis for thinking he stopped after 1999?

By the way one of the reasons Betsy is admired so much is due to Lance bullying anyone who speaks out against doping. Strange actions for a clean rider.
 
BanProCycling said:
But he was more experienced at that time, knew how to win and train for it. Contador found it a lot easier to win the next time - that is often the case. You don't know if other riders were also using less EPO, thus making it look like Armstrong was better, but in fact everyone had come down a notch. There are many factors. His team only got better as well. Lance got even better at time trialing, etc.



Lots of things I've seen and read. The Science of Lance Armstrong documentary may help you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpOyPQZYkvs

As his team became more and more wealthy, they could spend endless hours in the wind tunnel, and had the pick of the new technology on offer. All of it makes a difference.


And his rivals, in Operation Puerto were all doping in 2005, yet he beat them all. So evidently they were still doping.
I knew you'd reference that. Do you not think his rivals weren't doing the same? Just because they didn't have a camera following them around, doesn't make it any different. All the big teams went to wind tunnel, had access to the best technology.
And finally, average speeds were every bit as high, even higher, in his later tours.
 
BanProCycling said:
The test, and the fact he felt more comfortable as a rider, had confidence in the team, had the better technology, and now knew what he could achieve. And the fact he was a target for the testers.

In short, many obvious reasons.[/QUOTE]

Not to people with common sense.

Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso...believe they doped?
How many times they test positive? 0
Does the story of Kohl not tell you anything about how inept the testing is?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
The definition of a myth:
1 a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
• such stories collectively : the heroes of Greek myth.
2 a widely held but false belief or idea : he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous | there is a popular myth that corporations are big people with lots of money.
• a misrepresentation of the truth : attacking the party's irresponsible myths about privatization.
• a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.
• an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing : the book is a scholarly study of the Churchill myth.

No one is suggesting Armstrong's wins are a myth. They happened and they are factual. The strong circumstantial and factual evidence that doping may have contributed to some or all of his wins is also not a myth. There is a long list of dirty laundry which all points in one direction. That may make his wins fraudulent, but definitely not mythical. Armstrong may think he and his wins are mythical (see above definitions), but the vast majority of us do not.

So please use a more appropriate word than myth, because your use of myth is plainly incorrect.

In regards to EPO use, the top contenders are not the only cyclists using PEDs. Many domestiques, such as Frankie Andreau, use/used PEDs to help the team and the team leader achieve their goals. You cannot pull a teal leader like Armstrong up a mountain and burn everyone else off your wheels if you cannot sustain a long hard pull off the front. That's why domestiques also use PEDs.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
Why are you addressing this point to me? I haven't said that?

So are you now saying that your comments below should not be percieved as being abusive?

ProTour said:
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:
....
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
She is being used by people who believe all of Armstrong's achievements were a total myth and a con. So I think her opinion on it is relevent. The opinion of her husband would be even better though, as at least he has ridden on EPO and along side Armstrong, thus could make a better judgment than her.

I am sure that in the real world you are a nice guy, but the content of your posts make you come off as uninformed.

The attempt to reduce the Armstrong myth to "He took EPO a couple of times" is myopic at best, but willfully ignorant would be a better description. The Armstrong myth is multifaceted and is not only about dope.

The myth the Lance rode clean is a big part of it. In an attempt to build on this myth he has made many empty proclimations. He said he cut ties with Ferrari after his conviction. This is a lie. He said he was going to develop a testing program with Catlin where he could be tested "Anytime anywhere" this was a lie. He claims to be the "Worlds most tested athlete" this is a lie.

He adds to the myth by inventing enemies for his groupies to attack. The 6 positives for EPO were the result of a French conspiracy. They hate him because he wins. This is a lie.

He has books written by his chief propagandist that trumpet his relationship with his wife and teammates. These are both lies. The wife is gone and the teammates hate him. Armstrong does not have friends, he has employees. They see him as a gravy train and will push the myth as long as it benefits them. Once you leave the fold you are often attacked. A good example is Mike Anderson. Armstrong's former right hand man who Armstrong harassed so extremely he collapsed from a seizer. He has since moved to New Zealand to get away from the harassment from Armstrong's groupies....all for questioning the myth

Armstrong knows the power of the myth, that is why he ruthlessly protects it. Bill Mitchell, the founder of Cyclingnews found this out the hard way. Bill was a college professor in Australia whose passion was cycling. He made the simple mistake of reporting that during the 99 Tour some French newspapers were questioning Armstrong's achievements. For this Armstrong posted Bill's name and contact info on his website. He asked his fans to express their displeasure. For good measure he also included the info for Bill's employer. Soon both were swamped with calls and emails. Many went straight to Bill's college demanding Bill be fired. In desperation to end the attacks Bill sold his life's work, Cyclingnews, to Gerard Knapp for almost nothing. The sting of this attack was made all the more when Knapp sold the site for $5,000,000 a few years later.

The myth tells us that Armstrong simply worked harder then anyone else. That his competitors were stupid and lazy. The only truth to this is his competitors were too stupid and lazy to "Donate" $500,000 to the UCI.

