HAHA, seriously, after winning 7 straight Tours and having some sort of allegations lobbed at Lance every year I could see how Andreu forgot about it.

Maybe he was watching TLC and Overhaulin' came on and he thought "Wait, that's that guy Lance, that hospital room, drugs...it all adds up!!!"

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

Or maybe he considered Armstrong a close friend and had some loyalty toward him, even years later. And he also knew how influential Armstrong is in US cycling (and the organization USA Cycling) and was worried about affecting his current and future ability to earn a living in the sport?

If you read the transcript on NPR, you can also see how Frankie admits that he and his wife had some arguments about the incident afterwards.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

(on a Mac, so can't make the link clickable)

http://www.npr.org/....php?storyId=5508863

Just helping ;-)

Those are things he COULD have said....here is what he DID say (from the interview yesterday, which you'll have to shell out your own $3.95 to get the whole text of):

"GOLDMAN: This incident allegedly happened in 1996 and now, you know, the public is hearing about this 10 years later. And one of the questions I received, I think from a listener, was if it was so important, if it’s such a significant thing, why didn’t Betsy and/or Frankie come out earlier?

Mr. ANDREU: Lance was on his deathbed, 50 percent chance of survival. And you know we were friends of his and there to support him. And when he was speaking to the doctor, he was fighting for his life. The guy was going to do anything he could to be able to save his life and I respected that and I wanted to see him live and move on. And so it wasn’t something that we brought up then, and after a few years, it just kind of went away and we actually forgot about it..."

So, they forgot about it until they were subpoaenaed in 2004, then they remembered...nothing spurred their memories in the intervening years. 8 years after the fact, however, after forgetting, they remember it like it was yesterday. Of course, it never found its way into Lance's medical records, so you kind of have to wonder why the doctors asked about it in the first place. I guess it must have gone like this:

Dr.: "Lance have you ever used performance enhancing drugs? Please ignore the presence of at least 4 other people in the room as you consider answering this VERY personal medical and professional question."

Lance: "No problem, Doc, I'll be happy to admit I've doped in front of a room full of people. I've used EPO and testosterone and growth hormone and cortisone."

Dr." Hmmm...yesss....well....no need to consider the implications of any of THOSE substances just because you have metastisized, life threatening cancer and you're facing chemo and radiation. I'll just write down "NO," OK?"

---

______________

Reverisco!

http://www.npr.org/....php?storyId=5508863

being deposed is never fun. it forces folks to struggle between loyalty and perjury. for some that is a hard choice, for others it is not.

but if you actually listen to the full NPR story (link above) rather than just read the transcript, ya don't have to be a rocket scientist to gather what really happened ...

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

Maybe he didn't consider Armstrong's admission at the time to be a big deal. It is possible that Andreu has seen Armstrong get injected with all kinds of stuff and that is what sticks in his mind. An admission of doping in a semi-private setting probably never struck him as significant.

[reply]Or maybe he considered Armstrong a close friend and had some loyalty toward him, even years later. [/reply]

Or maybe Frankie's wife sees a cash cow.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

"Maybe he didn't consider Armstrong's admission at the time to be a big deal. It is possible that Andreu has seen Armstrong get injected with all kinds of stuff and that is what sticks in his mind. An admission of doping in a semi-private setting probably never struck him as significant. "

That's stretching things a bit, but the main issue here is that Frankie and his wife would have never testified if they weren't forced to. They both finally agreed to a deposition in Michigan and were told their deposition would not be made public. To turn this around into a Frankie vs. Lance thing (or even worse - Frankie's wife vs. Lance) is absurd, the main question should be WHY did the Equipe know about Frankies suposed confidential testimony? Who told them and more to the point what is that persons' objective?

here is frankie actually talking about it (click "listen" on the very top button)

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

to me, the timing and motivation is pretty obvious. it is clear that frankie never wanted to go into this at all, privately or publicly. but he and his wife were both forced to testify under oath (penalty of perjury) about lance's admission in the hospital room.

but then, of course, lance, in his great wisdom, starts attacking the credibility of frankie's wife, so that puts frankie in a postition where he must defend his and his wife's honor and defend the fact that they both told the truth. end of story.

financial motivations !?!? you guys are hilarious ...

