Oh Betsy!

[laupsi]

The last paragraph is very telling indeed and echo's my sentiment, exactly!

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/02/news/opinion-betsys-word-on-lance_206336

[thwart]

Guess I'd have to agree.

[jischr]

Gee lance came in second in the Panama 70.3 Ironman. I wonder what drugs he used for that??
Like BA said," proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Lance used PEDs and that there was criminal activity". So prove it baby. That all I'm asking. I know two guys (not in cycling) who've were jailed and had their lives totally screwed even though the jury acquitted them. They were put away on heresy and prejudice.

[zmudshark]

I think Thwart would agree, some doctors are better than others.

All I hope is that LA's political aspirations are squashed. I could care less if he ever comes clean, but don't put him in a policy position for anything that may have an affect on me or my grandchildren.

[GregL]

Mrs. Andreu may well be correct in her assertions, but her rhetoric and vitriol cause many observers to completely discount her credibility. The delivery is often as important as the message.

- Greg

[peanutgallery]

unfortunately, uniball is a topic that we all treat with black and white judgement when reality is a shade o' gray. be nice if we can keep this one civil

that being said, I hate being taken for a sucker and have always tended to discount the PR spin that comes out of the Livestrong Bunker in Austin just on principle. mad respect for the Andreu's over the years, Betsy has been singing her tune since before it was popular. strong willed, something to say and Frankie has definitely paid the price. Luckily, Marty Jemison hasn't punched him yet. Frankie does love the sport and continues to make positive contributions when he could probably do something else and make more $ with a lot less hassle

give his old lady a break and just listen to where it all started
http://competitorradio.competitor.com/2007/07/152betsy-andreu/

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . be nice if we can keep this one civil

Let's try hard.

Taking my mod hat off, now . . . For my own part, I would have to seriously ask . . . What doping controls are there in professional tri?

BBD

[peanutgallery]

apparently there is no aversion to urine, that is all I know about the sport of Tri

http://www.trijuice.com/assets_c/2011/06/trirocksteeipee-thumb-200x164-1934.jpg

Let's try hard.

Taking my mod hat off, now . . . For my own part, I would have to seriously ask . . . What doping controls are there in professional tri?

BBD

[Bob Loblaw]

I am not sure Betsy is clear on what the grand jury was actually investigating. They were not after him for doping. They were after him for a whole bunch of federal charges, but not for doping. A racketeering or misuse of federal funds case is apparently fairly hard to put together.

Also, for someone who is merely the wife of a former teammate of Lance, with no credentials as an investigator and with limited contact with the pro peloton, she sure thinks she knows a lot about what went on between Lance, the UCI, and WADA, as well as behind the scenes on Novitsky's team.

I will wait and see what USADA does with whatever they get from the feds. They might have boxes of credible testimony, forensic evidence, and journals detailing Lance's history of drug use in his own hand. Or they might just have Tyler and Floyd, the serial liar's club, and Betsy Andreu who claims she (and she alone) heard something said that probably isn't admissible in court anyway.

I can't help thinking of the Salem witch trials. Drunk on power and attention, a group of teenage girls would fake seizures and act crazy to drive the hanging or burning of innocent people. I am not saying Lance is innocent, but I have yet to see a credible witness come forward.

BL

[slowgoing]

I very much appreciate hearing her perspective. She may end up the last one laughing.

Salem witch trials? A bit overly dramatic, wouldn't you say, based on your admission that you don't even know what really happened? Betsy swore to what she heard LA say to the doctor, and no one has proven her wrong (unlike the Salem witch trials where we now recognize that the women were unjustly accused). As the linked story shows, in the case involving Betsy and Franky, the sponsor paid LA the fee because there was no doping prohibition in the contract, so whether or not LA doped was irrelevant to whether he should be paid.

It is also interesting to note that in the Wikipedia description of Franky and Betsy's testimony in the case, the fact that there was no doping prohibition in the contract was conveniently omitted, making it sound like LA obtained a favorable settlement because Betsy's testimony about PEDS was shown to be untrue, which of course is not the case. Very sneaky move by the LA team, including their additional spin that the Andreus may have misunderstood what he was saying. LA may be selling snake oil, but I'm not buying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_Andreu

As for the "admissibility" of Betsy's testimony, is that even relevant to WADA and the USADA? The federal case is over so are the traditional court rules of admissibility even applicable anymore? Moreover, even if the rules did apply, I disagree with your suggestion that her testimony would not be admissible.

[MattTuck]

apparently there is no aversion to urine, that is all I know about the sport of Tri

http://www.trijuice.com/assets_c/2011/06/trirocksteeipee-thumb-200x164-1934.jpg


Those tri dudes have no respect for their machines. :beer:

[merlincustom1]

I am not sure Betsy is clear on what the grand jury was actually investigating. They were not after him for doping. They were after him for a whole bunch of federal charges, but not for doping. A racketeering or misuse of federal funds case is apparently fairly hard to put together.

Also, for someone who is merely the wife of a former teammate of Lance, with no credentials as an investigator and with limited contact with the pro peloton, she sure thinks she knows a lot about what went on between Lance, the UCI, and WADA, as well as behind the scenes on Novitsky's team.

I will wait and see what USADA does with whatever they get from the feds. They might have boxes of credible testimony, forensic evidence, and journals detailing Lance's history of drug use in his own hand. Or they might just have Tyler and Floyd, the serial liar's club, and Betsy Andreu who claims she (and she alone) heard something said that probably isn't admissible in court anyway.

I can't help thinking of the Salem witch trials. Drunk on power and attention, a group of teenage girls would fake seizures and act crazy to drive the hanging or burning of innocent people. I am not saying Lance is innocent, but I have yet to see a credible witness come forward.

BL

"Merely" the wife of a former teammate? I think that status would make her privy to all of Frankie's knowledge of what went on during those years, assuming spouses talk to each other about how their day was. Nor did I get the impression that she had pretentions of knowledge about what was going on "behind the scenes" with Novitsky's investigation. To the contrary, she specifically said in the referenced piece that Novitsky was professional, asked her for information, and didn't reveal his hand. No sane investigator would.

Nor was Betsy the "[]lone" person to testify to Lance's hospital room admission of drug use. Frankie was also there, and he testified in corroboration with his wife. Stephanie McIlvane was also there, and LeMond has her on tape saying the same thing. All of this arose in the context of the lawsuit over SCA's refusal to pay Lance the 5M bonus for winning the Tour. The Andrues didn't voluntarily testify. They were subpoenaed, and under oath. Her testimony would have been admissable under an evidentiary rule known as an "admission of a party opponent," an exception to the hearsay rule. While it is technically hearsay, since it was Lance who was said to have said it, the statement gets into evidence because Lance was a party to the suit. The case settled before trial, and SCA was forced to pay, simply on a breach of contract claim by Armstrong. Because the case turned on this issue, it is likely that the court would not have allowed any testimony about alleged drug use, not because it was hearsay, but because it was irrelevant. SCA wrote the contract; it simply said "win x number of Tours and we pay you 5 million." Because there was no escape clause ("We won't pay you 5 million if you've used drugs"), SCA saw the handwriting and ponied it up before trial.

As for Floyd and Tyler and the "liar's club," what do you expect? Professional cyclists who cheat with drugs aren't shouting about it from the rooftops, and of course 99% of them are going to lie about it, David Millar being the rare exception who caved when police found an ampoule in his house, when he could have said it belonged to his girlfriend. Systemic and pervasive drug use in cycling has owed its existence to omerta, and that's changing now, in no small part to people like Floyd and Tyler. If someone thought that Tyler and Floyd lied about their own drug use from the beginning, that seems to me to be all the more reason to believe them as they now implicate Armstrong. It's easy to say they're lying now to promote a book deal or some such nonsense, but what have they really gained to date, and what will they gain? Nothing.

As for "hard evidence," it's already out there. Lance won the 1999 prologue and failed the post-ride control for a steroid. Before signing on for the race, he was asked, as all riders were, whether he had a therapuetic use exemption for anything. He said no. Scrambling, he produced a back-dated script for a steroid, owing to a recent bout of saddle sores. Is it credible to believe he could have simply forgotten that he just used steroids to treat saddle sores, and answer the TUE question "no?" There's also the 6 positives for EPO that were found to be his when the French lab tested those samples years later when the testing for EPO was perfected. Mike Ashenden, in an interview recounted I believe in nyvelo or somewhere, had much to say about the science behind such testing, and how it was virtually impossible for such results to have been spiked by the French lab, for those prone to conspiracy theories.

I'd really like to know what George told the grand jury. It was leaked that he admitted to using both testosterone and EPO with Armstrong. CBS had this during the Tyler 60 Minutes piece. When George commented, all he said was that CBS didn't get it from him. He couldn't have known then that the Federal investigation would be later scrapped, and so couldn't have denied the truth of the statement attributed to him if it were possible that it would later be revealed were Lance to be indicted. But he could have denied its truth if he didn't say it. There was nothing in place at the time preventing witnesses from discussing their grand jury testimony. Tyler did on national TV, for example. So here's George, long time Armstrong loyalist, who is still in the sport with everything to lose if the leak is true, and yet he doesn't deny it? I think that silence speaks volumes, and it's only a matter of time before we find out what he said.

