I'm confused about why you're mounting an extended defense on a minor point, especially since there's a good chance Armstrong will eventually confess that the Andreus didn't lie.
Originally Posted by Cat4Lifer
It also seems odd that for you, tearing down the Andreu's credibility and calling them liars about the hospital incident doesn't qualify as picking apart their allegations.
Yes, that and calling her a "nut" in this thread. In other posts, you call her obsessed, crazed, wacky and deserved to be called an "ugly, obese, jealous, obsessed, hateful, crazed *****", in public.
Slagging Betsy? You mean questioning the veracity of statements made by her and her husband?
It's not optimal, but that's how the world works.
Ok fine, you don't think it's important to know that Frankie lied when he admitted to doping, and then shielded the truth for years, likely with the help of Betsy, until put under oath.
Lots of people in the sport have lied about doping; almost anyone who's going to go on record about it now has spent a lot of time lying about their actions, and the actions of others. E.g. Hincapie shielded the truth for years, with the help of fellow riders, until he was pressured by the feds. It's the same thing, so why aren't you ripping Hincapie to shreds?
Meanwhile, Armstrong lied for years, and committed perjury under oath. And at this point, it's basically his word against the Andreus. By your standards, they are both lying, and thus neither should be treated as credible. But one of the two versions has to be true.
No, I have never said "it's OK to lie as long as you get the guy."
I get it: You guys -- the ones who care not if a witness lies, so long as they get Armstrong (Bacciaglupe)....
I'm saying that the issues to which you attach so much importance simply aren't that important -- and they also tarnish the credibility of the other person who refutes their statements.
Perhaps your process here is similar to Armstrong's:
OW: This is what’s interesting to me: if a person is accusing you, and they say three things that are true but one of them is out of order and not true, do you then take that to mean the whole thing’s not true?
LA: That’s it, you’re out. Yeah.
OW: Yeah. That’s how you operate?
LA: Well because that’s… Three to one wouldn’t be accurate I would… That’s a score.
How, by focusing exclusively on a handful of claims, that don't really cut to the heart of the matter, and on that basis blasting the credibility of a couple of witnesses?
I'd rather focus on the entire picture....
Let's assume Armstrong didn't literally push anyone to dope. 1) He's still a raging **** 2) he still verbally and legally attacked those who were exposing or discussing his drug use 3) he still profited enormously from his cheating 4) he still cheated. He is still morally and possibly legally culpable for these actions, with or without accepting the Andreu's claims. That's the "entire picture."