The Mike Anderson story

[thehog]

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...king/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.html?page=1

I was Lance’s personal assistant for two years, during the height of his racing career. Do I think he cheated? Yep. But my real problem is something that diehard fans seem unable to grasp: the vengeful tactics he uses against people who tell the truth about him, on and off the bike

 

[thehog]

At one Livestrong event where he had to speak, I heard him mutter under his breath: “I hate these ****ing things.”

 

[Kennf1]

Nice article. Well done TexPat.

 

[Caruut]

Pretty hefty article there, some of the comments are almost surreal.

 

[hrotha]

Nice read.

No doubt some believers will say "look, another disgruntled former employee talking to the media to make money, so this is a good time to preemptively defuse that by pointing out the content of TexPat's article has been publicly available for 7 years (http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/sports/040105_lance.pdf). This article is just presenting the info in a more accessible format for the general public, and it does a damn fine job at that.

 

[Mishrak]

This is nice to read on the heels of reading the deposition that details and goes into even more specifics about his career and time with Lance.

I'm really glad this is out in the public now in an easier-to-read format. Lance's PR machine is beginning to crumble. They won't be able to refute this stuff much longer with any sort of credibility.

Lance is a sad sad sad little man.

 

[ToreBear]

Very good article!

Joe public meet Lance "the miracle" Armstrong.

 

[DirtyWorks]

That's a pretty big turn-around for Outside magazine. That place was cult central not that long ago. It seems to me there are no more Wonderboy covers from now on.

I wonder what the fact-checking, "heads-up" call to Wonderboy's PR rep went.

Did they get this intern to do it?

 

[Benotti69]

Well done Mike.

 

[D-Queued]

Great article Mike. Really well written.

Lots of interesting insights.

Regards, David

 

[Anonymous]

Well done TexPat.

For those who have found themselves on the wrong side of Lance, how many say virtually the same thing?

As the struggle unfolded over weeks and months, many people sneered at my story, assuming that Armstrong—Tour hero, cancer survivor, philanthropist—would never fight dirty or lie, so I had to be the dishonest party. I suddenly had a lot of former friends, no job, no money, and a gaping hole in my professional reputation.

 

[Racelap]

Great article.

Most of the comments on there are pathetic, though.

 

[BotanyBay]

I thought the bruddah lived in NZ these days.

 

[Elagabalus]

From the comments section:

"Outside Magazine

For those who want both sides of the story, know that we spent weeks fact-checking this piece, during which time both Lance and Livestrong refused to speak with us. His lawyer's response, though, is available here: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... erson.html"

 

[python]

Mike, thanks for the honest, humble and factual account. I never met you, but you come across as a level headed chap.

I sincerely hope that everyone who is still deluded by the 'nice guy' spin read your account.

Kudos to the outside journal too.

 

[KayLow]

I don't know that we should put a lot of stock in Mike Anderson's account. First, it is largely peripheral. He claims to have found a box of andro among Armstrong's things. Otherwise, he saw and heard very little that incriminates Armstrong on the doping front. One stray comment about how everyone in cycling dopes that was allegedly made by Armstrong does not weigh very heavily.

Second, his primary beef with Armstrong is that Armstrong failed to fund a bike shop consistent with the terms of an informal email agreement that Anderson no longer possesses. Not only does this have nothing to do with doping, but it also makes Anderson look more than a little foolish. I do not think a reasonable person would reach an informal agreement to fund a bike shop with terms no more specific than "yeah, I will help you start up a shop when the time comes."

Using personality driven stuff like this against Lance is just a distraction that make us look less than objective. Sure, Lance is a jackass, but that doesn't make him a doper. What makes him a doper is all the high quality evidence that Lance doesn't want to address.

 

[thirteen]

chapeau, TexPat!

your story needed telling again -- now that people are finally ready to listen.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

At one Livestrong event where he had to speak, I heard him mutter under his breath: “I hate these ****ing things.”

Funny I was at Ride for the Roses in '05, dude was not into it. Ya gotta feel bad for the folks who went on the serious note, of cancer.

 

[El Oso]

Response from Lance's camp:
Lance Armstrong Responds to Mike Anderson

You stay classy!

My favourite part might be this:

The alleged substance produces the antithesis of an endurance athlete—leads to increased muscle size and strength. According to the FDA website, the side effects include testicular atrophy and impotence. Those are risks extremely unlikely to be taken by a testicular cancer survivor. Perhaps Anderson made up his story about this substance because it was publicly the source of much conversation as Mark McGwire had been recently associated with it and the FDA had banned its sale in mid-2004.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know that we should put a lot of stock in Mike Anderson's account. First, it is largely peripheral. He claims to have found a box of andro among Armstrong's things. Otherwise, he saw and heard very little that incriminates Armstrong on the doping front. One stray comment about how everyone in cycling dopes that was allegedly made by Armstrong does not weigh very heavily.

Second, his primary beef with Armstrong is that Armstrong failed to fund a bike shop consistent with the terms of an informal email agreement that Anderson no longer possesses. Not only does this have nothing to do with doping, but it also makes Anderson look more than a little foolish. I do not think a reasonable person would reach an informal agreement to fund a bike shop with terms no more specific than "yeah, I will help you start up a shop when the time comes."

