Betsy Andreu

micron

From today's Cycling News:

Andreu settles with The Guardian

By Laura Weislo

Betsy Andreu has settled her case against the British newspaper The Guardian for a November article which insinuated she had lied in testimony against Lance Armstrong. The paper came to a cash settlement and published a letter earlier this week by Andreu, the wife of Armstrong's former teammate Frankie Andreu in response to her objections.

"The Guardian implied I had lied when it said 'Other people, apparently, also lied about Armstrong. Betsy Andreu, whose husband Frankie raced with Armstrong, claims she heard the cyclist tell doctors treating him for cancer that he had taken performance-enhancing drugs'", Andreu wrote about the article by Donald McRae.

The story referred to a civil suit between SCA Promotions and Armstrong, where the former company tried to deny a $5 million bonus payment to Armstrong for his fifth Tour win until it could be proven he had not taken performance enhancing drugs.

"Mr. McRae never contacted me or my husband to check that statement; if he had we would have given him our response."

"In 1996, Frankie and I were present when Lance Armstrong answered a doctor's question whether or not he'd ever used performance enhancing drugs in his career," Andreu told Cyclingnews. "We never made this incident public until we were subpoenaed to testify in a court of law in 2005 in the state of Michigan.

"Under oath, both Frankie and I told the truth about this hospital incident. As a result, I have been singled out and have endured years of pushback from the Armstrong camp, the latest attempt being the Guardian article in question. With this action I hope to make one thing clear: I have always told the truth, and I will not tolerate being called a liar.

"I have asked that any cash settlement be paid not to me, but to charities of my choice: The Lennon Center a local charity whose mission is to provide nonjudgmental counseling, material assistance and counseling before, during and after pregnancy; and St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee."

Betsy Andreu goes on record and gives the cash settlement to charity. Others who claim to be doing it all for charity simply pocket the appearance fee.

A principled woman has had her say - chapeau, Betsy!

Moomaloid

Totally... :!:

Martin Van Nostrand

That original case had all the records sealed as part of the settlement with Armstrong's lawyers. The original case the Guardian was referring to was the suit that Armstrong brought out against one sponsor who refused to pay Armstrong because of his doping allegations.

Testimony in this case leaked out, but the US media never showed it because Armstrong's lawyers blocked it all in court. However, the CBC in Canada did reveal the testimony, despite Armstrong's vain attempts to get it blocked.

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

Strangely, the US media and Livestrong has since referred to Armstrong "winning" this case. But the case was settled, and the decision, settlement and testimony were all sealed as per Armstrong's lawyer's instructions.

The Andreu's did not lie. Many of their statements were backed up by other US Postal team employees, under oath. Of course, unless they look for this, no one in the US can find this info, and if anyone in the US publishes this info, they will be sued.

Not exactly the actions of someone with nothing to hide.

moray_gub

[quote="

The Andreu's did not lie. Many of their statements were backed up by other US Postal team employees, under oath. Of course, unless they look for this, no one in the US can find this info, and if anyone in the US publishes this info, they will be sued.

Not exactly the actions of someone with nothing to hide.[/quote]

Can you give details on the many statements that were corroborated under oath by US postal employees ? how many postal employees or ex teammates testified against him under oath becuase according to Armstrong it was 2. Also there were several other people in the room that didnt hear him say what was alleged and one of them testified to that effect. Now maybe he said it maybe he didnt but its not as clear cut as you are making out.

MG

NaB

Moray Gub wrote:

[quote="

The Andreu's did not lie. Many of their statements were backed up by other US Postal team employees, under oath. Of course, unless they look for this, no one in the US can find this info, and if anyone in the US publishes this info, they will be sued.

Not exactly the actions of someone with nothing to hide.

Can you give details on the many statements that were corroborated under oath by US postal employees ? how many postal employees or ex teammates testified against him under oath becuase according to Armstrong it was 2. Also there were several other people in the room that didnt hear him say what was alleged and one of them testified to that effect. Now maybe he said it maybe he didnt but its not as clear cut as you are making out.

MG[/quote]

Further proof that denial isn't just a river in Egypt..... :roll:

moray_gub

NaB wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

[quote="

Can you give details on the many statements that were corroborated under oath by US postal employees ? how many postal employees or ex teammates testified against him under oath becuase according to Armstrong it was 2. Also there were several other people in the room that didnt hear him say what was alleged and one of them testified to that effect. Now maybe he said it maybe he didnt but its not as clear cut as you are making out.

