• 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 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 24, 2009
60
0
0
Visit site
Great posts RaceRadio. You summed up for me why I dislike LA so much. It is not just wether he doped but all the other things you mentioned which, in my opinion, are just as bad.

His defense of dopers as 'they simply made a mistake' (this is what he told Paul Kimmage in their verbal clash at the Tour of California) and all of his blatant lies which for the most part go unchallenged.

For someone like this to be welcomed back to the sport is why I don't watch it anymore.
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
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.

poor form

boring post all too predictable.

i really wonder if our lance actually pays people do go on msg boards like this to help the myth stay alive.

top post race radio
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
1
0
Visit site
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.

......................

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?

+6ish.... really good post.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You gave a few defintions of the word myth that clearly apply



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

Ah ... to be honest I wrote that post in response to BanProCycling's continued use of the word myth regarding Armstrong's wins, not your use of myth. I may have missed a previous post and he may have been quoting you, but again the myth definition post was not directed at you. Peace.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
BanProCycling, I hear the Israeli Media Dep't are after a hasbara officer extraordinaire, and I have nominated you.

Anyone second him?
 
Jul 16, 2009
230
0
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
Not at all. He has kept a long list of friends and team mates for years and they are very loyal to him. His excellent books have been an inspiration to countless people around the world, whether amateur athletes or cancer survivors. I'm sure you know lots of people who were inspired by them. If you don't like him then obviously you don't like him writing books, but people have a right to do so, and they're obvious not going to write a bad book about themselves.


BCP, or is it PCP. i confused

anyway. i enjoy your posts and i don't believe they are unread or ignored, although personally i agree with very little of all you write- seeing a bit of RCG and propaganda. but a protagonist is mostly useful, and you dont shout or swear and are no ruder than the next person so its fine for me

but i gotta say- this paragraph above- in the box

oh man, which line out of wiki did you cut that from? thats as chuck as blackcat's betsy worship club (admit it Blackcat- you just want photos)

its this line that makes me think that if there was a "lance camp", you're the scoutmaster of it

no doubt im wrong, but oh boy, overuse of the word "inspiration" sunshine

let me just go out and bring up the rest of my breakfast
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BanProCycling said:
Shouldn't you be starting another pointless thread or something?

Shouldn't you be writing another pointless post or something? Oh wait, that appears to be your job.

Why do one balled junkies turn you on so much? I'll bet you watch the LA workout video at least twice per day...
 
BanProCycling said:
Okay i will answer his post....



That's the problem with Armstrong haters - they try to enforce their warped version of reality onto everybody else and term anyone who doesn't toe the line as "uniformed". No, they just don't agree.



Well we don't know. As I said, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have taken EPO in at least 1999. All the GC contenders, domestiques and most of the riders in general were taking it at that point - it was pretty standard procedure. Why wouldn't he do it? People outside of the sport don't understand this though, and would claim his victories were a "myth" if they knew about it, so it's obvious why Armstrong is very touchy about that. Wouldn't you be?



No evidence to back that up. But even if true, so what? Ferrari was his coach and friend for many years - a very good coach. We can all see why he would want to continue to see him, even if he was caught up in a doping scandal. Big deal.



He was certainly one of the most tested athletes. I wouldn't get bogged down on whether he was second of third or whatever. Only someone with a hate-filled grudge would do that.



Well you've got to admit it was unprecedented. To spring on him urine tests from SEVEN YEARS AGO, after he had retired, is extremely unusual, unethical and does smack of a witch hunt. I think athletes of all sports would unite on that point - you can only face the official doping authorities in the proper manner. It's also true that he hasn't had the best of relations with the French, in part because of his brash American personality, so it was not unreasonable.



Not at all. He has kept a long list of friends and team mates for years and they are very loyal to him. His excellent books have been an inspiration to countless people around the world, whether amateur athletes or cancer survivors. I'm sure you know lots of people who were inspired by them. If you don't like him then obviously you don't like him writing books, but people have a right to do so, and they're obvious not going to write a bad book about themselves.

.

Loopy nuts territory. Yes, it's true, as he says in his book, that he is a "player" - some people may like that, some people may hate it, some maybe jealous of it - but it doesn't take away the respect one has for him as a rider. He also has shown an ability to inspire people to work for him and his charity causes that most other people wouldn't posses. Love him or hate him, he is one of life's natural leaders. It wouldn't be a great surprise to see him run for office in the years to come - he's certainly got all the atributes to be a politician, we'll agree on that.



