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

[richwagmn]

I don't know where to start. I'm kind of surprised that my back and forth with Sweet Sally is being discussed.

Just a correction: Bill Stapleton was not in that room.
HIPPA prevents anyone from that hospital staff to speak about anything they know about this hospital incident.
Also, people forget that James Startt testified that Stephanie told him about the hospital incident in detail i.e. that it did happen. That's overlooked.
It's midnight in Detroit in case people want to say I'm blogging 24/7

Another welcome.

I thought that you and Frankie displayed a lot of class and integrity when you were both dragged into this. You stated the facts and told the truth.

One interesting thing thing to me is how LA has changed his explanation for what you and Frankie said you heard. Apparently, LA's conscience is bugging him. Also, his asking Frankie to interview him during the tour was strange too. Old LA might have asked Versus to dismiss Frankie.

A guilty conscience is a terrible thing.

 

[scribe]

http://www.scapromotions.com/main/promotionalRiskCoverage

If you really want a laugh read Armstrong's testimony at the SCA trial. A guy known for being meticulous about every part of his life suddenly can't remember sh!t.

I haven't read the entire transcript, I have only seen bits and pieces. Not remembering something is different than lying. It is very difficult to prove someone forgot something.

That SCA deal seems like an enormous amount of money contingent upon payment of winning his 6th TdF. I find it really strange they were trying to withhold payment on the basis of hear-say from the years prior to his wins. Does anyone have a little more about this business relationship? Come on guys (and eva and marie), you are so meticulous about every other detail LA. You have to be able to make this clearer, too.

 

[Epicycle]

I haven't read the entire transcript, I have only seen bits and pieces. Not remembering something is different than lying. It is very difficult to prove someone forgot something.

He was lying and being vague on purpose. It is blatantly obvious.

I'm not talking just about the hospital incident but about how he paid Ferrari, how many times a year they met, knowing what he meant by telling teammates to train smarter even if he didn't mean doping, saying it was common knowledge beginning in 1996 that he was working with Ferrari, saying he didn't leave Ferrari out of his biographies on purpose, saying he didn't remember people around him warning him about the stigma of Ferrari, saying that he didn't hide his relationship with Ferrari from Gorski, that he doesn't remember how, when or where he paid the UCI "donation", that he never had an inkling of Hamilton doping, etc...

 

[Anonymous]

I haven't read the entire transcript, I have only seen bits and pieces. Not remembering something is different than lying. It is very difficult to prove someone forgot something.

That SCA deal seems like an enormous amount of money contingent upon payment of winning his 6th TdF. I find it really strange they were trying to withhold payment on the basis of hear-say from the years prior to his wins. Does anyone have a little more about this business relationship? Come on guys (and eva and marie), you are so meticulous about every other detail LA. You have to be able to make this clearer, too.

Pay me (or anyone else) as a research assistant and maybe, but past that, it sounds like you are just lazy. Put your big girl panties on and do some work yourself.

 

[Izoard]

I don't know where to start. I'm kind of surprised that my back and forth with Sweet Sally is being discussed.

Hey there, welcome to the forum! I think you will find a great number of people support you and Frankie (like many, I think I will presume you are Betsy). Thanks for sharing some of the details.

 

[Digger]

http://www.scapromotions.com/main/promotionalRiskCoverage

If you really want a laugh read Armstrong's testimony at the SCA trial. A guy known for being meticulous about every part of his life suddenly can't remember sh!t.

Another example.

From an interview Lance gave in December. The lies and sidestepping are impressive, even for him.

What’s your VO2 Max?
Today? I’ve no idea.

What was it?
I don’t know.

You don’t know?
I did some tests back when I was 16. (We know from Coyle's study this is absolutely bulls&&&)
You don’t know your VO2 Max?
I haven’t done a test in a long time.

What was it?
The best I can remember, the low 80s.

I saw some recent pictures of you cycling, Your upper body looks much bigger than when you were winning the Tour.
I’m 170 pounds, which is very light for me at this time of year. And there’s not a lot of fat. I usually start the season at 180, I’m 170 now. At the Tour, I’m 164.

What’s the highest haematocrit you ever registered?
Er…I don’t know. Maybe… 45, 46.

