when i asked Betsy Andreu to contribute to the crankpunk website, she being something of a hero of mine and all, i never thought she’d actually say yes being as she is so busy with her own thing and is busy still, unfortunately, taking time out of her life to educate people about the dangers of doping, the dangers of letting Lance back in, and of forgetting the past – which ain’t really so past at all…
but she did, and her first piece from yesterday made it on to the front page of the British broadsheet, the Daily Telegraph, into which their writer inserted a nice little hyperlink to http://www.crankpunk.com.
i think that is what you might call hitting it right out of the park, though even that seems like a terrible understatement.
but this is what we are trying to do here, asides from writing about our love for this wonderful sport. circumstances demand that we keep pushing, keep plugging away and to make sure we do our very best to take advantage of this point we’ve come to in professional cycling, where the issue of doping is more out in the open than ever before.
now is not the time to say ‘ok we’re done, let’s move on.’ that would be a travesty, because we are not done, they are not done.
they are still very much alive and kicking.
it’s up to us to decide whether the wounded beast that is doping gets to continue to live in the shadows and regain its vitality, or to finally be chained in the light, where we can keep an eye on it and truly monitor its pulse.
then, perhaps, just maybe, the great writers here on crankpunk could then get back to writing about the sport they love and not the drugs and the men that are killing it.
over and out,
crankpunk
Not sure why you insist on drumming up someone that only regales half truths. Its hypocritical for you to chose to have Betsy write an article for someone who is merely trying to deflect blame and responsibility of their husband. Shame on you crankpunk… don’t even think for a minute you’re a “real” journalist.
not sure what half-truths you are talking about, please elaborate. as far as i can see, LA’s on a mission to rehabilitate his image (note i did not say ‘himself’) and he’s still lying and trying to manipulate the press (and succeeding in many cases).
i wonder if you’d consider the editor of a very well known cycling news website to be a ‘real’ journalist, after giving LA three long slots on said website recently for dodging soft question after soft question, or the guy who set up the Emma O’Reilly interview, in which LA said very little to a clearly caught-in-the-headlights O’Reilly? all the while getting acres of media time for very little.
if keeping quiet about LA and his charade, ignoring the people in the bike world who are passionate about changing the sport, and saying ‘hey it’s time to move on’ are what real journos do, they’re happy to keep that moniker…
Perhaps you should do a little more homework!! Don’t you think that Betsy has motive in this? Sure she’s going after LA but what about her husband. It’s well known that her husband was given an ultimatum…. by Betsy… if he doped then their relationship would be over. So Frankie claimed to know nothing or at least make a decision to not tell his wife (or more likely she is trying to cover something up)… I suspect if you did some more digging the truth about Frankie would come out. This is nothing more than a narcissistic old hag trying to keep herself in the limelight and deflect attention from her husband. Why is it that Betsy keeps writing articles or going on CNN, etc, etc…. because if she keeps the attention off Frankie and herself then they can keep making a career out of nothing. Don’t ya’ think its weird that so many riders from the Postal/Discovery years have either retired or moved on, yet Frankie keeps working in cycling, yet guys like Levi, Horner and Julich are ostracized from the sport? There is an old saying that I’m sure you’re familiar with… “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
i spoke to Betsy today. during that chat i said that i feel that ex-dopers should not be working in the sport. does that make you feel any better, N.A.C? it does not mean that what she has to say – things that have been proven to be fact – lose any validity. you need to put that in the past and move on… 😉
and you still didn’t say what these ‘half-truths’ are.
Her comments lose validity when you analyze the motivations for doing this… for staying in the limelight. In this case Betsy is on the attack to deflect any attempts at assessing blame to her husband. I find it odd that she goes on attacking LA (who has done wrong) but yet mentions nothing of her husband and his lie and mis-representations.
What more does Betsy add to the story? Why is she even relevant anymore? She was merely a pawn in the game and offers nothing to the conversation… well except that she claims to know LA so well and what his motivations are. But for someone that hasn’t spoke to LA in years, it seems that she not the one who should be trying to analyze LA.
“What more does Betsy add to the story? “…. she points out the fact that Lance’s ‘contacts/apologies’ are timed to coincide with potentially threatening events in his life…. she points up the need for an independent T and R body…. etc
“…it seems that she not the one who should be trying to analyze LA.”…. you’re right there, friend! It should be US courts and USADA who are analyzing LA but he refuses to go before them! I wonder why?
Not A. Cyclist, while it is understandable that you may not agree with Betsy’s insistence on pursuing Lance for his past and now well documented misdeeds – those that are known at least, and not thanks to him by the way – your argument that since Betsy herself may or may not be entirely innocent (providing some proof of this would be nice at some stage) somehow invalidates her position and arguments against Lance and his associates is a logical fallacy. If you are interested, look up “ad hominem” for a good explanation of your debating style.
If you have something to say, please support it with valid counter arguments and information, not personal attacks on the credibility of the person, Betsy in this case. Besides which, her core statements are fundamentally true. The rest may or may not be emotional baggage, but that is just about entirely irrelevant when it comes to Lance’s past, present and the future.
Mythbuster…. Im not saying that Betsy critique is inaccurate. However, what I do object to is people like crankpunk, giving her a bully pulpit. Betsy has no say in this fight, yea she was beaten back by LA and called a liar, however so did the doctor that was present. As far as I can tell Betsy didn’t lose a job, because of this, heck she wasn’t even sued. The ONLY reason she keep fighting here is because she’s pissed that Frankie couldn’t get the contract he wanted from Postal (#62 Andreu Affidavit).
Remember this is the same woman who told Frankie that if he did PED’s they wouldn’t get married (#37) but yet she went along with it all through ’96, ’97, ’98 and ’99.
So, I question her motives. I don’t think for one second that Betsy is doing this for the good of the sport, she’s doing this because she has an axe to grind with LA, if Frankie kept riding and making the money he wanted I seriously doubt she’d be so vocal today, Whether recent assessment is true or not, she is not better than Lance.
Enjoyed Betsy’s article and your postings. Lance’s 7 Tour ‘wins’, his treatment of everyone except his closest acolytes, his multi-million earnings from cheating, his charity work, etc DO set him apart from all the other dopers…. he controlled the agenda for far too long and is still attempting to do so. The UCI, USADA, an independent T and R body….. they all need to ensure that he is NOT given any preferential treatment.