Using personality driven stuff like this against Lance is just a distraction that make us look less than objective. Sure, Lance is a jackass, but that doesn't make him a doper. What makes him a doper is all the high quality evidence that Lance doesn't want to address.

Oh, I don't know about that.

I had a recent doping conversation with a multi-time Paris-Roubaix winner, former world champion and multi-time Tour of Flanders winner who said exactly the same thing to my face.

It's very persuasive when someone admits.

 

[Merckx index]

I don't know that we should put a lot of stock in Mike Anderson's account. First, it is largely peripheral. He claims to have found a box of andro among Armstrong's things. Otherwise, he saw and heard very little that incriminates Armstrong on the doping front. One stray comment about how everyone in cycling dopes that was allegedly made by Armstrong does not weigh very heavily.

Second, his primary beef with Armstrong is that Armstrong failed to fund a bike shop consistent with the terms of an informal email agreement that Anderson no longer possesses. Not only does this have nothing to do with doping, but it also makes Anderson look more than a little foolish. I do not think a reasonable person would reach an informal agreement to fund a bike shop with terms no more specific than "yeah, I will help you start up a shop when the time comes."

Using personality driven stuff like this against Lance is just a distraction that make us look less than objective. Sure, Lance is a jackass, but that doesn't make him a doper. What makes him a doper is all the high quality evidence that Lance doesn't want to address.

I agree. To be fair to Mike, he said at the outset that all his evidence of doping was circumstantial, and that the main purpose of his article was to counteract the common perception of LA as a saint. He isn't claiming he can add significantly to the doping stories already out there.

That said, I don't know if the perception he is aiming to change actually exists. Most of the people who worship LA do so because he has inspired them to believe they can not only live but thrive with cancer. It's a very personal thing, and even if objectively LA's survival and subsequent success at racing doesn't really change anyone else's prognosis, if they feel better knowing what LA did, who is to tell them that feeling is not a positive, valuable thing? They probably wouldn't care much if someone provided irrefutable evidence that he is the world's biggest a-hole (a label LA has on more than one occasion practically pinned on himself). And just as we don't want a decision on LA's doping to be compromised by anything positive he has done outside of racing, neither do we want that decision to be influenced by anything negative.

I hope Mike has found some peace in NZ, and that Outside paid him well for the story. For me at least, his naivete in not getting the bike shop deal in writing actually enhances his credibility. He comes across as too nice of a guy, someone who is overly-generous with his time and energy, and easily taken advantage of by others. In my experience, people like that do not make up nasty things about others.

 

[benzwire]

RE: KayLow "One stray comment about how everyone in cycling dopes that was allegedly made by Armstrong does not weigh very heavily."

Oh, I don't know about that.
I had a recent doping conversation with a multi-time Paris-Roubaix winner, former world champion and multi-time Tour of Flanders winner who said exactly the same thing to my face.
It's very persuasive when someone admits.

So did Tom specify if he was talking about PEDs or blow?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Well done Mike. Maybe you should do a book.

Ya know, at one time I jokingly thought with all of Armstrong's lying that he'd be a great politician. Now I think he'd be a dangerous one.

 

[KayLow]

I agree. To be fair to Mike, he said at the outset that all he had on doping was circumstantial evidence, and that the main purpose of his story was to show that a common view of LA as some kind of saint was misguided. He isn't claiming that he can add significantly to the doping stories.

That said, i really don't know how widespread the public perception of LA as a nice guy is. The people who worship him because of his cancer work don't necessarily think of him that way. They just appreciate that he inspired them, and probably wouldn't care if someone offered irrefutable evidence that he is the world's biggest a-hole (a label that LA on more than one occasion has practically pinned on himself). So even if LA followers believed this story in its entirety (and they won't), I don't think they would change their view that his cancer work buys him so kind of immunity. And anyone else, of course, wants to hear the testimony from people who really saw something.

I hope Mike has found some peace in NZ, and that Outside paid him well for his story. To me, at least, his naivete in not getting the bike shop in writing actually enhances his credibility. He comes across to me as a too nice of a guy who is easy prey for someone to take advantage of. In my experience, people like that do not make up nasty things about others.

My impression is that Mike is telling the truth. What concerns me is that his narrative helps fill in details about Lance Armstrong's personality, which has no bearing on whether Lance doped or not. The whole strategy employed by Lance is one of misdirection. He wants the public to view allegations of his doping as some sort of personality driven contest between Team Lance and the Haters. A dispassionate and objective analysis of the facts does Lance no good at all. I feel as though Mike's story plays into the Lance Armstrong strategy even if it is true.

 

[Merckx index]

Having seen the reply by Fabiani, several things stick out:

1) Both Russey and Korioth deny Mike's story about a visit from USADA. So either Mike made that story up or both Russey and Korioth are lying, presumably as a result of pressure from LA.

2) The "Andersatan" signature doesn't sound lo me like something one would do as a joke. Unless it was an in-joke, something he had done before.

3) the nanny's testimony that long after the discover of the steroids, Mike told her he was sure LA never took PEDs. If she was not lying, the most positive spin you could put on this for Mike is that he didn't want others to know what he now strongly suspected.

Overall, it's clear that there are enough claims and counter-claims here to weaken the story. But again, it's mostly not evidence of doping, anyway.