Landis admits doping, points finger at LA - Please read Mod Warning post 1

zzzzzzzz

horizon26 wrote: »

Do you agree that Kimmage is a drug cheat?

So are you saying that because Kimmage has admitted to taking drugs nothing he says can be believed?

petethedrummer

What are the most likely answers to these questions?

Why would you would visit a blood doping doctor?
a) to blood dope, b) training plans.

Why would Emma O'Reilly make the allegations she made?
a) because lance is a doper, b) she's a bitter ex employee.

Why would Betsy Andreu make the allegations she made?
a) because lance is a doper, b) she's a bitter former friend.

Why would Frankie Andreu back up Betsy's claims?
a) because lance is a doper, b) bitter former teammate.

Why would you climb at 6.97W/kg when you got dropped like a stone in your early years?
a) because you doped, b)because you're supermotivated, high cadence etc...

Why would Steven Swart point the finger at himself and Armstrong?
a) because they doped, b) he's a bitter former teammate.

Why would Floyd Landis point the finger at himself and Armstrong?
a) because they doped, b) he's a bitter former teammate.

Why would you test positive for cortisone when you don't have a TUE for it?
a) because you doped, b) because you forgot to get one.

Why would there be transfusion equipment in Astana's rubbish?
a) they were doping, b) they were playing doctors and nurses/French Conspiracy.

Why you would agree to have Don Caitlin test you independently and then back out?
a) because you're a doper, b) its too expensive for the world's richest cyclist.

Why would the 99 samples retest show EPO use?
a) because they had EPO in them, b) French conspiracy.

How do you beat a peloton full of blood dopers 7 times in row?
a) by blood doping, b) being supermotivated, high cadence etc...

Did you all your ex team mates who got caught, start doping when they left your team?
a) No, they did it a Disco and USPS, b) Yes Disco and USPS were super clean.


I answered mostly a.

aidanbike

petethedrummer wrote: »

I answered mostly a.

Do you have some confessions to make too ;-)

petethedrummer

aidanbike wrote: »

Do you have some confessions to make too ;-)

I confess that I never tested positive.

petethedrummer

US Road and Cyclo-Cross Pro Adam Myerson
http://www.cycle-smart.com/blog/2010/05/20/pretty-boy-floyd

Tom Humphries:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2010/0524/1224271011205.html

Lumen

petethedrummer wrote: »

US Road and Cyclo-Cross Pro Adam Myerson
http://www.cycle-smart.com/blog/2010/05/20/pretty-boy-floyd

Those comments are funny. I know it's a complete ad-hominem, but if there's one thing that compells me to believe Lance is a doper, it's the pathetic mewling of his blinkered little followers.

Junior

I'll be honest Humphries blows hot and cold on a lot of topics bar gaa, sometimes he gets it very right and sometimes so badly wrong you'd wonder did he get a 12 year old to read some stuff from Wikipedia to him. That piece goes nowhere and says nothing only just him covering a topic that's current in the sports world.

ROK ON

Junior wrote: »

I'll be honest Humphries blows hot and cold on a lot of topics bar gaa, sometimes he gets it very right and sometimes so badly wrong you'd wonder did he get a 12 year old to read some stuff from Wikipedia to him. That piece goes nowhere and says nothing only just him covering a topic that's current in the sports world.

The man isnt the 3rd cousin to a sports journalist. Even on GAA his comment aer often hackneyed. Drivel. He wrote that piece because he felt it was needed. Added nothing to the information or debate on the issue.

Sorry off topic. But he gets to me.

Mr. Presentable

petethedrummer wrote: »

I confess that I never tested positive.

Nor did Michelle Smith de Bruin!

petethedrummer

nipplenuts wrote: »

Nor did Michelle Smith de Bruin!

She tested positive for being Irish. It was just a bit of whiskey lads.

niceonetom

Mr. Presentable

petethedrummer wrote: »

She tested positive for being Irish. It was just a bit of whiskey lads.

Exactly! It was an American that screamed "cheat" and that was enough to ruin her because she came from a small country. But you dare not accuse an American; they are paragons of virtue - Carl Lewis, Flo-jo et al? Mere abherrations.

the one thing that always comes back is one you quoted

If everyone else is cheating, how could Lance beat them all seven times in a row?

SACH Central

Junior wrote: »

I'll be honest Humphries blows hot and cold on a lot of topics....sometimes so badly wrong....

Ah yes the auld la tactic comes into play again - dis-credit the individual criticising la.

The article in the Times is basically a summary of the 'affair' thus far. I think his 'angle' is just to lay out the facts as we know them today, with maybe an undercurrent of; I hope they nail the ba$tard too!

Tom Humphries has been outspoken on the whole doping issue for a long time now. While he may not be an expert on the sport of cycling, he can certainly write with great authority on all matters 'doping'

Diarmuid

nipplenuts wrote: »

Exactly! It was an American that screamed "cheat" and that was enough to ruin her because she came from a small country.

Are you joking?
. Before she even got to the Olympics Gary O Toole pretty much hinted that she was doping and as soon as she won the medals, Kimmage outted her. She was ruined because she was a doper, not because he came from a small island. The only disgrace is that she got to keep her medals.

Junior

SACH Central wrote: »

Ah yes the auld la tactic comes into play again - dis-credit the individual criticising la.

The article in the Times is basically a summary of the 'affair' thus far. I think his 'angle' is just to lay out the facts as we know them today, with maybe an undercurrent of; I hope they nail the ba$tard too!

Tom Humphries has been outspoken on the whole doping issue for a long time now. While he may not be an expert on the sport of cycling, he can certainly write with great authority on all matters 'doping'

Not at all man, I believe LA is a doper, I just don't like Tom Humphries. I don't like his writing, his style or his pieces, sometimes he hits a topic right, but more than not it's something of a small field of knowledge that he has, nothing else.

SACH Central

Junior wrote: »

Not at all man, I believe LA is a doper

Cool! Me too!!

Junior

I'll happily say the same if he wrote the same sort of rehashed **** about Landis ..

davyjose

Junior wrote: »

Not at all man, I believe LA is a doper, I just don't like Tom Humphries. I don't like his writing, his style or his pieces, sometimes he hits a topic right, but more than not it's something of a small field of knowledge that he has, nothing else.

I also have a real fcuking problem with journalists who act like cycling is the most important fcuking sport in the world, when it comes to a "scoop", but I daresay when you flick through the Guardian, or The Sunday Times, or The Independant to see who's leading the Giro de Italia ..... forget about it.

Afterall, that's not what's important about cycling, what's important is what the judgemental, reactionary, clueless hacks tell us to think. The irony is, cycling only matters when they want it to.

I'm a huge fan of professional cycling, and the difference between myself and someone like Walsh, or humphries, is that it hurts me to realise how infected this sport has become. It's not a joyous occasion to scream "I told you so!" And make my name (and $$$) from writing about doping

And Kimmage is a disgrace. He's gotten everything from cycling: a wonderful beginning to his adult life, a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops), and all he can do is turn around every six months or so, from (poorly) interviewing Tiger Woods' Caddy, or Jensen Button and give us a load of "I told you so's". Your no fcuking help to the sport of cycling either, Paul.


Now Armstrong might go down, and if he does, so too will cycling. So I ask Kimmage, and Walsh, and fcuking Facepalm Humphries, and even Lemond (I wont include the bitter, single brain-celled Landis), what now, are you going to do to repair the Sport you so-called love? You invented the hydrogen bomb .... now prevent WW3!!!

Harrybelafonte

But isn't point that for some of those you mentioned that they're trying to bring an end to the doping element and raise the sport up again, seen as UCI seem to be incapable of doing it. What about the harm people like la are doing it?

Captain Havoc

The problem with that mentality is that, people like me can't cheat, I can't take away a shot when I play golf, I can't handle the ball on the soccer field, I just can't cheat. I'm assuming some professionals have the same mentality, if you're going to win, do it honestly, there's no point in fooling yourself that you haven't cheated, because you have, it's irrelevant if the other guy cheats or not, you can call him a cheat and nobody will doubt you when they know you're not a cheat. Is it fair on people who can't cheat that they have beat a cheater?

Cycling will not fall down and disapear over night because a cheat is exposed, even if that cheat is a seven time Tour de France winner. What will happen is that there will be an overhall, the UCI may fall to ashes if they're exposed as having tolerated or even assisted in this systematic doping that is talked about and I'm assuming that a few people will be disgraced and a few will be jailed. Perhaps it is an opportunity for an organisation like ASO or AIGCP to form an alternative Pro-tour with real doping tests. Cycling will continue and maybe people will be happier watching it, knowing that it's been overhauled.

petethedrummer

davyjose wrote: »

I also have a real fcuking problem with journalists who act like cycling is the most important fcuking sport in the world, when it comes to a "scoop", but I daresay when you flick through the Guardian, or The Sunday Times, or The Independant to see who's leading the Giro de Italia ..... forget about it.

Cycling news doesn't sell papers. Arguably the largest doping story in cycling history will. Market forces.

davyjose wrote: »

I'm a huge fan of professional cycling, and the difference between myself and someone like Walsh, or humphries, is that it hurts me to realise how infected this sport has become. It's not a joyous occasion to scream "I told you so!" And make my name (and $$$) from writing about doping

Is this the same David Walsh who in his younger years noted that Sean Kelly's exploits were being criminally under reported and sought to rectify this? And who wrote Kelly's biography?

Walsh took time off his very highly paid job to write LA confidential and From Lance to Landis and for the sales he made it turns out that in effect he took a pay cut.

davyjose wrote: »

And Kimmage is a disgrace. He's gotten everything from cycling: a wonderful beginning to his adult life, a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops), and all he can do is turn around every six months or so, from (poorly) interviewing Tiger Woods' Caddy, or Jensen Button and give us a load of "I told you so's". Your no fcuking help to the sport of cycling either, Paul.

The first man to stand up and write an honest account of cycling and its doping culture and his own dabbling, which has been denied and denied and denied by the UCI. And EVERYTHING he says somehow turns out to be true. Is he really the problem? really? I really don't understand your reasoning.

davyjose wrote: »

Now Armstrong might go down, and if he does, so too will cycling. So I ask Kimmage, and Walsh, and fcuking Facepalm Humphries, and even Lemond (I wont include the bitter, single brain-celled Landis), what now, are you going to do to repair the Sport you so-called love? You invented the hydrogen bomb .... now prevent WW3!!!

Lemond the problem? The one GT winner Kimmage has given the benefit of the doubt to? The guy Armstrong hired a Public Strategies PR company to dig dirt on. And not one former teammate or associated even hinted that he doped. A guy who had the nerve to question Armstrong's association with Michele Ferrari. And the guy who has magnamously accepted Floyd Landis' apology for his behaviour in 2006.

Cycling got through Puerto, Festina, T-Mobile scandals and it will get through this. Do you want Pat McQuaid to deal with the doping problem? You might as well let Vince McMahon do it. How many asteriks do you need to see beside results before you realise its in complete mess already.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/346046/tour-de-france-1999-2008.html

Note that article is old, a few more of the names need to be crossed out.

The worst I can see happening is that cycling might lose a few Tour De France Livestrongers. Boo hoo.

petethedrummer

davyjose wrote: »

a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops)

You could always get a job on Eurosport with David Harmon or on Versus with Ligget and Sherwin.

petethedrummer

I just realised I need to slow down and re-read my posts. Excuse the grammar and spelling errors.

Chips Lovell

davyjose wrote: »

I also have a real fcuking problem with journalists who act like cycling is the most important fcuking sport in the world, when it comes to a "scoop", but I daresay when you flick through the Guardian, or The Sunday Times, or The Independant to see who's leading the Giro de Italia ..... forget about it.

Afterall, that's not what's important about cycling, what's important is what the judgemental, reactionary, clueless hacks tell us to think. The irony is, cycling only matters when they want it to.

It's a bigger story. Plain and simple. I guarantee you in newsrooms across the world last week editors were deciding they had to cover this and roping in someone to get a story together. As I said earlier in this thread, lots of people don't even know the Giro is on at the moment and don't even care, but they are interested in this. They know Armstrong, know the story and they want to know how it's all going to end.

davyjose wrote: »

I'm a huge fan of professional cycling, and the difference between myself and someone like Walsh, or humphries, is that it hurts me to realise how infected this sport has become. It's not a joyous occasion to scream "I told you so!" And make my name (and $$$) from writing about doping

And Kimmage is a disgrace. He's gotten everything from cycling: a wonderful beginning to his adult life, a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops), and all he can do is turn around every six months or so, from (poorly) interviewing Tiger Woods' Caddy, or Jensen Button and give us a load of "I told you so's". Your no fcuking help to the sport of cycling either, Paul.

Now Armstrong might go down, and if he does, so too will cycling. So I ask Kimmage, and Walsh, and fcuking Facepalm Humphries, and even Lemond (I wont include the bitter, single brain-celled Landis), what now, are you going to do to repair the Sport you so-called love? You invented the hydrogen bomb .... now prevent WW3!!!