MG

Further proof that denial isn't just a river in Egypt..... :roll:

Given that puerile response i assume you cant answer the questions.


MG

NaB

Moray Gub wrote:

NaB wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

[quote="

Can you give details on the many statements that were corroborated under oath by US postal employees ? how many postal employees or ex teammates testified against him under oath becuase according to Armstrong it was 2. Also there were several other people in the room that didnt hear him say what was alleged and one of them testified to that effect. Now maybe he said it maybe he didnt but its not as clear cut as you are making out.

MG

Further proof that denial isn't just a river in Egypt..... :roll:

Given that puerile response i assume you cant answer the questions.


MG

It might be puerile but it doesn't make me wrong does it lol...whether its many or few people who gave evidence why would they lie? You wouldn't apply that logic in a criminal law context..the fact that a conviction can be based solely on a victim's statement doesn't alter its validity does it?

moray_gub

NaB wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

NaB wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

[quote="


It might be puerile but it doesn't make me wrong does it lol...whether its many or few people who gave evidence why would they lie? You wouldn't apply that logic in a criminal law context..the fact that a conviction can be based solely on a victim's statement doesn't alter its validity does it?

It doesnt make you right either though does it, its been stated that many postal employees backed their statements up under oath i am asking how many and you cant give an answer. Oh and people have lied in courts for 600 years or so for all sort of reasons, just because you take an oath doesnt mean you are neccesary telling the truth.

MG

colint

So some people in the room heard it, some didn't. But the ones who did are telling the truth, and the ones who didn't are lying. Is that your argument ?

NaB

colint wrote:

So some people in the room heard it, some didn't. But the ones who did are telling the truth, and the ones who didn't are lying. Is that your argument ?

Are you being deliberately obtuse...am I missing something here?? HELLO doping is a real issue...wake up and smell the coffee boys!

don key

I would like that coffee after it's been true Pances system, with cream and sugar but without the altitude.

colint

I'm not being obtuse, I just find it patronising when posts such as yours try to ridicule anyone who questions the circumstantial evidence. I think we all know that doping is a real issue, but thanks for being kind enough to point it out

dave_1

how do we know the recording aurelio keep reposting was authentic?

and why wasn't the alleged msn thingy allowed as court evidence?


and what was the timeline? Did the lab test the LA 99 sample before or after resiot passed the code to them...helped them source it out the freezer from the pile..

come on lance haters, bring it on...and see if you can manage it without the usual bullying and insults your throw at anyone who dares not agree with you!!

NaB

colint wrote:

I'm not being obtuse, I just find it patronising when posts such as yours try to ridicule anyone who questions the circumstantial evidence. I think we all know that doping is a real issue, but thanks for being kind enough to point it out

Sworn testimony in a courtroom is not circumstantial evidence..etc etc. Why not turn your obvious talents for 'questioning' towards the cheats and those who defend them/welcome them back into the fold of pro cycling??

don key

I have no sporting heroes, there are those I like and those I don't, my own family has had one or two but what I think I see here is a number of people who have invested an awful lot of emotion into the star that is what he are, a rather feeble liar bringing mire to his unbalanced high wire act. The myth tells us that he had the best of everything but he never learned how to lie properly, if he himself believed his myth he would be home and dry but as it is he is crying over spilt guilt. Greg Lemon is accused of being a bitter twisted sort of mumbling intellectually challenged muppet but in reality he knows exactly what it takes and fakes were what finished his career, the big ring for big mountains, fountains of blood miracles. If you can spot them you can't drop them. There is so much evidence out there that to deny it is a sign of inability to deal with reality as it evidently presents itself.

forearms Van Petegem

colint wrote:

So some people in the room heard it, some didn't. But the ones who did are telling the truth, and the ones who didn't are lying. Is that your argument ?

not mutually exclusive.

a. they were not in the room at the same time
b. it was different doctors in the room at a different time
c. they were in the room when it was spoken but they genuinely did not hear it

you are deliberately obfuscating it, and reframing the issue into a "he said-she said".

If you wish to assess the evidence on its merits, you must assess motives, and the respective self-interest. The Andreus were close friends with Armstrong. They had nothing to gain, and in fact, they brought lots of grief upon themselves for having the gall to offer sworn testimony.

Marion Jones is in jail now because she perjured herself. Why should one perjure themselves for Armstrong.

deejay

Dave_1 wrote:

.

come on lance haters, bring it on...and see if you can manage it without the usual bullying and insults your throw at anyone who dares not agree with you!!