So Armstrong is directly responsible for this guy having a seasure because they fellout? That's a very extreme view. In cycling you tend to get lots of backbiting and tensions - it just goes with the territory. You can't blame Armstrong if someone has a medical problem who he is having a dispute with. That's plain silly.



Armstrong doesn't like people spreading rumours about him and responded in his famously direct way. So what? Some people respect him for that tough style of standing up for himself. Americans are also very loyal to their heroes and don't like journalists talking them down without the evidence, so Gerard Knapp knew what he was doing. And needless to say, Armstrong is not responsible for Knapp's poor business skills.

.

Well there is no doubt that he revolutionised the training programme for the tour and brought a new focus too it. Anyone who denies that is doing so for their own reasons. The money that went into his team also saw manufacturers bring forward a lot of new technology. I don't think anybody has said his competitors were stupid and lazy, but Ulrich certainly didn't prepare in the same strict fashion. We wont entertain your conspiracy theory about the UCI.



Obviously the top riders are going to have a lot of interest in them, and for someone like Armstrong who has won so many tours, people will want to see what makes him special. There is nothing wrong with that.



Who said anything about fat? Unfortunate that you had to mention that since nobody here has. As for claims that she blogs 24/7; well it IS unusual to see somebody caught up in this drama issues taking such an active role on the message boards right along side the extremist trolls who just spout endless propaganda about Armstrong being a "myth". As I keep trying to warn her, these people are using her stance to further their own twisted agenda, which doesn't make her look good in the process. It is also a little bit strange that she is so into attacking Armstrong and not the guy who was actually a professional rider who rode with Armstrong. One doesn't know either way, but it's sometimes hard not to conclude she is milking her tiny bit of Armstrong-related fame for all its worth. It must be fun to check out what the internet people are writing about an incident you were involved in.

All great stars have endless people like this to deal with, whether they were former school friends they fellout with or whatever. I'm not saying it makes Betsy a bad person.



This is just assertion. You don't know if they tried to hire anybody to look into Lemond. Lemond, like Armstrong, is a bit prickly and does rube people up the wrong way. He also has his own demons. I watched him on youtube from a few years ago at the Tour and he was slurring his words. If Armstrong had done that you can just imagine what people on forums would be saying, but because it's Lemond he gets a free pass. It's okay for him to sue everyone to keep his business empire going that has already made him millions, and he is allowed to protect his reputation, but if Armstrong does it he gets called greedy and nasty.



Assertion and gossip - you have no idea if that is true and you know this.



All you provided is a bunch of personal disputes and grudges that have nothing to do with anything. It doesn't prove Armstrong's victories were a myth, but rather proves that you are a bitter hater who will stoop to claiming any half fact or gossip is 100% true if it damages Armstrong.

political-pictures-mohammed-saeed-al-sahaf.jpg
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
Okay i will answer his post....



That's the problem with Armstrong haters - they try to enforce their warped version of reality onto everybody else and term anyone who doesn't toe the line as "uniformed". No, they just don't agree.



Well we don't know. As I said, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have taken EPO in at least 1999. All the GC contenders, domestiques and most of the riders in general were taking it at that point - it was pretty standard procedure. Why wouldn't he do it? People outside of the sport don't understand this though, and would claim his victories were a "myth" if they knew about it, so it's obvious why Armstrong is very touchy about that. Wouldn't you be?



No evidence to back that up. But even if true, so what? Ferrari was his coach and friend for many years - a very good coach. We can all see why he would want to continue to see him, even if he was caught up in a doping scandal. Big deal.



He was certainly one of the most tested athletes. I wouldn't get bogged down on whether he was second of third or whatever. Only someone with a hate-filled grudge would do that.



Well you've got to admit it was unprecedented. To spring on him urine tests from SEVEN YEARS AGO, after he had retired, is extremely unusual, unethical and does smack of a witch hunt. I think athletes of all sports would unite on that point - you can only face the official doping authorities in the proper manner. It's also true that he hasn't had the best of relations with the French, in part because of his brash American personality, so it was not unreasonable.



