# Frankie A on NPR and somebody is lying.



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

there's no link up yet on <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863">NPR</a> yet, but I just heard an interview with Frankie A given today on NPR...and it seems he doesn't like having his wife's credibility called into question by Lance. LA apparently alleged yesterday that she was unable to answer specific questions regarding the doctors present at the time he admitted to using a pharmacy's worth of PEDs and thus, must be mistaken about what else she remembers. He (la) listed several specific questions to which he claims she answered "I don't know". Frankie says that's not the case, she answered every question. Not much grey area here and should be easy enough to determine who's not telling the truth. It's all on record. either frankie is wrong about what his wife testified, or....wait for it.....Armstrong is making things up to discredit his accuser (again).


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

blackhat said:


> there's no link up yet on <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863">NPR</a> yet, but I just heard an interview with Frankie A given today on NPR...and it seems he doesn't like having his wife's credibility called into question by Lance. LA apparently alleged yesterday that she was unable to answer specific questions regarding the doctors present at the time he admitted to using a pharmacy's worth of PEDs and thus, must be mistaken about what else she remembers. He (la) listed several specific questions to which he claims she answered "I don't know". Frankie says that's not the case, she answered every question. Not much grey area here and should be easy enough to determine who's not telling the truth. It's all on record. either frankie is wrong about what his wife testified, or....wait for it.....Armstrong is making things up to discredit his accuser (again).



Where are the Dr.'s that supposedly asked the question to begin with. That would clear this up I believe. Without their testimony, it's all he said she said I heard he heard BS.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

svend said:


> Where are the Dr.'s that supposedly asked the question to begin with. That would clear this up I believe. Without their testimony, it's all he said she said I heard he heard BS.


I've read that the question wasn't from a doctor and the people in the room were the Andreaus, the Carmichaels, the Oakley rep, and Lance's girlfriend. Now Carmichael and Frankie certainly know the score and almost certainly doped themselves or were involved in doping. Christ, Carmichael settled out of court with Strock over the charges that Carmichael had him doped when he was a member of the US junior team.

What could Frankie's motivation be for saying Armstrong doped when the only people who would ever here it were some lawyers and a judge?


----------



## surftel (Apr 18, 2005)

So I had a boring day at work today, surfing the internet and come across "Race2Replace"

One of the episodes has Lance in the car at TDG, Some guy comes running up and asks him to sign a yellow Jersey. Lance says "I will sign anything else but I don't sign Yellow Jerseys" 

The guy goes into full begging mode..."Please, I coach kids, I know Frankie...." The guys stops short of saying "Andreu" because Lance starts signing the jersey

Before he can finish Lance says something like "don't say the word he is about to say" refering to the Frankie word.

I feel sorry for Frankie and Betsy, they were forced to tell the truth and Lance does his best to trash them.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I've read that the question wasn't from a doctor and the people in the room were the Andreaus, the Carmichaels, the Oakley rep, and Lance's girlfriend.
> 
> What could Frankie's motivation be for saying Armstrong doped when the only people who would ever here it were some lawyers and a judge?



So who then asked the question, doesn't really seem like a topic that would come up 
post-op btween "friends"......


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*I believe Frankie*



blackhat said:


> there's no link up yet on <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863">NPR</a> yet, but I just heard an interview with Frankie A given today on NPR...and it seems he doesn't like having his wife's credibility called into question by Lance. LA apparently alleged yesterday that she was unable to answer specific questions regarding the doctors present at the time he admitted to using a pharmacy's worth of PEDs and thus, must be mistaken about what else she remembers. He (la) listed several specific questions to which he claims she answered "I don't know". Frankie says that's not the case, she answered every question. Not much grey area here and should be easy enough to determine who's not telling the truth. It's all on record. either frankie is wrong about what his wife testified, or....wait for it.....Armstrong is making things up to discredit his accuser (again).


He has nothing to gain and A LOT to lose from testifying that Armstrong admitted using drugs. Plus, this was in a private lawsuit and was not supposed to be made public. He's saying he and his wife told the truth. They even tried to get out of testifying in the first place. I think we can put the question of whether Armstrong used drugs to bed.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

It's up now. Here is the link:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5516287

Under oath sworn testimony is pretty compelling......so is the affidavit of Dr. Nichols.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*thanks for posting the link*



The Tedinator said:


> It's up now. Here is the link:
> 
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5516287
> 
> Under oath sworn testimony is pretty compelling......so is the affidavit of Dr. Nichols.


Another reason why I think NPR is among the best news sources around.

ps....I believe Frankie and his wife. It's interesting how the life of Armstrong is littered with cast off former friends.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

gregario said:


> He has nothing to gain and A LOT to lose from testifying that Armstrong admitted using drugs. Plus, this was in a private lawsuit and was not supposed to be made public. *He's saying he and his wife told the truth.* They even tried to get out of testifying in the first place. I think we can put the question of whether Armstrong used drugs to bed.



What about the 280+ pages of medical records that contradict their statements ........

My wife is a Medical Malpractice attorney (defense) .... she tells me if LA had made those statements in the presence of ANY medical staff, it would have been charted ...... 

b0nk


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*contradict?*



bonkmiester said:


> What about the 280+ pages of medical records that contradict their statements ........
> 
> My wife is a Medical Malpractice attorney (defense) .... she tells me if LA had made those statements in the presence of ANY medical staff, it would have been charted ......
> 
> b0nk


I don't know what records you're talking about, and I don't know how you can say these records CONTRADICT anything SPECIFICALLY. For me I believe the people who have a lot to lose by telling the truth, which apparently they did. I also know that not everything gets written down, no matter what your wife says.

I'm not really a Lance basher, it just seems like there sure are a lot of people that contradict what he's been claiming for years. I would have a lot more respect for him if he just came out and admitted it, of course assuming it were true. I also think that at the elite professional level that they all dope to some extent.


----------



## EasyRider47 (Sep 18, 2005)

Removed


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

gregario said:


> I don't know what records you're talking about,
> 
> *...as part of the lawsuit (at which Frankie testified), LAs records were entered as evidence ... *
> 
> ...


*...agree, I think there is a "peloton-think" mindset that allows them to rationalize all this as looking after their "recovery"...they probably have convinced themselves that as long as they don't exceed the "threshold" drug levels that they aren't cheating...*


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

EasyRider47 said:


> Hmmmmmm.............unfortunately, maybe LA will be remembered more for his "LiveWrong" approach to cycling, as opposed to his "LiveStrong" campaign....(maybe the "LiveWrong" guys had better insight than we gave them credit for?)...............just a passing thought......


:thumbsup:


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

if it was said in the prescence of any medical staff if SHOULD have been noted in the chart but that doesn't mean it was. Software developers and hospital administrators have spent tons of money trying to automate the process as much as possible for a reason. I had the misfortune to spend a few years involved on the billing side of things and bills were frequently kicked out because they said there was nothing in the chart supporting the medical necessity, and many times the insurance companies were right.

