11/21/24
June 23, 2006
The French will never give up with their attack on Lance: Now Le Monde is reporting statements of two Armstrong enemies that Lance admitted to his doctors that he doped up. Other witnesses and the doctors deny it, but don't expect the French to tell the whole story.
posted by graymatters to other at 12:27 PM - 46 comments
For those of you who read French, here is the original Le Monde article. Its title wisely uses the conditional. I find the context of those revelations interesting. In 2001, Armstrong took out an insurance policy on him winning 6 straight Tours. Kind of a bet against himself. I didn't know this was at all possible. In any case, he won the bet, but the insurance company refused to pay in 2004, citing doping suspicions. The Andreus' allegations were made during the ensuing legal battle between Armstrong and the insurance company. Le Monde gives some confusing numbers: apparently, Armstrong payed a yearly 400 000$ premium, and earned 4 500 000$ for each win, but the 9,5M$ number is also mentioned.
posted by qbert72 at 12:54 PM on June 23, 2006
don't expect the French to tell the whole story. while i'm not into this right-wing, the french seek to destroy us thingy, it does seem like there are some french parties who are hell bent on proving this guy's accomplishments aren't legit. they can't just be sore losers, can they? if you have enough circumstantial evidence, the whole thing starts to stink after a while. not indicting lance by any means, but it just seems weird.
posted by ninjavshippo at 01:05 PM on June 23, 2006
it does seem like there are some french parties who are hell bent on proving this guy's accomplishments aren't legit Sells copy, man. This kind of dirt-digging is not especially French. (No, I'm not going to make comparisons I shouldn't make.)
posted by qbert72 at 01:15 PM on June 23, 2006
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!
posted by BikeNut at 01:18 PM on June 23, 2006
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 [versé 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."
posted by Amateur at 01:25 PM on June 23, 2006
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.)
posted by chicobangs at 01:33 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:55 PM on June 23, 2006
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."
posted by Amateur at 01:59 PM on June 23, 2006
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/
posted by JohnSFO at 02:11 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by garfield at 02:23 PM on June 23, 2006
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
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:25 PM on June 23, 2006
However, I will stand by my opinion that this article is something less than "fair and balanced." Well, that's a first.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:27 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by etagloh at 02:28 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by Amateur at 02:36 PM on June 23, 2006
... 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.
posted by rcade at 02:46 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by JohnSFO at 02:53 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by qbert72 at 02:55 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:35 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by grum@work at 03:41 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by SummersEve at 03:44 PM on June 23, 2006
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 ....
posted by graymatters at 04:21 PM on June 23, 2006
Armstrong statement just released on this article.
posted by BikeNut at 04:31 PM on June 23, 2006
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"?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:51 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by graymatters at 04:53 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by graymatters at 04:54 PM on June 23, 2006
The Americans will never give up their attack on Amelie Mauresmo... Wait, the U.S. is attacking Mauresmo? She's not even brown!
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:25 PM on June 23, 2006
Maybe she has oil.
posted by chicobangs at 05:29 PM on June 23, 2006
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..
posted by Pabo at 05:30 PM on June 23, 2006
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!
posted by chemwizBsquared at 05:34 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by rcade at 05:43 PM on June 23, 2006
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.
posted by yerfatma at 09:34 AM on June 24, 2006
Vive l' Lance.
posted by mjkredliner at 10:34 AM on June 24, 2006
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?
posted by Pabo at 10:39 AM on June 24, 2006
How am I "quantifying" that... I know you really wanted to use the word "quantifying"... Scooby?
posted by rcade at 11:24 AM on June 24, 2006
"Scooby?" - I'd love to laugh... but I don't get it. Scrappy? Fred? Thelma? - are these jokes somewhere?
posted by Pabo at 12:45 PM on June 24, 2006
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?
posted by Pabo at 01:02 PM on June 24, 2006
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!
posted by yerfatma at 01:50 PM on June 24, 2006
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?
posted by grum@work at 02:16 PM on June 24, 2006
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.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:10 PM on June 24, 2006
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.
posted by willthrill72 at 03:19 PM on June 26, 2006
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.
posted by JJ at 05:01 AM on June 27, 2006
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.
posted by mjkredliner at 09:34 AM on June 27, 2006
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.
posted by JJ at 07:14 PM on June 27, 2006
Thank God for him then. A manly man, if Black Jack Pershing's assistant is to be believed.
posted by yerfatma at 07:19 PM on June 27, 2006
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)
posted by mjkredliner at 09:06 AM on June 28, 2006
Other witnesses and the doctors deny it, but don't expect the French to tell the whole story. From your own link: