Betsy Andreu
Comments
-
aurelio wrote:
Read the thread. You are the one who keeps on bringing Lemond into the equation!Dave_1 wrote:Lemond and Fignon had identical early careers so why you point it out again I don't know.
Ah! So now it is 'best blood parameters' that you are talking about, rather than the UCI's 50% limit that you talked about earlier. What do you mean by 'best' I wonder? The highest possible without actually dropping down dead of a heart attack perhaps? Whatever, a rider with a lower natural haemocrit has more to gain from boosting it than someone with a naturally high haemocrit.Dave_1 wrote:the science of doping means riders take the quanitity they need to get the best blood parameters...they may need different quanitites/doses, so again, i reject your premise- unsound science.
'Acknowledge'? This is the first time you have brought this up! Still, Pharmstrong would not be alone in riding a 'full season' before riding the Tour would he? In fact isn’t Armstrong well known for NOT racing a full season, more or less focusing on the Tour to the exclusion of everything else?Dave_1 wrote:you don't ackowldge LA rode full seasons in 93,94, 95 ,
I don't recall arguing this. Whatever, it is perfectly correct to say that riders like Fignon won the Tour when they were younger than Armstrong was when he was still getting his backside kicked all over France...Dave_1 wrote:you don't acceot age limits performance
Indicators maybe, but not predictors, especially given the fact that many events outside the Tour, the Giro included, are treated as 'training' events by many who take part. By the way, I never said that the Tour of Switzerland or Paris-Nice were 'third rate events'. Rather, I said that the Tour Dupont was a third rate event.Dave_1 wrote:you don't accept that some events were excellent predictors of future climbing and TT performance...
As to rationality, I am happy to leave it to other to judge who is talking the most sense here!
...As you say leave others to judge...0 -
aurelio wrote:So, I take it that you aren't going to answer my point about doping to the UCI's 50% limit benefiting a rider with a natural haemocrit of 39% more than it does a rider whose natural haemocrit level is 49%? And what makes you think that some riders do not push their haemocrits even higher?
The key point is Aurelio's last sentence. If the UCI limit was 50%, we know from evidence that some riders have been much higher. Pantani, alleges Matt Rendell in his biography of Il Pirata, was riding at over 60% at times but sailing through the controls. Doping never meant riders dosing themselves to 49.9%, it meant going way beyond this and then doping with various products to quickly get the count down if the inspectors came calling. In other words doping wasn't this static thing and taking yourself up to a legal and "healthy" limit, it was about exceeding the safe levels by a long way but pretending to be within the safer boundary set by the UCI.0 -
Kléber wrote:aurelio wrote:So, I take it that you aren't going to answer my point about doping to the UCI's 50% limit benefiting a rider with a natural haemocrit of 39% more than it does a rider whose natural haemocrit level is 49%? And what makes you think that some riders do not push their haemocrits even higher?
The key point is Aurelio's last sentence. If the UCI limit was 50%, we know from evidence that some riders have been much higher. Pantani, alleges Matt Rendell in his biography of Il Pirata, was riding at over 60% at times but sailing through the controls. Doping never meant riders dosing themselves to 49.9%, it meant going way beyond this and then doping with various products to quickly get the count down if the inspectors came calling. In other words doping wasn't this static thing and taking yourself up to a legal and "healthy" limit, it was about exceeding the safe levels by a long way but pretending to be within the safer boundary set by the UCI.
true...very dangerous stuff and really...everyone responds the same...it's just who is willing to risk their life enough...so, they all respond the same ..and it's dr's race too..rider takes advice on how far to go...0 -
Er. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it the case that Armstrong has failed more UCI drug tests than Zabel. (One in Armstrong's case, nil in the case of Zabel).Dave_1 wrote:
Zabel got caught, LA didn't.aurelio wrote:why on earth should I expect consistencey, or even rationality, from someone who constantly defends Pharmstrong, even whilst accepting that he doped, and spits bile in the direction of other riders, such as Zabel, for doing the same.