Why is everybody a lance hater if we don't understand how he improved so "VERY" much between July 1996 and July 1999. (well he had treatment, didn't he)
That is a "FACT" and until there is an explanation of the "Hidden Truth" then I just file the man under the same title with RIIS.
Can you explain the Fantastic Improvement, ???????
Beyond that, then please take him away as I've had enough of him.
I think you might be saying the same thing at the end of next week. That is if you are interested in the TOC and not the Hype.

Remember, "Let Levi Ride" sorry that should be "Let Levi Win". ????

forearms Van Petegem

deejay wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

.

come on lance haters, bring it on...and see if you can manage it without the usual bullying and insults your throw at anyone who dares not agree with you!!

Why is everybody a lance hater if we don't understand how he improved so "VERY" much between July 1996 and July 1999. (well he had treatment, didn't he)
That is a "FACT" and until there is an explanation of the "Hidden Truth" then I just file the man under the same title with RIIS.
Can you explain the Fantastic Improvement, ???????
Beyond that, then please take him away as I've had enough of him.
I think you might be saying the same thing at the end of next week. That is if you are interested in the TOC and not the Hype.

Remember, "Let Levi Ride" sorry that should be "Let Levi Win". ????

deejay it aint so simple. As you can see from Carmichael Wenzel, they were doping their juniors with cortizone at the very least.

Armstrong was always on a program. And so was the peloton.

This explanation you make, conveniently paints him as a clean rider pre-. Yet he was never a clean rider, just like the other riders were not either. Armstrong did not do anyone else did not do in that era. There were but a few. Moncoutie, Mcgee, Gilbert, and Bassons. Only the best could afford to be clean, because you could not be clean and in the pro peloton without the pinnacle talent level.

I reckon folks should point their vitriol on Riis and CSC. Because they make out they are clean, and they are anything but. Atleast Armstrong never promoted his ethics, until he was called into question. Then he acted like a tyrant that Mugabe would be proud ot however, reprehensible information, but one can understand pathological alpha males protecting their self-interests.

Get Riis and Bruyneel out of the sport.

dave_1

deejay wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

.

come on lance haters, bring it on...and see if you can manage it without the usual bullying and insults your throw at anyone who dares not agree with you!!

Why is everybody a lance hater if we don't understand how he improved so "VERY" much between July 1996 and July 1999. (well he had treatment, didn't he)
That is a "FACT" and until there is an explanation of the "Hidden Truth" then I just file the man under the same title with RIIS.
Can you explain the Fantastic Improvement, ???????
Beyond that, then please take him away as I've had enough of him.
I think you might be saying the same thing at the end of next week. That is if you are interested in the TOC and not the Hype.

Remember, "Let Levi Ride" sorry that should be "Let Levi Win". ????

he beat Rominger in the Du Pont tour 95 was pulled out of the 1993 TDF as expert opinion was that he had serious potential and should not burn himself out...likewise he was pulled out of the 1994 TDF for just that reason...the guy was a talent in the making back then...infact even as of now...I think he has only gone past day 10 to complete grand tours about 9 times, the 95 TDF, 98 Vuelta and 7 TDFs.. guys in their late 20s have ridden and finished as many GTs as him...he has paced himself quite well in his career-had a plan..it;'s not all doping

CyclingBantam

deejay wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

.

come on lance haters, bring it on...and see if you can manage it without the usual bullying and insults your throw at anyone who dares not agree with you!!

Why is everybody a lance hater if we don't understand how he improved so "VERY" much between July 1996 and July 1999. (well he had treatment, didn't he)
That is a "FACT" and until there is an explanation of the "Hidden Truth" then I just file the man under the same title with RIIS.
Can you explain the Fantastic Improvement, ???????
Beyond that, then please take him away as I've had enough of him.
I think you might be saying the same thing at the end of next week. That is if you are interested in the TOC and not the Hype.

Remember, "Let Levi Ride" sorry that should be "Let Levi Win". ????

23 years old - World Champion, TDF stage winner, 2nd Liege - Bastogne - Liege.

Now who would have predicted he would have done well in later life. :roll:

I forgot to mention - he had eaten 17 babies by this point, let's just forget about that.

moray_gub

forearms Van Petegem wrote:

deejay wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

.