Haematocrit is a tricky number. In 2003 I started the Tour at 39. It varies greatly depending on effort the day before, dehydration, altitude.

In the last couple of years I’ve been 47 48. It doesn't mean I’ve been out taking illegal drugs. I think starting the Tour at 39, that’s a compelling number.

 

[bianchigirl]

As is 6, or should that be 8 (accrording to Michael Ashenden) - I find those fairly compelling numbers too

 

[scribe]

He was lying and being vague on purpose. It is blatantly obvious.

I'm not talking just about the hospital incident but about how he paid Ferrari, how many times a year they met, knowing what he meant by telling teammates to train smarter even if he didn't mean doping, saying it was common knowledge beginning in 1996 that he was working with Ferrari, saying he didn't leave Ferrari out of his biographies on purpose, saying he didn't remember people around him warning him about the stigma of Ferrari, saying that he didn't hide his relationship with Ferrari from Gorski, that he doesn't remember how, when or where he paid the UCI "donation", that he never had an inkling of Hamilton doping, etc...

Oh man. That's a lot of stuff. I was more interesting in this situation regarding the Andreu testimony. Lots of people point to this as one of the primary events that suggests Armstrong cheated his way through his TdF reign. People were likely lying in that testimony. I would assume the one working to collect millions of dollars at the moment to be the most obvious. But then again, those who owed millions of dollars sure did seem to stretch their contractual jurisdiction to get out of paying.

 

[Digger]

Oh man. That's a lot of stuff. I was more interesting in this situation regarding the Andreu testimony. Lots of people point to this as one of the primary events that suggests Armstrong cheated his way through his TdF reign. People were likely lying in that testimony. I would assume the one working to collect millions of dollars at the moment to be the most obvious. But then again, those who owed millions of dollars sure did seem to stretch their contractual jurisdiction to get out of paying.

And the people who knew they were going to suffer if they did tell the truth and testify?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I haven't read the entire transcript, I have only seen bits and pieces. I find it really strange they were trying to withhold payment on the basis of hear-say from the years prior to his wins...

Firstly - it is not hearsay! Betsy & Frankie admitted reluctantly under oath they heard LA admit to using PED's.
Stephanie says "no" in her testimony - days later the Lemond tape is played where she says "yeah, I heard it". This is also backed up by a conversation that she had with James Stratt -a friend & journalist - confirming she had admitted to him saying that she had heard it.

Remember Stephanie had decided to quit her job in 2001 - as her son had autism- but Lance intervened so that she could work from home.

I haven't read the entire transcript, I have only seen bits and pieces.

Scribe - that is the second time you have mentioned reading "bits & pieces" - I have no problem responding to your questions as I find them interesting and it is proper that things should not be taken at face value.

However I think for you to come to any opinion that you need to read through the entire text to remain objective.

 

[scribe]

And the people who knew they were going to suffer if they did tell the truth and testify?

I don't think anyone suffered much. I feel a little bad for the Andreus. But these things happen all the time. People hear different things and they express what they hear differently, even in testimony. Conflicting stories under oath might highlight an error or a lie. They didn't try Armstrong for lying under oath, because it either wasn't one, or it wasn't obvious.

But let's get real. Frankly (no pun intended), if I had contractual 5 million on the line that was being unfairly challenged for unrelated matters, I would probably throw the Andreus under the bus, too, if they threatened that situation with what they overheard.

 

[Digger]

I don't think anyone suffered much. I feel a little bad for the Andreus. But these things happen all the time. People hear different things and they express what they hear differently, even in testimony. Conflicting stories under oath might highlight an error or a lie. They didn't try Armstrong for lying under oath, because it either wasn't one, or it wasn't obvious.

But let's get real. Frankly (no pun intended), if I had contractual 5 million on the line that was being unfairly challenged for unrelated matters, I would probably throw the Andreus under the bus, too, if they threatened that situation with what they overheard.

No No
My point is, do you think the Andreus are lying?

 

[scribe]

Firstly - it is not hearsay! Betsy & Frankie admitted reluctantly under oath they heard LA admit to using PED's.
Stephanie says "no" in her testimony - days later the Lemond tape is played where she says "yeah, I heard it". This is also backed up by a conversation that she had with James Stratt -a friend & journalist - confirming she had admitted to him saying that she had heard it.

