The bottom line is the French hate winners. Raymond Poulidor was one of the most loved French bike racers of his time - but he never won the TdF. He finished second three times and third five times. Jacque Anquetil won the Tour 5 times, but didn't have Poulidor's level of support. If Lance had finished second 7 times, the French would love him!
The Le Monde article is a hatchet job, for sure -- where a witness contradicted Andreu's story, her credibility is impugned, and the article goes on to note that five other witnesses were not called to testify by Armstrong's lawyers, as if the burden of proof was on him. I'm not really fluent, but here goes. Somebody correct me here: "A third person present at the scene, Stephanie McIlvain, an employee of Oakley a sponsor of Lance Armstrong and a friend of the racer, gave her version in front of the Dallas tribunal, 14 November 2005. She denied having heard Lance Armstrong admit to a doctor of having consumed illicit substances. Stephanie McIlvain however had affirmed, on 21 September 2004, to Greg LeMond, during a telephone conversation, that she would repeat what she had heard on 28 October 1996 at the Indianapolis Hospital if she was called to testify. The former three-time Tour winner recorded this conversation. "If I am called, I will do it (). Because I'm not going to lie. You know, I was in that room. I heard," explained Stephanie McIlvain to Greg LeMond. The recording was included with the file [vers au dossier?]. Three other people in Lance Armstrong's entourage were present on 28 October 1996: his girlfriend at the time, Lisa Shiels; Chris Carmichael, his first coach; and his wife [ed.: Carmichael's, that is] Paige. None of the three were called to testify by the Texan's lawyers. Neither were the doctors who operated on him, Craig Nichols and Scott Shapiro."
The bottom line is the French hate winners. No, I think there are many, many lines below that. There may be some player-hating going on (and some obvious open trolling of the issue by the local press), but I really don't see those traits as being exclusive to the French. In fact, they could learn some lessons in player-hating and smear tactics to sell news copy from the USA, who are the undisputed heavyweight champeens of that stuff. Face it, it's the national sport here. (I submit every other thread on this site as proof.)
Other witnesses and the doctors deny it, but don't expect the French to tell the whole story. My god, "The French" do not lie and hate Lance Armstrong, any more than "The Americans" love George Bush and think everything he does is pure candy. Stop being so stupid. My god this shit bugs me. It's a fucking newspaper article, it's not a population shouting in unison. That's like a Frenchman reading Page Six and believing that this is what all Americans think.
Right on, Weedy. Besides, who do you think would be most aggressive in covering a story of possible cheating in the Tour de France? I don't think it's all that high on Sports Illustrated's agenda. However, I will stand by my opinion that this article is something less than "fair and balanced."
Damned frogs and their cheese-eating, surrender monkey ways. Lance's head only got bigger 'cause he wanted to be like Mark and when he couldn't he... oh wait. damned french/
A country's population shouting in unison still isn't is loud as Krakatoa's eruption was. Stop being so stupid. Is this a plea or an imperative? btw weedy, you were on fire yesterday.
While I agree with chico in that this doesn't showcase the beliefs of all the French people, I don't think that the article is that legit. /goes back to eating Freedom Fries
However, I will stand by my opinion that this article is something less than "fair and balanced." Well, that's a first.
Other witnesses and the doctors deny it, but don't expect the French to tell the whole story. Oh, don't just point the finger at 'the French'. LeMond, the Andreus, the disgruntled former soigneur: there are a host of Americans at the heart of this.
However, I will stand by my opinion that this article is something less than "fair and balanced." Well, that's a first. What, that I'm standing by my opinion? And to think that I used to e-admire you, lbb.
... don't expect the French to tell the whole story. What about you? You've made some spectacular claims in this front-page post about the Andreus and the French, but haven't backed them up. One question I'd really like answered: How did the French get Frankie and Betsy Andreu to lie under oath in furtherance of their sinister conspiracy against Lance Armstrong? Their tendrils must be really long.
Given the amount of people (many of them former associates, friends, teammates) who "hate" Lance, he is either a huge asshole or a doper. Or both.