Shooting the messenger is really going to solve the problem alright. Kimmage and Walsh probably did more than any other English speaking journalists to expose the problems in pro cycling and they got no end of crap for doing it.

sy

petethedrummer wrote: »

I just realised I need to slow down and re-read my posts. Excuse the grammar and spelling errors.

Your doing just fine, some great posts

MrCreosote

davyjose wrote: »

Now Armstrong might go down, and if he does, so too will cycling. So I ask Kimmage, and Walsh, and fcuking Facepalm Humphries, and even Lemond (I wont include the bitter, single brain-celled Landis), what now, are you going to do to repair the Sport you so-called love? You invented the hydrogen bomb .... now prevent WW3!!!

Why should they worry about "repairing" cycling. Pro road cycling from top to bottom is a disgrace! Can't believe anything that comes out of it. Better to show it up for what it is, scare the sponsors and money out of it, and if it recovers fair enough. If it doesn't? Well-too bad.

Junior

People that come on and say 'oh they are all doping' are doing the clean riders a huge disservice. I believe there are more clean riders now than there ever was in the peleton. If there wasn't riders like Dan Martin, Nico Roche etc wouldn't be even comptetive - they would be also rans, donkeys. There are also riders like Gilbert who are classic winners who are staunchly anti doping and you can see him winning, not having domestiques riding away from him.

That's not to bury the head in the sand either and Armstrong is what's right and wrong on equal measure about cycling. He's great for his achievements and his story transcends cycling, his recovery is the greatest American comeback bar none, it is the American dream if you will. This is why he attracts so many column inches. However the bad he represents is the systematic doping programs I believe he implemented across his teams to win and destroy all others at all costs. He saw that goal of the TdF win and took it by the other American method 'by any means neccessary' in doing so hd has destroyed the lives of true believers in recovery, in the idea of the comeback. He has disgarded team mates like used needles, he has used and dropped doctors as he sees fit. His biggest mistake was coming out of retirement - he and whatever he did would have stayed buried. His ego just wouldn't leave him alone.

I understand the point about what do these journalists add to this story only trying to pin their coats to a good story, never have I seen an anti doping story on here's what the uci, wada, usada should do, I see the line lifetime bans trotted out by anti doping authorities as if that's the solution. It isn't.

What Landis has done here is a good thing, yes he'll he may have destroyed the biggest thing in cycling, but he's put that information into the laps of the controlling bodies to do something with it. Now it's up to them to make that cultural change in cycling to rid itself finally of the stigma of doping.

Exclusive*Q&A*with*cyclist*Floyd*Landis*http://bit.ly/96sAiLcuts a lot of horse **** out.

Sorry about all the Edit's - iPhone doesn't like pasting in urls for some reason

Harrybelafonte

davyjose wrote: »

a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops)

It probably has more to do with your inability to spell simple phrases like "shoo-in", but the rest of what said would fit right in with the Daily Mail, use of words like bitter, hydrogen bomb etc.

Do you honestly believe that LA is what keeps cycling alive? You said bringing him down would bring cycling down?

MrCreosote

Junior wrote: »

People that come on and say 'oh they are all doping' are doing the clean riders a huge disservice. I believe there are more clean riders now than there ever was in the peleton. If there wasn't riders like Dan Martin, Nico Roche etc wouldn't be even comptetive - they would be also rans, donkeys. There are also riders like Gilbert who are classic winners who are staunchly anti doping and you can see him winning, not having domestiques riding away from him.

Totally agree with you about it being unfair on the clean riders. The problem is if you apply the "everyone is doping" rule to any individual rider, more often than not you'll be proved right. It's so institutionalised in the sport I can't even give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-doping riders. And it then knocks on to other sports- who can you believe.

The only good thing could be if the anti-doping agencies get good info from Landis, maybe tweak the testing. I'd imagine things have moved on so much in the last 4 years though they'll still be playing catch-up.

And for me I'd believe a rider is clean if he agreed to storage of frequent random blood and urine sample to be stored for future testing, say for up to 10-15 years. Anything else is just bluster, sure even Landis was against doping until last week.

Chips Lovell

Interesting:

The actual substances are not very expensive. The amount you would need for a season for a cyclist is probably $10,000. The advice -- depends who you want it from. If you want it from Ferrari, you pay him 10 percent of your salary.