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

gerardduff

DeadMan1 wrote: »

twitter almost got interesting:


lancearmstrong
"I confess.

I used one of those bike motors in 2007 at the tuesday nighter in Austin.not"

Hard to figure if this is just an unfortunate choice of words by LA, you might not 'play' at cycling but you can have some sport. Think he's read the PR handbook inside out. So sad.

Really, this is the cynical tweet of a man who has been playing the game for so long he can't tell the difference between truth and lie.

Harrybelafonte

iregk wrote: »

Well twitter maybe quiet today. It crashed last night after this broke and hasn't been fully back on line since.

Landis is trending, but it's mostly Americans calling him names, cos they were sure he was telling the truth previously.

furiousox

Chips Lovell

mike12 wrote: »

Hi,
Is there any way they will ever clean up cycling, why not just say anything that happened in the past stays there and from x date if you are caught u are banned for life, I remember watching Landis on the stage where he won the tour and thinking it was the greatest comeback ever, since then i think u have to watch cycling and just assume most of them are doing something, maybe some good will come out of this in the form of better drug tests if landis knows how to avoid them but is it any good to the sport if a lot of the top guys got banned that the guy who finished 25th in the 2006 tour was the only clean guy they could find.
Mike.

Call me naive, but I think the sport is in better shape now than it was in 2006. While it is certain that some people are still doping, it does seem that you can compete clean these days, which is a change from the time when it was virtually mandatory to dope if you wanted to survive. Testing is better, albeit not perfect and more guys are getting caught. It also means that the guys who are still doping appear to be on much more limited regimes in order to avoid falling afoul of the testers.

Not perfect, but better. It will be a long, drawn out process to clean up the sport, especially considering how many powerful figures are implicated.

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Regardless, the roads of the grand tours will be lined with tens of thousands of fans while the remainder of us will be glued to our t.v/internet and for just a few moments we will kid ourselves that just maybe this year it is real.

It does have an impact though. How many sponsors have pulled the plug because of it? T-Mobile, Liberty Seguros, Gerolsteiner etc. German TV was refusing the show the Tour for a while. And while existing cycling fans may not be turned off, it isn't going to help win new converts to the sport.

tunney

el tonto wrote: »

Call me naive, but I think the sport is in better shape now than it was in 2006. While it is certain that some people are still doping, it does seem that you can compete clean these days, which is a change from the time when it was virtually mandatory to dope if you wanted to survive. Testing is better, albeit not perfect and more guys are getting caught. It also means that the guys who are still doping appear to be on much more limited regimes in order to avoid falling afoul of the testers.

Not perfect, but better. It will be a long, drawn out process to clean up the sport, especially considering how many powerful figures are implicated.



It does have an impact though. How many sponsors have pulled the plug because of it? T-Mobile, Liberty Seguros, Gerolsteiner etc. German TV was refusing the show the Tour for a while. And while existing cycling fans may not be turned off, it isn't going to help win new converts to the sport.

Okay then.
You're naive

sleepyholland

mike12 wrote: »

Hi,
but is it any good to the sport if a lot of the top guys got banned that the guy who finished 25th in the 2006 tour was the only clean guy they could find.
Mike.

Shame - I doubt he's clean either.

25 007 POPOVYCH Yaroslav DSC UKR 51' 05"

http://www.letour.fr/2006/TDF/LIVE/us/2000/classement/ITG.html

plasmaguy

Landis naming names.

http://recentissuetoday.com/headline/1559/floyd-landis-admits-doping-and-accuses-top-cyclists-of-drug-use/

Of course he may be making false allegations, it's difficult to know.

But would it not be bizarre that one team member is using drugs and no-one else?

Secondly, Landis was a team-mate of Armstrong and probably a 'domestic' or workhorse of sorts. This means even if LA didn't take drugs he had a guy in the team doing the donkey work, ie chasing down breaks, leading Armstrong up the mountains, setting a fast pace in Time Trials. The winners of the Tour De France are only ever as good as their team mates and guys who set the pace for them and help them out.

It's the same as an athletic's relay team. If even one team member takes drugs, the whole team gain an unfair advantage.

If Landis is telling the truth about his own drug taking, then this taints LA's Tour De France wins.

I don't think a team like US Postal going from no-hopers to Tour De France winners overnight is easy to explain. It looks a bit like our own national drugs scandal when a certain swimmer went from second rate to Olympics Champion within a couple of months or years. It's very rare in top class sport for something like that to happen unless drug taking is involved.

At the moment I'm keeping an open mind.

Lumen

ednwireland wrote: »

wasnt twiggos performance last year after hooking up with lim ? and he hasnt tweeted for days

Yeah, but Wiggins had proven class on the track before that. Maybe he doped under the British Cycling regime too, but that's a bit of a stretch. Unless I've misread this the Lim allegation is against his time in Phonak Radioshack, not Garmin.