[67-59]

Betsy swore to what she heard LA say to the doctor, and no one has proven her wrong (unlike the Salem witch trials where we now recognize that the women were unjustly accused).

And no one ever will prove her wrong...because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that a statement wasn't made. That's why the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Well, at least in civilized countries....

[Jawn P]

Gee lance came in second in the Panama 70.3 Ironman. I wonder what drugs he used for that??
Like BA said," proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Lance used PEDs and that there was criminal activity". So prove it baby. That all I'm asking. I know two guys (not in cycling) who've were jailed and had their lives totally screwed even though the jury acquitted them. They were put away on heresy and prejudice.

Not confirmed by anyone extremely legitimate, but word on the street has it that the top 3 at Panama weren't tested...

http://www.irishtriathlon.com/index.php/2012/02/lance-armstrong-almost-wins-ironman-panama/

[fourflys]

unfortunately, uniball is a topic that we all treat with black and white judgement when reality is a shade o' gray. be nice if we can keep this one civil


so you insult one of the greatest cyclists of all time (whether he doped or not) and then ask us to "keep this one civil".... really?

how can you ask for respect when you don't give it?

[tiretrax]

In another post, someone suggested a statute of limitations on doping. It's too bad that LA's legacy will be continued split and strong opinions about his performance and how it was accomplished. Unfortunately, the witnesses that are public are not entirely credible, in part due to the LA pr machine and in part due to their prior statements (Tyler/Floyd).

[simple]

She needs to shut her pie-hole and move the F on.

[goonster]

merely the wife of a former teammate of Lance
Irrelevant.

She was in the room when Lance gave what might have been his deathbed medical confession.

If that were me, I wouldn't volunteer the information. But if subpoenaed, I'd tell the truth and back it up all the way.

Wouldn't you?

[slowgoing]

She needs to shut her pie-hole and move the F on.

Who let in Bobby Brown?

Just kidding of course if I crossed the line on that one. Just sounds like something I imagine he would say...

[laupsi]

yea we're running out of niceties alright. like it was stated in the last P of the BA article; those who believe will continue to do so even if LA is proven guilty of blood doping. accept this and keep out the personal attacks, on each other!

having a belief either way is not to disrespect LA, cycling or anyone on this forum. It is an opinion and everyone has at least one.

now my opinion; AC and YU both were strong competitors of LA, both were found to have doped, yet LA who repeatedly raced at or beyond their level is squeaky clean? think of all the others who were busted during that era. even BR has admitted to it.

going back to the days of and including Jaques Anquetil himself, riders have admitted to doping. LA is a genetic mutant, this is true, by that I mean he is a tremendous athlete. He has trained hard and done much in the way of preparing himself for a single point in the season to perform well during the biggest pro sports event of the year. He is not however a saint and by that I mean he is has not achieved anything beyond his innate abilities. he is special because of his makeup not because of what he made himself become.

Sure he is the cancer spokesperson, don't know the full politics beyond this one either, but and again, in my opinion, his cancer fund raising also doubled tremendously as his own personal marketing scheme.

there I said it, again only my opinion, but it's worthy simply because "I" believe it!

[BumbleBeeDave]

Not confirmed by anyone extremely legitimate, but word on the street has it that the top 3 at Panama weren't tested...

http://www.irishtriathlon.com/index.php/2012/02/lance-armstrong-almost-wins-ironman-panama/

. . . I went to the link and couldn't get past this results list . . .

Top five professional men’s results are below:
1. Bevan Docherty NZL 3:50:13
2. Lance Armstrong USA 3:50:55
3. Richie Cunningham AUS 3:52:59
4. Rasmus Henning DEN 3:53:38
5. Romain Guillaume FRA 3:54:44

Now can someone--anyone--please tell me if tri winners are automatically tested or if the controls are non-existent?

BBD

[laupsi]

It's quite obvious the Fonz was Ritchie's source :)

[Elefantino]

Betsy: "... Lance didn’t say he didn’t dope; he just reiterated he 'never tested positive' ... "

Lance: " ... I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs. ..."

Somebody's doing a Pinocchio.

[oldpotatoe]

Gee lance came in second in the Panama 70.3 Ironman. I wonder what drugs he used for that??
Like BA said," proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Lance used PEDs and that there was criminal activity". So prove it baby. That all I'm asking. I know two guys (not in cycling) who've were jailed and had their lives totally screwed even though the jury acquitted them. They were put away on heresy and prejudice.


Check where the 'random' testing there started...what place?


Yep, at 4th place. Hmmmm, the event needs money, and I don't think Tri events in general do sophisticated tests, like for EPO.

[laupsi]

Betsy: "... Lance didn’t say he didn’t dope; he just reiterated he 'never tested positive' ... "

Lance: " ... I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs. ..."

Somebody's doing a Pinocchio.

na, I have read in multiple sources a comment from LA' s camp,

"he's the most tested athlete in the world and he's never once tested positive..."

[Walter]

I am not sure Betsy is clear on what the grand jury was actually investigating. They were not after him for doping. They were after him for a whole bunch of federal charges, but not for doping. A racketeering or misuse of federal funds case is apparently fairly hard to put together.

***

BL

But the predicate act to the fraud, etc., charges was doping. Without the doping...no other charges follow.

+1 on the balance of your post. Lots of innuendo, but a paucity of admissable, credible evidence.

[kestrel]

In the article, BA mentioned how can Contador and Ulrich be guilty but the man who finished in front of them not be guilty?

Same goes for Lemond and Hinault. How many times did the two of them ride away from the world's best yet never be implicated in doping? (As lemond says, it was before doping, we'd never heard about it.... yeah, right! Tell it to T. Simpson, etc)

Cancellara, Indurain, others ????

Now, are they telling us someone has to separate training from doping. Mineral water!!!!!

Ah,,,, let's see.... Lemond/Hinault, it was training, yeah, that's it training!!!!

I've got a novel idea, why spend money policing doping in sports. Let them do it, they know what there is to gain and lose, it's a sacrifice all driven competitors made in life and sports. The best athlete wins, not the one who is or isn't on PEDs.

[54ny77]

I like turtles.

[PQJ]

Now can someone--anyone--please tell me if tri winners are automatically tested or if the controls are non-existent?


I have not (and will never) compete in triathlon, so can't say definitively one way or the other. However, I do know a very well respected masters triathlete who is rumored to be a sports pharmaceutical company's wet dream. And I can say that this person has won their age group in Kona on more than one occasion.

[Dave B]

when old news is restated people feel the need to react. Betsy says this, Lance responds like this, the peanut gallery takes a side.

I would imagine Betsy did hear something, but she has gone on to share what she heard or thinks she heard so often I bet she has convinced herself there was more and might have added something.

I think people want to think she is telling the truth. However, the actual truth will never be known and the people who were also there are supporting Lance. How could she possibly come out of this a credible witness.


Lastly, Lance was a pro athlete. he was paid very well mind you to win; so why would he be like any other pro who looks for an edge that others do not have. You are at fault if you think there wasn't some sort of assistance be it viatmins or doping products used by every athlete.

Plus, I think E-richie said it once that is isn't whether or not he did it, it is his arrogance in denying and acting like he is better then the system. He isn't going down anytime soon. The fact that any governing body is trying to get him reeks of desperation and poor management of funds.

[laupsi]

Lastly, Lance was a pro athlete. he was paid very well mind you to win; so why would he be like any other pro who looks for an edge that others do not have. You are at fault if you think there wasn't some sort of assistance be it viatmins or doping products used by every athlete.

Plus, I think E-richie said it once that is isn't whether or not he did it, it is his arrogance in denying and acting like he is better then the system. He isn't going down anytime soon. The fact that any governing body is trying to get him reeks of desperation and poor management of funds.

+1 ...and the President has "spoken", thank you!

[RonW87]

In the article, BA mentioned how can Contador and Ulrich be guilty but the man who finished in front of them not be guilty?

Same goes for Lemond and Hinault. How many times did the two of them ride away from the world's best yet never be implicated in doping? (As lemond says, it was before doping, we'd never heard about it.... yeah, right! Tell it to T. Simpson, etc)

This doesn't hold up. Pre- and post- EPO were completely different eras, with completely different impacts on the racers (I'm not saying Lemond et al doped, I'm saying that the dopers in that era did not have the huge performance gains that the EPO users had).

R.

[bobswire]

If someone started a thread about a cycling personality you'd least want to meet and share a beer with Betsy would be at the top of my list, I could just imagine the titillating conversation.

[PQJ]

This doesn't hold up. Pre- and post- EPO were completely different eras, with completely different impacts on the racers (I'm not saying Lemond et al doped, I'm saying that the dopers in that era did not have the huge performance gains that the EPO users had).