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

There are lots of fishy things about this, on both sides. I fail to see any reason the Andreus would lie under oath on this. On the other hand, why would Lance's docs lie under oath? And wouldn't this sort of thing be in his medical records? Also, why would the arbritration court side with Lance and force that company to pay his bonus if they didn't feel the evidence was on Lance's side? Its all very odd.

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

[reply]financial motivations !?!? you guys are hilarious ...[/reply]

Give me a break! That's what the whole issue is about....cash! Wake up and see how stirring up the pot and keeping LA in the news adds interest in a waning sport. Pro sports is a different world than you and I compete in.....

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

oh yeah, i forgot. frankie and his wife are in big conspiracy (with lance, trek, cervelo, shimano, campagnolo, hed, zipp, et. al., of course) to revive public interest in this "waning sport."

thanks for setting me straight.

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

Didn't say that...you did. Just look at the big picture. Pretty simple.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

seriously, please fill us in on the whole big picture that i am missing.

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

Statement from Lance's attorney. Makes it sound like there is alot going on behind the scenes.

http://www.thepaceline.com/members/lancenewsitem.aspx?cid=2430

That does not sound like great testimony. If they had written something in a journal at the time it happened, then their testimony would have been much stronger in court. As I previously said, people can remember poorly, mishear things and/or take conversations out of context.

As in many cases, witnesses often have conflicting stories of events, especially ones in the distant past. Memory often has a way of tricking the mind into believing things that never happened, moreso over time.

I'd be inclined to weight the doctors statements above the Andreus simply because they take notes and record medically relevant information. It doesn't mean the Andreus are liars, just the evidenciary value of their testimony is less.

Does anyone think it odd that a doctor would ask Lance such an important medical history question not before, but AFTER HAVING PERFORMED BRAIN AND TESTICULAR SURGERY ON HIM?

Maybe it's just me, but I'd expect a qualified doctor to get a patient's medical history out of the way before performing surgery to remove tumors from a patient's brain.

The whole scenario is stinky.

We all may do well to consider that any analysis/criticism of the circumstances is done from a perspective that does not include all the information.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Call me simple, but it would seem to be a very easy thing to do to find the two "mystery doctors" that weren't his oncologists and other specialists, and ask them what Lance said. For that matter, find out who the hell they were in the first place! It seems totally bizarre for Armstrong to deny, deny, deny, before and after his cancer at every turn that he ever took PEDs, and then blatantly answer affirmatively to two unknown doctors in a room full of witnessess the one time. Even if he took PEDs, even if only before his cancer, the scenario just doesn't compute. On the other hand, if he was asked if he was aware of the drugs that he was being prescribed to recover from the cancer, and the cancer drug regime and/or radiation treatments, that may have been what the witnesses in the room heard. Those drugs would also be in his medical records, if Armstrong was inclined to reveal them.

So, like everyone else on this thread, I have no real information to add, only speculation. But some people tend to offer their speculation as being so obvious that it should be considered as facts. Those discussions are far more suited for the Lavender room.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

We all may do well to consider that any analysis/criticism of the circumstances is done from a perspective that does not include all the information.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

This is one big can of worms.

But let’s look at this, so here we have Lance in the hospital he’s got cancer that mostly is going to kill him he feels like shit and a Doctor asks him is he’s taken PED, now this boy is a smart ass and reels off a list of the worst stuff he can think of and after give the Doc a wink. And so the Andreus here the question and the answer but can’t see Lance, what do they come away with? They come away with what they could hear but not the real answer. This is speculation but this could have happened.

We don’t have the whole story here, this is tabloid stuff!

Dan…

What next Lance has baby with a space alien with photos!

Yeah, another person conspiring to trap Lance and Lance is completely innocent and obviously the victim of ANOTHER smear campaign. This must make a few dozen people, all out to get him.

Let's face it. With Lance's legal team and the public sympathy because of his cancer fight, he is untouchable, in America.

I would have thought with all the recent allegations of pro drug use, the constant accusations from very credible sources, etc., some people would at least admit the possibility that Lance is not the angel he professes to be and that maybe, just maybe, the dozens who have come forward risking their own careers may have a point.

But, I was wrong. Lance is like teflon, nothing sticks. If Lance came out and admitted drug use, you guys would still proclaim his innocence.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

to me, the timing and motivation is pretty obvious. it is clear that frankie never wanted to go into this at all, privately or publicly. but he and his wife were both forced to testify under oath (penalty of perjury) about lance's admission in the hospital room.

They weren't subpoenaed on the off-chance that they might have heard an admission in response to a doctor's question. They were subpoenaed because the insurance company already knew what they would say. How did the insurance company know this? In all likelihood, one of them had already leaked the alleged admission. I suspect his wife spoke with the LA Confidential reporter and others about the incident. The insurance company atty's either found it out or deduced it, spoke with her, and then subpoenaed her. If that's the case, its disingenuous of her to try to claim that she only testified because she had no choice. And if she's being disningenuous about that, where does her credibility stand elsewhere?

I'll admit my point doesn't have much to do with their credibility. It's only designed to counter the argument that they were brought into this against their will.

It should, however, be noted that Carmichael has said that he and his wife were present and that the admission never took place. Of couse, Carmichael has a financial stake, and he wasn't under oath.

We all may do well to consider that any analysis/criticism of the circumstances is done from a perspective that does not include all the information.


Winner for the understatement of the year/decade/century. From my perspective, I don't think anyone here on Slowtwitch has even 1% of all the information. But there sure are a heck of a lot of conclusions being made, both ways.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

how about the next time you ride with Frankie you ask him and post his reply for us? then we might have all the information:)

" We all may do well to consider that any analysis/criticism of the circumstances is done from a perspective that does not include all the information. "

Considered. It's still stinky.

We may also do well to consider that there may be additional, on-going circumstances that may be influenced by the potential release of more information.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

great...Frankie is going to sue....can you get him to tell us his side of the story?

Tom - sounds like you know more information that you can disclose given your relationship with the Andreu's - correct?

---

- Matt

Since you know him, can you get him to give you copies of the depositions that were conducted in the arbitration proceedings and post them on your website. That would certainly give us more information from which to draw conclusions.

You can read transcripts of the deposition via the link in post #5 of this thread.

---

---------------------------------------------------------

"What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind and body can achieve; and those who stay will be champions."

I'm writing a (very difficult to write) editorial about this on our website right now. Should be up in a few days.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Thank you and I am sure it will be interesting and lend some insight to the matter. Appreciate your posts.

---

- Matt

great...Frankie is going to sue....can you get him to tell us his side of the story?

His side of the story doesn't matter. Lance is always right and everyone else is always wrong, that's all we need to know. Slinging mud at highly respected athletes (Lemond and now Andreu) is just part of the process we go through to protect our heroes.

Sarcasm off.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

Greg X is dead on about Andreu's deposition. Your safest legal response is to say that you can't recall.

Some of the speculation here is pretty simplistic, the easiest things to change are hospital documents (these aren't exactly secured under the scrutiny of the NSA or a Grand Jury indictment).

Go to cyclingnews.com and read the full statements from Armstrong's lawyers. Pretty damning stuff on the part of the Andreu's (particularly Mrs. Andreu). If true, she is a nut case and this saga only gets wierder from here.

Damn, I would just like to get to this week in the year (the one before the TDF), and not have to get this same story. Oh well, I will just have to ride my bike and ignore the internet until the race actually starts...

Jack

---

---

"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." T.S. Elliot | Cycle2Tri.com
Sponsors: SciCon | | Every Man Jack

BINGO!

You hit the nail right on the head.

---

Lewis

And if she's being disningenuous about that, where does her credibility stand elsewhere?

How many people have to be discredited as non-credible until there is some credibility? This is the same issue with every single person who has ever come forward with things about Lance. It's quite amazing that so many people lack credibility.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

Of course, you've completely disregarded the very next line of my post where I point out that it really doesn't have much to do with her credibilty, that it only addresses the claim that she's would have preferred to keep it all private.