It's only lying if the person knows it to be untrue. Theoretically they could all believe what they are saying is the truth.

Not really likely - Nichols was not in the room so his testimony is irrelevant and the others all have financial reasons to contradict the Andreus. Then there's the Lemond answering machine recording of the Oakley rep contradicting what she said in court...


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

furthermore, upon more thought....I think Armstrong is a fantastic athlete, as are all those guys at his level. He has also done a world of good, more than all of us posting on RBR forums put together. I saw him on the Daily show repeat last night and he was pretty impressive. But, do I think he doped? Yes. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Yes, but only to those he beat while he was doping....and you don't hear ANYONE he competed against complaining except for Bassons and Simeoni. As someone brought up the other day, if you're clean but are beaten by a person or persons that cheat, you're going to *****. Tell me who has other than those two. I can't think of anyone else. Did he and Lemond compete head to head? Maybe at the end of Lemond's career...also, tell me what the Andreau's have to gain from testifying how they did. They have a lot to lose. Frankie is still heavily involved in the sport and is a motivational speaker. Lance is universally loved by the general public. What are people going to think about Frankie, who they probably never heard of, telling them their hero took drugs to win?

Personally, I think this issue has been talked to death. Lance is a great athlete and continues to give hope and support to many cancer victims.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*ok*



bonkmiester said:


> *...agree, I think there is a "peloton-think" mindset that allows them to rationalize all this as looking after their "recovery"...they probably have convinced themselves that as long as they don't exceed the "threshold" drug levels that they aren't cheating...*


good enuf.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

devils advocate here:

..ok, so it's '96 and you are LA, practicaly on your deathbed, your pro-career is down the tubes, and the MDs are asking what meds you are on (they need to know to treat your correctly)...

your are in there to get cured, to beat the cancer.....do you _*not tell them*_ you are on EPO, HGH, 'roids, whatever ???...that could be a death sentence right there.....

doesn't make sense....
b0nk


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

gregario said:


> He has nothing to gain and A LOT to lose from testifying that Armstrong admitted using drugs. Plus, this was in a private lawsuit and was not supposed to be made public. He's saying he and his wife told the truth. They even tried to get out of testifying in the first place. I think we can put the question of whether Armstrong used drugs to bed.


We can *speculate* all we want but the bottom line is it's just that until there's proof.
He said she said BS is NOT proof. Who knows what Frankie and his wife have against Lance, they are not going to come out and say what their beef is. 

It seems to be a sad commentary on our national psych that we love the underdog until they succeed and then do all we can to tear them down. The guy is retired, done. Who cares other than a bitter Lemond. LA probably did dope pre-2000 as did the rest of the peloton, can we prove it. So far no, but how much energy should be spent on this? Should we dredge up all the former champs and put their past under the microscope to see if we can find any dope useage too? Why single out Armstrong for this? 

Heartning to know that in the USA how many believe in guilty until proven innocent.....or maybe just guilty because other people with an axe to grind say so.....


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

Off the top of my head, I recall the following allegations regarding Lance & doping:

- Swart: former Motorola teammate claims to have done EPO with him
- Andreus: claim he admitted to taking PEDs in the pre-cancer days
- O'Relly: former soigneur claims she was asked to dispose of needles discreetly
- L'Equipe: claimed Lance's 1999 urine samples contained EPO
- Mike Anderson: former assistant/mechanic claims to have found steriods in Lance's possesion.


Other accusations, circumstantial evidence, etc.
- L'Equipe: found Actovegin in USPS trash
- Former teammates busted for doping at some point in their careers: Hamilton, Heras

I have given Lance the benefit of the doubt in the past, but I can no longer believe all of this can be explained away.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

MWT said:


> Off the top of my head, I recall the following allegations regarding Lance & doping:
> 
> - Swart: former Motorola teammate claims to have done EPO with him
> - Andreus: claim he admitted to taking PEDs in the pre-cancer days
> ...


L'Equipe is about as credible a source as a back alley junkie....and all of these people are just good hearted souls who thought they were best buds with LA with nothing to gain and every thing to lose.....I have some great beach front property in Louisiana for you too...........I hope you never serve on a jury


Where is the proof? So many willing to convict on nothing more than conjecture. Sad.

/still waiting for the proof


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

svend said:


> L'Equipe is about as credible a source as a back alley junkie....and all of these people are just good hearted souls who thought they were best buds with LA with nothing to gain and every thing to lose.....I have some great beach front property in Louisiana for you too...........I hope you never serve on a jury
> 
> 
> Where is the proof? So many willing to convict on nothing more than conjecture. Sad.
> ...


I suppose you think this is all some grand conspiracy to get Lance. You are incredibly gullible.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

svend said:


> L'Equipe is about as credible a source as a back alley junkie
> Where is the proof? So many willing to convict on nothing more than conjecture. Sad.
> 
> /still waiting for the proof


USPS admitted to using the Actovegin, you don't have to rely on L'equipe. They said it was for that diabetic soigneur, who in the recent insurance case apparently testified he only said it was for him because Armstrong/Stapleton pressured him into saying that.


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> USPS admitted to using the Actovegin, you don't have to rely on L'equipe. They said it was for that diabetic soigneur, who in the recent insurance case apparently testified he only said it was for him because Armstrong/Stapleton pressured him into saying that.


I read that it was Julien Devries the famous mechanic (who also wrenched for LeMond).


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

MWT said:


> I suppose you think this is all some grand conspiracy to get Lance. You are incredibly gullible.


Not gullible, just unwilling to convict without solid *proof*. What is so hard to understand about that. Just look how many on this board hate the guy, expand that to the French who have silently been apoplectic for the last seven years so yes an effort to topple him is not unthinkable. Can I *Prove* it, no, just as, so far, you and your cohorts have been unable to *Prove* the allegations. 

Pre-'99, that to me is irrelevent.....the entire peloton was doped and probably still is.


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

svend said:


> Not gullible, just unwilling to convict without solid *proof*. What is so hard to understand about that. Just look how many on this board hate the guy, expand that to the French who have silently been apoplectic for the last seven years so yes an effort to topple him is not unthinkable. Can I *Prove* it, no, just as, so far, you and your cohorts have been unable to *Prove* the allegations.
> 
> Pre-'99, that to me is irrelevent.....the entire peloton was doped and probably still is.


What type of proof would be sufficient for you? Lance has steadfastly denied EVER taking performance enhancing drugs, so pre-99 is completely relevant. I agree that drugs were out of control during the mid-90s (I went to the 1994 Tour and saw Ugromov, a washed-up unknown on the notorious Gewiss team, destroy everyone in the Alps). Your stance requires you to believe that Swart, the Andreus, OReilly and Anderson are ALL liars.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

It's obvious some people only know about Lance and nothing else.....

:yikes: 

ignorance......


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

MWT said:


> I read that it was Julien Devries the famous mechanic (who also wrenched for LeMond).


Probably, I just know it was claimed it was for one of their support staff, who apparently now under oath had said he only took ownership b/c he was pressured by Lance/Stapleton.

I didn't realize there were famous mechanics


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Probably, I just know it was claimed it was for one of their support staff, who apparently now under oath had said he only took ownership b/c he was pressured by Lance/Stapleton.
> 
> I didn't realize there were famous mechanics


Famous mechanics is kind of an oxymoron I suppose - let's just say that among hard core pro cycling fans Devries is fairly well known. I recall him being in some Park Tool ads!


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*celeb-wrench*



MWT said:


> Famous mechanics is kind of an oxymoron I suppose - let's just say that among hard core pro cycling fans Devries is fairly well known. I recall him being in some Park Tool ads!


yeah, I think he was also on the Discovery show they did last year following LA around, as was the now famous for another reason Mike Anderson. he was aging tubulars for LA in his wine cellar like basement. I wasn't aware it was him they got to claim the actovegin, that's cheesy. so...I wonder who the actovegin was for then.


----------



## goose127 (Jun 9, 2004)

*Lance*

Personally I think the more approriate question is are most of the cyclists on performance enhancers. My guess is yes. and that is one reason why you do not have former team mates coming out and saying that Lance is a doper. Just like you do not have former team mates saying that Pantani, Heras, Hamilton, Millar, etc. etc. were taking peformance enhancers. I find it inconcievable that members of the team are in the dark about what is going on with other riders. I really do not understand why the Andreus testified that Lance admited to EPO use, other than that is what the recollect of the conversation. I see little that they have to gain, and much to lose. And one can only assume that much of Team Mortola was doping as well if Lance was, and that would include Andreu himself. 

Honestly, the more important questions are what is going on with Cycling today. I think that one of the better short term things that could happen out of Operation Puerto is that teams are hit where it hurts, and that is sponsorhips. If teams were more worried about getting caught then results, you may have a harder time with doping programs. I know if I was a company today, evealuating my spend on sponoships, I would probably steer away from cyling. The 1998 TDF doping problem is referred to as the Festina affair, and I really doubt they are happy about paying for that kind of reference.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*LA's war*



goose127 said:


> I find it inconcievable that members of the team are in the dark about what is going on with other riders. .


This reminded me of coyle's book "lance armstrongs war", in which there's a few quotes from Landis, I think, that essentially suggest that armstrong operated almost completely independently of the rest of the team. In his case I think he could have been running whatever "program" he chose and his team mates would have no way of knowing unless they were complicit. I think floyd called in "planet lance" or something. In general though, you're probably correct. I don't think most teams operate in the way usps/disco did with lance.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

*getting real about doping*

The real problem is, if nearly all pros are doing it, then there's no competitive advantage anyway-it just equals out. It's too bad the riders don't enforce it among themselves-would take a real patron to do that. But then what do you expect in a sport where some of the most respected DS's (and part owners) are like certain Danes who once tested a hemocrit level of 56% and went from being Fignon's helper to flash in the pan tour winner. THere should be a lifetime ban from any involvement for people that are known dopers...


----------



## JBergland (Feb 13, 2004)

The Tedinator said:


> It's up now. Here is the link:
> 
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5516287
> 
> ... so is the affidavit of Dr. Nichols.


Not really. A little digging will show you an interesting 'influential connection' that Dr. N and Lance share. His word should not carry as much weight.

JB


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Oh, I am aware of the connection with the LAF, and I also know that Nichols was under oath also. As we "choose sides" on who/what we believe, it is simplistic to think that the Nichol's of this tale have ulterior motives, but that the Lemonds and Andreaus are as pure as the driven snow....just like the opposite is simplistic too.


----------



## surftel (Apr 18, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Probably, I just know it was claimed it was for one of their support staff, who apparently now under oath had said he only took ownership b/c he was pressured by Lance/Stapleton.
> 
> I didn't realize there were famous mechanics


FYI, Julien wrenched for Merckx, Lemond, and a Lance.... that qualifies as famous in our little community


----------



## wyomingclimber (Feb 26, 2004)

The Tedinator said:


> Oh, I am aware of the connection with the LAF, and I also know that Nichols was under oath also. As we "choose sides" on who/what we believe, it is simplistic to think that the Nichol's of this tale have ulterior motives, but that the Lemonds and Andreaus are as pure as the driven snow....just like the opposite is simplistic too.


I'm not a liar by nature, but if I were Nichols, I would have lied and gone back and deleted all references to PEDs from Lance's medical records. I mean, are you kidding me? This guy has to sit around and look at kids dying of cancer all day and he's going give up a huge source of financing over who takes what to pedal their little bicycles around France?

The real victims in this seem to be the Andreus. Here are people who were forced to testify against their will, seem to have not wanted to purger themselves, and had no expectation that any of this would ever come out and hurt LA. Despite what seem to be good (or at least indifferent) intentions, LA now has no choice but to fire up his attack machine and do everything he can to smear them and destroy their credibility. 

Man, if LA ever moved in next door to me and started being friendly, I'd burn my house down, take the insurance money, and skip the country. Saddam Hussein's old friends fare better...


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

wyomingclimber said:


> I'm not a liar by nature, but if I were Nichols, I would have lied and gone back and deleted all references to PEDs from Lance's medical records. I mean, are you kidding me? This guy has to sit around and look at kids dying of cancer all day and he's going give up a huge source of financing over who takes what to pedal their little bicycles around France?....


OK this is about the most retarded thing I have ever read on the internet. As a doctor myself I can not ever, let me repeat that, EVER think of a circumstance where I would alter a patient's record for the reason you listed or ANY other reason for that matter. Do you have any idea the impact on a doctor's career if he would caught altering a patient's files to further some agenda? Nice way to throw 12 years of college/internship/residency down the tubes. Stupid, very stupid


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Cyclism brother............Only LA tells the truth...........


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

djg714 said:


> Cyclism brother............Only LA tells the truth...........


Until he gets nailed with incontrovertible proof against him he's the one in the drivers seat......but really, why does everyone care so much, that is a question that is just as interesting.......


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

wyomingclimber said:


> I'm not a liar by nature, but if I were Nichols, I would have lied and gone back and deleted all references to PEDs from Lance's medical records.


No. You'd just never ask the question or write it down in the first place. How many US cancer docs are aware that doping is endemic in professional cycling anyway? I'm still not clear on whether Nichols ever asked the question, there seems to be different versions out there as to how the question arised.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

svend said:


> Until he gets nailed with incontrovertible proof against him he's the one in the drivers seat......but really, why does everyone care so much, that is a question that is just as interesting.......