How did the French get Frankie and Betsy Andreu to lie under oath in furtherance of their sinister conspiracy against Lance Armstrong? Not only that, but the French got the Andreus to do their dirty deed in a Dallas court, right in Lance's backyard. They sure have some reach.
Well they're insidious. Insidious wine-making cheese eaters who hate our freedom. Whew. I almost changed my mind, there. That was kinda scary for a minute.
I swear to [insert deity here] that I won't say what I want to say, which is to say I won't derail this conversation with discussion about a similar situation that I won't talk about.
They do make some damn good wine, though. I can't read French, but it kind of sounds like this was just a report on a court case related to the biggest sporting event in France. Don't they kinda have to cover it? PS... I agree, Grum.
Other witnesses and the doctors deny it, but don't expect the French to tell the whole story. From your own link: But the newspaper said the Andreus' account was denied by a third person, Stephanie McIlvain, a friend of Armstrong's who supposedly was also at the session with the doctor. She testified that she did not hear Armstrong make such an admission, Le Monde said. Look at the original story linked by qbert. I do not read French, but Google translated. Does not appear to be any mention of doctor. That is in the U.S. report, not the original French report. And the French story seems to say that McIlvain would support claim, but lied. As to whether they had to report on this because it is breaking news, the allegations were made in October last year and relate to 1996. And by French, I don't mean all French, just the newspaper reporters and editors that apparently have miniature versions of the Eiffel Tower stuck up their ....
Armstrong statement just released on this article.
And by French, I don't mean all French, just the newspaper reporters and editors that apparently have miniature versions of the Eiffel Tower stuck up their .... If someone wrote, "The Americans will never give up their attack on Amelie Mauresmo," would you automatically understand "Americans" to mean "just the newspaper reporters and editors that apparently have miniature versions of the Chrysler Building stuck up their dot dot dot"?
From the story that BikeNut links: our investigation to date has revealed that the only person to whom documents have been provided by any trial participant is Richard Pound of WADA 'nuff said.
If someone wrote, "The Americans will never give up their attack on Amelie Mauresmo," would you automatically understand "Americans" to mean "just the newspaper reporters and editors that apparently have miniature versions of the Chrysler Building stuck up their dot dot dot"? Yep.
The Americans will never give up their attack on Amelie Mauresmo... Wait, the U.S. is attacking Mauresmo? She's not even brown!
Maybe she has oil.
The dude survived Cancer, and won the Tour... over and over again... He most probably at some point received something for his treatment that was illegal for cycling, but who cares... the dude had to survive Cancer. The stuff he may have taken, only put him NEAR a level playing field..
What Lance did is a medical miracle, and that's it. Looking at all the comments and seeing the fact that this story has so many wholes...its abysmal. Lance, ride on man...you've been one of those inspirations for all of us...don't let this crap topple you man!
As to whether they had to report on this because it is breaking news, the allegations were made in October last year and relate to 1996. The news peg here is the court testimony of the Andreus, which occured in January. Whether it's news now depends on a lot of things. But if no other paper reported the Andreus' claim, it's definitely news. I'd like to know if the Andreus really were present for only one meeting with a doctor -- the one that another friend claims had 10 people present. I have trouble believing that Armstrong would make an admission like that to a crowd. I also can't see how it would stay out of his medical files.
He most probably at some point received something for his treatment that was illegal for cycling, but who cares... the dude had to survive Cancer. The stuff he may have taken, only put him NEAR a level playing field.. How are you quantifying that? Given you don't know If he took something What he took What the effects of potential mystery substance would be It's impressive you can draw a definitive conclusion about a rhetorical playing field's levelness. Something seems a couple bubbles off plumb to me.
Vive l' Lance.
How am I "quantifying" that... I know you really wanted to use the word "quantifying"... I'm not, I said "probably", because cancer patients get pumped with a TON of meds... Meds, most people never encounter, numerous kinds of hormones, and that's just to SURVIVE, not win major sporting events, so I said "most probably" - sometimes reason supplants evidence that may never be found. Use your brain, cancer + treatment + ???? = Tour win? It's not wheaties I'll tell ya that Is that quantified enough for you?
How am I "quantifying" that... I know you really wanted to use the word "quantifying"... Scooby?