If Wiggins is ever proven to have doped I would be disappointed, majorly.

Chips Lovell

New York Times just updated their story:

For Pat McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union, Landis’s accusations do not taint Armstrong’s reputation one bit.

“I think Landis is in a very sad situation and I feel sorry for the guy because I don’t accept anything he says as true,” McQuaid said in a telephone interview on Thursday. “This is a guy who has been condemned in court, who has stood up in court and stated that he never saw any doping in cycling. He’s written a book saying he won the Tour de France clean. Where does that leave his credibility? He has an agenda and is obviously out to seek revenge.”

McQuaid said he received Landis’s e-mail messages several weeks ago, but immediately discounted the accusations in them because they were “purely allegations and no proof of anything.” He has since sent the messages to the cycling union’s legal department.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

Unless I've misread this the Lim allegation is against his time in Radioshack, not Garmin.

It's neither. It relates to when Landis was at Phonak

barrabus

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=9YV8dMts


probably already posted..

Chips Lovell

Aside from the time zones, I think the deafening silence about this from a lot of the involved parties is down to the fact that this has the potential to snowball so quickly once people start to react.

For example, say Sky pull Michael Barry from racing. Then the pressure is on other teams such as Garmin to pull Zabriskie and so on. It'll also be very easy for the media to corner Vaughters. If he denies Zabriskie was doping with US Postal, the next obvious question is whether he's calling Floyd a liar.

Pat McQuaid is putting a lot on the line coming out with stuff like that. According to the NY Times, USADA and even federal authorities are looking at it. What's it going to look like if they suceed in building a case?

Nevertheless, people can't going on saying nothing forever.

Wibbs

Since the early days of cycling there has been documented use of "extra help". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling Amphetamines were rife. Then steroids came in and testing took a long while to catch up. Then various blood boosters like EPO. Again testing took its sweet time to catch up and even when it did the methods to beat such tests were pretty simple. With blood doping its very very difficult to spot it, unless the individual uses someone elses blood(which apparently has happened :eek:). The list of previous greats that either admitted it directly like Anquetil(who was to his credit straight up about the whole thing) or caught out like Merckx. The list is long.

What will happen with this new revelation? IMHO sweet feck all. LA is now poster boy for cancer charities(fair play to him for that) and no way will people fire headlong at the big C and an american hero. Landis has chopped and changed his story for so long plausible deniability is going to be so much easier. It would require someone high up who never got caught coming out and admitting it.

Do I believe this new stuff? IMHO this is Landis being honest for the first time. He reckoned he could get back in but couldnt. Indeed his very confidence that he could after a positive test speaks volumes for me. If it was as clean as people say, then any potential team mates would have gone no way. He didnt expect them to. So now he knows that part of his life is over and he's in hock for millions after the court cases, publicity and a book deal blowing the lid off the sport would make the bank manager happy.

I reckon there are a few worried types out there. Sooner or later an Anquetil type will just come out and say it like it is. And for that "it" is, yes you can ride as a pro and even win the odd race, but to get to the top and stay there you'll need enhancements and that very very few of the sharp end of the peloton are clean. IMHO saying the top echelons of cycling are clean is akin to suggesting the top pro bodybuilders aren't juicing.

Chips Lovell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUAO7xmNKeA

Signal_ rabbit

Lumen wrote: »

If Wiggins is ever proven to have doped I would be disappointed, majorly.

+1

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

Yeah, but Wiggins had proven class on the track before that. Maybe he doped under the British Cycling regime too, but that's a bit of a stretch. Unless I've misread this the Lim allegation is against his time in Phonak Radioshack, not Garmin.

If Wiggins is ever proven to have doped I would be disappointed, majorly.

I think you are going to be very very upset.

Chips Lovell

Statement by the UCI:

Press release - Declarations made by Floyd Landis: the UCI’s position

Date:


20.05.2010
Description:

The International Cycling Union has learned of the declarations made by Mr Floyd Landis and published in the Wall Street Journal.

The UCI regrets that Mr Landis has publicly accused individuals without allowing sufficient time for the relevant US authorities to investigate.

An impartial investigation is a fundamental right, as Mr Landis will understand having contested, for two years, the evidence of his breach of the Anti-Doping Rules in 2006.

The UCI will leave it to the individuals accused by Mr Landis to take the position they see fit with regards to this issue.



UCI Press Services

As Shane Stokes points out, it's not clear that Landis himself leaked it.

biker_joe

A Good Short distance pursuit/TT specialist .... converts to the road ... and few years later, becomes one of the tours best climbers !!!