Then he acted like a tyrant that Mugabe would be proud ot however, reprehensible information, but one can understand pathological alpha males protecting their self-interests.

Dont you think comparing him to Mugabe is just a little bit silly ?

MG

colint

NaB wrote:

colint wrote:

I'm not being obtuse, I just find it patronising when posts such as yours try to ridicule anyone who questions the circumstantial evidence. I think we all know that doping is a real issue, but thanks for being kind enough to point it out

Sworn testimony in a courtroom is not circumstantial evidence..etc etc. Why not turn your obvious talents for 'questioning' towards the cheats and those who defend them/welcome them back into the fold of pro cycling??

Do you mean Artmstrong or the people who welcomed Millar back ?

colint

forearms Van Petegem wrote:

colint wrote:

So some people in the room heard it, some didn't. But the ones who did are telling the truth, and the ones who didn't are lying. Is that your argument ?

not mutually exclusive.

a. they were not in the room at the same time
b. it was different doctors in the room at a different time
c. they were in the room when it was spoken but they genuinely did not hear it

you are deliberately obfuscating it, and reframing the issue into a "he said-she said".

If you wish to assess the evidence on its merits, you must assess motives, and the respective self-interest. The Andreus were close friends with Armstrong. They had nothing to gain, and in fact, they brought lots of grief upon themselves for having the gall to offer sworn testimony.

Marion Jones is in jail now because she perjured herself. Why should one perjure themselves for Armstrong.

The point I'm trying to make is that those who didn't hear it, are put into your category c, the possibility that it was never said is not even considered. I'm not saying it was or wasn't said, because the only fact in this is that none of us know. If you believe the andreus then fine, but it's not fact, its just your opinion

don key

Moray Gub wrote:

forearms Van Petegem wrote:

deejay wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

.

Then he acted like a tyrant that Mugabe would be proud ot however, reprehensible information, but one can understand pathological alpha males protecting their self-interests.

Dont you think comparing him to Mugabe is just a little bit silly ?

MG

For someone who always questions like a detective on acid and loves to be steaming in self righteously you forgot to notice that he in fact compared him to a "tyrant Mugabe would be proud of", not Mug a Bee himself.

aurelio_-_banned

BenBlyth wrote:

23 years old - World Champion, TDF stage winner, 2nd Liege - Bastogne - Liege. Now who would have predicted he would have done well in later life. :roll:

I think everyone agrees that Pharmstrong would have made a very good single day specialist, but NOTHING in his first 3 Tour rides indicates that he would one day not only 'do well' in the Tour but dominate it for 7 years.

In 1993 he was 81st in the prologue, lost 6.04 in the flat 59 km TT at Lac De Madine, lost a whopping 21.42 on the 10th stage to Serre Chevalier via the Galibier, lost a huge 28.47 on the next stage to Isola 2000 and then abandoned.

In 1994 he lost 6.23 on the flat 64 Km TT at Bergerac, despite earlier saying that he had ridden to his limits and was trying to improve his TT performance with the aim of reducing his deficit by maybe 1 minute a year. On the otherwise flat 11th stage which finished at the top of the Hautecam he finished 65th at 7.03. and on the next stage to Luz Ardiden via the Tourmalet he lost a whopping 20.09. He then managed to hang on for a few more days, losing another 5.56 and finishing 114th on the 14th stage to Montpellier which featured one climb, he then abandoned on the next stage over the Ventoux.

In 1995 he had a 'good' year, well 'good' for an established Tour no-hoper that is, as he actually managed to finish, even if this was one and half hours behind the 'winner', the Epo- fuelled Miguel Indurain. In 1995 he lost 5.09 in the 56 Km flat TT to Séraing (even Bruyneel stuffed him by over 2 minutes!). On stage 9 to La Plagne he lost 17.57. On Stage 10 to Alpe D'Huez he lost yet another 18.44. (Even the noted non-climber Andrea Tafi stuffed him for 2 minutes). He lost another 9.53 on the next stage to Saint Etienne, on stage 15 to Cauterets he lost a huge 32.45 and so it went on as he got his arse kicked from one side of France to the other.

He again abandoned in 1996 but this might well have had something to do with his developing illness. He then came back in 1999 after teaming up with Ferrari and dominated the race. Such also-ran to 'winner' transformations were unknown in the past, and yet became the norm in the Epo era (Indurain, Riis, Armstrong...).