R.

Exactly. For hard evidence, one need look no further than this: 7 straight Tour de France victories against probably the most doped-up peloton in history. In fact, the "Armstrong Machine" (of which Livestrong was and is an essential part) was probably so well financed and sophisticated, with access to the best of the best in every respect, to the point where those 7 were, in hindsight, inevitable. As number 8 probably would have been. That same machine continues to make a mockery of us all to this day. It is clear that nobody against whom he raced or otherwise was up against stood a chance and the losers find themselves getting screwed to this day.

[Dave B]

Exactly. For hard evidence, one need look no further than this: 7 straight Tour de France victories against probably the most doped-up peloton in history. In fact, the "Armstrong Machine" (of which Livestrong was and is an essential part) was probably so well financed and sophisticated, with access to the best of the best in every respect, to the point where those 7 were, in hindsight, inevitable. As number 8 probably would have been. That same machine continues to make a mockery of us all to this day. It is clear that nobody against whom he raced or otherwise was up against stood a chance and the losers find themselves getting screwed to this day.


Not going to disagree here, but there were some decent team tactics involved as well. Sure doping could have been rampant, but JB knew how to control the peleton and most sat on and watched what Lance Co. were going to do and follow them. Lance and JB were very skilled at convincing people that they were inferior.

I say amalgam of everything contributed to 7 wins and his legacy.

[PQJ]

Not going to disagree here, but there were some decent team tactics involved as well. Sure doping could have been rampant, but JB knew how to control the peleton and most sat on and watched what Lance Co. were going to do and follow them. Lance and JB were very skilled at convincing people that they were inferior.

I say amalgam of everything contributed to 7 wins and his legacy.

No question he had a great team, great super domestiques, great domestiques, great DS, great soigneurs, etc. In my mind, the "machine" was all-encompassing, from the medical professionals advising him on what to take/how to take/how to evade, to the finance professionals arranging for it and everything else to be paid for, to the marketing professionals figuring out how best to leverage his image and deal with the accusations, to the racing team supporting him, to the man himself, putting in the work to get it done, to the legal team defending him, etc. etc.

[sg8357]

I like turtles.

I miss Tugboat.

[DreaminJohn]

Exactly. For hard evidence, one need look no further than this: 7 straight Tour de France victories against probably the most doped-up peloton in history. In fact, the "Armstrong Machine" (of which Livestrong was and is an essential part) was probably so well financed and sophisticated, with access to the best of the best in every respect, to the point where those 7 were, in hindsight, inevitable. As number 8 probably would have been. That same machine continues to make a mockery of us all to this day. It is clear that nobody against whom he raced or otherwise was up against stood a chance and the losers find themselves getting screwed to this day.

I respect that fact that you're "all-in" on the conspiracy. There is probably some truth there. But imho not as much as you're saying.

The following is ATMO:

Back in the day during a personal rough patch, LA inspired me to get off my a$$ and on my bike. At the time I had no idea about the rampant doping in the pro peloton and completely bought into the, "What am I on? I'm on my bike." campaign. I am sure Lance inspired many, many others in different ways.

Yes, there are those folks whose collective heads are in the sand since "the most tested" has never "tested positive". I'm not one of those. But a part of me wishes he would just come clean. Forgiveness is waiting in my house.

So now I know what I know about doping. Does this diminish LA's accomplishments? Of COURSE (and here's the atmo part) but not totally. There's part of me that will never forget the inspiration he provided, even under this cloud in which said accomplishments live.

And like Mr Prez (welcome back, btw) I really like e-richie's take on this.

[Dave B]

I respect that fact that you're "all-in" on the conspiracy. There is probably some truth there. But imho not as much as you're saying.

The following is ATMO:

Back in the day during a personal rough patch, LA inspired me to get off my a$$ and on my bike. At the time I had no idea about the rampant doping in the pro peloton and completely bought into the, "What am I on? I'm on my bike." campaign. I am sure Lance inspired many, many others in different ways.

Yes, there are those folks whose collective heads are in the sand since "the most tested" has never "tested positive". I'm not one of those. But a part of me wishes he would just come clean. Forgiveness is waiting in my house.

So now I know what I know about doping. Does this diminish LA's accomplishments? Of COURSE (and here's the atmo part) but not totally. There's part of me that will never forget the inspiration he provided, even under this cloud in which said accomplishments live.

And like Mr Prez (welcome back, btw) I really like e-richie's take on this.


I am fascinated why people want him to come clean. What is there to gain by knowngin for sure? The people who truly benefitted form him; business partners, Livestrong employees, cancer survivors, teammates, et al. don't lose out the money they made. I am sure he has motivated many to domore or be more.

I think the people who want him to admit it don't really gain much other then an "I told you so" to someone they know. I admit I loved him in the beginning. Motivated me to ride, made me want to donate to Livestorng, which i did in all sorts of ways. To tell you the truth I could care less if he admits it or not. I gain nothing from it and don't need to be right in any of these arguments.


ps. I am always here bay-bee! Just on a different kind of bike. :banana:

[Earl Gray]

I am fascinated why people want him to come clean. What is there to gain by knowngin for sure? The people who truly benefitted form him; business partners, Livestrong employees, cancer survivors, teammates, et al. don't lose out the money they made. I am sure he has motivated many to domore or be more.

I think the people who want him to admit it don't really gain much other then an "I told you so" to someone they know. I admit I loved him in the beginning. Motivated me to ride, made me want to donate to Livestorng, which i did in all sorts of ways. To tell you the truth I could care less if he admits it or not. I gain nothing from it and don't need to be right in any of these arguments.


ps. I am always here bay-bee! Just on a different kind of bike. :banana:

+1000

There is ZERO benefit to him for coming clean. The longer he can put it off the less it will matter and ATMO it doesn't matter now.

I respect him for being smart enought to not be caught.

This witch hunt to prove retired cyclist doped is mind boggling. Makes the powers to be look like asshats. Focus on today.

[laupsi]

+1000

There is ZERO benefit to him for coming clean. The longer he can put it off the less it will matter and ATMO it doesn't matter now.

I respect him for being smart enought to not be caught.

This witch hunt to prove retired cyclist doped is mind boggling. Makes the powers to be look like asshats. Focus on today.

we're on very thin ice if we apply this line of thought outward and onward. could it be argued, because LA helped to inspire others he should be exhonorated? (given he did dope) this argument is just too simple and incomprehensive for me to accept as a save all.

[kestrel]

This doesn't hold up. Pre- and post- EPO were completely different eras, with completely different impacts on the racers (I'm not saying Lemond et al doped, I'm saying that the dopers in that era did not have the huge performance gains that the EPO users had).

R.

Precisely, so if lemond and hinault trained harder and that's why they were so far superior to the peloton then who's to say Armstrong didn't train smarter also?

[PQJ]

Precisely, so if lemond and hinault trained harder and that's why they were so far superior to the peloton then who's to say Armstrong didn't train smarter also?

Armstrong was better than his competition (already super-doped and themselves part of well-financed outfits) by an order of magnitude that isn't the case with Lemond/Hinault versus theirs.

[kestrel]

Armstrong was better than his competition (already super-doped and themselves part of well-financed outfits) by an order of magnitude that isn't the case with Lemond/Hinault versus theirs.

By that logic, lemond/hinault had more dominant swings in performance, which might build a case for selective doping, while Armstrong was consistently at the top of his game while being the most tested athlete on the planet.
(FWIW, I believe they all doped in one form or another.)

[PQJ]

By that logic, lemond/hinault had more dominant swings in performance, which might build a case for selective doping, while Armstrong was consistently at the top of his game while being the most tested athlete on the planet.
(FWIW, I believe they all doped in one form or another.)

1. Yes, could have been selective doping. Given that chemical performance enhancement has been an essential part of professional cycling for well over half a century, I think it is reasonable to conclude that every single winner of the Tour (save, perhaps, Cadel) has been on something.

2. The "most tested athlete ever" spiel is marketing hype, not fact.

Edit: all doping is 'selective' in one form or another, no?

[Elefantino]

I respect him for being smart enought to not be caught.
That's what people in the 30s said about John Dillinger.

Hope this one turns out better in the end.

To tell you the truth I could care less if he admits it or not. I gain nothing from it and don't need to be right in any of these arguments.
Dwight, your words could pretty much hold true for anything said anytime on any Internet forum, anywhere.

[67-59]

This witch hunt to prove retired cyclist doped is mind boggling. Makes the powers to be look like asshats. Focus on today.

+1

[christian]

2. The "most tested athlete ever" spiel is marketing hype, not fact.Right. Michael Phelps has been tested more than three times as often as Lance.

The most tested US cyclist with the last name Armstrong is Kristin Armstrong (no relation), who won the 2008 Olympic ITT.

[oldguy00]

She needs to shut her pie-hole and move the F on.

+1.