As soon as I saw that last year, I was reminded of guy called Mr Riis, who in no way had the physic of a climber, but blew all the climbers away in 1996 !!

They are all CLEAN until they are caught !!!

Eh Lads .... smell the coffee !!

Joe

smithslist

Kimmage live this morning, twelve minutes from 1:02:09 , just after the 11 a.m. news

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/player_av.h...hpatkenny.smil

Lumen

biker_joe wrote: »

A Good Short distance pursuit/TT specialist .... converts to the road ... and few years later, becomes one of the tours best climbers !!!

As soon as I saw that last year, I was reminded of guy called Mr Riis, who in no way had the physic of a climber, but blew all the climbers away in 1996 !!

They are all CLEAN until they are caught !!!

Eh Lads .... smell the coffee !!

Joe

For me, it's one thing to dope and be evasive, another to dope and state that you're clean, and still another to dope whilst being an hugely outspoken critic of the same.

If we're at the final stage then it really is game over.

Lumen

smithslist wrote: »

Kimmage live this morning, twelve minutes from 1:02:09 , just after the 11 a.m. news

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/player_av.h...hpatkenny.smil

I think link should be to this.

edit: Pat Kenny manages to be entirely non-irritating in that interview. This is entirely inconsistent with his past performances. I suspect doping.

Chips Lovell

Rihs issues a denial

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

For me, it's one thing to dope and be evasive, another to dope and state that you're clean, and still another to dope whilst being an hugely outspoken critic of the same.

If we're at the final stage then it really is game over.

I tend to agree, although at this stage nothing would shock me. Wiggins didn't seem arsed about the road for years, was boozing during the winter etc. Last year seems to be the first time he really went all out at it. I remember reading a while back that his numbers at Columbia were phenomenal and they always wondered why he didn't do better.

biker_joe

Lumen wrote: »

For me, it's one thing to dope and be evasive, another to dope and state that you're clean, and still another to dope whilst being an hugely outspoken critic of the same.

If we're at the final stage then it really is game over.

Not that I have ever been a Pro, but I think that you have to put yourself in the shoes of a Pro cyclist .... you start on a career path as a Junior win alot of races ... then a Senior win a lot of races ... if you are talented and very Lucky you will get signed ... you start in the Pro peloton and bang you are not Winning !!!
It's Here you have to make a choice ....... which will be a very diffiicult one..

at this stage you would starting you career at maybe 20 - 24 years of ages... younger in the 80's /90's ....

If you don't dope you will not keep your contract and have to come home with no job to come back to and with no college edu under your belt, and people saying you could n't make it !! and are a failure .....

If you do decide to dope you will have a job and maybe the possibilty of winning something in the Pro ranks at some stage, again if you are lucky ....
but then you become part if a "job" where "thats the way it is" ... and I am afraid to say "Always has been for a 100 years" !!!
The line between morals and truth becomes a very blurry one for these guys .... kinda like Banking here in Dublin !!

The guys being out spoken are possibly using this as a tactic to avoid the questions ... state it once that you are clean .. .and be done with that issue ( until you are caught ! )

Joe

ROK ON

I must say I get a bit fed up of the banking comparisons. There is a behavioural difference in that stupidity is allowable (leveraging the tail end of a bull mkt), cheating is not (doping, insider dealing etc etc).

biker_joe

ROK ON wrote: »

I must say I get a bit fed up of the banking comparisons. There is a behavioural difference in that stupidity is allowable (leveraging the tail end of a bull mkt), cheating is not (doping, insider dealing etc etc).

and whats your point then ?

droidus

Lumen wrote: »

I think link should be to this.

edit: Pat Kenny manages to be entirely non-irritating in that interview. This is entirely inconsistent with his past performances. I suspect doping.

Or maybe lack of doping?

IM0

that boy really is as thick a pig shit, that is all.

oh and anyone taking bets on him being found not moving in an apartment ala pantani? I'd give him max 2 years.

Lumen

biker_joe wrote: »

The guys being out spoken are possibly using this as a tactic to avoid the questions ... state it once that you are clean .. .and be done with that issue ( until you are caught ! )

The problem with being super-outspoken (rather than just keeping your mouth shut and stating that you're clean when you're asked) is that you paint a big target on your back. You make enemies and have to be absolutely sure that no-one knows where the bodies are buried.

It could be a monumental bluff, but doesn't really stack up for me in the case of Wiggins. He had a bunch of Olympic medals already (and the rest), and could have quite happily worked out his post-competition career doing development, coaching etc in British Cycling. If he had doped in the past, why would he not quit whilst ahead/uncaught; if he hadn't, why would he risk everything for results in a couple of grand tours?

Hungrycol

Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe if enough people are saying you're doping you'll begin to start thinking you did.