True Zabel has confessed to drug use but in my mind such a confession should be the subject of praise, not condemnation, especially when it is the determination on the part of many riders to preserve the doping 'omerta' (especially Armstrong) that makes it so difficult to tackle the problem.
You appear to believe that committing a crime is fine, as long as you never admit to it!0 -
So, we have two riders. One with a natural haemocrit level of 39%, and another with a natural haemocrit level of 49%. They both boost it to a potentially heart attack inducing 60%. Which one is likely to benefit from the largest increase in their aerobic capacity? I.e. which one is likely to respond the best to this doping...Dave_1 wrote:everyone responds the same...it's just who is willing to risk their life enough...so, they all respond the same ..and it's dr's race too..rider takes advice on how far to go...0 -
Moray Gub wrote: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
With regards to that incident in LA's hospital room, 2.
With regards to the question "did US Postal have an active doping program" -4 said yes. none of those are now in cycling, in any way.
Make a list of US postal riders, then tick off all those riders who have been caught doping since 1999. Reach your own conclusions.0 -
Martin Van Nostrand wrote:Moray Gub wrote: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
With regards to that incident in LA's hospital room, 2.
With regards to the question "did US Postal have an active doping program" -4 said yes. none of those are now in cycling, in any way.
Make a list of US postal riders, then tick off all those riders who have been caught doping since 1999. Reach your own conclusions.
did you miss the bit where i said details on the many statements that were corroberated under oath ?
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Duplicate post. :oops:0
-
One of those in that room was Stephanie McIlvain, Armstrong's personal representative with Oakley. True enough she denied that she had heard that confession when both her and her husband were threatened with the loss of their jobs if they didn't back up Armstrong. But when she thought she was free to tell the truth (albeit obviously afraid of the possible consequences) she was willing to do so, as in this telephone call with Greg Lemond.
Her comments about the way Armstrong uses the 'cancer' thing as a shield against criticism are also interesting.
By the way, this is purely for the benefit of those who might not have heard it before, so the fanboys can save their breath about it having been posted previously.
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp30 -
don key wrote: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.
Any hero is bound to let us down; but say, just off the top: Harry Hill http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/radclif ... superstar/ new to these forums, I don't know if he has been covered though just a Bronze medalist (compare that to 7 tdfs) .
He's just one case, I think there are a number of heroes out there but maybe we just need to set different parameters.0 -
A general comment, if one takes for example: that Frankie Andreu confessed to using epo for the '99 Tour and is a team mate of Lance, that taints that title having a team mate who used it.
So then you don't have to say, Heras got busted AFTER leaving USPS, Hamilton got busted AFTER leaving USPS, Floyd got busted AFTER leaving USPS.
Logic dictates that performance enhancers were used.
Maybe it's the way, watching Beckham is a drama and watching Lance is a drama. It must have to do with the individual involved.
Without finding the exact quote, I read where someone states 4 people hear Lance Armstrong's hospital confession. It's a bit foggy in my mind: I'd count it as 3: McIlvain, Frankie and Betsy Andreu. Who am I missing?0 -
aurelio wrote:One of those in that room was Stephanie McIlvain, Armstrong's personal representative with Oakley. True enough she denied that she had heard that confession when both her and her husband were threatened with the loss of their jobs if they didn't back up Armstrong. But when she thought she was free to tell the truth (albeit obviously afraid of the possible consequences) she was willing to do so, as in this telephone call with Greg Lemond.
Her comments about the way Armstrong uses the 'cancer' thing as a shield against criticism are also interesting.
By the way, this is purely for the benefit of those who might not have heard it before, so the fanboys can save their breath about it having been posted previously.
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3
Why don't you make it your signature?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
LA3SpeedsRtheonlyBike wrote:
Without finding the exact quote, I read where someone states 4 people hear Lance Armstrong's hospital confession. It's a bit foggy in my mind: I'd count it as 3: McIlvain, Frankie and Betsy Andreu. Who am I missing?
so many cols,so little time!0 -
The medical staff.0
-
Lisa Sheils, Armstrong's girlfriend at the time was also there, as were Chris Carmichael and his girfriend Paige, six people in total.3SpeedsRtheonlyBike wrote:Without finding the exact quote, I read where someone states 4 people hear Lance Armstrong's hospital confession. It's a bit foggy in my mind: I'd count it as 3: McIlvain, Frankie and Betsy Andreu. Who am I missing?0 -
Moray Gub wrote:Kléber wrote:The medical staff.
