Betsy Andreu

124»

Comments

  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Yes, except when he was swashbuckling his way to stage wins :wink:
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    DaveyL wrote:
    Yes, except when he was swashbuckling his way to stage wins :wink:

    Didnt this avg joe also get his backside kicked in Oslo one rainy day .............no wait a minute he won that day didnt he ............

    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • aurelio_-_banned
    aurelio_-_banned Posts: 1,317
    dennisn wrote:
    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.
    Nichols also contradicted Armstrong's own lawyer at the SCA hearing. Herman said that Nichols had told him that the doctors at the hospital had asked Armstrong numerous times if he had used PED's, and that Armstrong had always said no. When Nichols himself gave evidence he said that it would be very unusual to ask an athlete if they had used PED's, an odd claim given the importance of knowing a patients full medical background when treating them for something like cancer.

    All in all, it seems that the most consistent and reliable witnesses were those who said that Armstrong had made that 'confession'!
  • aurelio_-_banned
    aurelio_-_banned Posts: 1,317
    DaveyL wrote:
    Yes, except when he was swashbuckling his way to stage wins :wink:
    Before packing the Tour because he was too wasted to continue, or dragging himself around in order to finish one and half hours behind the winner. :roll:
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    A bit like Lemond in the early 90s? I guess he had to get on the juice to keep up with all those cheating Spaniards and Italians, eh?
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    LeMond retired.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    He retired in '94. Abandoned the 92 Tour.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    aurelio wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    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.
    Nichols also contradicted Armstrong's own lawyer at the SCA hearing. Herman said that Nichols had told him that the doctors at the hospital had asked Armstrong numerous times if he had used PED's, and that Armstrong had always said no. When Nichols himself gave evidence he said that it would be very unusual to ask an athlete if they had used PED's, an odd claim given the importance of knowing a patients full medical background when treating them for something like cancer.

    All in all, it seems that the most consistent and reliable witnesses were those who said that Armstrong had made that 'confession'!

    Still, the doctor even talking about it seems unusual. Or can they be compelled to talk about these things by law. That doesn't even sound right. Seems I've seen 100 or so courtroom dramas and doctor / patient confidentiality is always mentioned. But then again I'm no lawyer.

    Dennis Noward
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    dennisn wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    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.
    Nichols also contradicted Armstrong's own lawyer at the SCA hearing. Herman said that Nichols had told him that the doctors at the hospital had asked Armstrong numerous times if he had used PED's, and that Armstrong had always said no. When Nichols himself gave evidence he said that it would be very unusual to ask an athlete if they had used PED's, an odd claim given the importance of knowing a patients full medical background when treating them for something like cancer.

    All in all, it seems that the most consistent and reliable witnesses were those who said that Armstrong had made that 'confession'!

    Still, the doctor even talking about it seems unusual. Or can they be compelled to talk about these things by law. That doesn't even sound right. Seems I've seen 100 or so courtroom dramas and doctor / patient confidentiality is always mentioned. But then again I'm no lawyer.

    Dennis Noward

    But no doubt a big Matlock fan :wink:
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Timoid. wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    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.
    Nichols also contradicted Armstrong's own lawyer at the SCA hearing. Herman said that Nichols had told him that the doctors at the hospital had asked Armstrong numerous times if he had used PED's, and that Armstrong had always said no. When Nichols himself gave evidence he said that it would be very unusual to ask an athlete if they had used PED's, an odd claim given the importance of knowing a patients full medical background when treating them for something like cancer.

    All in all, it seems that the most consistent and reliable witnesses were those who said that Armstrong had made that 'confession'!

    Still, the doctor even talking about it seems unusual. Or can they be compelled to talk about these things by law. That doesn't even sound right. Seems I've seen 100 or so courtroom dramas and doctor / patient confidentiality is always mentioned. But then again I'm no lawyer.

    Dennis Noward

    But no doubt a big Matlock fan :wink:

    Not really, but a real Andy of Mayberry addict. That and, of course, Mr. Ed.

    Dennis Noward
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    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...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

    This is the same little darling that strutted about in the 94 Du Pont as he thought he was "The Man" in that Continent.
    2nd on GC in the TT with Raul Alcala last man off and after he had passed "The Man" he then punctured and "The Man" passed while Alcala changed his wheel.
    Then he remounted and caught and passed "The Man" to win that race overall.

    Yes he said a lot in the 90's and that was our fun, that he never came up to the expectations he said he would do.
    You have seen the 93 World Road Championship have you ????? in the same sort of weather you saw in California but with Tram Lines as well. A bit of a Lottery but with a winner that really went OTT, but yes he won. Bang the Drum again he is still "The Man" over there in the USA.

    The mention of California and I hear that as the race moves further south tomorrow then the weather should improve.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • 3SpeedsRtheonlyBike
    3SpeedsRtheonlyBike Posts: 24
    Not really, but a real Andy of Mayberry addict. That and, of course, Mr. Ed.

    I read it once, they fed peanut butter to that horse for his talking scenes so he'd be smacking his gums and everything. Wild trivia. :o

    Back to the question, It would seem Attorney/Client : Priest/ Sinner er make that Confessor and Doctor/Patient all have kinds of confidentiality protections.
  • SunWuKong
    SunWuKong Posts: 364
    3SpeedsRtheonlyBike wrote:
    I read it once, they fed peanut butter to that horse for his talking scenes so he'd be smacking his gums and everything. Wild trivia. :o
    .

    Come on we need to know who told you that and the date and time. That is merely hearsay and does not count as evidence around here.
  • markwalker
    markwalker Posts: 953
    SunWuKong wrote:
    3SpeedsRtheonlyBike wrote:
    I read it once, they fed peanut butter to that horse for his talking scenes so he'd be smacking his gums and everything. Wild trivia. :o
    .

    Come on we need to know who told you that and the date and time. That is merely hearsay and does not count as evidence around here.

    No No its trues the Actors guild of America got a sample in a 10litres bucket. He was never declared as doped though as the B sample was destroyed. Apparently the lab technician thought it must have been exposed to the air as it smelt a bit "like hay" so chucked it. In any case Ed announced he was retiring as he felt a little horse.

    Fortunately he returned 2 years later and showed all the producers of the time that he was still a horse to be reckoned with, reminding them that despite rumours he'd never been found guilty of performance enhancing peanut butter abuse.

    I need to do more research over the next few days to find out wether that contract arrived......
  • DavMartinR
    DavMartinR Posts: 897
    markwalker wrote:
    SunWuKong wrote:
    3SpeedsRtheonlyBike wrote:
    I read it once, they fed peanut butter to that horse for his talking scenes so he'd be smacking his gums and everything. Wild trivia. :o
    .

    Come on we need to know who told you that and the date and time. That is merely hearsay and does not count as evidence around here.

    No No its trues the Actors guild of America got a sample in a 10litres bucket. He was never declared as doped though as the B sample was destroyed. Apparently the lab technician thought it must have been exposed to the air as it smelt a bit "like hay" so chucked it. In any case Ed announced he was retiring as he felt a little horse.

    Fortunately he returned 2 years later and showed all the producers of the time that he was still a horse to be reckoned with, reminding them that despite rumours he'd never been found guilty of performance enhancing peanut butter abuse.

    I need to do more research over the next few days to find out wether that contract arrived......

    What ever happened to that case? Did it get thrown out of court because the little horse cried foal???

    Errr I'll get my donkey jacket.
  • markwalker
    markwalker Posts: 953
    DavMartinR wrote:
    markwalker wrote:
    SunWuKong wrote:
    3SpeedsRtheonlyBike wrote:
    I read it once, they fed peanut butter to that horse for his talking scenes so he'd be smacking his gums and everything. Wild trivia. :o
    .

    Come on we need to know who told you that and the date and time. That is merely hearsay and does not count as evidence around here.

    No No its trues the Actors guild of America got a sample in a 10litres bucket. He was never declared as doped though as the B sample was destroyed. Apparently the lab technician thought it must have been exposed to the air as it smelt a bit "like hay" so chucked it. In any case Ed announced he was retiring as he felt a little horse.

    Fortunately he returned 2 years later and showed all the producers of the time that he was still a horse to be reckoned with, reminding them that despite rumours he'd never been found guilty of performance enhancing peanut butter abuse.

    I need to do more research over the next few days to find out wether that contract arrived......

    What ever happened to that case? Did it get thrown out of court because the little horse cried foal???

    Errr I'll get my donkey jacket.

    best you do youll make an ass of yourself with jokes like that! :roll:

    err ill get mine too
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    Talking of old nags.....

    Astana Banana Drama?

    LevicrashTOC3_209-149.jpg


    LevicrashTOC3_209-150.jpg

    Now, horses will jump over dead bodies! 8)
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • rockmount
    rockmount Posts: 761
    Astana Banana ... ???

    General Classification after Stage 3

    1 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Astana
    2 Michael Rogers (Aus) Team Columbia - Highroad
    3 David Zabriskie (USA) Garmin - Slipstream
    4 Lance Armstrong (USA) Astana
    5 Christopher Horner (USA) Astana
    6 Janez Brajkovic (Slo) Astana
    7 Thomas Lövkvist (Swe) Team Columbia - Highroad
    8 José Luis Rubiera (Spa) Astana

    How do you like them apples ??? :wink::wink:
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    rockmount wrote:
    Astana Banana ... ???

    General Classification after Stage 3

    1 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Astana
    2 Michael Rogers (Aus) Team Columbia - Highroad
    3 David Zabriskie (USA) Garmin - Slipstream
    4 Lance Armstrong (USA) Astana
    5 Christopher Horner (USA) Astana
    6 Janez Brajkovic (Slo) Astana
    7 Thomas Lövkvist (Swe) Team Columbia - Highroad
    8 José Luis Rubiera (Spa) Astana

    How do you like them apples ??? :wink::wink:

    With plenty of hot sauce...
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • SunWuKong
    SunWuKong Posts: 364
    I don't beleive that is actually an Astana rider, I reckon it is a French man trying to trip up Astana riders. And you can't convince me otherwise!

    Why no bunny hop?
  • colint
    colint Posts: 1,707
    Can't be a french rider, he was at the front
    Planet X N2A
    Trek Cobia 29er
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    It looks like the January sales, with everybody pushing to be at the front of the queue, just to ride over poor Levi. :roll:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • DavMartinR
    DavMartinR Posts: 897
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    It looks like the January sales, with everybody pushing to be at the front of the queue, just to ride over poor Levi. :roll:

    They've just heard there are some TT bikes going cheap!!! :D
  • andrewgturnbull
    andrewgturnbull Posts: 3,861
    Hi there.

    Have a listen to Betsie's side of the story here in an interview from a couple of years ago, just after the original SCA legal case:

    http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=154

    Cheers, Andy
    http://www.andyturnbull.co.uk
    http://www.stirlingtri.co.uk

Categories