# Frankie Andreu



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0


According this article, he was on the Motorola team at the very beginning of doping. He was one of the initiators. He doped during the Tour in 99. His wife caught him, and was mad as hell. He doped for at least 6 years, and let it happen under his watch for a few more years. I'm under no illusion that he did it because "he wanted to tell the truth."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0
> 
> 
> According this article, he was on the Motorola team at the very beginning of doping. He was one of the initiators. He doped during the Tour in 99. His wife caught him, and was mad as hell. He doped for at least 6 years, and let it happen under his watch for a few more years. I'm under no illusion that he did it because "he wanted to tell the truth."


Reading is not your strong point is it? How do you read "he took EPO for only a few races" and come up with the "he doped for 6 years" line?


----------



## Stumpjumper FSR (Aug 6, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Reading is not your strong point is it? How do you read "he took EPO for only a few races" and come up with the "he doped for 6 years" line?


*Performance Enhancing Drug use* 
In an interview with the New York Times in September 2006, Andreu admitted that he had taken EPO to help prepare for the 1999 Tour de France.[4] Andreu said he was introduced to Performance-enhancing drugs in 1995 while he was riding for Motorola.[5]

Frankie Andreu gave more details in his September 2012 USADA affidavit declaring he used EPO in 1998 as he traveled preparing for the 1999 Tour. Andreu declared he knowingly received EPO injections in 1999 after races by the USPS Team doctor, Dr. del Moral. In 1999 immediately after the Tour de France, his wife Betsy, found a thermos with EPO in their refrigerator. Betsy questioned Andreu about the drugs and was very upset. In a signed affidavit to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Frankie Andreu testified he responded to his wife by saying, "You don't understand. This is the only way I can keep up in the Tour."

Andreu continued to ride strongly for the USPS Team in 2000, and continuing as the assistant director of the USPS team in both 2001 and 2002. [6]

1995 through 2000 = 5 years


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Reading is not your strong point is it? How do you read "he took EPO for only a few races" and come up with the "he doped for 6 years" line?



Don't be naive. The whole team looked into it in 95. He clearly doped in 98 in preparation for the 99 tour. He clearly doped in the 99 tour. He clearly knew about it and most likely participated in the following years. He worked for the team afterwards, and still knew about it. So if by a few times, means a few years, then yes, it may have been a few times. When, if, he heard Armstrong tell tell his doctors about the doping in 96, he was clearly not caught off guard like his wife since he was already an active participant/enabler.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I find the defense of Andreu interesting. On one hand, he helped build up the Lance monster, but he's an ok guy because he also tried to destroy it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Don't be naive. The whole team looked into it in 95. He clearly doped in 98 in preparation for the 99 tour. He clearly doped in the 99 tour. He clearly knew about it and most likely participated in the following years. He worked for the team afterwards, and still knew about it. So if by a few times, means a few years, then yes, it may have been a few times. When, if, he heard Armstrong tell tell his doctors about the doping in 96, he was clearly not caught off guard like his wife since he was already an active participant/enabler.


He clearly did not participate in the team program. He got the EPO in his own. When Frankie made it clear he would not work with Ferrari or take EPO he was left off the Tour team, not paid his bonus, and fired from the team.

Your attempt to paint Frankie as some junkie has failed. Read Tyler's book, he says that Frankie was always against it and was kept out of the know because of it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Stumpjumper FSR said:


> *Performance Enhancing Drug use*
> In an interview with the New York Times in September 2006, Andreu admitted that he had taken EPO to help prepare for the 1999 Tour de France.[4] Andreu said he was introduced to Performance-enhancing drugs in 1995 while he was riding for Motorola.[5]
> 
> Frankie Andreu gave more details in his September 2012 USADA affidavit declaring he used EPO in 1998 as he traveled preparing for the 1999 Tour. Andreu declared he knowingly received EPO injections in 1999 after races by the USPS Team doctor, Dr. del Moral. In 1999 immediately after the Tour de France, his wife Betsy, found a thermos with EPO in their refrigerator. Betsy questioned Andreu about the drugs and was very upset. In a signed affidavit to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Frankie Andreu testified he responded to his wife by saying, "You don't understand. This is the only way I can keep up in the Tour."
> ...


Frankie first used EPO in 1996. He purchased himself in Switzerland. He last used it in July 1999. 

3 years, less then a handful of times.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Did he get cut because he didn't take EPO or because he was unable to meet the level of performance that was expected at that time? If he was able to perform at an expected level would he realistically be cut just because he refused to be a druggie? Think about it for a second. In the end, the only thing that matters to these guys is winning. If you could achieve an acceptable level on performance on licorice and met-rx bars what would it matter.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> He clearly did not participate in the team program. He got the EPO in his own. When Frankie made it clear he would not work with Ferrari or take EPO he was left off the Tour team, not paid his bonus, and fired from the team.
> 
> Your attempt to paint Frankie as some junkie has failed. Read Tyler's book, he says that Frankie was always against it and was kept out of the know because of it.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Frankie first used EPO in 1996. He purchased himself in Switzerland. He last used it in July 1999.
> 
> 3 years, less then a handful of times.


Ha! Your defense of a doper is noted.

It is abundantly clear that he was involved in the team wide doping from 1995-2002, both as a rider and director. He "rode strongly" in 2000, so it is very safe to assume he was still at it.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Frankie first used EPO in 1996. He purchased himself in Switzerland. He last used it in July 1999.
> 
> 3 years, less then a handful of times.


What did he have for breakfast this morning?


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

spade2you said:


> What did he have for breakfast this morning?


Whatever Betsy allows him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Ha! Your defense of a doper is noted.
> 
> It is abundantly clear that he was involved in the team wide doping from 1995-2002, both as a rider and director. He "rode strongly" in 2000, so it is very safe to assume he was still at it.


If it was abundantly clear then you should be able to produce something that refutes his, Tylers, and JV's claim that he wasn't. 

The only thing safe to assume is you are trolling


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Robert1 said:


> Did he get cut because he didn't take EPO or because he was unable to meet the level of performance that was expected at that time? If he was able to perform at an expected level would he realistically be cut just because he refused to be a druggie? Think about it for a second. In the end, the only thing that matters to these guys is winning. If you could achieve an acceptable level on performance on licorice and met-rx bars what would it matter.


He was cut because he would not work with Ferrari and get on the team program. 

Frankie is one of the most astute readers of a race in the sport. He was the road captain for several Tours. They realized it was a mistake after they let him go as they did not have anyone who could fill that position. Lance sent several e-mails asking him to return....Frankie said no because he knew there would be more pressure to dope


----------



## Stumpjumper FSR (Aug 6, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Frankie first used EPO in 1996. He purchased himself in Switzerland. He last used it in July 1999.
> 
> 3 years, less then a handful of times.


I stand corrected, he first used in 1996...he's still a doper


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If it was abundantly clear then you should be able to produce something that refutes his, Tylers, and JV's claim that he wasn't.
> 
> The only thing safe to assume is you are trolling



.....and everyone quit doping in 2005-2006.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If it was abundantly clear then you should be able to produce something that refutes his, Tylers, and JV's claim that he wasn't.
> 
> The only thing safe to assume is you are trolling



It sure appears that way, doesn't it?


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He was cut because he would not work with Ferrari and get on the team program.
> 
> Frankie is one of the most astute readers of a race in the sport. He was the road captain for several Tours. They realized it was a mistake after they let him go as they did not have anyone who could fill that position. Lance sent several e-mails asking him to return....Frankie said no because he knew there would be more pressure to dope


Lance was a great bike racer as well, but he was still a doper surrounded by domestiques who were doping. For YEARS Frankie was on the "in" with what was going on. That's quite some time. I'm sure his ethics weren't getting the best of him while they were winning.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

cda 455 said:


> It sure appears that way, doesn't it?


Hey now. I'm still trying to figure out why some dopers have become saints when the facts speak contrary to the images portrayed.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

88 rex said:


> Hey now. I'm still trying to figure out why some dopers have become saints when the facts speak contrary to the images portrayed.


I'll make it simple. Frankie is a saint because he was the first rider in Armstrong's circle to answer truthfully when a reported asked the direct question, "Did you dope?" even though he never tested positive and there was no evidence showing he did. All the while knowing what it would mean to his career in cycling.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

It's pretty obvious isn't. The amount of hate for a doper is directly proportional to the level of success they achieved as a result of their doping. It's really the success (under false pretense) that people despise. This is certainly understandable. In some ways many people are jealous of success and when it is achieved in any way by not following the rules that gives every reason to crucify. People love to see crash and burn. But when you think about it. The motivation for all dopers is the same--it's to achieve success. Just because some of them will still be losers, from an ethical perspective it doesn't change their incentive and motivation from the the ones that became successful. I can certainly see and understand why LA is handed a more severe punishment then someone less successful--he profited much more, enjoyed all of the spoils that came with his success, and had a much greater impact on others through his cheating. His personality hasn't helped him much either. However, for the life of me, I'll never understand the hypocrisy in defending one doper and condemning another. Just because someone admits to premeditated murder it doesn't absolve them of their crimes. Why is a doper that confesses OK? Wasn't his motive at the time the same, to achieve success?



88 rex said:


> Hey now. I'm still trying to figure out why some dopers have become saints when the facts speak contrary to the images portrayed.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

asgelle said:


> I'll make it simple. Frankie is a saint because he was the first rider in Armstrong's circle to answer truthfully when a reported asked the direct question, "Did you dope?" even though he never tested positive and there was no evidence showing he did. All the while knowing what it would mean to his career in cycling.


"In 2006, Andreu and his wife Betsy testified that Lance Armstrong told cancer doctors in their presence in 1996 he had doped with EPO (Erythropoietin), growth hormone and steroids. The Andreus' testimony was intended to remain sealed in court documents and is among thousands of pages of documents related to litigation between Armstrong and a Texas-based company that was attempting to withhold a $5-million bonus. Armstrong swore under oath it didn't happen. Frankie Andreu never offered information to media sources on the topic until court documents were released. He then stood by his testimony when giving interviews.[7]"

Frankie Andreu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds more like he was under oath and then couldn't refute it.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Robert1 said:


> It's pretty obvious isn't. The amount of hate for a doper is directly proportional to the level of success they achieved as a result of their doping. It's really the success (under false pretense) that people despise. This is certainly understandable. In some ways many people are jealous of success and when it is achieved in any way by not following the rules that gives every reason to crucify. People love to see crash and burn. But when you think about it. The motivation for all dopers is the same--it's to achieve success. Just because some of them will still be losers, from an ethical perspective it doesn't change their incentive and motivation from the the ones that became successful. I can certainly see and understand why LA is handed a more severe punishment then someone less successful--he profited much more, enjoyed all of the spoils that came with his success, and had a much greater impact on others through his cheating. His personality hasn't helped him much either. However, for the life of me, I'll never understand the hypocrisy in defending one doper and condemning another. Just because someone admits to premeditated murder it doesn't absolve them of their crimes. Why is a doper that confesses OK? Wasn't his motive at the time the same, to achieve success?


Doping and murder are very different.

The difference between a "saintly doper" and "devil doper" is that the saint will turn and testify against the devil. It doesn't absolve them of their doping infraction, but it certainly does make them a lot more palatable than someone like Lance.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Robert1 said:


> It's pretty obvious isn't. The amount of hate for a doper is directly proportional to the level of success they achieved as a result of their doping. ...


So many words. I have just four: Richard Virenque, Marco Pantani


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

88 rex said:


> "In 2006, Andreu and his wife Betsy testified that Lance ...


That's a nice story, but what does it have to do with Frankie admitting to doping?


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes they are, but you understand my point though no? Confessing and ratting to save your own ass does not change their original intent. And as far as I'm concerned ratting to save your own ass is not necessarily a noble trait or one that makes someone all of a sudden likable. It's completely self serving.




robdamanii said:


> Doping and murder are very different.
> 
> The difference between a "saintly doper" and "devil doper" is that the saint will turn and testify against the devil. It doesn't absolve them of their doping infraction, but it certainly does make them a lot more palatable than someone like Lance.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Robert1 said:


> And as far as I'm concerned ratting to save your own ass is not necessarily a noble trait or one that makes someone all of a sudden likable. It's completely self serving.


And what has that to do with Frankie Andreu? Is this a deliberate misdirection or are you just ignorant of the facts?


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

If you've read the last few post in this chain you'd understand this comment. It wasn't my intention to imply Franky ratted to save his own ass as many of the other dopers did. It was a general comment related to the level of hate a doper gets. Sorry if that's what you took from that. However, if you think about it what what certainly could have been one of his motivations, with his wife going after LA so relentlessly, he almost had to confess, because if it came out later they would look like some of the biggest hypocrites in cycling.



asgelle said:


> And what has that to do with Frankie Andreu? Is this a deliberate misdirection or are you just ignorant of the facts?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Robert1 said:


> ... with his wife going after LA so relentlessly, ...


Another 1984, bizarro world interpretation. Since when is defending yourself going after someone relentlessly?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Robert1 said:


> Yes they are, but you understand my point though no? Confessing and ratting to save your own ass does not change their original intent. And as far as I'm concerned ratting to save your own ass is not necessarily a noble trait or one that makes someone all of a sudden likable. It's completely self serving.


Hell of a lot more noble trying to make a difference as opposed to trying to ruin everyone who challenges you.

But then again, it doesn't matter to you. He's your idol, right?


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

FWIW, and before I get labeled a doping hater, Frankie is alright by me. I don't think any of these guys are saints, and I see the sport for the entertainment that it is. Lance is OK with me too. He's just a doper, a more douchey doper, but in the grand scheme a doper. Just like the rest of his team. It's just quarreling amongst cheats. 

Betsy is crazy though.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Hell of a lot more noble trying to make a difference as opposed to trying to ruin everyone who challenges you.
> 
> But then again, it doesn't matter to you. He's your idol, right?


The irony being that of all the people involved, Lance just might be the individual who has the ability to make a true positive impact on the sport. He knows a lot, has the money to fight whomever, and has the celebrity status to make his voice heard. If he changes his tune and commits himself to cleaning the sport, would he be your idol?


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Correctly me if I'm wrong but didn't she go after him for his doping? Or was that in defense of him being a ******** first?



asgelle said:


> Another 1984, bizarro world interpretation. Since when is defending yourself going after someone relentlessly?


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

88 rex said:


> Betsy is crazy though.


This!


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Personally, I'm all for truth and reconciliation. Threads like this is why. It can be pretty hard to divine intent. Some riders are clearly anti-doping. Some are serial cheats. 

But it seems like many, many others fall in the middle. Did they dope under a lot of pressure? Were they grown men who made their own choices? Did they gain perspective as they got older and come to feel shame and regret about their past actions? 

I say have truth and reconciliation. Give reduced bans or suspended bans for giving useful information to WADA. Try and move on from the past. Anyone caught again after having gotten amnesty gets a lifetime ban. 

I don't care if Frankie is a Saint. (He's likely not). But it does make me sad that he and his wife were compelled to testify truthfully under oath and paid for it. Well, at least Lance didn't call her fat.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Robert1 said:


> Correctly me if I'm wrong but didn't she go after him for his doping? Or was that in defense of him being a ******** first?


She went after him for what he did to Frankie's career: I.E. tried everything in his power to destroy it.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> She went after him for what he did to Frankie's career: I.E. tried everything in his power to destroy it.