Not at all. He has kept a long list of friends and team mates for years and they are very loyal to him. His excellent books have been an inspiration to countless people around the world, whether amateur athletes or cancer survivors. I'm sure you know lots of people who were inspired by them. If you don't like him then obviously you don't like him writing books, but people have a right to do so, and they're obvious not going to write a bad book about themselves.

.

Loopy nuts territory. Yes, it's true, as he says in his book, that he is a "player" - some people may like that, some people may hate it, some maybe jealous of it - but it doesn't take away the respect one has for him as a rider. He also has shown an ability to inspire people to work for him and his charity causes that most other people wouldn't posses. Love him or hate him, he is one of life's natural leaders. It wouldn't be a great surprise to see him run for office in the years to come - he's certainly got all the atributes to be a politician, we'll agree on that.



So Armstrong is directly responsible for this guy having a seasure because they fellout? That's a very extreme view. In cycling you tend to get lots of backbiting and tensions - it just goes with the territory. You can't blame Armstrong if someone has a medical problem who he is having a dispute with. That's plain silly.



Armstrong doesn't like people spreading rumours about him and responded in his famously direct way. So what? Some people respect him for that tough style of standing up for himself. Americans are also very loyal to their heroes and don't like journalists talking them down without the evidence, so Gerard Knapp knew what he was doing. And needless to say, Armstrong is not responsible for Knapp's poor business skills.

.

Well there is no doubt that he revolutionised the training programme for the tour and brought a new focus too it. Anyone who denies that is doing so for their own reasons. The money that went into his team also saw manufacturers bring forward a lot of new technology. I don't think anybody has said his competitors were stupid and lazy, but Ulrich certainly didn't prepare in the same strict fashion. We wont entertain your conspiracy theory about the UCI.



Obviously the top riders are going to have a lot of interest in them, and for someone like Armstrong who has won so many tours, people will want to see what makes him special. There is nothing wrong with that.



Who said anything about fat? Unfortunate that you had to mention that since nobody here has. As for claims that she blogs 24/7; well it IS unusual to see somebody caught up in this drama issues taking such an active role on the message boards right along side the extremist trolls who just spout endless propaganda about Armstrong being a "myth". As I keep trying to warn her, these people are using her stance to further their own twisted agenda, which doesn't make her look good in the process. It is also a little bit strange that she is so into attacking Armstrong and not the guy who was actually a professional rider who rode with Armstrong. One doesn't know either way, but it's sometimes hard not to conclude she is milking her tiny bit of Armstrong-related fame for all its worth. It must be fun to check out what the internet people are writing about an incident you were involved in.

All great stars have endless people like this to deal with, whether they were former school friends they fellout with or whatever. I'm not saying it makes Betsy a bad person.



This is just assertion. You don't know if they tried to hire anybody to look into Lemond. Lemond, like Armstrong, is a bit prickly and does rube people up the wrong way. He also has his own demons. I watched him on youtube from a few years ago at the Tour and he was slurring his words. If Armstrong had done that you can just imagine what people on forums would be saying, but because it's Lemond he gets a free pass. It's okay for him to sue everyone to keep his business empire going that has already made him millions, and he is allowed to protect his reputation, but if Armstrong does it he gets called greedy and nasty.



Assertion and gossip - you have no idea if that is true and you know this.



All you provided is a bunch of personal disputes and grudges that have nothing to do with anything. It doesn't prove Armstrong's victories were a myth, but rather proves that you are a bitter hater who will stoop to claiming any half fact or gossip is 100% true if it damages Armstrong.

Thank you for proving my point
 
BanProCycling said:
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?

This is better than laughing out loud at "The Office". It's just too bad Frankie isn't the husband and father lance was/is - don't you think I should be bitter about that? Or is that pill too hard for you to swallow? I'm jealous Frankie doesn't date on me or have children out of wedlock and see our kids once a week or so. Yeah, what a GREAT role model. Sorry, banprocycling, my values and priorities lie elsewhere. The superficial stuff really doesn't matter.

And Scribe, you ask questions, I've answered. Sorry that it's dull. I'm sure one of the moderators can ban me if I'm not me.

There are many forums and I've chimed in only on two - hardly making me bitter, obsessed, or better yet so excited by my lance fame. You really have to be kidding with that one. It is funny, however. Do post anyway - you are entertainment of the absurd.

Race Radio: excellent post.

Bianchigirl: I think you're right on.
 