I totally agree with you but not everyone cares so much. I don't. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised by anything in regard to doping in the pro peloton either way. I wouldn't be surprised if 100% of them are on dope one bit. Humans have been forcing their bodies to do things they aren't supposed to do for ages. There are everyman average professionals and students who take PEDs so why should I be shocked by athletes that do the same? It is what it is. It seems to me there are so many more important issues in the world to direct so much attention to. Folks who are so laser-locked on this issue don't care about due process or standards of evidence. They see a witch a so it must be a witch. They may be right but without proof it don't mean a thing.

...now on to something else, like riding my bike.


----------



## BigFatOne (Jun 29, 2006)

svend said:


> Until he gets nailed with incontrovertible proof against him he's the one in the drivers seat......but really, why does everyone care so much, that is a question that is just as interesting.......


Sorry if this comes off as condescending or sarcastic...please don't take offense, but what planet are you on?

There is a mountain of evidence that not just Lance but most of the pro tour dopes, but for some reason you seem to cling to the false hope that Lance is the one clean guy in the group. When I see your posts I can't help but think that I am at Roscoes Chicken and Waffles and ask the other dinners "hey, you guys think O.J. did it?"

Are all of these former teamates, friends, support staff, journalists...lying? Dispite Tyler and all the rest using bags of Blood, EPO, horse pills, etc...Do you really think Lance is able to beat them by weighing his food and filming a reality series?

Once again, sorry if you find this insulting but have you or your family suffered from cancer? If yes I am sorry for your pain and can understand why you pray at the alter of Saint Lance of Austin.

Did you buy the Team Replica Trek, buy your team Jersey ($99.95), and Livestrong teapot and want to insure these items do not lose value?

What level of "incontrovertible proof" do you need? Video of Lance shooting the E? When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that women" I did not need, nor want, to see video of him banging the fat chick to know that he did it.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Great post, BFO. Well said.


----------



## wyomingclimber (Feb 26, 2004)

ivanthetrble said:


> OK this is about the most retarded thing I have ever read on the internet. As a doctor myself I can not ever, let me repeat that, EVER think of a circumstance where I would alter a patient's record for the reason you listed or ANY other reason for that matter. Do you have any idea the impact on a doctor's career if he would caught altering a patient's files to further some agenda? Nice way to throw 12 years of college/internship/residency down the tubes. Stupid, very stupid



My Gawd, an unethical doctor? Involved in bike racing? I must be retarded.

Besides, we wouldn't want to jeopordize that new Jaguar for the little kiddies, would we? 

And people say doctors are heartless and self-absorbed...


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

BigFatOne said:


> What level of "incontrovertible proof" do you need? Video of Lance shooting the E? When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that women" I did not need, nor want, to see video of him banging the fat chick to know that he did it.


We have a winner, the first asshat award in the Doping forum. Big Fat what I do not want to know, however it seems as if you've smoked a few too many fat ones for that turd of a post. Bubba got nailed because there was proof you halfwit, the ol blue dress. So that point was as asinine as the rest of your post. No sarcasm intended. 

Do I think LA has doped in his career, yes, the whole damn peloton doped in the 90's and continues to this day. Do I care, No. What I do take issue with is the standards of evidence required for a conviction. See, that is the issue old FatOne not whether I worship at the alter of Lance or whether you like to have sex with goats.

LA has been able to win despite being tested more than anyone else in pro sports and that I think is what pisses you and your brethren off so much. The legion of halfwits has only been able to produce he said she said BS so far and in the USA that doesn't cut it.

So enlighten us BigFatOne, what is the nail in the coffin. Because everyone said so????

All the halfwits please step forward with your PROOF..... there must be a lawyer amongst you that can present a case that would hold up in a court of law...lets hear it......


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

BigFatOne said:


> Sorry if this comes off as condescending or sarcastic...please don't take offense, but what planet are you on?
> 
> There is a mountain of evidence that not just Lance but most of the pro tour dopes, but for some reason you seem to cling to the false hope that Lance is the one clean guy in the group. When I see your posts I can't help but think that I am at Roscoes Chicken and Waffles and ask the other dinners "hey, you guys think O.J. did it?"
> 
> ...



Insincere, off base and without substance... To infer that your comments might be condescending assumes a loftiness that givings them way too much credit.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

svend said:


> We have a winner, the first asshat award in the Doping forum. Big Fat what I do not want to know, however it seems as if you've smoked a few too many fat ones for that turd of a post. Bubba got nailed because there was proof you halfwit, the ol blue dress. So that point was as asinine as the rest of your post. No sarcasm intended.
> 
> Do I think LA has doped in his career, yes, the whole damn peloton doped in the 90's and continues to this day. Do I care, No. What I do take issue with is the standards of evidence required for a conviction. See, that is the issue old FatOne not whether I worship at the alter of Lance or whether you like to have sex with goats.
> 
> ...



You're making it way too complicated for the lynch mob. 

You know maybe we should report BigFatOne to the police because his username - no pun intended - should be all the proof we need that he's a big fad doper himself. I mean what level of incontrovertible proof do we need?


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

svend said:


> All the halfwits please step forward with your PROOF..... there must be a lawyer amongst you that can present a case that would hold up in a court of law...lets hear it......


I asked this of you earlier in this thread, but what standard of proof is sufficient for you?


----------



## BigFatOne (Jun 29, 2006)

svend said:


> We have a winner, the first asshat award in the Doping forum.


Oh my, I think I have offended you....Sometimes I ask silly questions, my mother raised me wrong.



svend said:


> Bubba got nailed because there was proof you halfwit, the ol blue dress.


Thanks! you established the level of evidence you are looking for. If a little man yogurt on the fat chicks dress qualifies as "incontrovertible proof" then multiple samples of Lances yellow stuff containing metabolites of EPO would qualify as "incontrovertible proof" as well?....or perhaps the traces triamcinolone that were found in 99?




svend said:


> Do I think LA has doped in his career, yes,


I am sorry, I am still confused. I am often confused as my mother drank alot when she was pregnant. If you think that Lance doped in his career why do you defend him so strongly?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

MWT said:


> I asked this of you earlier in this thread, but what standard of proof is sufficient for you?


A Standard of evidence necessary have a jury convict in a court of law.


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

rocco said:


> A Standard of evidence necessary have a jury convict in a court of law.


If this were a civil case, a reasonable jury could easily find that the preponderance of the evidence (sworn testimony by Swart, Andreus, O'Reilly, etc.) suggest Lance doped.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

rocco said:


> A Standard of evidence necessary have a jury convict in a court of law.


That seems a bit overboard to me. That standard is in place to prevent people from going to prison etc., and probably results in a lot more guilty people on the street than innocent people punished. What we're talking about here is simply people's opinions about a situation based on what seems reasonable.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*nice.*



svend said:


> We have a winner, the first asshat award in the Doping forum. Big Fat what I do not want to know, however it seems as if you've smoked a few too many fat ones for that turd of a post. Bubba got nailed because there was proof you halfwit, the ol blue dress. So that point was as asinine as the rest of your post. No sarcasm intended.
> 
> Do I think LA has doped in his career, yes, the whole damn peloton doped in the 90's and continues to this day. Do I care, No. What I do take issue with is the standards of evidence required for a conviction. See, that is the issue old FatOne not whether I worship at the alter of Lance or whether you like to have sex with goats.
> 
> ...



do yourself a favor and try not to get the thread locked.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

wyomingclimber said:


> My Gawd, an unethical doctor? Involved in bike racing? I must be retarded.
> 
> Besides, we wouldn't want to jeopordize that new Jaguar for the little kiddies, would we?
> 
> And people say doctors are heartless and self-absorbed...


Except it wasn't a "bike racing" doctor. It was a cancer specialist. The story is bizzare. So supposedly there are a lot of doctors, nurses, friends and family in the room. Doctor wants to know if Lance was on any drugs before. Surely if this is important enough question, this should be recorded in the medical file. Here's where people disagree - Betsy and Frankie claim Lance admitted to all kinds of drugs. Other people who were there - including Lance himself, obviously, some of his friends, and most importantly THE doctor, claim he only mentioned drinking beer. Medical files don't mention any drug use either.

Here's two theories - 
either Betsy is indeed lying and Frankie is backing her story - because they hate Lance so much?

OR

Lance did admit to doping, and then went back and convinced the cancer doc to alter the medical records and convinced him to testify to the "beer" theory. 

I am not sure what is more believable. I have to admit that the second story sounds too conspiracy-theory-like for me - too many people are willing to risk their (medical) careers for what?
I think it is more plausible that Betsy does indeed hate Lance enough to make up stuff. Frankie sounded sincere on NPR, until when asked about why he and Betsy waited 10 years+ with these allegations, he started talking about how the guy was dying and they understood what he was going through. But now that he is retired they want to drag this out, with "he-said-she-said"?

The timing of the whole thing is rather suspicious as well. How come all of these allegations come out just before the Tour, when the interest in cycling is peaked?

One thing is for sure - the Lemond's jumping on anti-Lance wagon with "I was threatened, my life was threated, my family, blah-blah" - and it turns out the "threat" was "I will find 10 people to testify you were on EPO"? This sounds rather childish. Lemond clearly has personal issues with Armstrong and wants to add fuel to the fire - but this simply paints everything as personal crusade against Lance, with no evidence... The fact that they keep using French press as a vehicle for their tirades, so close to the Tour, adds to their bias angle. 

Considering we have an on-going investigations with actual blood samples, arrests etc. - it's mind boggling that what a retired cyclist said or didn't say over a decade ago is still being discussed.

I don't really know if Lance doped or not, but I know this - if he wasn't doping, there will still be people coming out claiming they have proof he did. Simply because so many people seem to hate his guts for no apparent reason (he does come off as a jerk sometimes, though). But so far all I have seen is rumors, "he-said-she-said", and some unethical reporting by jounalists.


----------



## EndoMadness (Jul 14, 2005)

*ZERO positive tests...*

that SHOULD be enough for everyone. I don't get the infatuation and LA doesn't either thats why he is so pissed.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

55x11 said:


> Here's two theories -
> either Betsy is indeed lying and Frankie is backing her story - because they hate Lance so much?
> 
> OR
> ...


Alternatively, I've read that the Dr. in question was not in the room at the time the statement was supposedly made. Only the Andreau's, the Carmichael's, the Oakly rep and Lance's girlfriend.


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

wyomingclimber said:


> My Gawd, an unethical doctor? Involved in bike racing? I must be retarded.
> 
> Besides, we wouldn't want to jeopordize that new Jaguar for the little kiddies, would we?
> 
> And people say doctors are heartless and self-absorbed...


Recheck the facts Wyoming. Dr. Nichols is a cancer specialist (at Indiana University, my alma mater by the way) who had nothing to do with cycling prior to treating LA. He was not a sports doctor dishing out PEDs from his trunk. He was a respected cancer specialist. I think you way overestimate the importance of a little bike race in France in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

ivanthetrble said:


> Recheck the facts Wyoming. Dr. Nichols is a cancer specialist (at Indiana University, my alma mater by the way) who had nothing to do with cycling prior to treating LA. He was not a sports doctor dishing out PEDs from his trunk. He was a respected cancer specialist. I think you way overestimate the importance of a little bike race in France in the grand scheme of things.


 He is at Oregon Health Sciences University now. Treated my wife for stage 4 metastatic melanoma (<5% 1 yr survival) a few years ago and she is still alive with no recurrence so I have a soft spot for him.


----------



## wyomingclimber (Feb 26, 2004)

ivanthetrble said:


> Recheck the facts Wyoming. Dr. Nichols is a cancer specialist (at Indiana University, my alma mater by the way) who had nothing to do with cycling prior to treating LA. He was not a sports doctor dishing out PEDs from his trunk. He was a respected cancer specialist. I think you way overestimate the importance of a little bike race in France in the grand scheme of things.


I'm not being trying to be difficult, but I guess I don't like being called retarded.

The statement about unethical doctors was (I think clearly) meant to be a bit tongue in cheek in light of the irony of your suggestion that NO doctor under ANY circumstances would do ANYTHING unethical, posted to a forum that exists entirely because of unethical doctors.

As for overestimating the importance of a bike race in France--au contraire. From my post: "This guy has to sit around and look at kids dying of cancer all day and he's going give up a huge source of financing over who takes what to pedal their little bicycles around France?"

Finally, my statement was not intended to discredit Dr. Nichols and if it came off that way, I'm sorry. It was about what I (hope) I would do if faced with a situation this stupid.

Anyway, enough of this. If you care to have the final word, go for it.


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

terzo rene said:


> He is at Oregon Health Sciences University now. Treated my wife for stage 4 metastatic melanoma (<5% 1 yr survival) a few years ago and she is still alive with no recurrence so I have a soft spot for him.


You are correct. I practice in Portland and I should have said that Dr. Nichols was at IU Medical Center at that time. I think he as been at OSHU for a while now and I think LA now does his follow-ups at OSHU.


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

wyomingclimber said:


> I'm not being trying to be difficult, but I guess I don't like being called retarded.
> 
> The statement about unethical doctors was (I think clearly) meant to be a bit tongue in cheek in light of the irony of your suggestion that NO doctor under ANY circumstances would do ANYTHING unethical, posted to a forum that exists entirely because of unethical doctors.
> 
> ...


Nope, I'm done.


----------



## Red Sox Junkie (Sep 15, 2005)

svend said:


> Do I think LA has doped in his career, yes, the whole damn peloton doped in the 90's and continues to this day. Do I care, No. What I do take issue with is the standards of evidence required for a conviction. See, that is the issue old FatOne not whether I worship at the alter of Lance or whether you like to have sex with goats.