She went after him before that blaming him for her husbands doping. Because apparently it was Lances fault that Frankie doped

That's like when a guys wife cheats on him and the husband goes and tries to kill the other man.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> She went after him for what he did to Frankie's career: I.E. tried everything in his power to destroy it.


Yea, but Frankie is handling this a whole lot better than she is, and it's his career we are talking about. 

Andreu Q&A: Armstrong took a big step after spiraling out of control


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Nope not at all. Not sure where you got that. Let me spell it all out for you though. The point is Frankie is not an idle to me. To be honest. I have no idles in my life and never really understood the whole idea of sports idles and sports worship of any kind. It's kind of weird if you ask me. But then again, maybe I'm just weird.



robdamanii said:


> Hell of a lot more noble trying to make a difference as opposed to trying to ruin everyone who challenges you.
> 
> But then again, it doesn't matter to you. He's your idol, right?


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

> +1



88 rex said:


> FWIW, and before I get labeled a doping hater, Frankie is alright by me. I don't think any of these guys are saints, and I see the sport for the entertainment that it is. Lance is OK with me too. He's just a doper, a more douchey doper, but in the grand scheme a doper. Just like the rest of his team. It's just quarreling amongst cheats.
> 
> Betsy is crazy though.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Robert1 said:


> Correctly me if I'm wrong but didn't she go after him for his doping? Or was that in defense of him being a ******** first?


Shouldn't you know the facts before making these allegations?

You're wrong. After word of what she and Frankie said in their SCA deposition, Armstrong and his PR machine were relentless in trying to discredit them by calling them every name in the book. Betsy only spoke publicly to refute the false allegations created by Armstrong and his camp. Can you give one example where Betsy Andreu took the initiative to say or publish anything about Armstrong? Lacking that, it's hard to describe her as "going after."


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Robert1 said:


> Nope not at all. Not sure where you got that. Let me spell it all out for you though. The point is Frankie is not an idle to me. To be honest. I have no idles in my life and never really understood the whole idea of sports idles and sports worship of any kind. It's kind of weird if you ask me. But then again, maybe I'm just weird.


It's easy to figure, since you've been vocal in your apologetic opinion of Pharmstrong. In reality, there's no forgiving ANYTHING he's done, and there's nothing redeeming about him.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Robert1 said:


> To be honest. I have no idles in my life ...


I like to be idle Sunday afternoons. If I can get 2:00-5:00, I'm happy.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

asgelle said:


> I like to be idle Sunday afternoons. If I can get 2:00-5:00, I'm happy.


Yeah, I caught that too.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

What were they trying do discredit if not her allegations of his doping? They just attacked her because he didn't like her? What???



asgelle said:


> Shouldn't you know the facts before making these allegations?
> 
> You're wrong. After word of what she and Frankie said in their SCA deposition, Armstrong and his PR machine were relentless in trying to discredit them by calling them every name in the book. Betsy only spoke publicly to refute the false allegations created by Armstrong and his camp. Can you give one example where Betsy Andreu took the initiative to say or publish anything about Armstrong? Lacking that, it's hard to describe her as "going after."


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

asgelle said:


> .........relentless in trying to discredit them by calling them every name in the book........



Except fat. He never called her fat.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Rob with all due respect I think you have a very skewed view. Those that don't have an ardent and bitter hate for LA are somehow lovers of LA. It's just not that way. It's really just not that personal to me.



robdamanii said:


> It's easy to figure, since you've been vocal in your apologetic opinion of Pharmstrong. In reality, there's no forgiving ANYTHING he's done, and there's nothing redeeming about him.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Yeah let me correct that for you then "idols". You got the point, no?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Robert1 said:


> What were they trying do discredit if not her allegations of his doping? They just attacked her because he didn't like her? What???


So are you clueless, on the payroll, or a troll? (don't bother to answer, that's what's known as a rhetorical question.)