Remember Stephanie had decided to quit her job in 2001 - as her son had autism- but Lance intervened so that she could work from home.

Well, they probably could have tried her for lying under oath. But from what I read, SCA's lawyer said the case was dismissed on the basis of contractual stipulations that didn't extend to this event.

Scribe - that is the second time you have mentioned reading "bits & pieces" - I have no problem responding to your questions as I find them interesting and it is proper that things should not be taken at face value.

However I think for you to come to any opinion that you need to read through the entire text to remain objective.

Of the bits and pieces I have read, I am not comfortable accepting that this is fool proof evidence of Lance's use of doping in the 90's. I have not formed my opinion yet, which is why I am adding to the discussion with pointed questions and thoughts along the way.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That SCA deal seems like an enormous amount of money contingent upon payment of winning his 6th TdF. I find it really strange they were trying to withhold payment on the basis of hear-say from the years prior to his wins. Does anyone have a little more about this business relationship? Come on guys (and eva and marie), you are so meticulous about every other detail LA. You have to be able to make this clearer, too.

Sorry TFF - I will take this one for free!

As you said - there is an enormous amount of money at stake here - which is why SCA Promotions brought this case.

Tailwind Sports the company behind the USPS team had agreed to a number of bonus contracts for LA for winning the Tour.
They were winning the Tours: 2001/2002 $1.5m; 2003 $3m & for 2004 $5.

Tailwind contacted SCA Promotions to cover the risk - it cost $425,000.
SCA paid out for the the Tour from 2001 to 2003, but with the release of LA Confidential withheld the $5m of 2004 on the basis that the contract was void as the win was likely the result of doping.

Litigation was brought by LA -obviously enough. However the case went against SCA as the 2004 result stood - if the 2004 result had been removed like Floyd's was in 2006 - SCA would have won.

 

[scribe]

No No
My point is, do you think the Andreus are lying?

They clearly recall something different than the others who testified. That much I do know. But I am generally accepting when people seem sincere, and she does, from the bits and pieces that I read. But then again, if two people said they saw Sasquatch, I'd probably listen to them and likely accept it as fact if it sounded good.

 

[Digger]

They clearly recall something different than the others who testified. That much I do know. But I am generally accepting when people seem sincere, and she does, from the bits and pieces that I read. But then again, if two people said they saw Sasquatch, I'd probably listen to them and likely accept it as fact if it sounded good.

And if I showed you the link to Stephanie saying she also heard it...would this make you more likely to believe them? Or would it not make a difference?

 

[Anonymous]

And if I showed you the link to Stephanie saying she also heard it...would this make you more likely to believe them? Or would it not make a difference?

No, he would find another way to side step it. I am guessing calling into question the ethics of taping a phone conversation, or some subtle jab at Greg because of some of the things he has done and said.

Like many, he knows the truth deep down, he just isn't honest enough to admit it, typical of an apologist.

 

[pedaling squares]

My point is, do you think the Andreus are lying?

I have rarely run across anyone, outside of those with a vested interest in the SCA case, who accuses the Andreus of lying. Digger and Scribe included. Let's face it, their case lends itself well to credibility. They said nothing about the incident for years, and when they did discuss it, it was in response to direct questions while under oath. Further, they tried to avoid testifying by challenging the validity of the Texan subpoena, and were subsequently served a Michigan subpoena. Which I'm sure had small print on it outlining criminal consequences for failing to appear in court. Finally, they received no compensation for their disclosure and in fact have suffered through a hailstorm of anger ever since. What was their incentive to lie? Frankie really didn't need to make enemies in cycling when he depends on the sport for his income.

 

[Digger]

Sorry TFF - I will take this one for free!

As you said - there is an enormous amount of money at stake here - which is why SCA Promotions brought this case.

Tailwind Sports the company behind the USPS team had agreed to a number of bonus contracts for LA for winning the Tour.
They were winning the Tours: 2001/2002 $1.5m; 2003 $3m & for 2004 $5.

Tailwind contacted SCA Promotions to cover the risk - it cost $425,000.
SCA paid out for the the Tour from 2001 to 2003, but with the release of LA Confidential withheld the $5m of 2004 on the basis that the contract was void as the win was likely the result of doping.