"Scooby?" - I'd love to laugh... but I don't get it. Scrappy? Fred? Thelma? - are these jokes somewhere?
its so simple.... you'd have to think Bonds is clean to think Lance is clean. You have to get over the idea that whatever he was given takes away from his accomplishments. It really doesn't, considering what he overcame. Just evens it out. If you're really passionate about this, it'll cloud your judgement - I couldn't care less about cycling. Vive Lance is right, thanks to countless meds, Vive Lance. To Quantify further with further Quatification (solely for the sake of quantifying) If he took something - yes What he took - hormones, tons of em. What the effects are - you can survive cancer and regain your strength. ask yourself - did he regain all of his strength after cancer?
he stuff he may have taken, only put him NEAR a level playing field.. Sweettits, when you tell us that whatever Lance may have taken didn't give him an advantage over other cyclists because of the effects of cancer, you have implictly quantified something. I'd love to know what. BE'LIE DAT!
its so simple.... you'd have to think Bonds is clean to think Lance is clean. The number is: 37. Who had "37" in the secret "The Name That Shall Not Be Mentioned" pool?
Pabo, even if you could quantify the performance-enhancing effects of cancer meds vs. the debilitating effect of cancer (and yes, that's what would be required for a "level playing field" argument to hold water), it doesn't matter. Under anti-PED rules, it doesn't matter whether the drug in question is medically necessary or not -- it's not allowed, period, and WADA and other drug agencies hold the hardest of lines on this. For example, there are athletes with asthma who cannot take their asthma meds if they want to compete. Even in cases where it's pretty much agreed that there is no performance-enhancing effect if a drug is properly administered for a medical condition, it's still not allowed, period, end of discussion.
Sorry to jump in late, but I know exactly what drugs were part of Lance's regimen and hormones isn't on the list. At the time of Lance's treatment, three different drugs made up the chemo "cocktail" designed specifically for testicular cancer by the very doctors that treated him. The Doctors at IUPUI (Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis) were the pioneers in developing the cocktail which is now the standard treatment for testicualr cancer. As with any chemotherapuetic drug, these are highly toxic due to the fact they not only attack the cancerous cells but also the healthy cells. These drugs destroy white blood cells and make the patient more suceptible to infection. To counter this, a white blood cell booster (neupogen, sp?)is administered intravenously and hit hurts like hell. You can feel it in the very marrow of your bones and all the bones ache for hours regardless of pain relief medication. Never during treatment are hormones or drugs that boost red blood cell count taken and the drugs that are in your system are completely flushed out a year after the conclusion of the treatment. If Lance took these red cell boosters, it was not under the auspices of testicular cancer treatment. So basically, fuck off, Pabo. If you are completely ignorant to a specific cancer treatment, then don't go making rash assumptions that make you look like a moron. I underwent the exact same treatment for the exact same illness by the exact same doctors back in the mid '90's, shortly after Armstrong was treated. I have completely regained my strength, have a lovely three year old daughter and show no lasting effects. As far as what WADA considers illegal as far as these particular chemotherapeutic drugs are considered, I can not attest. But trust me, none of them were certainly perfomrance enhancing.
Compared to a professional cyclist, I am crap at cycling. Can I take drugs to level the playing field? "The French" don't "hate winners", they just don't deify them like "The Americans" do.
If a Frenchman ever won anything, they might. The Arc De Triomphe signified intent to do so, unfortunately, only the Germans (twice) and the Americans (twice) have used it.
They didn't deify Prost, or Blanco, or Platini, or Zidane, or Noah. And if you want to degenerate this into a childish military discussion (as always seems to happen when anyone mentions anything even remotely French on here), I would remind you (for the umpteenth time) that without General Lafayette, you'd all be speaking English in America now.
Thank God for him then. A manly man, if Black Jack Pershing's assistant is to be believed.
A childish military discussion? Aren't they all? We are eternally grateful for the assistance in stomping a mudhole in King George III and Cornwallis' forces, but the liberations of France, and our "purchase" of The Louisiana Purchase (suckers!), have righted the score, I reckon. (It's just that we Americans have this thing about sticking up for our own, JJ, and my joke about them made as much sense as their continued attacks on Lance, which is to say, none)