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

88 rex said:


> Lance was a great bike racer as well, but he was still a doper surrounded by domestiques who were doping. For YEARS Frankie was on the "in" with what was going on. That's quite some time. I'm sure his ethics weren't getting the best of him while they were winning.


So this is the new tactic? It LA was bad, everyone else was just as bad or worse? Pathetic.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Robert1 said:


> Rob with all due respect I think you have a very skewed view. Those that don't have an ardent and bitter hate for LA are somehow lovers of LA. It's just not that way. It's really just not that personal to me.


There's nothing skewed. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution. Apologizing for or marginalizing how big a slimeball Pharmstrong is only contributes to the problem. He must be taken to task, held accountable and his influence removed from the sport, along with anyone he collaborated with.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

My guess is that he will probably end up testifying to USADA and bring down a lot of names as well as elaborating on details. Otherwise what was the point of the Oprah interview at all? He's opened himself up to all kinds of suits and no one believe hardly much of what he said was genuine anyway. I would not be surprised to learn that he and Tygart had discussions on what would be required of him to lessen his life time suspension. The interview is just the first step. It's pretty clear that the only motivation for any of his confessions is to reduce his life time ban. So the ones that collaborated with him not yet outed just may be in the future. 



robdamanii said:


> There's nothing skewed. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution. Apologizing for or marginalizing how big a slimeball Pharmstrong is only contributes to the problem. He must be taken to task, held accountable and his influence removed from the sport, along with anyone he collaborated with.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Robert1 said:


> My guess is that he will probably end up testifying to USADA and bring down a lot of names as well as elaborating on details. Otherwise what was the point of the Oprah interview at all? He's opened himself up to all kinds of suits and no one believe hardly much of what he said was genuine anyway. I would not be surprised to learn that he and Tygart had discussions on what would be required of him to lessen his life time suspension. The interview is just the first step. It's pretty clear that the only motivation for any of his confessions is to reduce his life time ban. So the ones that collaborated with him not yet outed just may be in the future.


The USADA, WADA have been public ally dismissive of the interview. They are pretty much like 'come in and give details under oath.'

I have no idea why he did the interview. We're making the assumption the Armstrong was very calculating about it. He has demonstrated that at times he can't "see the forest for the trees" and badly miscalculates. His comeback. Pissing off Landis. Dating an Olsen twin. (Sorry, couldn't resist). 

Maybe the interview was just one of those miscalculations. Maybe he just convinced himself it was a good idea, for reasons that are not logical.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> .
> 
> Betsy is crazy though.


Lance disagrees with you

Look, we get it. You would have laid back and took it. Not complained, just let your life get ruined. 

Good thing Betsy is not like that, She has a backbone.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Even if I agree with you Falsetti, and obviously 88 rex is hardcore trolling by comparing Frankie Andreu and Lance, I have to say that the way Betsy goes about defending herself doesn't exactly bring about sympathizers en masse. 
She's a really strong, opinionated person, and from what I've read from Tyler, from Frankie, and others, was really influential in getting him to see the light, but she has a lot of trouble keeping her cool when talking publicly about Lance. I understand where she's coming from, but for someone not familiar with the situation I would see how she comes across as a little crazy.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

88 rex said:


> Whatever Betsy allows him.


That's kinda why I'm going with the idea that Betsy was behind any decisions he made. Obviously we can't prove that either way. 

As for why Dr. Falsetti defends Andeu, it should be obvious. Doping is bad, but any attempts to take down Armstrong made all previous actions no biggie. 'Tis entertaining, eh?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

This author has a theory on why Lance won't talk about the alleged Hospital Room incident. It's at the very end of the article.

Four key questions arising from Lance Armstrong's interview with Oprah Winfrey - Telegraph


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Whatever Betsy allows him.


LOL, I was going through the thread with every intention to say something similar.

Where is Frankie! Has he lost his penis? Maybe he realyl does need soem testosterone? 

Hello, my name is Betsy and I'm here on behalf of Frankie's penis. 

It makes me laugh but I honestly respect her, and Frankie. I guess his personality is more laid back. My wife has a strong personality and opinions and isn't afraid to voice her thoughts. I think my wife would also defend me with her bites if somethign similar happened to me. But I wouldn't be so laid back about it either.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

spade2you said:


> That's kinda why I'm going with the idea that Betsy was behind any decisions he made. Obviously we can't prove that either way.
> 
> As for why Dr. Falsetti defends Andeu, it should be obvious. Doping is bad, but any attempts to take down Armstrong made all previous actions no biggie. 'Tis entertaining, eh?


What a feeling of guilt he must have had when she found his sample in 99. He had probably been trying to hide it for all those years, always walking on eggshells trying to prevent her from finding out.....and then just one little mistake and the Mrs. discovered his schtick. She was mad as all get out! 

But I'm a married man and I know how the story goes.

Wife: "You bought ANOTHER bike!?!?!"

Me: "Yes honey. I'll never buy another bike again. I promise." (I'm trembling at this point because I don't have a backbone).

From that point only small boxes of parts trickle in until a new bike magically assembles itself in my garage from "parts" I had lying around. 

Frankie didn't quit on that date, but he was damned sure she didn't find out again. If he admits to a "few times" or "couple years" doesn't matter to the outside public. He doped. But to his wife it matters.


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

Robert1 said:


> with his wife going after LA so relentlessly


you can cut sexual tension between Lance and Betsy with a butter knife. I'd be careful if I were Frankie.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

moskowe said:


> Even if I agree with you Falsetti, and obviously 88 rex is hardcore trolling by comparing Frankie Andreu and Lance, I have to say that the way Betsy goes about defending herself doesn't exactly bring about sympathizers en masse.
> She's a really strong, opinionated person, and from what I've read from Tyler, from Frankie, and others, was really influential in getting him to see the light, but she has a lot of trouble keeping her cool when talking publicly about Lance. I understand where she's coming from, but for someone not familiar with the situation I would see how she comes across as a little crazy.


That's my sentiment too. 
When Betsy goes:
"you blew it Lance. YOU BLEW IT!"
on AC360, that's when I thought to myself she was getting way way too personal for my taste, and her motives were all about seeking revenge for herself, and nothing else matters, not doping, and certainly not about cleaning up cycling.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

BostonG said:


> you can cut sexual tension between Lance and Betsy with a butter knife. I'd be careful if I were Frankie.


Lance and Betsy in a room together and Betsy goes into one of her "YOU BLEW IT, LANCE!" rage, next thing you know they're romping on the floor together to relieve some of that tension. Guaranteed!

(This is where the side story is more interesting then the main storyline.)


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> That's my sentiment too.
> When Betsy goes:
> "you blew it Lance. YOU BLEW IT!"
> on AC360, that's when I thought to myself she was getting way way too personal for my taste, and her motives were all about seeking revenge for herself, and nothing else matters, not doping, and certainly not about cleaning up cycling.


I kinda gathered that from her interview a few months back, especially the well timed tear and mentioning "in front of God" once or twice. LOL, all parties involved in the Lance SNAFU remind me why I don't trust very many people.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

so Betsy is getting way to involved and should step back. and Frankie should really get more involved? 
makes perfect sense.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Lance and Betsy in a room together and Betsy goes into one of her "YOU BLEW IT, LANCE!" rage, next thing you know they're romping on the floor together to relieve some of that tension. Guaranteed!
> 
> (This is where the side story is more interesting then the main storyline.)


Nice misogynist take on things, no way could woman have an backbone and stand up for her family and herself without sex coming into play somehow.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

32and3cross said:


> Nice misogynist take on things, no way could woman have an backbone and stand up for her family and herself without sex coming into play somehow.


I concur. 

Following the 'sexual tension' theory to its logical conclusion Lance, Landis, Hamilton, Kimmage and Walsh all want to do each other, which I find highly unlikely.


----------