I believe everything she has said, and don't care. Everyone knows Lance used drugs. So did the rest of pro cycling. Get over it.
For those of you now suggesting he doped at Panama because he wasn't tested, get a life..

[laupsi]

+1.

I believe everything she has said, and don't care. Everyone knows Lance used drugs. So did the rest of pro cycling. Get over it.
For those of you now suggesting he doped at Panama because he wasn't tested, get a life..

is this true?

[firerescuefin]

[QUOTE=Earl Gray]

I respect him for being smart enought to not be caught.

[QUOTE]

There's a credibility killer.

I think he's an arrogant prick, and a bully that is willing to destroy people to shut them up....and frankly I don't like people like that, especially when they have the power to do what they set out to do. I have got to know quite a few people in an around the pro tour, and the nicest thing I have ever heard regarding Lance is..."Lance is who he is".

It's a titanic waste of money to attempt to chase this down. The best thing for the sport is for Lance to go away and sell Mich Ultra to the tri-geeks and make sure your local sporting good store doesn't run out of Livestrong CORP fitness apparell, yoga mats, and treadmills.

[PQJ]

No, not true. Just the other day I was having a 'discussion' with a fellow (non-cyclist) who fervently believes in Armstrong's innocence and fundamental godliness. After all, "he's the most tested athlete ever and has never been positive" (that's a direct quote).

[BumbleBeeDave]

I think he an arrogant prick, and a bully that is willing to destroy people to shut them up....and frankly I don't like people like that, especially when they have the power to do what they set out to do. I have got to know quite a few people in an around the pro tour, and the nicest thing I have ever heard regarding Lance is..."Lance is who he is".

My feelings have always been centered on this, not the doping--though I do feel at this point it's pretty well a certainty that he did. I was proud when he won in 99, but in the ensuing years I have seen so many incidents where his character has been exposed as that of a bully, from the chasing down of Simeoni in the Tour to the belittling of Paul Kimmage at the ToCA press conference and many othe small incidents that build an impression of his character over time.

Regardless of doping or not, to me Lance is the perfectly fit guy who parks his corvette sidways in the handicapped space and tells you to eff off if you say anything to him about it. Arrogance personified and a pretty clear attitude that the rules apply to the rest of us, not to him.

BBD

[Mark McM]

No, not true. Just the other day I was having a 'discussion' with a fellow (non-cyclist) who fervently believes in Armstrong's innocence and fundamental godliness. After all, "he's the most tested athlete ever and has never been positive" (that's a direct quote).


Armstrong's claim that he never had a positive test reminds me a lot of the scene in the move 'Stripes', in which the Bill Murray and Harold Ramus characters are being interviewd by an Army recruiter:



Recruiter: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor? That's robbery, rape, car theft, that sort of thing."

John Winger: "Convicted? No."

Russell Ziskey: "Never convicted."


(The similary is that Armstrong has had several documented positive test results, but never been sanctioned for doping.)

[AgilisMerlin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aivp9P4znA

[kestrel]

1. Yes, could have been selective doping. Given that chemical performance enhancement has been an essential part of professional cycling for well over half a century, I think it is reasonable to conclude that every single winner of the Tour (save, perhaps, Cadel) has been on something.

2. The "most tested athlete ever" spiel is marketing hype, not fact.

Edit: all doping is 'selective' in one form or another, no?


Okay, I'll give you number 2. Better to have said in the eyes of the governing bodies he's never been penalized for a test result as others have.
He may well have been the most tested athlete on the planet...... nothing about how many tests were positive or negative right?

I'll also give you the semantics of your "edit". But, I think you understood the meaning of my comment. Maybe I should have used intermittent or occasional, or stragetic.

[PQJ]

Okay, I'll give you number 2. Better to have said in the eyes of the governing bodies he's never been penalized for a test result as others have.
He may well have been the most tested athlete on the planet...... nothing about how many tests were positive or negative right?

I'll also give you the semantics of your "edit". But, I think you understood the meaning of my comment. Maybe I should have used intermittent or occasional, or stragetic.

No semantic games being played or intended. It just occurred to me, after the fact, that I don't understand what 'selective doping' is - you either dope, or you don't. But I did understand your point. (Me, I never exhaled, but that's an entirely different story :)).

If the interwebs are to be believed, then, no, in absolute terms (ie, number of tests subjected to, irrespective of result), he isn't the most tested athlete on the planet or even, as others have said, the most tested cyclist with the last name 'Armstrong.'

[Earl Gray]

we're on very thin ice if we apply this line of thought outward and onward. could it be argued, because LA helped to inspire others he should be exhonorated? (given he did dope) this argument is just too simple and incomprehensive for me to accept as a save all.

My opinion that it doesn't matter has nothing to do with anything LA has done off the bike. I don't think it matters if Jan, Floyd, Tyler or even Lemond doped.

Just like I don't care if actors/authors/directors/musicians get high. I assume some porn stars take illegally obtained Viagra.

Quite a few actors having taking steroids or other drugs in preparation for a role.

It all just entertainment and part of the game.

[Earl Gray]

......
I think he's an arrogant prick, and a bully that is willing to destroy people to shut them up....and frankly I don't like people like that, especially when they have the power to do what they set out to do. I have got to know quite a few people in an around the pro tour, and the nicest thing I have ever heard regarding Lance is..."Lance is who he is".




I could say the same thing about you and back it up by saying I've heard a few people from the forum say it.

My level of knowledge would be about the same as yours.

[firerescuefin]

My opinion that it doesn't matter has nothing to do with anything LA has done off the bike. I don't think it matters if Jan, Floyd, Tyler or even Lemond doped.

Just like I don't care if actors/authors/directors/musicians get high. I assume some porn stars take illegally obtained Viagra.

Quite a few actors having taking steroids or other drugs in preparation for a role.

It all just entertainment and part of the game.

So you "respect him because he didn't get caught"...and equate pro-tour riders to musicians on coke and porn stars on Viagra....all with a vigarous thumbs up....."Stay Classy San Diego" :rolleyes:

[BumbleBeeDave]

I could say the same thing about you and back it up by saying I've heard a few people from the forum say it.

My level of knowledge would be about the same as yours.

I doubt any of us have actually met Lance. But under that logic, every opinion expressed here is equally viable if we are all just interpreting what we have heard or seen told about him.

BBD

[firerescuefin]

I could say the same thing about you and back it up by saying I've heard a few people from the forum say it.

My level of knowledge would be about the same as yours.


I'll politely disagree. I think your comments on this matter speak for themselves.

[laupsi]

My opinion that it doesn't matter has nothing to do with anything LA has done off the bike. I don't think it matters if Jan, Floyd, Tyler or even Lemond doped.

Just like I don't care if actors/authors/directors/musicians get high. I assume some porn stars take illegally obtained Viagra.

Quite a few actors having taking steroids or other drugs in preparation for a role.

It all just entertainment and part of the game.

if the TDF were a "staged" race where the eventual outcome prior to the start of each year's tour was known then perhaps it would be the same. I think we can all agree this is not the case though is it?

also, remember we all have opinions, please keep things civil, thanks :no:

[PQJ]

I could say the same thing about you and back it up by saying I've heard a few people from the forum say it.

My level of knowledge would be about the same as yours.

Except that we have all seen and heard - actually seen and heard - Lance's arrogant prickishness.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . to get through the first week without any locked threads. Amazing!

Could everyone please take a deep breath, count to ten, and continue to discuss this subject in a civil manner so we could possibly make it to TWO weeks?

Thanks . . .

BBD

[peanutgallery]

time for a musical interlude with a double meaning,

I Believe in Miracles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1VczvVrD_I&feature=related)


. . . to get through the first week without any locked threads. Amazing!

Could everyone please take a deep breath, count to ten, and continue to discuss this subject in a civil manner so we could possibly make it to TWO weeks?

Thanks . . .

BBD

[oldpotatoe]

+1.

I believe everything she has said, and don't care. Everyone knows Lance used drugs. So did the rest of pro cycling. Get over it.
For those of you now suggesting he doped at Panama because he wasn't tested, get a life..


I won't GAS when he decides to stop competing and standing on podiums.

He still has a doctor(doctors) on his staff, they aren't there for for hangnails or athlete's foot.

[54ny77]

Oh come on, we all know that if Lance has an "event" lasting longer than 4 hours, he consults doctors immediately. :banana:

[laupsi]

Oh come on, we all know that if Lance has an "event" lasting longer than 4 hours, he consults doctors immediately. :banana:

If it lasts more than 4 hours I'm calling everybody

[jischr]

i love the "we all know" fragments through out the thread. If we all knew Lance doped he would be behind bars. Since we all knew doesn't that make us accessories to the crime, or as I prefer the alleged crime.