The Myth says that Armstrong was a freak of nature. Lance even funded a "Study" claiming his heart with the size of a pumpkin and his dramatic improvement came from non existent weight loss. It didn't matter that the study was exposed as a fraud years later, the media had already used it to promote the myth.

The Myth paints Betsy as a fat, bitter, old women who is only motivated by her hatred for Lance. He claims she "Blogs 24/7" Betsy is none of these. She is a devote Catholic who has found herself attacked for telling the Truth. Yes, this is the real Betsy on this forum.

The myth hires PR firms to go after those that question the myth. Lance threaten Lemond that he "Would find 10 people that said he took EPO" he then hired a PR firm, Public Strategies, to dig up dirt on Lemond. They found nothing. Not one former teammate, DS, Support Staff would talk bad about him.

The myth ignores the fact that Armstrong's Cancer could have been accelerated by the vast amount of dope he was taking.

It is clear that some would prefer to believe the myth despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.....but isn't that the same for all myths?
 
Race Radio said:
I am sure that in the real world you are a nice guy, but the content of your posts make you come off as uninformed.

The attempt to reduce the Armstrong myth to "He took EPO a couple of times" is myopic at best, but willfully ignorant would be a better description. The Armstrong myth is multifaceted and is not only about dope.

The myth the Lance rode clean is a big part of it. In an attempt to build on this myth he has made many empty proclimations. He said he cut ties with Ferrari after his conviction. This is a lie. He said he was going to develop a testing program with Catlin where he could be tested "Anytime anywhere" this was a lie. He claims to be the "Worlds most tested athlete" this is a lie.

He adds to the myth by inventing enemies for his groupies to attack. The 6 positives for EPO were the result of a French conspiracy. They hate him because he wins. This is a lie.

He has books written by his chief propagandist that trumpet his relationship with his wife and teammates. These are both lies. The wife is gone and the teammates hate him. Armstrong does not have friends, he has employees. They see him as a gravy train and will push the myth as long as it benefits them. Once you leave the fold you are often attacked. A good example is Mike Anderson. Armstrong's former right hand man who Armstrong harassed so extremely he collapsed from a seizer. He has since moved to New Zealand to get away from the harassment from Armstrong's groupies....all for questioning the myth

Armstrong knows the power of the myth, that is why he ruthlessly protects it. Bill Mitchell, the founder of Cyclingnews found this out the hard way. Bill was a college professor in Australia whose passion was cycling. He made the simple mistake of reporting that during the 99 Tour some French newspapers were questioning Armstrong's achievements. For this Armstrong posted Bill's name and contact info on his website. He asked his fans to express their displeasure. For good measure he also included the info for Bill's employer. Soon both were swamped with calls and emails. Many went straight to Bill's college demanding Bill be fired. In desperation to end the attacks Bill sold his life's work, Cyclingnews, to Gerard Knapp for almost nothing. The sting of this attack was made all the more when Knapp sold the site for $5,000,000 a few years later.

The myth tells us that Armstrong simply worked harder then anyone else. That his competitors were stupid and lazy. The only truth to this is his competitors were too stupid and lazy to "Donate" $500,000 to the UCI.

The Myth says that Armstrong was a freak of nature. Lance even funded a "Study" claiming his heart with the size of a pumpkin and his dramatic improvement came from non existent weight loss. It didn't matter that the study was exposed as a fraud years later, the media had already used it to promote the myth.

The Myth paints Betsy as a fat, bitter, old women who is only motivated by her hatred for Lance. He claims she "Blogs 24/7" Betsy is none of these. She is a devote Catholic who has found herself attacked for telling the Truth. Yes, this is the real Betsy on this forum.

The myth hires PR firms to go after those that question the myth. Lance threaten Lemond that he "Would find 10 people that said he took EPO" he then hired a PR firm, Public Strategies, to dig up dirt on Lemond. They found nothing. Not one former teammate, DS, Support Staff would talk bad about him.

The myth ignores the fact that Armstrong's Cancer could have been accelerated by the vast amount of dope he was taking.

It is clear that some would prefer to believe the myth despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.....but isn't that the same for all myths?

The best post I've seen on here from anyone.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
Visit site
The Onion satirised it beautifully with their 'coming third to cancer' piece.

Brand Armstrong works like all brands - it creates an emotional response (the cancer narrative), divides potential consumers into 'for me' and 'not for me', generates faith and bypasses all rational scrutiny. Nike have deliberately exploited the emotional connection, most recently in the 'I'm not doing it for them' ad. Trek have publicly stated that "If not for Lance, we wouldn't be expanding our factory and we wouldn't have new offices with carpeting and windows and a gym". They myth is not only emotionally appealing to its believers but is a huge cash cow for those financially invested in it.

To deny that there is an Armstrong mythology is to deny the power of the Armstrong brand. His actual achievements are, in the rich history and tradition of the sport of professional cycling, quite poor meat - there are greater cyclists with greater palmares, better stories, richer lives. Contador recovered from genuinely life threatening brain injury to become arguably the greatest GT rider of his generation and one rapidly projecting himself into the pantheon of the real greats. But there is no myth - he goes about his business, he lets the bike do the talking, not Twitter and law suits. To deny that there is an Armstrong myth - that it's predicated on greed and duplicity and mistruths and an ability to bypass all rational scrutiny (at least in the minds of the 'for mes') - is to completely misunderstand what Armstrong is all about.