Of course the fanboys would have us believe that this had nothing to do with his new 'program' and can be attributed to the well-known performance enhancing side-effects of nearly dying of cancer. :roll:

aurelio_-_banned

Dave_1 wrote:

he beat Rominger in the Du Pont tour 95 was pulled out of the 1993 TDF as expert opinion was that he had serious potential and should not burn himself out...likewise he was pulled out of the 1994 TDF for just that reason

This is just another myth circulated by the Armstrong PR machine in order to 'explain away' his dismal pre-cancer Tour performances. The bottom line is that he pulled out because he was too wasted to carry on! Armstrong’s comments at the time also run counter to such an explanation, as they make it clear that he went to the Tour with the intention of 'kicking arse' if at all possible, and rode to his limits whilst trying to do so.

It's a good job that the same imaginary principle was not applied to so many other riders with 'serious potential' like Merckx who, of course, totally dominated his first Tour de France, or Fignon whose first Tour win was also his first major stage race!

dave_1

aurelio wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

he beat Rominger in the Du Pont tour 95 was pulled out of the 1993 TDF as expert opinion was that he had serious potential and should not burn himself out...likewise he was pulled out of the 1994 TDF for just that reason

This is just another myth circulated by the Armstrong PR machine in order to 'explain away' his dismal pre-cancer Tour performances. The bottom line is that he pulled out because he was too wasted to carry on! Armstrong’s comments at the time also run counter to such an explanation, as they make it clear that he went to the Tour with the intention of 'kicking arse' if at all possible, and rode to his limits whilst trying to do so.

It's a good job that the same imaginary principle was not applied to so many other riders with 'serious potential' like Merckx who, of course, totally dominated his first Tour de France, or Fignon whose first Tour win was also his first major stage race!

he didn't have a PR machine then...they simply came to the view that 3 weeks was too much at the age of 21..Fignon rode the 1983 Tour of Spain for Hinault and Greg Lemond DNFd it...so facts of Greg and Fignon's first grand tour suggest they were much like LanceA in 93.

don key

aurelio wrote:

BenBlyth wrote:

23 years old - World Champion, TDF stage winner, 2nd Liege - Bastogne - Liege. Now who would have predicted he would have done well in later life. :roll:

I think everyone agrees that Pharmstrong would have made a very good single day specialist, but NOTHING in his first 3 Tour rides indicates that he would one day not only 'do well' in the Tour but dominate it for 7 years.

In 1993 he was 81st in the prologue, lost 6.04 in the flat 59 km TT at Lac De Madine, lost a whopping 21.42 on the 10th stage to Serre Chevalier via the Galibier, lost a huge 28.47 on the next stage to Isola 2000 and then abandoned.

In 1994 he lost 6.23 on the flat 64 Km TT at Bergerac, despite earlier saying that he had ridden to his limits and was trying to improve his TT performance with the aim of reducing his deficit by maybe 1 minute a year. On the otherwise flat 11th stage which finished at the top of the Hautecam he finished 65th at 7.03. and on the next stage to Luz Ardiden via the Tourmalet he lost a whopping 20.09. He then managed to hang on for a few more days, losing another 5.56 and finishing 114th on the 14th stage to Montpellier which featured one climb, he then abandoned on the next stage over the Ventoux.

In 1995 he had a 'good' year, well 'good' for an established Tour no-hoper that is, as he actually managed to finish, even if this was one and half hours behind the 'winner', the Epo- fuelled Miguel Indurain. In 1995 he lost 5.09 in the 56 Km flat TT to Séraing (even Bruyneel stuffed him by over 2 minutes!). On stage 9 to La Plagne he lost 17.57. On Stage 10 to Alpe D'Huez he lost yet another 18.44. (Even the noted non-climber Andrea Tafi stuffed him for 2 minutes). He lost another 9.53 on the next stage to Saint Etienne, on stage 15 to Cauterets he lost a huge 32.45 and so it went on as he got his arse kicked from one side of France to the other.

He again abandoned in 1996 but this might well have had something to do with his developing illness. He then came back in 1999 after teaming up with Ferrari and dominated the race. Such also-ran to 'winner' transformations were unknown in the past, and yet became the norm in the Epo era (Indurain, Riis, Armstrong...).

