Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Beaner in an El Camino
In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 9:05AM Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Let me preface my comment by saying that Betsy and Frankie certainly DID NOT deserve the treatment they received from Lance Armstrong with regard to years of doping lies. Again, I defend LA in no way with regard to his treatment of them!

However, am I the only one who listens to Betsy's rants and concludes that she seems like a b--ch? She has every right to be "furious" with Armstrong, but her general demeanor exudes trailer trash bitchiness. Sorry, that's just the way I see it, and it's hard to imagine she isn't that way in every aspect of her life.

In contrast, I listened to an interview Frankie did on this morning's "Mike and Mike" show and he is clearly a well-grounded class act. I've heard him spew anger at Lance on many occasions in the past, but he has always been articulate and professional.

Betsy should go underground; at this point she comes off as nothing more than an "attention whore."
Bullet the Blue Sky
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 9:31AM - in reply to Beaner in an El Camino Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Agree. I can't remember the exact wording Lance used in the interview, but he basically said he called Betsy to apologize and they both agreed not to share the details of the conversation.

He admitted to the drugs that Betsy identified in the hospital room, he admitted to doping before cancer, he admitted that she was right (sued her even though she was right) and apologized to her directly in the phone call.

Now, she is dissatisfied because he didn't specifically say, "Betsy's recount of the hospital room are 100% accurate." She's entitled to her own opinion and feelings, but I think she's splitting hairs hoping for a specific utterance of words from him.

I would further go on to conclude that Frankie's cycling career was not ruined by being dropped from the team, per se. If he was refusing to dope in the era when literally everyone else was doping, then it's going to be hard to compete and maintain your career -- that's the reason the everyone else was doping!
accent detector
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 9:35AM - in reply to Beaner in an El Camino Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
The problem is her annoying, abrasive Michigander accent. If she had a Southern or California surfer accent, you'd be fine with her.
agip
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 9:38AM - in reply to accent detector Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
betsy is not a public personality - she came off badly but she has little experience on camera in a soundbite situation -she doesn't have PR people telling her how to talk, look at teh camera and what tone to use. LA has all these things and has been before the camera for decades. She brought a knife to a gunfight.

Unfair to judge Betsy on those few minutes.
Beaner in an El Camino
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 9:53AM - in reply to agip Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

agip wrote: Unfair to judge Betsy on those few minutes.


Her accent and lack of preparedness has nothing to do with it. And my opinion isn't based on a few minutes of seeng her on Anderson Cooper's show; it's based on every interview she's done on the topic.

Again, she has every right to be bitter and livid with regard to her dealings with Armstrong. I'm not disputing that point. What I'm saying is that her general demeanor seems inherently bitchy, and I speculate that she probably exudes that personality in her everyday life aside from the Armstrong issues.

She needs to can it. As someone else said, she seems to be splitting hairs and will never be satisfied unless Armstrong reads a confession from a script that she writes herself.

If she won't shut up, then she needs to learn from Frankie how to express herself like a mature adult.
truestory
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 9:55AM - in reply to Beaner in an El Camino Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Also should be noted that Betsey is exactly nobody. The wife of a former cyclist doesn't have anything to say that justifies an interview on national television.
Citizen Runner
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 10:02AM - in reply to Bullet the Blue Sky Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

He admitted to the drugs that Betsy identified in the hospital room, he admitted to doping before cancer, he admitted that she was right (sued her even though she was right) and apologized to her directly in the phone call.

Now, she is dissatisfied because he didn't specifically say, "Betsy's recount of the hospital room are 100% accurate." She's entitled to her own opinion and feelings, but I think she's splitting hairs hoping for a specific utterance of words from him.

In the SCA trial while under oath, Lance specifically denied having admitted PED use during that that conversation. He can't say what she wants him to say without admitting perjury.
Beaner in an El Camino
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 10:06AM - in reply to Citizen Runner Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Citizen Runner wrote: In the SCA trial while under oath, Lance specifically denied having admitted PED use during that that conversation. He can't say what she wants him to say without admitting perjury.


That doesn't matter. The statute of limitations has expired with regard to the "trial" you mention.
Positive Split Guy
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 10:09AM - in reply to Citizen Runner Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Even if it is all true, why is it okay for to repeat what she overheard during a cancer patient's conversation with a doctor?

I thought things like that were to stay private?

The fact that her husband was a user also somewhat devalues anything Frank and/or Betsy have to say on the matter.
Hugh Jindasak
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 10:12AM - in reply to Citizen Runner Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
She has a vibe of having had a jilted crush on Lance at some point, and is still hurting from rejection by the alpha male, who crushed her beta husband like swatting a fly. Something like that. Drama and human nature in the raw. Se is in the right still, however,this isn't over at least until he offers up a full confession, not the half measure that was this interview.
Bullet the Blue Sky
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 10:24AM - in reply to Hugh Jindasak Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Hugh Jindasak wrote:

... this isn't over at least until he offers up a full confession, not the half measure that was this interview.


It seems like a pretty full confession to me. He even admitted to the personality flaws (being a selfish, manipulative, lying, deceitful bully). What else did you want him to say?
Beaner in an El Camino
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 10:33AM - in reply to Bullet the Blue Sky Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Just heard Betsy on “The Herd.” That does it – She is a complete b--ch. No sooner did the hosts welcome her to the show than she immediately ripped in them (as part of the media) and began berating them for “drinking the Kool-Aid” and perpetuating Lance’s lie, only now to jump on the bandwagon and criticize Armstrong.