I understand the point you're making. I believe there a good deal of "folk evidence" (for lack of a better word) that Lance doped. In a non-legal forum, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude from this evidence that he did dope. There's also a good deal out there discrediting much of this "folk evidence." So I also think it's perfectly reasonable to withhold judgment or to give him the benefit of the doubt pending something that is really sollid.

I think the Andreu testimony is a very good example, to the extent we are aware of all the facts, of a situation where there's good points to be made on both sides.

I suspect you'd respond by pointing out that the cumulative effect of all this, despite the fact that each piece could be persuasively rebutted, adds to a very strong case against him. I think that's a perfectly legitimate conclusion. But I don't believe it's any more legitimate entirely dismissing each piece once it's rebutted.

It's quite amazing that so many people lack credibility.

Yes, it is. The Carmichaels lack credibility. The Oakley rep lacks credibility. The doctor lacks credibilty. etc. It works both ways.

"Name the most unlikely user of anabolic steroids on the Tour... say, the 'Chicken'?"

You misunderstand the use of anabolic steroids in cycling. Cyclists use them in lower doses than bodybuilders to improve recovery from hard training, not for muscle building. I would not be surprised at all if it came out that Rasmussen used anabolics, human growth hormone and EPO next year, same goes for Basso, McEwan, Petacchi, Boonen etc

On the Lance front it is not possible to say based on this case of "she said, he said" to determine Armstrong's guilt. There have been a lot of people making allegations which means either he has been doping but able to get away with it, or he has the kind of personality that pisses people off so much that they make allegations, or a little of both.

KR

Not sure about cycling, but the bodybuilders who took anabolics would stack (combine both oral and injectable) and cycle their dosages to reduce side effects. A rider I know who raced in Europe said the doping riders would combine both together, but didnt know the actual names they were taking.

Its not really the type of anabolic steroid as much as it is the dosage. In bodybuilding dosages may often be 100 times or more of the medical dosage. I would imagine cycling dosage to be smaller. They help to blunt the testosterone reduction from hard training.

If you want to know the exact one I guess you will have to ask Vandenbroucke ;-)

KR

Cycling had a huge scandal in 98 with the Festina affair. Now we have another with Operación Puerto.
I think it's asinine to think/hope a rider who dominates a "dirty" sport can be clean.

Look at baseball. We know there is a steroid problem. We see a men doing things (hitting homeruns) like we've never seen before. How can
anyone think they're not juicing? Puh-leese!

Did you see the list of shit Tyler Hamilton was on? He was like a walking Pharmacy. Now you want to believe someone who dominated him was clean? Ya-shur.

They all dope. It's a level playing field. Fuck it, let em ride.

---

Lewis

Usually when you have a lot of people telling the same story under oath there is at least a grain of truth to it. Conspiracies rarely hold together under questioning.

Stephanie McIlvain has some splainin to do!

---

_____________________________________


You call yourself a Christian, I call you hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot well, I think you're full of s**t

NeoCon by the Rolling Stones

I think in this case there are more people denying, so maybe it's the Andreu's who have the splainin to do. As far as I know they're the only two implicating Lance. Unless you include Greg pure-as-the-driven-snow Lemond, but he wasn't in the room and doesn't really count.

Given the scenario isn't all that unbelievable for someone to say "I don't recall" or "not that I heard".

---

Lewis

   

Great point about the steroids. I made an earlier comment that the drug use does not yeild results. It can allow for the recovery you mentioned, but the 8 hour days still need to be put in. The hard training and talent still need to be there.



Taking sides on this issue does not yeild a winner on either side.

http://www.dailypeloton.com/...yarticle.asp?pk=3297

http://nas-track.com/...S-TRACK!_BbandHi.swf

http://www.nas-track.com/video.php

Partnering with one does yeild a winner however!



-SD

"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."

Yep, it looks like they had to drag her into the courtroom kicking and screaming.

---

Lewis

reply to parkito, post # 20

parkito,

It may or may not be easy to locate those two doctors, but there may be a slight obstacle regarding doctor/patient confidentiality and what the legal system cannot compell a physician to divulge recarding conversations with his patient.

How quickly these rights/priviledges are forgotten when someone wants to know something that was discussed in a "protected" situation.

---

Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.