Betsy Andreu interviewed by VeloNation

At one point the interviewer asks her what factored into her decision to take on Lance Armstrong. Her reply was that there never was a decision to take him on. But rather, "We decided not to lie for him.".

over 1 year ago flying dog 31 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Also on the Armstrong story

Juliet Macur at the NY Times has a story up on the Mcilvaine fandango.

by Jen See on Sep 17, 2010 3:07 PM EDT reply actions

Oops

Obvy I mistyped my urly thingy there. NY Times

by Jen See on Sep 17, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Leaving voicemails that contradict what she had previously testified to under oath???

Stephanie McIlvain really needs to do a better job of covering Lance’s dirty tracks…

by Fernando on Sep 17, 2010 3:16 PM EDT reply actions

BTW

It’s Velo City. Velo News probably has a bounty out on Betsy, lol j/k

by Fernando on Sep 17, 2010 3:40 PM EDT reply actions

VeloNation, actually

Thanks for catching that. Really, it would have been super cool if they had picked a name that did not sound quite so much like VeloNews. But that’s coo’ ;)

by Jen See on Sep 17, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks for correcting my correction ;-)

by Fernando on Sep 17, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions

lol, it takes a village ;)

One way or another, we’ll get it right!

by Jen See on Sep 17, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Or did he mean

As the Toto Turns ,so on topic.

by flying dog on Sep 17, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions

As long as we're crowd editing :)

Her name is Andreu, one less a.

by tedvdw on Sep 17, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

I kan spel gud :)

by Jen See on Sep 17, 2010 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions

She is certainly no shrinking violet

moo

by Willj on Sep 17, 2010 4:06 PM EDT reply actions

Betsy's great

did you ever listen to the long interview that competitors’ world radio (or something sounding a bit like that or including words therein) did with her, when she say the reason she remembers what happened in the hospital room so well is that right up to that point she had thought of Frankie as a naturally talented hunk and superhero, she was pretty shocked to hear that her hero might really be some weedy runt pumped up on drugs, and they had a huge stonking row and nearly split up. I paraphrase slightly, but that was the gist I got.

by Monty. on Sep 17, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions

yep, you got it right--great interview.

Interesting bit, to me, in the NYTimes piece in which Tim Herman begins to lose the plot: trying to discredit the McIlvaine tape, he sed "LeMond had "a habit of telling people they are being taped from time to time and encouraging them to be colorful in their comments."

Small problem: that’s not the case with THIS tape. Nor does it do much to explain why McIlvaine felt compelled to leave messages on Betsy Andreu’s cell-phone.

Her take on Fabiani’s trial balloon about “maybe they misheard a discussion about Armstrong’s treatment regime”is pretty good too.

by R Mc on Sep 17, 2010 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions

That was a great story.

The one about Betsy finding out about Frankie’s dopage. I’d like to meet her one day ;)

by Jen See on Sep 17, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Betsy posted here at the café back in 2007

Here’s a link to the article she commented on:
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2007/7/1/1347/40340

Nothing is impossible when you work for the circus.

by bethie on Sep 18, 2010 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions

Interesting interview, but she seems pretty far gone in her feelings about LA

She intimates that his cancer was not on the up and up (at least that’s how I read this):

“How is it possible that a guy has testicular cancer and it is not discovered? He is supposed to be getting drug tested, and yet there is not a spike in his hormone levels [showing up]. Well, there has to have been a spike, because he had cancer raiding through his body. So how come that didn’t show up in any test?”

This came immediately after she noted another medical shenanigan.

His attorneys must be licking their chops in anticipation of getting her on the stand.

Dat was echt een schwalbe!

by pigilito on Sep 17, 2010 5:46 PM EDT reply actions

Well . . . there have been suggestions about how it could have been caused, but

I read that as her asking how it was . . . if drug testing was being performed as was claimed . . . that UCI staff didn’t notice the surge cancer-indicative hormones before Armstrong’s 2 October diagnosis.

And . . . depending upon what type of testing was purported to have been performed at the time, that is a reasonable question to ask.

And . . . if you had been on the receiving end of a multi-year barrage of character assassination and innuendo from someone . . . how would YOU describe that person?

by R Mc on Sep 17, 2010 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions

ja

Her question there is aimed more at the UCI. Like, were you people actually testing those samples?

by Jen See on Sep 17, 2010 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions

or the use of masking agents?