Of course the fanboys would have us believe that this had nothing to do with his new 'program' and can be attributed to the well-known performance enhancing side-effects of nearly dying of cancer. :roll:

I was going to mention this but I was having to much fun and couldn't be bothered looking for it. It was set in stone, that is until stoned got him back in there with an exocet up his cracksy. Never let being an underachiever get in the way of success

NaB

colint wrote:

NaB wrote:

colint wrote:

I'm not being obtuse, I just find it patronising when posts such as yours try to ridicule anyone who questions the circumstantial evidence. I think we all know that doping is a real issue, but thanks for being kind enough to point it out

Sworn testimony in a courtroom is not circumstantial evidence..etc etc. Why not turn your obvious talents for 'questioning' towards the cheats and those who defend them/welcome them back into the fold of pro cycling??

Do you mean Artmstrong or the people who welcomed Millar back ?

Both...they are one and the same. The hegemony of pro cycling is so divisive. When the Cofidis scandal first erupted Millar was amongst those pouring scorn on Phillippe Gaumont - If I recall rightly he described him as a 'nutter'.
Millar has never named names before or after his return. He was welcomed back to the peloton by Saunier Duval and we all know how clean that team was don't we? Millar wouldn't have had a career to go back to if he hadn't played along according to the established rules of the game i.e. remain silent and act as if it is your personal failing rather than an endemic problem in the sport. The 2 year suspension is essentially a career break not a meaningful punishment or deterrent.

leguape

aurelio wrote:

BenBlyth wrote:

23 years old - World Champion, TDF stage winner, 2nd Liege - Bastogne - Liege. Now who would have predicted he would have done well in later life. :roll:

I think everyone agrees that Pharmstrong would have made a very good single day specialist, but NOTHING in his first 3 Tour rides indicates that he would one day not only 'do well' in the Tour but dominate it for 7 years.

In 1993 he was 81st in the prologue, lost 6.04 in the flat 59 km TT at Lac De Madine, lost a whopping 21.42 on the 10th stage to Serre Chevalier via the Galibier, lost a huge 28.47 on the next stage to Isola 2000 and then abandoned.

In 1994 he lost 6.23 on the flat 64 Km TT at Bergerac, despite earlier saying that he had ridden to his limits and was trying to improve his TT performance with the aim of reducing his deficit by maybe 1 minute a year. On the otherwise flat 11th stage which finished at the top of the Hautecam he finished 65th at 7.03. and on the next stage to Luz Ardiden via the Tourmalet he lost a whopping 20.09. He then managed to hang on for a few more days, losing another 5.56 and finishing 114th on the 14th stage to Montpellier which featured one climb, he then abandoned on the next stage over the Ventoux.

In 1995 he had a 'good' year, well 'good' for an established Tour no-hoper that is, as he actually managed to finish, even if this was one and half hours behind the 'winner', the Epo- fuelled Miguel Indurain. In 1995 he lost 5.09 in the 56 Km flat TT to Séraing (even Bruyneel stuffed him by over 2 minutes!). On stage 9 to La Plagne he lost 17.57. On Stage 10 to Alpe D'Huez he lost yet another 18.44. (Even the noted non-climber Andrea Tafi stuffed him for 2 minutes). He lost another 9.53 on the next stage to Saint Etienne, on stage 15 to Cauterets he lost a huge 32.45 and so it went on as he got his arse kicked from one side of France to the other.

He again abandoned in 1996 but this might well have had something to do with his developing illness. He then came back in 1999 after teaming up with Ferrari and dominated the race. Such also-ran to 'winner' transformations were unknown in the past, and yet became the norm in the Epo era (Indurain, Riis, Armstrong...).

Of course the fanboys would have us believe that this had nothing to do with his new 'program' and can be attributed to the well-known performance enhancing side-effects of nearly dying of cancer. :roll:

So what you're saying is that by the time he got cancer he was failing to live up to expectations in big events, despite stage wins and occasional stage race wins in minor, shorter events? All while riding on a pretty average team which, to all intents, wasn't really challenging for GC placing but stage wins.

And do unknown also-rans winners not perhaps apply to Walkowiak, perhaps even Thys and Lambot who had little record to remark on before they won, or Nencini, the original rider caught with a needle in his arm?

dave_1

LA rode in top 10 of Tour De Suisse GC in 1994 too. IMO he could not handle longer events at that age. As have explained before, and have never had a meanigful considered response to, if you use your biggest guns at 21...then how can you become a TDF winner 7 times after that...he was clean early in his career and much less so later I guess...like them all...Berzen is a good example of the limitations of doping and chiapucci, have heard crap on here that some riders respond better to doping than others when infact our DNA means we are 99.9% identical in our reactions ....