All I know is that during lance's tdf years that was pretty much all he focused on. If I recall Liggett made a comment that Lance practiced going up alpe d'huez like six times in all kinds of weather in the months before the time trial was held. He was absolutely fixed on his goal and surrounded himself with people that could help him win the race. And he was/is an athletic animal. I think the competition made their living at bicycle racing and had to race more often. Lance was obsessed with winning at least 5 tours. In my fairyland state of mind the doping, if done, comes in a distant fourth or fifth to those other factors. It's not like the French stopped testing him after the first 3 tour wins.

[kestrel]

Right. Michael Phelps has been tested more than three times as often as Lance.

The most tested US cyclist with the last name Armstrong is Kristin Armstrong (no relation), who won the 2008 Olympic ITT.


If you are using USADA, they claim L. Armstrong has been tested 58 times in his entire career. Another site claims he was tested 28 times from mid 2008 to mid 2009. That would leave only 30 tests for the remainder of his long professional career. Something fishy about those numbers. If he was only tested for his TDF stage wins there were 22 tests over the 8 years.

Quick research shows USADA numbers only reflect USADA testing, no other organization.

[benner]

After all this time, this topic still gets _so much_ discussion. I just can't believe it matters so much to people.

[harryblack]

Q: how embittered is this woman (politely-- to Paceline, not Andreu-- refraining from personality-not-gender based invective)?

of all the wrongs in the country, and the world, THIS is the **** that eats her up inside?

Hard to believe even anti-Lance fanatics (he's 100% guilty of everything except pulling the trigger in the Texas Schoolbook Depository that day November 1963 and even there were not 100% sure he's innocent) are still bothering with this.

What's the obsession?

Granted, I think Joe Papp should be in prison but he was a bigger jerk-- with no compensating economic benefit-- than even the worst stories of hothead Lance.

The last paragraph is very telling indeed and echo's my sentiment, exactly!

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/02/news/opinion-betsys-word-on-lance_206336

[harryblack]

I hope you don't use an Apple product or ride a Specialized... Guilty of the first here, not the second tho' I once had a Rockhopper c. 1987 that didn't suck.

I lived in Austin for years and heard lots of Lance stories before and after the cancer; he respects and his nice to achievers. (He's a lot nicer now, all that cancer work isn't fake even if you question it). Ask people how 'nice' Michael Jordan was to players.

[QUOTE=Earl Gray]

I respect him for being smart enought to not be caught.

[QUOTE]

There's a credibility killer.

I think he's an arrogant prick, and a bully that is willing to destroy people to shut them up....and frankly I don't like people like that, especially when they have the power to do what they set out to do. I have got to know quite a few people in an around the pro tour, and the nicest thing I have ever heard regarding Lance is..."Lance is who he is".

It's a titanic waste of money to attempt to chase this down. The best thing for the sport is for Lance to go away and sell Mich Ultra to the tri-geeks and make sure your local sporting good store doesn't run out of Livestrong CORP fitness apparell, yoga mats, and treadmills.

[firerescuefin]

I hope you don't use an Apple product or ride a Specialized... Guilty of the first here, not the second tho' I once had a Rockhopper c. 1987 that didn't suck.

I lived in Austin for years and heard lots of Lance stories before and after the cancer; he respects and his nice to achievers. (He's a lot nicer now, all that cancer work isn't fake even if you question it). Ask people how 'nice' Michael Jordan was to players.

[QUOTE=firerescuefin][QUOTE=Earl Gray]

I respect him for being smart enought to not be caught.

My last post on this (at least this thread). Have no idea what your Apple or Specialized reference means in the context of Lance's ethics in SPORT (not business) and his ethics/moral compass in relation to the way he treated those he came into contact with (team members/staff/other riders/etc) within cycling.

Jordan had a reputation as an incredibly intense athlete, not a guy that if he didn't like a trainer or journalist, or player on the end of the bench, would do everything in his power to freeze the guy out of the league. Huge difference.

FWIW, I believed the fairy tale...had the books, etc. Then I learned a whole lot more about the sport and got to know personally quite a few folks within the sport ....from a variety of backgrounds who had worked with Lance at some point. Most shared a similar theme...Lance thinks people (riders, staff, media) are assets for him to exploit...and are expendable...and if he feels threatened by you, you're done...as in you're done with the sport (to the best of his ability). Never, once, did I here....yeah he's intense, but he's a great teammate...or yeah, he's a tough guy to work for, but he's incredibly loyal and in him, you've got a friend for life.

I don't believe there is an altruistic bone in his body at this point. Now if others are inspired (which they are), and fight the good fight based on their perception of the amazing things he's accomplished...thats' awesome.

I find the relationship between Livestrong Corp and Livestrong Org uncomfortable for my tastes. I was at Dicks Sporting Goods 3 weeks ago and a guy was looking at a Livestrong elliptical machine. I asked him if I could ask him a question...he said "sure"...I said, how much of the profit from the machine did he think went to Livestrong (the foundation)...and did it make him feel good buying the product. He said, "most of the profit goes to the org...right...I mean after expenses"...and said yeah, he liked that he was helping out. This guy represents the majority IMO, and that bothers me.

Lastly...yes, incredible athlete, best of the dopers, blah blah blah...but that's never what he claimed to be. He created the persona of most tested, didn't do drugs, and leveraged it.

Don't tell me you watched the Science of Lance Armstrong 6 years ago and try to make a legitimate case of how he's never doped....or Bob Roll once said....There's a lot of people whose grasp of exercise science, cycling, and physiology far exceeds the infomercial you may have watched.

have a good day :)

[Dave B]

[QUOTE=harryblack]I hope you don't use an Apple product or ride a Specialized... Guilty of the first here, not the second tho' I once had a Rockhopper c. 1987 that didn't suck.

I lived in Austin for years and heard lots of Lance stories before and after the cancer; he respects and his nice to achievers. (He's a lot nicer now, all that cancer work isn't fake even if you question it). Ask people how 'nice' Michael Jordan was to players.

[QUOTE=firerescuefin]

My last post on this (at least this thread). Have no idea what your Apple or Specialized reference means in the context of Lance's ethics in SPORT (not business) and his ethics/moral compass in relation to the way he treated those he came into contact with (team members/staff/other riders/etc) within cycling.

Jordan had a reputation as an incredibly intense athlete, not a guy that if he didn't like a trainer or journalist, or player on the end of the bench, would do everything in his power to freeze the guy out of the league. Huge difference.

FWIW, I believed the fairy tale...had the books, etc. Then I learned a whole lot more about the sport and got to know personally quite a few folks within the sport ....from a variety of backgrounds who had worked with Lance at some point. Most shared a similar theme...Lance thinks people (riders, staff, media) are assets for him to exploit...and are expendable...and if he feels threatened by you, you're done...as in you're done with the sport (to the best of his ability). Never, once, did I here....yeah he's intense, but he's a great teammate...or yeah, he's a tough guy to work for, but he's incredibly loyal and in him, you've got a friend for life.

I don't believe there is an altruistic bone in his body at this point. Now if others are inspired (which they are), and fight the good fight based on their perception of the amazing things he's accomplished...thats' awesome.

I find the relationship between Livestrong Corp and Livestrong Org uncomfortable for my tastes. I was at Dicks Sporting Goods 3 weeks ago and a guy was looking at a Livestrong elliptical machine. I asked him if I could ask him a question...he said "sure"...I said, how much of the profit from the machine did he think went to Livestrong (the foundation)...and did it make him feel good buying the product. He said, "most of the profit goes to the org...right...I mean after expenses"...and said yeah, he liked that he was helping out. This guy represents the majority IMO, and that bothers me.

Lastly...yes, incredible athlete, best of the dopers, blah blah blah...but that's never what he claimed to be. He created the persona of most tested, didn't do drugs, and leveraged it.

Don't tell me you watched the Science of Lance Armstrong 6 years ago and try to make a legitimate case of how he's never doped....or Bob Roll once said....There's a lot of people whose grasp of exercise science, cycling, and physiology far exceeds the infomercial you may have watched.

have a good day :)


Once again I feel like i could have written that. Perfect.

However, i do show my kids the Science of Lance... I like the engineering aspect and want to show my students how science doesn't always mean lab coats and test tubes.

:banana:

[93legendti]

Betsy had her day in the arbitration and was so persuasive, that Lance got over 100 cents on the dollar-$7.5 million on a $5 million claim.

Lance trained harder and prepared better than anyone else. Ulrich lost the 2003 TdF when, instead of pre-riding the final tt course in the rain-as Lance did, he stayed in the hotel. Ulrich crashed and lost.

Whether or not Lance is nice doesn't matter to me-that is until they start awarding miss congeniality awards in the TdF.

Until then, viva Lance and the TdF.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Betsy had her day in the arbitration and was so persuasive, that Lance got over 100 cents on the dollar-$7.5 million on a $5 million claim.

Lance trained harder and prepared better than anyone else. Ulrich lost the 2003 TdF when, instead of pre-riding the final tt course in the rain-as Lance did, he stayed in the hotel. Ulrich crashed and lost.

Whether or not Lance is nice doesn't matter to me-that is until they start awarding miss congeniality awards in the TdF.