RaceRadio - that was a brilliant post
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
You quoted user ProTour, not myself. I accept your apology.

My sincerest apologies....

In fact I have stated that since before you arrived - if any information I provide is incorrect then I have no problem apologizing for it and correcting any inaccuracy.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
bianchigirl said:
The Onion satirised it beautifully with their 'coming third to cancer' piece.

Brand Armstrong works like all brands - it creates an emotional response (the cancer narrative), divides potential consumers into 'for me' and 'not for me', generates faith and bypasses all rational scrutiny. Nike have deliberately exploited the emotional connection, most recently in the 'I'm not doing it for them' ad. Trek have publicly stated that "If not for Lance, we wouldn't be expanding our factory and we wouldn't have new offices with carpeting and windows and a gym". They myth is not only emotionally appealing to its believers but is a huge cash cow for those financially invested in it.

To deny that there is an Armstrong mythology is to deny the power of the Armstrong brand. His actual achievements are, in the rich history and tradition of the sport of professional cycling, quite poor meat - there are greater cyclists with greater palmares, better stories, richer lives. Contador recovered from genuinely life threatening brain injury to become arguably the greatest GT rider of his generation and one rapidly projecting himself into the pantheon of the real greats. But there is no myth - he goes about his business, he lets the bike do the talking, not Twitter and law suits. To deny that there is an Armstrong myth - that it's predicated on greed and duplicity and mistruths and an ability to bypass all rational scrutiny (at least in the minds of the 'for mes') - is to completely misunderstand what Armstrong is all about.

RaceRadio - that was a brilliant post
HOPE rides again?

When did we hear that? They ripped it from the
Obama campaign.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
I'm not sure why people are saying this is a great post. It's a rambling lot of nonsense based on assertion and slander, rumour and gossip. It's precisely the type of thing I am talking about. It also comes from a person who clearly has a personal vendetta against Armstrong's team, for whatever reason. He even was forced to change his username because it turned out it was something to do with Bruyneel's wife - how low and personal can you get?

Betsy, this is the type of people that are using you to spread their propaganda about Armstrong's wins all being a "myth". There's not a single verifiable fact in this post. You obviously have a problem with Armstrong as well due to your falling out, but as you have a husband who took EPO but suddenly didn't become the best rider in the world, you should know that these people are talking a lot of bull. Be careful not to get sucked in to their twisted drama.

If you are so concerned about Betsy and Frankie - why not use the Private Message function and tip her off that way of the dastardly deeds of people who have made comments that you have yet to argue against?

As I have said previously - if I have mentioned something wrong when I was detailing the hospital confession with Scribe then please point it out for me and I shall correct it.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
I'm not sure why people are saying this is a great post. It's a rambling lot of nonsense based on assertion and slander, rumour and gossip. It's precisely the type of thing I am talking about. It also comes from a person who clearly has a personal vendetta against Armstrong's team, for whatever reason. He even was forced to change his username because it turned out it was something to do with Bruyneel's wife - how low and personal can you get?

Betsy, this is the type of people that are using you to spread their propaganda about Armstrong's wins all being a "myth". There's not a single verifiable fact in this post. You obviously have a problem with Armstrong as well due to your falling out, but as you have a husband who took EPO but suddenly didn't become the best rider in the world, you should know that these people are talking a lot of bull. Be careful not to get sucked in to their twisted drama.

It is all fact and well documented. If you feel otherwise provide something to back up your position....otherwise you are just doing this

baby_crying_closeup.jpg


I was not "Forced to change my Username". Nobody asked me to, I chose to as people continued to confuse my gender. I also thought that it could be considered Trolling. While few of you knew who Eva is I still thought it might devalue whatever I posted here. It is still active. Instead of some trolls who maintain multiple usernames I chose to let people know I was changing mine in order for there to be no confusion.
 
BanProCycling said:
I'm not sure why people are saying this is a great post. It's a rambling lot of nonsense based on assertion and slander, rumour and gossip. It's precisely the type of thing I am talking about. It also comes from a person who clearly has a personal vendetta against Armstrong's team, for whatever reason. He even was forced to change his username because it turned out it was something to do with Bruyneel's wife - how low and personal can you get?

Betsy, this is the type of people that are using you to spread their propaganda about Armstrong's wins all being a "myth". There's not a single verifiable fact in this post. You obviously have a problem with Armstrong as well due to your falling out, but as you have a husband who took EPO but suddenly didn't become the best rider in the world, you should know that these people are talking a lot of bull. Be careful not to get sucked in to their twisted drama.

If you had any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, then you would know.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
elapid said:
So please use a more appropriate word than myth, because your use of myth is plainly incorrect.

You gave a few defintions of the word myth that clearly apply

1 a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
2 a widely held but false belief or idea .
• a misrepresentation of the truth
• an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing

I will continue to use the word as it is clearly applicable.