The authors of a French book that alleged 2 years ago that Lance Armstrong relied on banned substances during his cycling career have come out with a brand new tome about the same old subject.
As usual, the 7-time Tour de France bike race winner vehemently dismisses the accusations:
“This latest attack will be no different than the first – a sensationalized attempt to cash in on my name and sully my reputation by people who have demonstrated a consistent failure to adhere to the most basic journalistic standards or ethics.”
“L.A. Officiel” by Pierre Ballester and David Walsh focuses on recently disclosed testimony leaked from closed hearings regarding a lawsuit between Armstrong and the SCA Promotions in 2005.
The book goes on sale in France on Thursday (with excerpts in the French press) but isn't expected to be sold in the US.
The SCA case
Armstrong had sued SCA for not paying a $5 million bonus after Armstrong won his sixth straight Tour de France; SCA had reneged because of doping allegations leveled in the previous Ballester-Walsh book — “L.A. Confidential.”
During that hearing, former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy testified that they overheard Armstrong tell a doctor treating him in 1996 that he had used several banned substances. Betsy Andreu was so quoted in the first book, the Andreus testified in the SCA case in 2005 as to what they heard, and that testimony was leaked to the press about a week before this year's Tour de France.
The latest book repeats the Andreus' testimony, as well as other testimony in the SCA case.
Armstrong prevailed in that lawsuit and got his money, although VeloNews reported back on June 23, 2006, that a source said “a settlement was reached after the court indicated the SCA contract contained no provision to negate the payment, even if cheating had occurred.”
Open the files
I think a little transparency in this case would be beneficial. Right now, each side is leaking portions of the court testimony or spinning the rulings to put their cause in a favorable light. I'd like to see someone take a page from the Floyd Landis playbook and post the testimony, cross-examination, arguments, and judge's rulings on the Internet. Then let the public decide.
If that been done in the first place, would Ballester and Walsh have had any ammunition to publish their sequel?
Armstrong statement
In a statement issued on the Paceline website (free membership), Armstrong says:
“The authors, David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, now issue a sequel to an earlier French book that was likewise founded upon a demonstrably false string of sensational, untrue and fabricated allegations. This latest attack will be no different than the first – a sensationalized attempt to cash in on my name and sully my reputation by people who have demonstrated a consistent failure to adhere to the most basic journalistic standards or ethics. For example, Walsh bolstered the first book’s most colorful accusations by knowingly using false, backdated and manufactured diary entries and documents. He violated fundamental principles by paying his sources for “information”; he then compounded his unethical conduct by lying and denying those payments until confronted with irrefutable proof to the contrary.
“The “sequel” will once again be published only in France to hide from legal accountability. The allegations and sources in the second book are just as baseless, unreliable and manufactured as they were in the first book. The first book was so unreliable and baseless that it was available only in France and rejected by all twenty-plus English language publishers to whom the book was pitched. Continuing a pattern of distortion and fabrication started in the first book, the new book takes cherry-picked allegations and testimony from the losing side of a court case I won and attempts to portray them as facts.”
“I responded in court to these allegations, most of which are made by a handful of grudge holders, axe grinders, and a so-called “expert” whose graduate degree turned out to be by way of correspondence courses — and I proved them false. I was awarded 7.5 million dollars in actual and punitive damages by a professional panel of legal experts who received all the evidence and heard from all the “eyewitnesses”. Every allegation and witness was confronted thoroughly, lawfully and fairly. I was vindicated yet again. I raced clean. I won clean. I am the most tested athlete in the history of sports. I have defended myself and won every court case to prove I was clean. Yet another French book with baseless, sensational and rejected allegations will not overcome the truth.”
VeloNews reported Wednesday that Ballester said the authors' aim was not a relentless pursuit of Armstrong.
“It's a vital addition to an inquiry which throws the spotlight back on claims which in the past tried to reveal Armstrong's personality.”
Other stories:
Former cyclist and OLN commentator Frankie Andreu admits to doping, Sept. 12, 2006;
Greg LeMond: Why he testified against Lance Armstrong, June 26, 2006
Lance Armstrong and doping; more allegations, June 24, 2006
Armstrong wants anti-doping chief Dick Pound punished, June 19, 2006
Lance Armstrong cleared in 1999 doping probe, WADA chief objects, May 31, 2006
Ranking Tour organizers comments on the cheap shot meter, Oct. 27, 2006
Recent Comments