Until then, viva Lance and the TdF.

http://charactercounts.org/sixpillars.html

As far as I'm concerned LA is missing quite a few pillars.

The Livestrong.org vs. .com thing also very much rubs me the wrong way. Is it legal? Well, yeah . . . but it's obviously disingenuous and hiding behind semantics to mislead the general public into helping LA make a lot of money.

BBD

[cdimattio]

I guess I do not understand the vitrol for Betsy Andreu. Perhaps peripheral, but she was present for a near deathbed confession about PED use.

Her compelled testimony under oath was corroborated by two other persons present in the same room. All accounts suggest both her and her husband were reluctant to testify.

Her and her husband have paid a very high personal price for their testimony. Part of the system, but they ended up as victims of ‘friendly fire.’ It is pretty understandable why she might become more vocal and outspoken over time. She certainly has my empathy.

Athletes are always looking for a competitive edge whether it be equipment, pine tar, training methods or drugs. It is ridiculous to expect anyone to ‘come clean’ prior to being caught and convicted. In this particular situation, aside from carefully crafted spin and character defamation I am not sure there are any substantive and definitive direct denials under oath by the accused.

I am personally troubled by the many financial morality issues around Livestrong, but money corrupts. That is just part of life. Drug allegations do not bother me.

The fact that the Lance fairy tale continues to inspire people is a wonderful thing.

[Fixed]

Gee lance came in second in the Panama 70.3 Ironman. I wonder what drugs he used for that??
Like BA said," proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Lance used PEDs and that there was criminal activity". So prove it baby. That all I'm asking. I know two guys (not in cycling) who've were jailed and had their lives totally screwed even though the jury acquitted them. They were put away on heresy and prejudice.
he was iron-kids national champ in the 80's
the kid had talent
cheers

[slowgoing]

Betsy had her day in the arbitration and was so persuasive, that Lance got over 100 cents on the dollar-$7.5 million on a $5 million claim.

Same old LA drivel and spin. Read my comments above. There was no doping prohibition in the contract to allow the sponsor to withhold payment on the basis of LA's doping, so her testimony was irrelevant to the merits of the case. The same result should have occurred if her testimony was deemed 100% persuasive. Besides, it was a settlement, not an abritration award, and the arbitrator most certainly did not clear LA of doping.

[laupsi]

I guess I do not understand the vitrol for Betsy Andreu. Perhaps peripheral, but she was present for a near deathbed confession about PED use.

Her compelled testimony under oath was corroborated by two other persons present in the same room. All accounts suggest both her and her husband were reluctant to testify.

Her and her husband have paid a very high personal price for their testimony. Part of the system, but they ended up as victims of ‘friendly fire.’ It is pretty understandable why she might become more vocal and outspoken over time. She certainly has my empathy.

Athletes are always looking for a competitive edge whether it be equipment, pine tar, training methods or drugs. It is ridiculous to expect anyone to ‘come clean’ prior to being caught and convicted. In this particular situation, aside from carefully crafted spin and character defamation I am not sure there are any substantive and definitive direct denials under oath by the accused.

I am personally troubled by the many financial morality issues around Livestrong, but money corrupts. That is just part of life. Drug allegations do not bother me.

The fact that the Lance fairy tale continues to inspire people is a wonderful thing.

very well expressed, thanks! :)

[Idris Icabod]

I find the relationship between Livestrong Corp and Livestrong Org uncomfortable for my tastes. I was at Dicks Sporting Goods 3 weeks ago and a guy was looking at a Livestrong elliptical machine. I asked him if I could ask him a question...he said "sure"...I said, how much of the profit from the machine did he think went to Livestrong (the foundation)...and did it make him feel good buying the product. He said, "most of the profit goes to the org...right...I mean after expenses"...and said yeah, he liked that he was helping out. This guy represents the majority IMO, and that bothers me.


How much of the cost does go to cancer advocacy?

[93legendti]

Same old LA drivel and spin. Read my comments above. There was no doping prohibition in the contract to allow the sponsor to withhold payment on the basis of LA's doping, so her testimony was irrelevant to the merits of the case. The same result should have occurred if her testimony was deemed 100% persuasive. Besides, it was a settlement, not an abritration award, and the arbitrator most certainly did not clear LA of doping.
Sorry. I stated facts. You, on the other hand, are spinning.
I've never heard of a settlement where a plaintiff settled for 1.5x what he asked for- but I've only been a lawyer for 26 years... :rolleyes:

In the arbitration, SCA argued it didn't owe the money because Armstrong cheated to win it. Such a defense, if proven, would have been an absolute defense against any money owed.


'The case involving all this sworn testimony grew out of a lawsuit Armstrong filed in 2004. He sued a company, called SCA, that had promised in a contract to pay Armstrong a $5 million bonus if he won his sixth straight Tour de France in 2004. He did win, but SCA withheld the bonus after new doping allegations against Armstrong surfaced that same year. A panel of arbitrators ultimately ruled in Armstrong's favor. SCA was forced to pay the $5 million bonus, plus $2.5 million more. SCA contends it lost because the bonus contract was poorly written, and not because SCA failed to prove Armstrong had cheated by using banned substances.

But Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman says the outcome had everything to do with doping. "Had they concluded that Lance Armstrong had cheated, we would not be in possession of a $7.5 million award," said Herman. "The issue, and the proof related to Armstrong's use or non-use of performance-enhancing drugs was the controlling issue in the case."'

http://www.npr.org/tablet/#story/?storyId=5508863

"The Andreus' allegation was not supported by any of the eight other people present, including Armstrong's doctor Craig Nichols,[98] or his medical history? According to Greg LeMond (who has been embroiled with his own disputes with Armstrong), he (LeMond) had a recorded conversation,[99] the transcript of which was reviewed by National Public Radio, with Stephanie McIlvain (Armstrong's contact at Oakley Inc.) in which she said of Armstrong's alleged admission 'You know, I was in that room. I heard it.' However, McIlvain has contradicted LeMond allegations on the issue and denied under oath that the incident in question ever occurred in her sworn testimony.[96]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

"The L.A. Times' article provides a review of the disputed positive EPO test, allegations and sworn testimony against Armstrong, but notes that: "They are filled with conflicting testimony, hearsay and circumstantial evidence admissible in arbitration hearings but questionable in more formal legal proceedings."[103]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

[PQJ]

At this point, I think we are ALL spinnning. Which is one reason why it would be nice if Lance came clean...er...went undirty.

[firerescuefin]

How much of the cost does go to cancer advocacy?

Johnson Health Tech, Taiwanese company, 3rd largest fitness product company in the world (Builds the stuff/owns the naming rights) donates 4 million a year to Livestrong foundation and a small additional percentage per unit sold after that.

[Fixed]

betsy don't kiss and tell
imho cheers

[harryblack]

re: whomever said LA is "ruthless" as reason to dislike...

Apple is ruthless and makes interesting products; Specialized is ruthless and makes a lot of junk... Have you voted for a Democrat or Republic presidential candidate?

Do you watch or otherwise support professional sports than include franchises who rape the idea of good governance by bribing their way to public financed stadiums? Etc etc from the life and death matters to the most mundane.

re: "ruthless," what was it about "secret" grand jury testimony some of you didn't understand, yet GLOATED when it "convicted" LA?

I have no dog in the fight, in fact, but I am a real prick for due process and hypocrisy, which MOST of those who go mad dog on LA are rather guilty of themselves.

[572cv]

........I have no dog in the fight, in fact, but I am a real prick for due process ........

+1

All of us are imperfect. All of our societies are imperfect. The concept of due process is one of the very best imperfect ideas anyone ever had. It has even improved over time. I am thankful for it.

[firerescuefin]

I am a real prick for due process and hypocrisy, which MOST of those who go mad dog on LA are rather guilty of themselves.

Always enjoy the "cast the first stone" card

FWIW, I root against bad guys of all sorts, but have a special place in my heart for those that go out of the way to discredit/slander/attempt to ruin the lives of people that are "in their way" and use something as horrific, personal, and far reaching as Cancer to put money in their pocket.....Call me a hypocrite.

[PQJ]

+1

All of us are imperfect. All of our societies are imperfect. The concept of due process is one of the very best imperfect ideas anyone ever had. It has even improved over time. I am thankful for it.

Thread drift, but you should read this article as it relates to American due process (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=2). Interesting stuff, at least to me.

[slowgoing]

Sorry. I stated facts. You, on the other hand, are spinning.
I've never heard of a settlement where a plaintiff settled for 1.5x what he asked for- but I've only been a lawyer for 26 years... :rolleyes:

You’re practically spun a whole wardrobe with that post.

First, sensational as your accusation sounds, LA didn’t collect 1.5 times what he was asking for. $5 million was due under the terms of the contract but LA was actually asking for much more. For example, he was also seeking attorneys’ fees and interest, no doubt under the terms of the contract. Moreover, the arbitrators ruled that SCA was acting as an insurer, which exposed it to bad faith treble damages of up to $15 million (three times the unpaid contract amount) (http://veloptimum.net/Velop/dope/Armstrong/6/LATimes9juil.html). So saying that LA received 1.5 times what he was asking for ($7.5 million compared to the $5 million due under the contract), and conveniently leaving out the additional $10 million in treble damages LA was seeking, plus attorneys’ fees and interest that were already another half of the $5 million contract amount, is misleading at best.

Second, the case settled before a final arbitration award. However, the arbitrator did issue an interim ruling finding that doping issues were irrelevant.
“The arbitrator decreed the contract had no stipulations about doping per se, rendering most of the testimony moot including the Andreus, and thus ruling in favor of Armstrong and Tailwind Sports, owners of the US Postal Service cycling team.” http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/02/news/opinion-betsys-word-on-lance_206336

“Armstrong has often pointed to that case as proof that the allegations leveled by Walsh and then embraced by Hamman were completely disproven. That may or may not be true, but the case wasn’t decided on the basis of the panel’s view of the accuracy of the testimony. It was decided as a contracts case. In other words, the panel simply found that the original agreement between SCA and Tailwind lacked a provision that specifically barred payment in the event the recipient was shown to have cheated.” http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/news/the-explainer-new-old-and-updated-allegations_156198

In view of the arbitrator’s ruling, LA’s lawyer's statement stating that the case had everything to do with doping is unadulterated spin. It certainly is not an accurate portrayal of the arbitrator's ruling. The only fact that would support your position is an arbitrator’s ruling concluding that LA didn’t dope. If you can find that, please provide us with a link (p.s. - you’ll be looking a long time because there isn’t any).

[BBB]

Sorry. I stated facts. You, on the other hand, are spinning.
I've never heard of a settlement where a plaintiff settled for 1.5x what he asked for- but I've only been a lawyer for 26 years... :rolleyes:



Hilarious. I think you'll find that the arbitrator made a ruling or award where he found that SCA was acting as an insurer under whatever US state law applied. This potentially exposed SCA to three times the $5 million Armstrong was seeking. Hence SCA cut its losses and settled for $7.5m or half its potential exposure.

Importantly, no findings were made on the doping point.

[93legendti]

Well it is a fantastic position to argue that:

1. The arbitrators allowed 9 witnesses to testify as to an irrelevant issue.
2. SCA exposed itself to an award of $15 million in damages (plus fees and costs) on a $5 million claim where, as you claim, SCA had no defenses.
3. SCA would expose itself to $15 million in damages; pay $7.5 million to Lance, including $2.5 million and fees and costs AND pay its own lawyers (presumably another $2.5 million) with no defenses.

On the other hand, one can still worship at the alter of "Lance is evil" AND believe Betsy has no credibility.

"The L.A. Times' article provides a review of the disputed positive EPO test, allegations and sworn testimony against Armstrong, but notes that: "They are filled with conflicting testimony, hearsay and circumstantial evidence admissible in arbitration hearings but questionable in more formal legal proceedings."[103]"

I've made no comments on the issue of "Lance doped" in this thread.

You don't have to prove absolutely that which you don't have to prove positively.

[93legendti]

http://charactercounts.org/sixpillars.html

As far as I'm concerned LA is missing quite a few pillars.

The Livestrong.org vs. .com thing also very much rubs me the wrong way. Is it legal? Well, yeah . . . but it's obviously disingenuous and hiding behind semantics to mislead the general public into helping LA make a lot of money.

BBD
Character does count, but not for a podium finish in the TdF, which was my point.

[slowgoing]

Well it is a fantastic position to argue that:

1. The arbitrators allowed 9 witnesses to testify as to an irrelevant issue.
2. SCA exposed itself to an award of $15 million in damages (plus fees and costs) on a $5 million claim where, as you claim, SCA had no defenses.
3. SCA would expose itself to $15 million in damages; pay $7.5 million to Lance, including $2.5 million and fees and costs AND pay its own lawyers (presumably another $2.5 million) with no defenses.

The way I understood it, and anyone is free to correct me if I am wrong, is that many issues were undecided at the time of the hearing where the witnesses and evidence came in, but after the hearing the arbitrators ruled that the doping issue was irrelevant and that SCA was acting as an insurer and exposed itself to treble damages. Only then did SCA realize it was facing greater liability and the doping defense wouldn't work even if proven, prompting a quick settlement. Makes sense to me.

[BBB]

The way I understood it, and anyone is free to correct me if I am wrong, is that many issues were undecided at the time of the hearing where the witnesses and evidence came in, but after the hearing the arbitrators ruled that the doping issue was irrelevant and that SCA was acting as an insurer and exposed itself to treble damages. Only then did SCA realize it was facing greater liability and the doping defense wouldn't work even if proven, prompting a quick settlement. Makes sense to me.

This my understanding of what happened.

[Earl Gray]

The way I understood it, and anyone is free to correct me if I am wrong, is that many issues were undecided at the time of the hearing where the witnesses and evidence came in, but after the hearing the arbitrators ruled that the doping issue was irrelevant and that SCA was acting as an insurer and exposed itself to treble damages. Only then did SCA realize it was facing greater liability and the doping defense wouldn't work even if proven, prompting a quick settlement. Makes sense to me.

So does this all prove LA did dope, didn't dope or does it prove nothing? I've lost track.

[indyrider]

So does this all prove LA did dope, didn't dope or does it prove nothing? I've lost track.


Yeah enough of the lawyer mumbo gumbo, and lets get to the dopestrong of it

[slowgoing]

So does this all prove LA did dope, didn't dope or does it prove nothing? I've lost track.

Ah, something for Cliff Notes fans:

Proves nothing except that there was no ruling on whether or not he doped. It is all still a bunch of "she [Betsy] said he [LA] said while he said he never said," so you can still believe whatever you want about the underlying doping testimony.

So when LA says after the settlement that “It's over. We won. They lost. I was yet again completely vindicated," he’s right as to being owed the $5M and fees and interest, but he was not vindicated on the doping issues - there was no ruling on doping by the arbitrators.

[indyrider]

Tks for the abbrev version. Why dont we shut this f*cker down til the next go 'round...

[maxdog]

Thread drift, but you should read this article as it relates to American due process (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=2). Interesting stuff, at least to me.

Very interesting read, thanks for the link.

[MRB]

Betsy swore to what she heard LA say to the doctor, and no one has proven her wrong ...
That's the problem with all of these allegations. And they are just allegations. So many have sworn their oath, only to later recanted their story that a person's word (or sworn oath even) doesn't carry the weight that it should.
Actions speak louder than words. In the court of public opinion, the results of the Panama hT add merit to his testimony. That's how I see it anyhow.

[slowgoing]

That's the problem with all of these allegations. And they are just allegations. So many have sworn their oath, only to later recanted their story that a person's word (or sworn oath even) doesn't carry the weight that it should.
Actions speak louder than words. In the court of public opinion, the results of the Panama hT add merit to his testimony. That's how I see it anyhow.

fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion about what to believe. I just have a problem when someone suggests that Betsy had to have lied or LA didn't dope just because CSA paid him to settle the case, when the truth is that the merits of the doping issues were not decided.

[PQJ]

So does this all prove LA did dope, didn't dope or does it prove nothing? I've lost track.

We don't need lawyers, lawsuits, judgments, settlements, federal investigations, scientists, spouses, teammates and other miscellaneous groupies to know he doped. There is no way he couldn't or wouldn't have.

[laupsi]

We don't need lawyers, lawsuits, judgments, settlements, federal investigations, scientists, spouses, teammates and other miscellaneous groupies to know he doped. There is no way he couldn't or wouldn't have.


+++++++1

Don't think those who agree w/the above are all pessimists. It's just that throughout professional cycling history most if not all "great cyclists" have admitted to have taken something at some point in their careers. Most if not all have agreed that the sport is simply too demanding to have not taken "something". If these cycling "greats" have not admitted to "artificial assistance" then they have simply ignored the subject all together and have not fueled the flames w/in the debate; leaving much doubt in my mind as to their innocence quite frankly.

I think at issue and what brings out people's emotions either way is the attitude w/which LA has displayed throughout his career. Yea, yea we all know about his fatherless upbringing but that card is so overplayed it's almost pathetic. LA shows no maturity what so ever, he is extremely gifted, has what most would consider a "dream" life and still acts like the bully in the corner that no one understands. Some humility, not actually admitting to having doped, (because he didn't, right?) , but simply some humility on his part showing he understands why others think he may have doped would go a long way to quell this discussion. It would also show he is not above the mores, mostly respect for others, the rest of us practice. Perhaps this change in attitude if displayed would put more in his corner and in the corner of "so what he doped, let's move on..."

W/out it though I cannot let it go; the man is flawed not because I think he doped, really I could care less. He is flawed because he puts his trousers on the same way we all do and you know what, despite his innate or genetic physical abilities he is no better than the rest of us, he only thinks he is!

[Bob Loblaw]

Maybe part of the reason he's a gazziolionaire with seven TdF victories under his belt is the fact that yes, he believes he is better, and has that kill everyone, never show weakness, never give up, win at all costs attitude. Lance is more abrasive, but a lot of great individual competitors have the same character. Merckx. Hinault. Cavendish. Contador. Cipolini. Jordan. Woods. Ali.

I wouldn't want him as a drinking buddy, but you have to admire a carnivore who takes it to that degree.

I hope we don't have to wait two more years for a USADA investigation, although Lance is such a polarizing figure that there are bound to be plenty of folks who's opinions won't change regardless of the decision.

I have said it before: They hated Merckx too. He was villified by the press. He was un-invited to at least one grand tour. There were death threats. He was assaulted by fans.

In time we're going to wonder why we were all so eager to crucify Lance, and yep, we're going to miss him too, and the glory days when there was only ever one guy in yellow and he was one of ours.

BL



W/out it though I cannot let it go; the man is flawed not because I think he doped, really I could care less. He is flawed because he puts his trousers on the same way we all do and you know what, despite his innate or genetic physical abilities he is no better than the rest of us, he only thinks he is!

[Fixed]

we all know the lance story
raised by a single mother
in a house trailer
his mom is often overlooked
no wonder he likes woman who resemble her.
cheers :beer:

[William]

I'm reminded of the Twitter message I got from Lance ....

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=805434&postcount=29



Though I can still not vouch for it's authenticity. ;)






William

[Earl Gray]

....
, despite his innate or genetic physical abilities he is no better than the rest of us, he only thinks he is!

So Lance things that because he won 7 TDF's he is better than you.


You think that since Lance thinks he is better than you that you are better then him.

Since I don't know the difference between "then" and "than" someone else is sure to think they are better thaen me.

[laupsi]

So Lance things that because he won 7 TDF's he is better than you.


You think that since Lance thinks he is better than you that you are better then him.

Since I don't know the difference between "then" and "than" someone else is sure to think they are better thaen me.

don't know why he thinks he's better than everyone else, I just think he thinks it by the way he behaves. you don't???

I've met other pro athletes, read many biographies too and cannot remember many, perhaps Ty Cobb, Serena Williams, Barry Bonds to name a few who were so defiant and arrogant.

Don't think I am "better" than LA, how did you interpret that?, I am certainly better adjusted and more mature thank you very much. I will also add LA lacks a certain amount of "moral luck". Can I say he is "morally unlucky"?

Given his position in life I cannot imagine what his world must be like and what it must take to cope w/all the attention. That said, he's brought on much of that attention on his own, despite winning 7 tours and being a cancer survivor. Which is what my point has been all along.

[Fixed]

i am reading a book and part of it is about what is real and what we think is real .
all men are created equal is an example
cheers

[laupsi]

all men are created equal is an example
cheers

only at certian corresponding times in our various lives, but it's during these times when it matters most

[djdj]

Just a thought about Betsy. She met with and cooperated with the investigators, she was willing to testify before the grand jury (and, if she wasn't willing, could have been subpoenaed to testify). So, why do you think they didn't call her to testify to help secure an indictment? My guess is that even they did not find her to be credible.

[PQJ]

Just a thought about Betsy. She met with and cooperated with the investigators, she was willing to testify before the grand jury (and, if she wasn't willing, could have been subpoenaed to testify). So, why do you think they didn't call her to testify to help secure an indictment? My guess is that even they did not find her to be credible.

Betsy wasn't a credible witness that Lance defrauded the American public, or Betsy wasn't a credible witness that Lance admitted to his doctor taking PEDs?

Piecing through the puzzle, Lance hasn't not been indicted because of a lack of evidence that he doped.

Edited to add: common law fraud has 9 elements, one of which is damages suffered by the plaintiff. From a financial perspective, USPS' sponsorship of USPSCycling was probably a success. On that basis alone, even if the prosecution could have proven all the other elements, they likely couldn't prove the damages one. Result: no indictment, notwithstanding massive, coordinated, well funded, well researched and brilliantly concealed doping.

[1centaur]

I'm guessing her testimony would have added nothing to what they already had - "I heard him say he doped" is not as powerful as "I saw him dope," to the extent that was germane to the indictment they were seeking.

[the bottle ride]

"Merely" the wife of a former teammate? I think that status would make her privy to all of Frankie's knowledge of what went on during those years, assuming spouses talk to each other about how their day was. Nor did I get the impression that she had pretentions of knowledge about what was going on "behind the scenes" with Novitsky's investigation. To the contrary, she specifically said in the referenced piece that Novitsky was professional, asked her for information, and didn't reveal his hand. No sane investigator would.

Nor was Betsy the "[]lone" person to testify to Lance's hospital room admission of drug use. Frankie was also there, and he testified in corroboration with his wife. Stephanie McIlvane was also there, and LeMond has her on tape saying the same thing. All of this arose in the context of the lawsuit over SCA's refusal to pay Lance the 5M bonus for winning the Tour. The Andrues didn't voluntarily testify. They were subpoenaed, and under oath. Her testimony would have been admissable under an evidentiary rule known as an "admission of a party opponent," an exception to the hearsay rule. While it is technically hearsay, since it was Lance who was said to have said it, the statement gets into evidence because Lance was a party to the suit. The case settled before trial, and SCA was forced to pay, simply on a breach of contract claim by Armstrong. Because the case turned on this issue, it is likely that the court would not have allowed any testimony about alleged drug use, not because it was hearsay, but because it was irrelevant. SCA wrote the contract; it simply said "win x number of Tours and we pay you 5 million." Because there was no escape clause ("We won't pay you 5 million if you've used drugs"), SCA saw the handwriting and ponied it up before trial.

As for Floyd and Tyler and the "liar's club," what do you expect? Professional cyclists who cheat with drugs aren't shouting about it from the rooftops, and of course 99% of them are going to lie about it, David Millar being the rare exception who caved when police found an ampoule in his house, when he could have said it belonged to his girlfriend. Systemic and pervasive drug use in cycling has owed its existence to omerta, and that's changing now, in no small part to people like Floyd and Tyler. If someone thought that Tyler and Floyd lied about their own drug use from the beginning, that seems to me to be all the more reason to believe them as they now implicate Armstrong. It's easy to say they're lying now to promote a book deal or some such nonsense, but what have they really gained to date, and what will they gain? Nothing.

As for "hard evidence," it's already out there. Lance won the 1999 prologue and failed the post-ride control for a steroid. Before signing on for the race, he was asked, as all riders were, whether he had a therapuetic use exemption for anything. He said no. Scrambling, he produced a back-dated script for a steroid, owing to a recent bout of saddle sores. Is it credible to believe he could have simply forgotten that he just used steroids to treat saddle sores, and answer the TUE question "no?" There's also the 6 positives for EPO that were found to be his when the French lab tested those samples years later when the testing for EPO was perfected. Mike Ashenden, in an interview recounted I believe in nyvelo or somewhere, had much to say about the science behind such testing, and how it was virtually impossible for such results to have been spiked by the French lab, for those prone to conspiracy theories.

I'd really like to know what George told the grand jury. It was leaked that he admitted to using both testosterone and EPO with Armstrong. CBS had this during the Tyler 60 Minutes piece. When George commented, all he said was that CBS didn't get it from him. He couldn't have known then that the Federal investigation would be later scrapped, and so couldn't have denied the truth of the statement attributed to him if it were possible that it would later be revealed were Lance to be indicted. But he could have denied its truth if he didn't say it. There was nothing in place at the time preventing witnesses from discussing their grand jury testimony. Tyler did on national TV, for example. So here's George, long time Armstrong loyalist, who is still in the sport with everything to lose if the leak is true, and yet he doesn't deny it? I think that silence speaks volumes, and it's only a matter of time before we find out what he said.

Plus 1.
There are a bunch of folks who really stuck their neck out to tell the truth- and in some case those people lost jobs, money, companies etc.

The truth owes it to them to come out.

I am fan of the Lance the cancer man- you can ask me off line about how he/foundation has helped in my house hold and that of a friends health issue: that part is great.

Lance the athlete on the other hand is not a role model the sport needs.

The same thing with anyone who employs Carmichaels training systems- he doped kids that he was charged with taking care of!! How can you put money in his pockets? It is disgusting.

[slowgoing]

Just a thought about Betsy. She met with and cooperated with the investigators, she was willing to testify before the grand jury (and, if she wasn't willing, could have been subpoenaed to testify). So, why do you think they didn't call her to testify to help secure an indictment? My guess is that even they did not find her to be credible.

My guess – They already had her testimony from the CSA case to put before the grand jury. They interviewed her to see if she had anything else to add that was helpful to the prosecution. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. If she did, they could have still called her before the grand jury.

[Earl Gray]

...how did you interpret that?, I am certainly better.....

Just a lucky guess.

[laupsi]

Just a lucky guess.

if by "better" you meant happier, than yea, I guess I am.