If you believe he doped pre '99 why don't you think there is any way possible that the Andreau's are telling the truth?

In the court of public opionion, the standard of proof is a fraction of that in the judicial system. If it smells like shi*, it's probably shi*.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*only one problem*



55x11 said:


> Except it wasn't a "bike racing" doctor. It was a cancer specialist. The story is bizzare. So supposedly there are a lot of doctors, nurses, friends and family in the room. Doctor wants to know if Lance was on any drugs before. Surely if this is important enough question, this should be recorded in the medical file. Here's where people disagree - Betsy and Frankie claim Lance admitted to all kinds of drugs. Other people who were there - including Lance himself, obviously, some of his friends, and most importantly THE doctor, claim he only mentioned drinking beer. Medical files don't mention any drug use either.
> 
> Here's two theories -
> either Betsy is indeed lying and Frankie is backing her story - because they hate Lance so much?
> ...


Nichols wasn't there. I assume you're referring to him. He wasn't there. Frankie and wife were, as was the Oakley rep. And I'll say it again. Frankie and wife have nothing to gain from lying and a lot to lose.


----------



## ashpelham (Jan 19, 2006)

Maybe I'm missing the whole point, kind of hard to keep the subject on point with all the pi$$ing matches going on here, but why do we care what Armstrong did pre-99? They can't take a Tour that he WON away from him if they don't have proof he doped during those seasons, can they? I don't think so. 

I think the guy did dope. I have ridden with some weekend warriors who have "used" different substances. Sounds like it's pretty rampant in the sport. I don't care if Lance did dope pre-99. So long as he didn't do it during his 7 year run, it simply doesn't matter. I think it's entirely plausible that EVERYONE is being truthful, including Lance, when he says year after year that he's not taking or hasn't taken any substances to win the TdF.

Boy, the French sure know how to get publicity for the Tour, huh?


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

gregario said:


> Nichols wasn't there. I assume you're referring to him. He wasn't there. Frankie and wife were, as was the Oakley rep. And I'll say it again. Frankie and wife have nothing to gain from lying and a lot to lose.


1) How do you know that Dr. Hichols wasn't there? Were you there?
2) Why would a group of "friends" and an Oakley rep be asking about PEDs or did LA just feel the need to spew forth a confession of PED use at that particular time?


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

rocco said:


> A Standard of evidence necessary have a jury convict in a court of law.


Which, consequently, found in favor of Lance despite BA's testimony....

Apparently the judge didn't deem her testimony to be credible.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

BigFatOne said:


> Oh my, I think I have offended you....Sometimes I ask silly questions, my mother raised me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing in an internet pissing match could offend me FatOne, but if you think that highly of yourself then by all means continue.

Read the threads re: The Yellow Stuff. If the French lab hadn't been so incompetent the issue may be resolved, as it stands, those samples are *meaningless*. Look up the word if you are unclear on the concept. www.dictionary.com

I defend the notion of innocent until proven guilty, unlike many here who would do well sitting in a Taliban tribunal.

Judge didn't believe BA's testimony, why should I. Lemond sounds more and more like a bitter Ted Kaczynski, credibility = zero. L'Equipe, uh, right. The rest, same story....

So far the halfwits have yet to offer proof. A Dr.'s script noting said usage, a urine sample that had a clear chain of custody, a recordered phone conversation of Lance discussing usage/dosage etc etc.....something more than I saw/heard.......


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

James OCLV said:


> Which, consequently, found in favor of Lance despite BA's testimony....
> 
> Apparently the judge didn't deem her testimony to be credible.


the dispute was decided in LA's favor because of what was described as a poorly written contract. I don't think there was any finding made as to the credibility of the testimony.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

blackhat said:


> the dispute was decided in LA's favor because of what was described as a poorly written contract. I don't think there was any finding made as to the credibility of the testimony.


Ah... didn't know that.


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

gregario said:


> Nichols wasn't there. I assume you're referring to him. He wasn't there. Frankie and wife were, as was the Oakley rep. And I'll say it again. Frankie and wife have nothing to gain from lying and a lot to lose.


I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a Lance-Fanboy, but it seems like BA was a little obsessed with bringing Lance down. Check this out:

"The Andreus are the only people who say they recall hearing it, even though they couldn't identify any of Lance's doctors as the white coated people allegedly in the room, hurriedly left the room before the conversation was complete, could not remember the number of doctors, their gender, and most incredibly, she could not remember whether Armstrong had any indication of the extensive brain surgery he had undergone only three days previous to the alleged incident. She was also unaware that Lance was required to undergo an active steroid and EPO regimen as part of his post-operative treatment, a reasonable explanation for those terms under the circumstances.

The papers neglected to frame Betsy Andreu's testimony in the context of the case: she conferred with and assisted the insurance company, she voluntarily travelled to Dallas on her own to testify against Armstrong at trial (the panel had no power to subpoena her appearance at the trial), she conferred with the Lemonds over 100 times during approximately ten months during 2004 and 2005 in a collective effort to attack Armstrong. Armstrong's lawyers recovered a note she brought to Dallas which read "why do I hate Lance Armstrong?" She was so obsessive that even the insurance company employee responsible for attempting to gather evidence of drug use by Lance (the employee had gone so far as to steal a piece of used chewing gum Armstrong had placed in a trash can in a Dallas Courtroom and sent it for DNA testing at a Dallas laboratory, the results of which were negative) complained of her constant phone calls and suggestions. She placed over 15 calls to the investigator during a one-month period prior to the trial".

As far as the LeMonds, during the testimony, both the LeMonds and the Andreaus constantly contradicted each other.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Related story, never tested positive...

http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/news/articles/10157.0.html


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

*and you have a complete copy of the sealed arbitration transcripts ?* ....or are you just parroting what you read in the partialy & selectivly informed and biased (in either direction) press ????
b0nk


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> USPS admitted to using the Actovegin, you don't have to rely on L'equipe. They said it was for that diabetic soigneur, who in the recent insurance case apparently testified he only said it was for him because Armstrong/Stapleton pressured him into saying that.


From the SCA lawsuit (Julian DeVriese):

Q. Did you tell Greg LeMond in April, 2001 that a French investigation dealing with the 2000 Tour de France was dismissed because you signed a false or fraudulent affidavit? 

A. No. 

Q. Did Lance Armstrong or Bill Stapleton request you to sign a false affidavit in connection with that investigation? 

A. No.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

djg714 said:


> Related story, never tested positive...
> 
> http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/news/articles/10157.0.html


but did find empty epo vials in his room.......then he confessed.....that is an example of proof


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Alternatively, I've read that the Dr. in question was not in the room at the time the statement was supposedly made. Only the Andreau's, the Carmichael's, the Oakly rep and Lance's girlfriend.


To me, that's the most bizzare part about the story. Why would Lance "confess" to this group at that time?