Race Radio said:
The myth...
Excellent post. I think you succinctly summed it up as best as anyone could.
Ozzie2 said:
I mean, the longer one posts here, the most desperate, damaged and deranged they appear...take this whack-job Ozzie2 as case in point!
Says he with the feeble post count. ;)

This is a long, rambling, but fascinating thread. Though I don't agree with him, I'm glad BanProCycling is on here with some of his counters. He reminds me a little of the Arbiter, but not as trolling.

Would love to get Frankie on here to talk about, well, whatever he wants. My guess is that he's too busy with the kids though. ;)
 
Jul 27, 2009
749
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
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.

The doping allegations had everything to do with the case! The contract had a specific requirement Lance be proven to be clean! Why do you think test results were submitted to SCA well before the arbitration case arose?

SCA had every right to think they were duped with all the doping allegations out in the public arena. Any prudent insurance company would have serious reservations paying out on a policy where evidence existed they were being conned.

For the non lawyers out there, if you thought this was just about being paid to win a race with no strings attached then the Judge would have awarded the win to Mr Armstrong on day one of the hearing. This was a case about an insurance policy, one where he had to win, but also meet some conditions. The conditions were what the case was about, not the win.
 
Is BanProCycling a troll?

Just woke up from the night and I read his response to Race Radio. It's either a press release or a troll.
Doesn't make sense, as I'm not sure even Lance's mother is this loyal to him. I've come across a fair few Lance fans but this guy is certainly not playing with the full deck.
BanProCycling, I've just one question for you, as I;m not sure I should be engaging the ramblings of a mental case, but would you like to have Lance's babies?
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
Visit site
Digger said:
Is BanProCycling a troll?
I'm not sure even Lance's mother is this loyal to him.

and she followed lance to the wánk bank! i guess banprocycling took in one step further and went into the room with him and gave him a helping hand
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
Okay i will answer his post....



That's the problem with Armstrong haters - they try to enforce their warped version of reality onto everybody else and term anyone who doesn't toe the line as "uniformed". No, they just don't agree.

haters? why the adversarial binary. Critics and media are required to hold the powerful to account. Rectify this lack of enlightenment please.




Well we don't know. As I said, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have taken EPO in at least 1999. All the GC contenders, domestiques and most of the riders in general were taking it at that point - it was pretty standard procedure. Why wouldn't he do it? People outside of the sport don't understand this though, and would claim his victories were a "myth" if they knew about it, so it's obvious why Armstrong is very touchy about that. Wouldn't you be?

have you seen the power outputs from Cyclismag, these numbers paint a compelling picture of the peloton, and the wattage thresholds they hit once the O2 drugs entered the sport. It is a powerful case for anyone thinking a clean rider could compete for GC in this era.


No evidence to back that up. But even if true, so what? Ferrari was his coach and friend for many years - a very good coach. We can all see why he would want to continue to see him, even if he was caught up in a doping scandal. Big deal.
goes to credibility, a factor you hold in esteem, criticising the critics for their lack of it.


He was certainly one of the most tested athletes. I wouldn't get bogged down on whether he was second of third or whatever. Only someone with a hate-filled grudge would do that.
again, goes to credibility, and Armstrong being unaccountable and allowed to control the message. Facts are important, and cannot be manipulated, like crit and hemoglobin numbers he posts on Livestrong.


Well you've got to admit it was unprecedented. To spring on him urine tests from SEVEN YEARS AGO, after he had retired, is extremely unusual, unethical and does smack of a witch hunt. I think athletes of all sports would unite on that point - you can only face the official doping authorities in the proper manner. It's also true that he hasn't had the best of relations with the French, in part because of his brash American personality, so it was not unreasonable.
those who espouse their virtue, need to be exposed to rigorous investigation.


Not at all. He has kept a long list of friends and team mates for years and they are very loyal to him. His excellent books have been an inspiration to countless people around the world, whether amateur athletes or cancer survivors. I'm sure you know lots of people who were inspired by them. If you don't like him then obviously you don't like him writing books, but people have a right to do so, and they're obvious not going to write a bad book about themselves.
would these people who are inspired, feel betrayed, or would they prefer the comfort of cognitive dissonance. A dispassionate reading would suggest they would be better without the fraudulent narrative. Because all things are relative, for every Armstrong narrative completely built on myth, there will be a similarly inspiring story to fill the void. The difference is the Armstrong myth had the weight of momentum from corporate America pushing him to the Whitehouse lawn, the Lateshow, and Today. The other inspiring stories would be more organic, but still get some traction and inspire those who require healing.
.

Loopy nuts territory. Yes, it's true, as he says in his book, that he is a "player" - some people may like that, some people may hate it, some maybe jealous of it - but it doesn't take away the respect one has for him as a rider. He also has shown an ability to inspire people to work for him and his charity causes that most other people wouldn't posses. Love him or hate him, he is one of life's natural leaders. It wouldn't be a great surprise to see him run for office in the years to come - he's certainly got all the atributes to be a politician, we'll agree on that.
Armstrong is for Armstrong, that we agree on


So Armstrong is directly responsible for this guy having a seasure because they fellout? That's a very extreme view. In cycling you tend to get lots of backbiting and tensions - it just goes with the territory. You can't blame Armstrong if someone has a medical problem who he is having a dispute with. That's plain silly.
seizure



Armstrong doesn't like people spreading rumours about him and responded in his famously direct way. So what? Some people respect him for that tough style of standing up for himself. Americans are also very loyal to their heroes and don't like journalists talking them down without the evidence, so Gerard Knapp knew what he was doing. And needless to say, Armstrong is not responsible for Knapp's poor business skills.
Armstrong is unethical and a lier, Americans on the whole, are mindless jingoists, gullible to believe myths and American supremacy.
.

Well there is no doubt that he revolutionised the training programme for the tour and brought a new focus too it. Anyone who denies that is doing so for their own reasons. The money that went into his team also saw manufacturers bring forward a lot of new technology. I don't think anybody has said his competitors were stupid and lazy, but Ulrich certainly didn't prepare in the same strict fashion. We wont entertain your conspiracy theory about the UCI.
no, Armstrong was not doing anything that someone who had come before him do


Obviously the top riders are going to have a lot of interest in them, and for someone like Armstrong who has won so many tours, people will want to see what makes him special. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, you need to pay Ferrari 15% of your salary.


Who said anything about fat? Unfortunate that you had to mention that since nobody here has. As for claims that she blogs 24/7; well it IS unusual to see somebody caught up in this drama issues taking such an active role on the message boards right along side the extremist trolls who just spout endless propaganda about Armstrong being a "myth". As I keep trying to warn her, these people are using her stance to further their own twisted agenda, which doesn't make her look good in the process. It is also a little bit strange that she is so into attacking Armstrong and not the guy who was actually a professional rider who rode with Armstrong. One doesn't know either way, but it's sometimes hard not to conclude she is milking her tiny bit of Armstrong-related fame for all its worth. It must be fun to check out what the internet people are writing about an incident you were involved in.
Actually Armstrong and the apparatchiks used the media to attack Mrs Andreu with a megaphone. She did it with no PR team, and no fora to disabuse the media and fanbois of the mythology. Chapeau Betsy

All great stars have endless people like this to deal with, whether they were former school friends they fellout with or whatever. I'm not saying it makes Betsy a bad person.
I am not a racist, but...


This is just assertion. You don't know if they tried to hire anybody to look into Lemond. Lemond, like Armstrong, is a bit prickly and does rube people up the wrong way. He also has his own demons. I watched him on youtube from a few years ago at the Tour and he was slurring his words. If Armstrong had done that you can just imagine what people on forums would be saying, but because it's Lemond he gets a free pass. It's okay for him to sue everyone to keep his business empire going that has already made him millions, and he is allowed to protect his reputation, but if Armstrong does it he gets called greedy and nasty.
In my mind, Lemond lowered his colours a great deal, taping the phonecall with McIlvain. But Lemond is one of the few to standup to Armstrong, and deserves respect for that.


Assertion and gossip - you have no idea if that is true and you know this.
Everything is hearsay, speculation, gossip in your mind, and means nothing. In journalism, this is background, and creates your informing context.


All you provided is a bunch of personal disputes and grudges that have nothing to do with anything. It doesn't prove Armstrong's victories were a myth, but rather proves that you are a bitter hater who will stoop to claiming any half fact or gossip is 100% true if it damages Armstrong.
Armstrong won, and in the top 20 besides Moncoutie, all athletes were charging to some degree. They may have had less opportunity, and less freedom to dope to the same degree, but nevertheless, they took up that option like Armstrong. He doped better, he rode better, the peloton was more or less on equal footing. His team and management brought an MBA strategy to the Tour, and leveraged resources, and allocated resources in the most potent positions. They won on those terms. In that frame, Armstrong deserved his victories, he was the best on numerous levels, and he demonstrated enormous will.