How many of "the medical staff" heard him say this, i presume for you to say that you have names and their testimony to that effect.
MG
Given he was asked if he took performance enhancing drugs so that the medical staff could factor this into his medical dossier, surely someone was present! Is that not obvious or do you think he just blurted it out to the others in the room...?0 -
Kléber wrote:Moray Gub wrote:Kléber wrote:The medical staff.
How many of "the medical staff" heard him say this, i presume for you to say that you have names and their testimony to that effect.
MG
Given he was asked if he took performance enhancing drugs so that the medical staff could factor this into his medical dossier, surely someone was present! Is that not obvious or do you think he just blurted it out to the others in the room...?
Ahh i thought you had actual details of medical staff who heard the alleged remarks and testified to that effect now i realise that you dont . Ok so we have two who testified against Lance and one who testified for .........and none are medical staff.........any others you want to fling into the pot with no evidence to say they heard it ?
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:Kléber wrote:Moray Gub wrote:Kléber wrote:The medical staff.
How many of "the medical staff" heard him say this, i presume for you to say that you have names and their testimony to that effect.
MG
Given he was asked if he took performance enhancing drugs so that the medical staff could factor this into his medical dossier, surely someone was present! Is that not obvious or do you think he just blurted it out to the others in the room...?
Ahh i thought you had actual details of medical staff who heard it the alleged remarks and testified to that effect now i realise that you dont . So basically you were spouting the brown stuff.
MG
I doubt they could testify without breaking patient doctor confidentialityIt's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Armstrong's oncologist, Dr. Craig Nichols, said that Armstrong had never admitted to him that Armstrong had used drugs. However, at the SCA hearing Betsy Andreu said he was certainly not one of the doctors in the room at that moment.Moray Gub wrote:How many of "the medical staff" heard him say this, i presume for you to say that you have names and their testimony to that effect.
The Andreu's gave their testimony about the hospital room confession to the SCA pre-trial hearing on 25 October 2005. On 27 October 2005 Armstrong announced that his foundation was donating 1.5 million dollars to the hospital concerned. Attempts were later made to trace the doctors but no record of who was on duty, nor any other evidence that could link any doctor at the hospital to the incident could be found...0 -
aurelio wrote:
Armstrong's oncologist, Dr. Craig Nichols, said that Armstrong had never admitted to him that Armstrong had used drugs. However, at the SCA hearing Betsy Andreu said he was certainly not one of the doctors in the room at that moment.Moray Gub wrote:How many of "the medical staff" heard him say this, i presume for you to say that you have names and their testimony to that effect.
The Andreu's gave their testimony about the hospital room confession to the SCA pre-trial hearing on 25 October 2005. On 27 October 2005 Armstrong announced that his foundation was donating 1.5 million dollars to the hospital concerned. Attempts were later made to trace the doctors but no record of who was on duty, no any other evidence that could link any doctor at the hospital to the incident could be found...
Probably becuase no docotor or medical staff was there to hear him say it, as for the donation im not surprised as much to your chagrin they managed to save his life.
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
MG, it's a simple matter: Armstrong was asked by medical staff whether he used doping products and several witnesses say yes. The only one who denied this changed her story. This isn't "flinging tinto the pot", it's repeating what others have stated under oath. What's your problem with this, is your US Postal kit less fashionable these days or do you have private shares in Trek or Oakley?0
-
Moray Gub wrote:Probably becuase no docotor or medical staff was there to hear him say it, as for the donation im not surprised as much to your chagrin they managed to save his life.
MG
Ha! So it's OK for you to make presumptions, based upon hot air, but everybody else has to supply dates, times, places, contacts, photo's, written affidavits and DNA samples.