Now, she may be right about the fickleness of the media, but you really had to hear her in this interview. If you heard her, then you will agree that she was immediately on the attack and practically screaming at the hosts before they could even start the interview. She eventually cooled down, but it was too late. I have the vision of her frothing at the mouth and pacing frantically around her house, anxious to no end that the whole Lance confession will not play out as she wishes.

It’s very ironic, I think. She seems every bit as cold, vindictive and vengeful as she accuses Lance of being. And her deep down desire to control the situation is obvious. Her inability to do so may, in fact, drive her crazy. Ironic, indeed.
Tor
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 10:34AM - in reply to Positive Split Guy Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Jesus H. Christ, the fanboys have moved from "never tested positive" to "level playing field" to discrediting one of the few people who refused to lie for Lance. F*ck, you people are worthless. She testified because she was subphoeaned. She didn't "overhear" a conversation, she was in the room because Lance insisted they stay. Betsy has integrity, Lance fanboys... not so much.
Beaner in an El Camino
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 10:45AM - in reply to Tor Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Tor wrote:

Jesus H. Christ, the fanboys have moved from "never tested positive" to "level playing field" to discrediting one of the few people who refused to lie for Lance. F*ck, you people are worthless. She testified because she was subphoeaned. She didn't "overhear" a conversation, she was in the room because Lance insisted they stay. Betsy has integrity, Lance fanboys... not so much.


Please brush up your reading comprehension skills. I noted at least twice in this thread that my opinion of Betsy is COMPLETELY ASIDE FROM THE LANCE ARMSTRONG ISSUE. Read that again: COMPLETELY ASIDE FROM THE LANCE ARMSTRONG ISSUE.

What I'm saying is that she GENERALLY seems to have the demeanor of a bitchy woman, and I am SPECULATING that it is likely her personality in all aspects of her life ASIDE FROM HER ISSUES WITH LANCE ARMSTRONG.

Do you get it now, or are you really so dense as to not recognize the distinction? I'm sorry to sink to your level and be critical of you personally, but you clearly saw in this thread only what you wanted to see.
worst poster
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 11:10AM - in reply to Tor Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Tough call.

One one hand I would think many in her shoes would get "amnesia" about what was said in a circumstance like this (sick friend, virtually on his deathbed, civil matter pertaining to a sporting event).

On the other hand she was under oath.

So she gets 10/10 for being honest and 0/10 for having the back of a (at the time) friend.
Tor
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 11:12AM - in reply to Beaner in an El Camino Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Did I specifically respond to you? Are you too dense to notice that others are discrediting Betsy as a "nobody" or she has "nothing to say to justify being on national television" or Frankie once used=Betsy not credible?

But in response to your posts: Betsy has the demeanor of a strong person, not a "bitch." Fortunately for her, the media seems to appreciate her more than some random nobody on Letsrun. The media is showing great respect for Betsy, someone that never swayed from the truth. Not enough of that integrity in the world these days. None of us can even begin to imagine the sh*t storm her and her husband endured over the years by not staying on the Lance ship.
Nutella1
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 11:19AM - in reply to Bullet the Blue Sky Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:
but he basically said he called Betsy to apologize and they both agreed not to share the details of the conversation.


He did not say that he apologized to her, that's a fact.

Also, in the interview he didn't have the balls to admit that the incident happened in exactly the way that she described it.

It's was more like "Betsy, I am sorry about the fact that you can't forgive me"
Positive Split Guy
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 11:21AM - in reply to worst poster Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

worst poster wrote:

Tough call.

One one hand I would think many in her shoes would get "amnesia" about what was said in a circumstance like this (sick friend, virtually on his deathbed, civil matter pertaining to a sporting event).

On the other hand she was under oath.

So she gets 10/10 for being honest and 0/10 for having the back of a (at the time) friend.


I mostly agree with this, but wouldn't the honesty quotient be
Positive Split Guy
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 11:22AM - in reply to worst poster Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

worst poster wrote:

Tough call.

One one hand I would think many in her shoes would get "amnesia" about what was said in a circumstance like this (sick friend, virtually on his deathbed, civil matter pertaining to a sporting event).

On the other hand she was under oath.

So she gets 10/10 for being honest and 0/10 for having the back of a (at the time) friend.


I mostly agree with this, but wouldn't the honesty quotient be less than 10/10 since her husband was a doper in the past?

Is lance now 10/10 since he "came clean about some stuff."

It is a tough call. I honestly don't know what I would have done in her situation (being under oath).

I can say that I don't like the fact that so many ex-druggies can keep involved in the highest levels of the sport and become all holier than thou once they confess.

sorry for the double post, a less than sign (mistaken for code, i assume) messed up the earlier post
Positive Split Guy
RE: In Response to Betsy on A.C. 1/18/2013 11:24AM - in reply to Positive Split Guy Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I mostly agree with this, but wouldn't the honesty quotient be less than 10/10 since her husband was a doper in the past?

Is lance now 10/10 since he "came clean about some stuff."

It is a tough call. I honestly don't know what I would have done in her situation (being under oath).

I can say that I don't like the fact that so many ex-druggies can keep involved in the highest levels of the sport and become all holier than thou once they confess.

sorry for the double post, a less than sign (mistaken for code, i assume) messed up the earlier post.

sorry again, i think this will work
Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |