# IM between Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters



## Henry Chinaski

Pretty much the grand climax of the Walsh book. If you haven't already, you can just read the IM here:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/instantmessage.html

An instant message between Frankie Andreu (FDREU) and Jonathan Vaughters (Cyclevaughters) the morning of July 26, 2005. 

Cyclevaughters: frankie - hey - thanks for talking the other day 

FDREU: no problem, where are you 

Cyclevaughters: back in CO 

FDREU: nice, I just got home, isnt' it like 5AM 

Cyclevaughters: sometimes i think i'm going to go nuts 

Cyclevaughters: yeah 

Cyclevaughters: it's 5am 

FDREU: I agree, I came home and the air conditioning is broken 

Cyclevaughters: ouch 

FDREU: did your kid grow twice it's size in the two weeks you were gone 

Cyclevaughters: yeah, his feet look bigger for some eason 

FDREU: funny 

Cyclevaughters: anyhow, i never can quite figure out why i don't just play along with the lance crowd - i mean **** it would make my life easier, eh? it's not like i never played with hotsauce, eh? 

FDREU: I know, but in the end i don't think it comes back to bite you 

FDREU: I play along, my wife does not, and Lance hates us both 

FDREU: it's a no win situation, you know how he is. Once you leave the team or do soemthing wrong you forever banned 

Cyclevaughters: i suppose - you know he tried to hire me back in 2001... he was nice to me... i just couldn't deal with that whole world 

FDREU: I did not know that 

FDREU: look at why everyone leaves, it's way to controlling 

Cyclevaughters: once I went to CA and saw that now all the teams got 25 injections every day 

Cyclevaughters: hell, CA was ZERO 

FDREU: you mean all the riders 

Cyclevaughters: Credit Agricole 

FDREU: it's crazy 

Cyclevaughters: So, I realized lance was full of **** when he'd say everyone was doing it 

FDREU: You may read stuff that i say to radio or press, praising the Tour and lance but it's just playing the game 

Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds - Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39% 

FDREU: when in 2000-2001 

Cyclevaughters: so, that's when you start thinking... hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%--- yeah moreau in 2000-2001 

Cyclevaughters: anyhow - whtever 

FDREU: After 1999, you know many things changed. lance did not 

FDREU: I believe that's part of whey kevin left, he was tired of the stuff 

Cyclevaughters: yeah, i could explain the whole way lance dupes everyone 

FDREU: what abut GH climbing the mountains better than azevedo and the entire group 

Cyclevaughters: from how floyd described it, i know exactly the methos 

FDREU: explain that, classics to climber 

FDREU: when did you talk with floyd 

Cyclevaughters: i don't know - i want to trust George 

Cyclevaughters: but the thing is on that team, you think it's normal 

Cyclevaughters: or at least i did 

FDREU: i guess. anything with blodd is not normal 

Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's very complex how the avoid all the controls now, but it's not any new drug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull of a well devised plan 

Cyclevaughters: it's why they all got dropped on stage 9 - no refill yet - then on the rest day - boom 800ml of packed cells 

FDREU: they have it mastered. good point 

Cyclevaughters: they draw the blood right after the dauphine 

FDREU: how do they sneak it in, or keep it until needed 

FDREU: i'm sure it's not with the truck in the frig 

Cyclevaughters: motorcycle - refridgerated panniers 

Cyclevaughters: on the rest day 

Cyclevaughters: floyd has a photo of the thing 

FDREU: crazy! it' just keep going to new levels 

Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's complicated, but with enough money you can do it 

FDREU: they have enough money. Floyd was so pissed at them this entire tour 

Cyclevaughters: anyhow - i just feel sorry for floyd and some of the other guys 

Cyclevaughters: why would lance keep doing the **** when he clearly has nothing to prove - it's weird 

FDREU: I know. me to. they all get ripped into for no reason 

FDREU: he's done now, thank god. but they will prove next year for Johan's sake that they are the greatest 

Cyclevaughters: and then lance says " this guy and that guys are pussies" 

FDREU: they won't stop 

FDREU: I agree


----------



## harlond

Did Walsh include Vaughter's sworn affidavit to the effect that nothing he said about Disco in that IM chain was from personal knowledge?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

harlond said:


> Did Walsh include Vaughter's sworn affidavit to the effect that nothing he said about Disco in that IM chain was from personal knowledge?


Harlond,

Your view (please correct me if I mischaracterize it) is one that I find fascinating, and I've seen some other people who appear to hold a similar one. I think you realize the score yet "nitpick" to seemingly dismiss unpleasant "evidence" when other, even bigger negative implications are apparent. 

For example, so what if his Disco info is secondhand via Floyd or whoever? The real damage of the IM discussion is that you have two USPS guys rather clearly discussing the "doping culture" they were part of at USPS with Armstrong being a hard-nosed leader who did what was necessary and expected the same from his domestiques. And perhaps even bigger that these guys present a facade of cleanliness to the public when behind the scene it is often a dirty, dirty game that is being played.


----------



## bonkmiester

Dwayne Barry said:


> Harlond,
> 
> Your view (please correct me if I mischaracterize it) is one that I find fascinating, and I've seen some other people who appear to hold a similar one. I think you realize the score yet "nitpick" to seemingly dismiss unpleasant "evidence" when other, even bigger negative implications are apparent.
> 
> For example, so what if his Disco info is secondhand via Floyd or whoever? The real damage of the IM discussion is that you have two USPS guys rather clearly discussing the "doping culture" they were part of at USPS with Armstrong being a hard-nosed leader who did what was necessary and expected the same from his domestiques. *And perhaps even bigger that these guys present a facade of cleanliness to the public when behind the scene it is often a dirty, dirty game that is being played.*


...kind of dis-enchanting, isn't it?...


----------



## Dwayne Barry

bonkmiester said:


> ...kind of dis-enchanting, isn't it?...


No, for some reason I was never enchanted in the first place


----------



## cocoboots

that is only a portion of the IM. it's missing the portion where Vaughters states, "its not like I (we) never messed with the "hot sauce"" If you can get transcripts from the sca vs. lance case then you will see more info from the IM's.


----------



## mohair_chair

Dwayne Barry said:


> Harlond,
> 
> Your view (please correct me if I mischaracterize it) is one that I find fascinating, and I've seen some other people who appear to hold a similar one. I think you realize the score yet "nitpick" to seemingly dismiss unpleasant "evidence" when other, even bigger negative implications are apparent.


When you have put quotes around the word evidence, doesn't that undermine your own post? 

To me, this transcript reads like a lot of posts here. It's two guys talking about things of which they don't have personal knowledge. One of them swore an affidavit that said as much. It could all be true, or it could be BS. You see what you want to see.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

cocoboots said:


> that is only a portion of the IM. it's missing the portion where Vaughters states, "its not like I (we) never messed with the "hot sauce""


It's there, toward the top.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

"When you have put quotes around the word evidence, doesn't that undermine your own post?"

I put it in quotes due to the reason that people who post here have a wide range of views on what constitutes evidence and what does not. So the quotes were simply meant to indicate evidence in the broadest sense, i.e. not necessarily court room type of evidence. 

"To me, this transcript reads like a lot of posts here. It's two guys talking about things of which they don't have personal knowledge."

Well it seems to me there are clearly parts of the text based on their personal experience with Armstrong and USPS and then there are parts based on hearsay.

I'm not really interested in rehashing this stuff anyway. I'm interested in the phenomenon of people who appear to accept that "they all dope", but then readily dismiss almost any indication of doping, sometimes even positive dope tests, blame the UCI/WADA for the problem, etc.!

I may be mistaken about Harlond's views and hopefully he will correctly if I'm wrong, but I've seen others who take an obvious "they all dope, it's been that way forever, etc." type of stance then go out of the way to be a doping apologist and dismiss almost every thing that would indicate the existence of this culture of doping is in fact a reality. It leads to the obvious paradox of if you don't believe any of the indications of widespread doping, why in the world do you believe there is widespread doping?


----------



## FondriestFan

mohair_chair said:


> When you have put quotes around the word evidence, doesn't that undermine your own post?
> 
> To me, this transcript reads like a lot of posts here. It's two guys talking about things of which they don't have personal knowledge. One of them swore an affidavit that said as much. It could all be true, or it could be BS. You see what you want to see.


Yeah, Frankie and Vaughters, two pro riders read "like a lot of posts here". Sounds to me like you're not seeing what's in front of your face.


----------



## harlond

Dwayne Barry said:


> Harlond,
> 
> Your view (please correct me if I mischaracterize it) is one that I find fascinating, and I've seen some other people who appear to hold a similar one. I think you realize the score yet "nitpick" to seemingly dismiss unpleasant "evidence" when other, even bigger negative implications are apparent.
> 
> For example, so what if his Disco info is secondhand via Floyd or whoever? The real damage of the IM discussion is that you have two USPS guys rather clearly discussing the "doping culture" they were part of at USPS with Armstrong being a hard-nosed leader who did what was necessary and expected the same from his domestiques. And perhaps even bigger that these guys present a facade of cleanliness to the public when behind the scene it is often a dirty, dirty game that is being played.


But see, lots of people point to this IM conversation as proof positive of particular issues. It's a long, long way from "nitpicking" to point out that the person whose testimony they're citing has himself disavowed it. If Vaughters himself dismisses it, how am I "nitpicking" to do the same?

And you're right, you won't find any posts from me in which I argue that Lance is innocent--to the contrary, you'll see many where I indicate my opinion that everyone is doing it. I just think it's important to distinguish reliable evidence from speculation, rumor, gossip, and guilt by association, which so many doping jihadists consider dispositive, and to insist that the authorities (whose own credibility is so wanting) adhere to their own procedures. To do otherwise is to encourage the witch hunt IMO.


----------