This tunnel vision and determination, which I can respect on one level, can manifest in such malignant behaviour as such was exposed at the Tour this year, when he explicitly sabotaged Contador at every opportunity.
 
Mar 10, 2009
272
2
0
Visit site
I believe Armstrong was a cheat his whole pro career, but what I don't understand is how Armstrong was doping prior to 1996 and wasn't winning much, let alone competitive in Grand tours, has his cancer and then continues to dope and comes back even stronger than before.

In other words, what changed between doping prior to 1996 and him doping after 1998 to make him a contender in GT's? Was he on something nobody else was on. EPO doesn't explain it. Or was he micro doping prior to 1996 and became the new Hog after 1998? His body would have responded to the EPO drugs of both era's much the same.

This one has me baffled. Interested in all possible answers.
 
Indurain said:
I believe Armstrong was a cheat his whole pro career, but what I don't understand is how Armstrong was doping prior to 1996 and wasn't winning much, let alone competitive in Grand tours, has his cancer and then continues to dope and comes back even stronger than before.

In other words, what changed between doping prior to 1996 and him doping after 1998 to make him a contender in GT's? Was he on something nobody else was on. EPO doesn't explain it. Or was he micro doping prior to 1996 and became the new Hog after 1998? His body would have responded to the EPO drugs of both era's much the same.

This one has me baffled. Interested in all possible answers.

It's a reasonable question, but in my opinion, the answer lies with Michele Ferrari. He started working with him in the winter of '95. Frankie is quoted as saying the difference in his physique when they first saw him in '96 was unbelievable, just so much more powerful than everyone else all of a sudden. He got sick in '96. The rest is history. Ferrari's results with riders are unbelievable. I think doping is one thing, which by all accounts, Lance was doing from the start. But a doctor like Ferrari organising your programme is another story. Lance used to even taunt the guys on USP who he said were 'too cheap' to pay the money and work with Ferrari. A doctor who can get three guys to podium, from the same team, in a Spring Class, is a serious operator.
The other thing is that eventhough alot of the riders were doping, the well off riders were definitely on the best programmes. Not every rider can afford to blood dope. Tyler paid Fuentes 31,000 Euro for one year's doping, with a further 11,000 owed. Note: Anyone who wants to see the worthlessness, in the main, of the testing, should look at this doping calendar.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
M Sport said:
The doping allegations had everything to do with the case! The contract had a specific requirement Lance be proven to be clean! Why do you think test results were submitted to SCA well before the arbitration case arose?

SCA had every right to think they were duped with all the doping allegations out in the public arena. Any prudent insurance company would have serious reservations paying out on a policy where evidence existed they were being conned.

For the non lawyers out there, if you thought this was just about being paid to win a race with no strings attached then the Judge would have awarded the win to Mr Armstrong on day one of the hearing. This was a case about an insurance policy, one where he had to win, but also meet some conditions. The conditions were what the case was about, not the win.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Armstrong was declared the winner of the TdF and he did not fail any drug tests. As a result, his contract was binding and SCA Promotions had to pay up. The factual and circumstantial evidence of his doping had no bearing on the results because of the terms of his contract (ie, he was declared the winner and he didn't fail a drug test), hence why it became a contractual dispute.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
M Sport said:
The doping allegations had everything to do with the case! The contract had a specific requirement Lance be proven to be clean!

Wrong. The contract had no mention or requirement of having to be clean.

It is possible to win the Tour and still be a doper. Riis, Fignon, Anquetil etc. admitted to doping and they are still listed as winners.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by BanProCycling
Betsy, your husband took EPO but he didn't win the tour de france. I know your mad....


ProTour said:
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the fuel behind this whole "controversy."

Certainly you two can do better than this.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
Certainly you two can do better than this.

I doubt it. They don't seem to have much concept that not everyone in a team is a team leader and that some (well, most) are actually domestiques, like Frankie.
 
Jul 16, 2009
230
0
0
Visit site
Just a thought

As we degenerate in our discussion, and adjust our thinking and individual stories along the way, who has stayed consistent the entire time?

Who has stayed clean and consistent through this?

Betsy

there must be something in that