Still, it keeps the wheels around here, ever spinning. "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Kléber wrote:MG, it's a simple matter: Armstrong was asked by medical staff whether he used doping products and several witnesses say yes. The only one who denied this changed her story. This isn't "flinging tinto the pot", it's repeating what others have stated under oath. What's your problem with this, is your US Postal kit less fashionable these days or do you have private shares in Trek or Oakley?
Two stated under oath and one agaisnt it (despite Greg lemond hounding her to death to get het to change her story) There were others in the room well others if you belive there was such a conversation yet none come forward they could have been called as witnesses by the insurance company. As for a cycling team kit ffs what sort of knob end would wear that kind of thing ?
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Well, if he did use PEDs, he didn't use them very well, did he? Because back in the day, he was utter p!sh, as aurelio keeps reminding us.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Blazing Saddles wrote:Moray Gub wrote:Probably becuase no docotor or medical staff was there to hear him say it, as for the donation im not surprised as much to your chagrin they managed to save his life.
MG
Ha! So it's OK for you to make presumptions, based upon hot air, but everybody else has to supply dates, times, places, contacts, photo's, written affidavits and DNA samples.
Im not the one making the accusations though by association or otherwise.
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Then again, at the SCA hearings even Armstrong's lawyer, Timothy Herman, at first appeared to accept both that there were two doctors in the room and that Armstrong did make his 'confession'. To begin with Herman attempted to argue that it was all a misunderstanding and that Armstrong was actually talking about what drugs he was taking as a part of his cancer treatment. Herman repeated this 'explanation' on National radio in the USA.Moray Gub wrote:[Probably becuase no docotor or medical staff was there to hear him say it,
The tactic of completely denying that the 'confession' ever took place came later in the hearing, after Armstrong and his team had 'persuaded' other witnesses, including Stephanie McIllvain (apparently under threat of being sacked from Oakley) to recant their previous admissions of having heard Armstrong talking about using Epo and so on.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Armstrong's oncologist, Dr. Craig Nichols, said that Armstrong had never admitted to him that Armstrong had used drugs. However, at the SCA hearing Betsy Andreu said he was certainly not one of the doctors in the room at that moment.Moray Gub wrote:How many of "the medical staff" heard him say this, i presume for you to say that you have names and their testimony to that effect.
The Andreu's gave their testimony about the hospital room confession to the SCA pre-trial hearing on 25 October 2005. On 27 October 2005 Armstrong announced that his foundation was donating 1.5 million dollars to the hospital concerned. Attempts were later made to trace the doctors but no record of who was on duty, nor any other evidence that could link any doctor at the hospital to the incident could be found...
The surprising part of this post, at least to me, is that this Doctor Nichols would even comment on anything like this about anyone(either nay or yea). Even saying that Lance
didn't tell him anything would seem to be a violation of the patient / doctor thing. As for the donation, I'm with Moray Gub. I have had someone save my life and there is,
pretty much, no limit to my gratitude. 1.5 mill is a bit out of my range but I can understand it.
Dennis Noward0 -
Exactly, an effective doping program needs to be run by an expert in such matters, especially when Epo testing came in and riders had to deal with all the complications of running a blood doping program. Why do you think that top-level riders like Armstrong were prepared to give Ferrari as much as 15% of their income for 'training programs?DaveyL wrote:Well, if he did use PEDs, he didn't use them very well, did he? Because back in the day, he was utter p!sh, as aurelio keeps reminding us.
The answer is because of his expertise in doping!
The cycling doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton. Last year racing saw the team doctor as an important part of the team. The success of Italian cycling is also the success of the Italian doctor Conconi and his former righthand man Ferrari.
Anyway, that is said in the medical world. They are the top specialists of erythropoetine (EPO), the forbidden drug that the peleton is caught in the grip off.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/arch ... /25_1.html0 -
DaveyL wrote:Well, if he did use PEDs, he didn't use them very well, did he? Because back in the day, he was utter p!sh, as aurelio keeps reminding us.
didnt he get his backside kicked all over France and all over France and all over France again :-)
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0