Litigation was brought by LA -obviously enough. However the case went against SCA as the 2004 result stood - if the 2004 result had been removed like Floyd's was in 2006 - SCA would have won.

Just a furtherance of these points...once it had been ascertained that the UCI classified Lance as the winner, then according to the contract, the issue of whether Lance doped in order to win, became mute. So essentially he was the winner and how he achieved the win was not relevant.

 

[Digger]

I have rarely run across anyone, outside of those with a vested interest in the SCA case, who accuses the Andreus of lying. Digger and Scribe included. Let's face it, their case lends itself well to credibility. They said nothing about the incident for years, and when they did discuss it, it was in response to direct questions while under oath. Further, they tried to avoid testifying by challenging the validity of the Texan subpoena, and were subsequently served a Michigan subpoena. Which I'm sure had small print on it outlining criminal consequences for failing to appear in court. Finally, they received no compensation for their disclosure and in fact have suffered through a hailstorm of anger ever since. What was their incentive to lie? Frankie really didn't need to make enemies in cycling when he depends on the sport for his income.

I'm not sure why my name is mentioned in with Scribe, but anyone who has read my posts will know very clearly my views on doping, Lance, and other such topics. I'm not trying to antagonise Scribe here, but I would say we don't share much common ground on these matters.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They clearly recall something different than the others who testified.

Being honest Scribe a statement like the above calls in to question your objectivity.

Only 4 people in the room testified. Lance, Stephanie, Betsy & Frankie.

Chris Carmichael & his then girlfriend & future wife Paige.
Carmichel was Lance friend and trainer - until Dr. Ferrari arrived.
Lisa Shiels - Lances then girlfriend, was unable to be tracked down.
The 2 Doctors were never found- the hospital was a training facility with many student Doctor.
Dr. Craig Nichols who testified was not in the room.

 

[Digger]

Being honest Scribe a statement like the above calls in to question your objectivity.

Only 4 people in the room testified. Lance, Stephanie, Betsy & Frankie.Chris Carmichael & his then girlfriend & future wife Paige.
Carmichel was Lance friend and trainer - until Dr. Ferrari arrived.
Lisa Shiels - Lances then girlfriend, was unable to be tracked down.
The 2 Doctors were never found- the hospital was a training facility with many student Doctor.
Dr. Craig Nichols who testified was not in the room.

And Stephanie told James Startt, journalist, that she heard it. As well as Lemond. So now we're down to Lance.
Lance's team and himself couldn't even get their stories right during the SCA trial - which is a strange occurance for someone who purports to be telling the truth.

 

[BigBoat]

A secretly taped phone conversation between Greg Lemond and Stephanie

And Stephanie told James Startt, journalist, that she heard it. As well as Lemond. So now we're down to Lance.
Lance's team and himself couldn't even get their stories right during the SCA trial - which is a strange occurance for someone who purports to be telling the truth.

http://www.smithersmpls.com/audio/gregstef.mp3

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

Dont know if these old links still work...Try em.

 

[scribe]

Being honest Scribe a statement like the above calls in to question your objectivity.

Only 4 people in the room testified. Lance, Stephanie, Betsy & Frankie.

Chris Carmichael & his then girlfriend & future wife Paige.
Carmichel was Lance friend and trainer - until Dr. Ferrari arrived.
Lisa Shiels - Lances then girlfriend, was unable to be tracked down.
The 2 Doctors were never found- the hospital was a training facility with many student Doctor.
Dr. Craig Nichols who testified was not in the room.

You will notice that I have also mentioned in this thread that Armstrong had a clear motivation to lie under oath regarding what happened that day. With 5 million on the line, I am not so sure I wouldn't have seriously considered it too! BUT, it doesn't mean he lied, and it also doesn't mean he used banned substances in the early 90's, even though I think it is very likely he did.

 

[scribe]

http://www.smithersmpls.com/audio/gregstef.mp3

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

Dont know if these old links still work...Try em.

I'll have to try to listen to those later. I can't help but think Lemond has lost his marbles out tape-recording stings. Inspector Cluzo, out to bolster his own legacy as America's greatest cyclist.