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

ChilliConCarnage said:


> I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a Lance-Fanboy, but it seems like BA was a little obsessed with bringing Lance down. Check this out:
> 
> "The Andreus are the only people who say they recall hearing it, even though they couldn't identify any of Lance's doctors as the white coated people allegedly in the room, hurriedly left the room before the conversation was complete, could not remember the number of doctors, their gender, and most incredibly, she could not remember whether Armstrong had any indication of the extensive brain surgery he had undergone only three days previous to the alleged incident. She was also unaware that Lance was required to undergo an active steroid and EPO regimen as part of his post-operative treatment, a reasonable explanation for those terms under the circumstances.
> 
> ...


Anyone know what year(s) Frankie was sacked by USPS (first as a rider, then as a domestic DS)?


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

svend said:


> but did find empty epo vials in his room.......then he confessed.....that is an example of proof


Of note, here is a guy who admitted to taking EPO in 2001 and 2003 but never tested positive. Says a lot about the accuracy of drug teting for EPO doesn't it?


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

James OCLV said:


> To me, that's the most bizzare part about the story. Why would Lance "confess" to this group at that time?


That's not important, as to why the topic would even come up in that group 3 days after having his brain operated on. He must have said it because she said so. 

Now, what could have come up is someone asking what they have in the IV's.......ohhhhhhh, some epo, some steroids etc etc.........

Picture this, you are in the hospital with a teammate a few days after his brain surgery, would you just ask out of the blue. "So, Larry, what *Performance Enhancing Drugs* have you used?".......Right......like I said, for the people that buy into this story I have some great beach front property for sale in Louisiana......cheap


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

He didn't just confess to the people mentioned. Supposedly, it was two "doctors" that BA recalled coming into the room, or at least two (or more - she couldn't recall how many) people (she couldn't recall if they were male or female) in white lab coats who asked Lance the question. She also couldn't recall their names, or give an accurate description of them, or identify them as any of Lance's Doctors.

Kind of sounds like an X-Files epsiode to me.

I don't know if Lance doped or not, and in reality I don't much care, but I'm not about to cement my beliefs based on the Andreau/LeMond testimony. As far as I'm concerned, he can go off and enjoy retirement-land. It won't stop me from riding or not riding my bike!


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

Who is this 'Lance' of who you speak?


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

MikeBiker said:


> Who is this 'Lance' of who you speak?


A retired professional cyclist with some success in his palmares who seems to illicit an extreme animosity bordering on hysteria from people who have never met him, especially L'Equipe.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

ChilliConCarnage said:


> He didn't just confess to the people mentioned. Supposedly, it was two "doctors" that BA recalled coming into the room, or at least two (or more - she couldn't recall how many) people (she couldn't recall if they were male or female) in white lab coats who asked Lance the question. She also couldn't recall their names, or give an accurate description of them, or identify them as any of Lance's Doctors.
> 
> Kind of sounds like an X-Files epsiode to me.


More like a South Park episode.......

Random people in white coats who just popped in to ask about PED's.......riiiiiigggghhhhhttt. Her memory seemed pretty good 
other than with those minor details.........and what was the story on FA
and Disco, any bad blood from that.......


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

svend said:


> A retired professional cyclist with some success in his palmares who seems to illicit an extreme animosity bordering on hysteria from people who have never met him, especially the French.


Svend,

I hope that your "standard of proof" that the french "hate" armstrong, that we have "been secretely steaming at him for wining the TDF for the past 7 years", etc, etc, is somewhat along the lines of the same standard you wish to see met for settling the issue of Armstrong and PED's.

It seems to me not ... and rather more like the collected pieces of internet "received wisdom" that you seem to deplore in the case of the Armstrong accusations.

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that most of your statements re. my country's supposed dislike of LA is based on what you have gleaned from your computer screen and what passes for "media" coverage of this topic in the USA.

I follow the TDF news in the States. I also follow it here in France, and in Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany (and the UK and Ireland too!), and, more importantly, I race and spend an inordinate amount of time speaking with "real" french people -- often about bike racing, the TDF and, occasionally, about LA. Oh, and I have spent several days in each of the past 12 years, and on and off for the previous 25 years, actually watching the tour. On the roadside. Here in France. Trust me on this one -- your vision of the french attitude vis-a-vis LA is grossly distorted. Many people in France do not like him, but as many, if not more do -- as witnessed by all those who cheered him to his 7 victories along the roads of France every summer. I imagine from the posts here on RBR that there are some in the US who also dislike LA -- but I would not surmise from what I read here that the US "hates" Lance -- unless I had 1st hand experience to back it up. Something you seem to be lacking whenever you throw out your barbs re. the french.

And no, I don't all Socal surfers are wasted beach bums -- although my reading of the french press might sometimes lead me to believe so!

Oh, and by the way, have you ever read the Equipe? In french? Every week? It really isn't a rag -- despite what you may have read in the States.

Surfs up dude!

Philippe (fellow Callipygian -- only the best!)


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

philippec said:


> Svend,
> 
> 
> Oh, and by the way, have you ever read the Equipe? In french? Every week? It really isn't a rag -- despite what you may have read in the States.
> ...


Actually, the surf is down right now. I edited to say L'Equipe. I have spent alot of time in France, competing as well as just traveling and have never had a bad experience so my barb was in poor taste and should have been directed appropriately. From this side of the pond L'Equipe has had what can only be construed as a vendetta mentality ergo tabliod style trashy jouralism. Whatever, I still say, where is the proof....so far, just alot of hearsay........and shoddy journalism, but hey, whatever it takes to sell copy eh.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

svend said:


> Actually, the surf is down right now. I edited to say L'Equipe. I have spent alot of time in France, competing as well as just traveling and have never had a bad experience so my barb was in poor taste and should have been directed appropriately. From this side of the pond L'Equipe has had what can only be construed as a vendetta mentality ergo tabliod style trashy jouralism. Whatever, I still say, where is the proof....so far, just alot of hearsay........and shoddy journalism, but hey, whatever it takes to sell copy eh.


Lance has stated numerous times that he has only been treated very well by the majority of cycling fans in France; however, I think its obvious L'Equipe is in Business to sell papers and tearing down someone high up seems to be getting that done for them, you only need to look at how the latest leaked documents were reported, there was very little context given and judging by the cover you can only assume one thing, that he unequivocally stated he took EPO, HGH, etc. Was it even in the article that SCA promotions lost their court case and had to pay 7.5 million dollars?. I highly doubt the other side of the story that has come out in recent days received the same attention either. 

I'm not American and I read English and Dutch newspapers and Internet sites primarily and it differed vastly from L'Equipe this past week.

BTW, I read the Sun regularly because their sports section gets some great scoops on Football transfers but they also miss as much as they hit and I definitely consider it a tabloid too, which is evident at how much they are sued.


----------



## BigFatOne (Jun 29, 2006)

So I just got back from my daily visit to the Methadone Clinic and checking in to see the latest. 

-I Googled Callipygian, Svend it looks like you and me got something in common. I love a little "Junk in the trunk" if you know what I mean

-That Philippe is one smart frog, I wish I could write as good as him.

-Sved, are you and 53x11 drinking the same silly sauce? If yes please share with your friends cause I still cannot figure out where you are coming from. You say you think Lance doped, and many teamates, team doctors, team helpers, Lab techs etc agree with you.....why do you think they are all lying

Let me get this streight, Svend and 53X11 think

Greg Lemond-Liar
Kathy Lemond-Liar
Frank Andreu-Lair
Besty Andreu-Liar
Prentice Stefen-Liar
Emma O'Reilly-Liar
Christophe Bassons-Liar
Filippo Simeoni-Liar
James Startt-Liar
Jacques de Ceaurriz-Liar
Stephanie McIlvain-Lair, except when she was in court then she told the truth
David Walsh-Liar
Steve Swart-Liar
Claude Droussent-Liar


Lance Armstrong-Truth teller



This is sounding more and more like the "Vast right-wing conspiracy" excuse


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

The equipe had pretty good coverge of the SCA case -- including some legal expert (from the US) explaining the merits on which LA won his case. It appears it had less to do with doping and a lot to do with the wording in the contract which apparently didn't address a contingency regarding the use of PED's. Thus the whether or not LA took PEDs was moot -- SCA was obligated to pay up since they did not expressedly say they wouldn't if LA had recourse to PED's. I thought the coverage was pretty good. 

Also, this week, they have been realistically talking about France's chances in the Brazil match-up ... they are slim... very, very slim!

Philippe


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

svend said:


> I have spent alot of time in France, competing as well as just traveling


Good on you! I just finished my season -- it's all cyclosportives and putzing around on the bike ' till the cyclocross starts. If you ever make it back, I'll take you out training -- and PED-indulging of the oenological kind!

A+

Philippe


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

philippec said:


> The equipe had pretty good coverge of the SCA case -- including some legal expert (from the US) explaining the merits on which LA won his case. It appears it had less to do with doping and a lot to do with the wording in the contract which apparently didn't address a contingency regarding the use of PED's. Thus the whether or not LA took PEDs was moot -- SCA was obligated to pay up since they did not expressedly say they wouldn't if LA had recourse to PED's. I thought the coverage was pretty good.
> 
> Also, this week, they have been realistically talking about France's chances in the Brazil match-up ... they are slim... very, very slim!
> 
> Philippe


I go back and forth on France's chances against Brazil, I think they're better than most people think. Kaka has been there best player IMO and he might be injured, Ronaldhino has been fairly absent and I think their weakness is their middle defense. I wonder if the 3 days rest will play a part for players like Zidane and Henry who has to do so much running. I think your chances are actually better against Brazil than than they were against Spain. I think a France England Semifinal would be very interesting!


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

giovanni sartori said:


> I think a France England Semifinal would be very interesting!


That is the understatement of the year!!


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

*Au contraire ..................*



philippec said:


> The equipe had pretty good coverge of the SCA case -- including some legal expert (from the US) explaining the merits on which LA won his case. It appears it had less to do with doping and a lot to do with the wording in the contract which apparently didn't address a contingency regarding the use of PED's. *Thus the whether or not LA took PEDs was moot -- SCA was obligated to pay up since they did not expressedly say they wouldn't if LA had recourse to PED's.* I thought the coverage was pretty good.
> 
> Also, this week, they have been realistically talking about France's chances in the Brazil match-up ... they are slim... very, very slim!
> 
> Philippe


*.........had the case been this simple, there never would have been a lawsuit in the first place........just a quick settlement that would have saved them the additional $2.5 million.....

*Philippe,
You are a smart guy (i enjoy your posts btw),surely you are not naive. 

You know that just as American TV news is full of so called "experts" giving "authoritative commentary", that L'Equipe does the same thing too......

The process is less about credibility, and more about promotion....And in the case of L'Equipe, they have their baby to promote.....LeTour !!! 

b0nk


----------



## surftel (Apr 18, 2005)

bonkmiester said:


> *.........had the case been this simple, there never would have been a lawsuit in the first place........just a quick settlement that would have saved them the additional $2.5 million.....
> *


*

As someone who negotiates and defends contracts for a living it seems clear to me that a settlement was SCA's goal but Lance called SCA's bluff. It has been well reported in the US and European media that SCA did not have a leg to stand on with their PED defense. At the start of all this Lance even said that he felt like he was being extorted. SCA and their legal team had to have know this as well but took the strategy of trying to scare Lance into a reduced settlement with the threat of exposure via depo's and a trial. Gutsy move by Lance, he called their bluff. It worked as he got an additonal $2.5 Million as well as did not have to agree to a reduction in the $5 million payment....His cost? some legal fees and a few days bad press.

I hate to say it but this strategy is a common one, and sadly most of the time it works.*


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Lance never lies.....and also was the only clean rider on the peloton...


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

surftel said:


> As someone who negotiates and defends contracts for a living it seems clear to me that a settlement was SCA's goal but Lance called SCA's bluff. It has been well reported in the US and European media that SCA did not have a leg to stand on with their PED defense. At the start of all this Lance even said that he felt like he was being extorted. SCA and their legal team had to have know this as well but took the strategy of trying to scare Lance into a reduced settlement with the threat of exposure via depo's and a trial. *Gutsy move by Lance, he called their bluff.* It worked as he got an additonal $2.5 Million as well as did not have to agree to a reduction in the $5 million payment....His cost? some legal fees and a few days bad press.
> 
> I hate to say it but this strategy is a common one, and sadly most of the time it works.



*....so SCA is out $7.5m plus another what, $600K for cost of defense?...

...my wife does med-mal defense work...in her world no body takes risks like that unless they have an iron clad case (few & far beween)....

....guess LA & Co new that Frankie, Greg et al were all full of BS....

thanks for the insight Surftel...:thumbsup:

b0nk

*


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

bonkmiester said:


> *...agree, I think there is a "peloton-think" mindset that allows them to rationalize all this as looking after their "recovery"...they probably have convinced themselves that as long as they don't exceed the "threshold" drug levels that they aren't cheating...*


Agreed. How come we never hear other active professional cyclists moaning about not winning races because a doper beat them? Because it is a circle the wagons mentality. Thats why LA trashed Frankie, C Bassons and Simeoni. Its the unwritten code. Not dissimilar to Bettini denying the Astarloa Worlds payoff affair, notwithstanding Astarloa's later retraction. Call it professional courtesy. And Santa Claus delivers all the presents, just like Bjarne Riis did not know anything about Basso's program. Lets just all agree that they are all pretty much on some kind of PED program and enjoy the spectacle that professional cycle racing is for us tifosi.


----------