"The motor happens to be me." -Fabian

by bikepig on Sep 18, 2010 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I read it very differently.

The implication she’s making, as I read it, is that either that “his” samples were actually pipi / blood of the angels, or that they were not actually tested, or that his body was being so dialed in on various doping agents that a cancer related spike in T was masked.

Mind you, I’m not sure this is correct. Depending on the type and progression of testicular cancer, there can be a marked spike in T, but not all testicular tumors actually overproduce T. Not sure about L.A.‘s specific tumor type. Nor do I figure it’s really my business.

Quite a few sorts of hormone-related dopage do indeed suppress T levels, but again, this may only apply to normal cells, or to some tumor cells, but certainly not to all tumor cells. Cancer, after all, involves inappropriate response to signals and loss of negative feedback loops. And downregulation of T production in response to added T is a classic appropriate response / negative feedback loop.

She might be better off not speculating on this topic. Because “more often then not” is not the same thing as “almost never.”

by JFS_PGH on Sep 19, 2010 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions

That makes much more sense than my interpretation.

Thanks.

Dat was echt een schwalbe!

by pigilito on Sep 17, 2010 6:09 PM EDT reply actions

I do not understand the Lance asked for Frankie to do the interviews thing??

Anyone?

I did notice it and wonder – but then pretty much a lot of the Versus stuff like Phil being allowed to ruin the play-by-play nightly – he should just commentate, and the existence of Robbie Ventura among the cast of characters, first as Floyd expert debunker and now a stalwart..yeah, stuff is hard to understand.

But I have no idea about why Lance would ask for Frankie, and if so why that would something Lance is attempting to turn to his advantage, as implied.

I still don’t think anything is gonna happen to Lance, but it seems real serious right now..

by rubesANdbabes on Sep 17, 2010 8:15 PM EDT reply actions

missing words, sorry - sloppy

I would also note that Versus was all-male this year, no Di Stefano once again.

I do like this, the Craig Hummer Era more than past eras – he is the best talking head they’ve had so far..

by rubesANdbabes on Sep 17, 2010 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Here's the story

Seems to be part of the general goodwill trend at the beginning of the un-retirement

by Jens on Sep 18, 2010 3:07 AM EDT up reply actions

thanks / still confusing..

by rubesANdbabes on Sep 18, 2010 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions

keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

pure speculation: a) LA’s image as a good guy is reinforced if he can talk/joke/interview with a person who testified against him, and b) highly unlikely that any hardball questions or doping questions would get asked. if FA asked pointed questions, it would have appeared that he has a further axe to grind with LA. bottomline, LA stays in 100% control.

"The motor happens to be me." -Fabian

by bikepig on Sep 18, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions

pissing contest, pure and simple

Armstrong’s yanking Andreu’s chain privately every time Andreu had to interview him.

Unfortunately, the dynamic shifted after Stage 3, and if you watch carefully to some of the segments, you can hear the glee in Andreu’s voice when he gets to ask Armstrong a sort-of-uncomfortable question.

There was one segment on the evening show in particular during which Andreu was up with Hummer and Knee-pads that was pretty funny.

by R Mc on Sep 18, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions

i will rewatch some of those clips with this in mind.

and i totally see the intimidation/piss contest angle.

"The motor happens to be me." -Fabian

by bikepig on Sep 18, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

As an aside

One of the most interesting Armstrong interviews I’ve ever seen was a post-race interview between Armstrong and Andreu the first tour that Andreu worked for OLN.

I don’t remember the year, I don’t remember the stage exactly, but I almost remember the exchange word-for-word: (and a buddy lost a bunch of dvds for me . . .)

Andreu: Lance, I know how you like the go for the kill. Was today an example of eliminating the competition?

Armstrong: (after an infinitesimal flinch): No way. We were just trying to get to the finish. (Or something like that).

It’s not directly relevant to any of this, but every so often someone posts on the TXBRA forum a photo from an old Texas P12 State Road Race: Armstrong’s on the front—drilling it. In the middle of the left-hand lane, Playing chicken with a car that has just pulled into the gravel shoulder on the left. There’s a line of riders on his wheel.

by R Mc on Sep 18, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions