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

C3PO

NickDrake wrote: »

Very naive yet again. Stop trying to twist the facts. He is the third rider to state that Armstrong anf Johan were the ring leaders here.

Amazing some are still try to protect their Lancy.

But they're hardly reliable are they? I'm not saying Armstrong is innocent (on the balance of probability he's probably guilty) but to date I've yet to see any really convincing evidence! Personally I don't really understand the "Armstrong Witch-Hunt" .... at worst he's no different than just about all his cycling peers! Is it just because he's such an unpleasant character?

Diarmuid

RPL1 wrote: »

But they're hardly reliable are they? I'm not saying Armstrong is innocent (on the balance of probability he's probably guilty) but to date I've yet to see any really convincing evidence!

• Apparently two teammates have taken a sworn oath in front of a federal investigation and said they have seen him take EPO
• Another teammate said he saw him take EPO
• A blood sample from his 1999 tour failed an EPO test
• Betsy Andreu made a deposition in which she said that she heard him tell his doctor that he took EPO and other drugs
• He worked with a notorious doping doctor for years (until 2004 and possibly until 2010)
• He bullied a rider who testified against said doping doctor
• The failed a cortisone drug test and had to get a back date TUE
• He criticised riders who took a strong anti-doping stance (Bassons)
• He won 7 TdF's in a row when the rest of the peleton was charged up on dope.

and more...

Short of a picture of him with a needle hanging out of his arm, with EPO in bold written on the syringe, what would you regard as convincing evidence?

GT_TDI_150

lescol wrote: »

A bit of background to the Tyler Hamilton story

Tyler didn't want to talk to anyone. He wanted to ride off into the sunset and put all of this behind him. The feds didn't given him that choice

The "60 Minutes" producers made it clear that this wasn't going to be Tyler ratting out Lance, but about the problems with doping in the cycling world. The piece is about corruption in the sport writ large.

From:- http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/05/mandersoninterview.html

because it was related to LA, it was always going to come across as 'Tyler ratting out LA' and 60 minutes knew this, thats what 'sells' it to the public

C3PO

Diarmuid wrote: »

• Apparently two teammates have taken a sworn oath in front of a federal investigation and said they have seen him take EPO
• Another teammate said he saw him take EPO
• A blood sample from his 1999 tour failed an EPO test
• Betsy Andreu made a deposition in which she said that she heard him tell his doctor that he took EPO and other drugs
• He worked with a notorious doping doctor for years (until 2004 and possibly until 2010)
• He bullied a rider who testified against said doping doctor
• The failed a cortisone drug test and had to get a back date TUE
• He criticised riders who took a strong anti-doping stance (Bassons)
• He won 7 TdF's in a row when the rest of the peleton was charged up on dope.

and more...

Short of a picture of him with a needle hanging out of his arm, with EPO in bold written on the syringe, what would you regard as convincing evidence?

IMHO your list just proves my point! It's all hearsay and circumstantial. The reason Armstrong has avoided a trial so far is because none of the "evidence" would stand up in court! Certainly the pressure is mounting on him but I don't think he's finished yet!

niceonetom

RPL1 wrote: »

IMHO your list just proves my point! It's all hearsay and circumstantial. The reason Armstrong has avoided a trial so far is because none of the "evidence" would stand up in court! Certainly the pressure is mounting on him but I don't think he's finished yet!

It is NOT hearsay - it's eye-witness testimony.

CSI has an awful lot to answer for. There's an entire generation of people who think that anything other than irrefutable physical proof doesn't stand up in court which is entirely untrue. Most convictions are secured on the back of witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that, as it seems to do here, form a coherent and non-contradictory narrative of the events in question.

FWIW I though Tyler came across as reluctant but truthful. I find Lance's unblinking and adamant assuredness far less convincing than Tyler's obvious pain.

Chips Lovell

As Tom said, you're misunderstanding hearsay.

Also, it's a bit much to say he's avoided a trial when they're still conducting an investigation.

C3PO

• Apparently two teammates have taken a sworn oath in front of a federal investigation and said they have seen him take EPO

Is this not hearsay?


"Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience"

Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that to date none of the "evidence" has been convincing enough for any official action to be taken against Armstrong! And in my opinion the reason that people get so exercised about it is because they find him such an obnoxious personality.

Caroline_ie

RPL1 wrote: »

[/LIST]
Is this not hearsay?


"Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience"

No. I this case it is not hearsay as Tyler Hamilton didn't hear it from someone else, but witnessed it himself. Just like all the other witnesses called to speak like Hincapie for ie.

C3PO

Caroline_ie wrote: »

No. I this case it is not hearsay as Tyler Hamilton didn't hear it from someone else ....

No he didn't but Diarmuid did ... that's why he uses the word "apparently"!

niceonetom

RPL1 wrote: »

No he didn't but Diarmuid did ... that's why he uses the word "apparently"!

Diarmuid isn't the one giving evidence to the federal investigation though, is he?

Oldlegs

"Hearsay"

TH says he saw LA inject himself with EPO.
Seeing LA injecting himself is part of the witness statement. Saying that it was EPO he was injecting, without being able to explain how he knew it was EPO, is where the hearsay comes in.

That said, I am inclined to believe the statement, hearsay or not.

ROK ON

I think that the point RPL1 is getting at is the lack of specificity.

Having recently been involved in some legal issues, my legal advisors kept banging on about specificity.

From what I have been lead to believe one needs the specifics of the doping.
Ie when, where, how. You can't just say I saw X take EPO. Need more detail

Now Landis claims he has the specifics and has given that info to the Feds. If that is corroborated by anyone else, then the fat lady will be about to head to the stage.

The sad thing about this is that I can see some sort of red herring here. Let's speculate that LA goes down. Should the case end here? Not IMHO. LA is a big player in this drama, but the leading lady so to speak. The UCI is the leading man, producer and director.

Chips Lovell

And the feds aren't interested in the UCI. What comes out about it is simply going to be a by-product of the investigation.

TinyExplosions

ROK ON wrote: »

The sad thing about this is that I can see some sort of red herring here. Let's speculate that LA goes down. Should the case end here? Not IMHO. LA is a big player in this drama, but the leading lady so to speak. The UCI is the leading man, producer and director.

I think that there could be consequences for the UCI in all this. If there is evidence of special treatment being given to Lance, then there's a fair possibility of further action being brought on the UCI I would have thought (possibly by ASO, as there's no love lost there), and they would have to demonstrably get their house in order.

As a slight aside, I get the impression that it's not so much the UCI that is broken, but Verbruggen and McQuaid, and a decent president could do a lot to sort things out.

For those defenders of Armstrong out there who think that Landis, Hamilton etc are lying, what do you think they have to gain by perjuring themselves? Novotsky is known to go after (and get convictions) against sports people who lie under oath. The easiest thing in the world would be for Hamilton etc to say nothing and keep up the 'Lance is clean' bit, and the chances are they would never get caught in the lie (if it was one). Far more risky would be going under oath, doing a 180 on everything they've said to this point and falsely pointing fingers. They would be well aware that the investigation is going to dig deep, and is likely to find out if this new testimony is false or not, so what is in it for them to lie? I don't think any book deal is worth a stint in jail


how do you explain the testimony under oath to the feds being the opposite of what they've publically said for years

ROK ON

I think that's the point. Even if the Feds get their man, unless he names names then the UCI gets away with all of it's murky past.
Truly horrible.

Undercover Elephant

niceonetom wrote: »

CSI has an awful lot to answer for. There's an entire generation of people who think that anything other than irrefutable physical proof doesn't stand up in court which is entirely untrue. Most convictions are secured on the back of witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that, as it seems to do here, form a coherent and non-contradictory narrative of the events in question.

That's true, but it has to do more than that. It has to do more than present a narrative, or even a likely one. It has to make you sure that this is what actually happened - after the witness testimony and circumstantial evidence has been tested by cross-examination and the presentation of other evidence that might contradict it.

A list of evidence beginning with "apparently" is really not a good start. That "apparently" relates to supposed statements of teammates to federal investigators, who of course are trying to prove what is being said. How did these "apparent" statements leak out? A pint says it was deliberately leaked by the feds in the hope of flushing other allegations out. If anyone thinks this is unlikely behaviour in the American justice system, then they haven't been paying attention.

The main problem I have with this stuff is that it requires you to believe simultaneously that (a) Lance Armstrong is clever enough to avoid a positive test 500 or so times despite being doped up to the tonsils, and (b) Lance Armstrong is stupid enough to inject banned drugs in front of an audience and later deny that he did it. Both those things are possible, but their coming together doesn't seem exactly obvious.

It would probably be better for the sport if a prosecution was actually launched, and we could see all the evidence in one place and properly tested. The fact that this is rumbling on and on and very much on suggests that RPL1 is right - the feds know they don't have enough to get a conviction.

Oldlegs

If LA does go down, I think the best the UCI can hope for is that they get seen as a shower of incompetent gobsh*tes for allowing the LA story to run for so long without adequate scrutiny.

"Complicit of completely useless" - take yer pick :mad:

Oldlegs

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

The main problem I have with this stuff is that it requires you to believe simultaneously that (a) Lance Armstrong is clever enough to avoid a positive test 500 or so times despite being doped up to the tonsils,

Isn't part of the testimony now coming out that LA was not clever enough to avoid a positive test. Rather, he and others were involved in making sure he was never informed of a positive test.

petethedrummer

ROK ON wrote: »

I think that's the point. Even if the Feds get their man, unless he names names then the UCI gets away with all of it's murky past.
Truly horrible.

Nah, they might change the man at the top but the UCI will roll on doing as they did before. Look at FIFA and the IOC.

Chips Lovell

Diarmuid wrote: »

Apparently two teammates have taken a sworn oath in front of a federal investigation and said they have seen him take EPO

It's four: Hamilton, Andreau, Hincapie and Landis.

Diarmuid wrote: »

A blood sample from his 1999 tour failed an EPO test

It wasn't a blood sample. It was six urine sample.s

ROK ON

petethedrummer wrote: »

Nah, they might change the man at the top but the UCI will roll on doing as they did before. Look at FIFA and the IOC.

I have long ago come to the view that professional sports is a truly disgusting idea.
The more organisations involved the murkier it all gets.

lescol

A Google translation from here:- http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1021/Meer-sport/article/detail/2436578/2011/05/24/Hein-Verbruggen-furieus-over-beschuldigingen-aan-Armstrong.dhtml

© EPA
Floyd Landis Hein Verbruggen accused last year by name. Tyler Hamilton did not Sunday night in a U.S. television broadcast of 60 Minutes. But Hamilton also stated there that a positive doping test of both their leader Lance Armstrong in the Tour of Switzerland in 2001 was covered up by the leadership of the UCI world cycling federation. Verbruggen was then president of that union.

As Hamilton said on television, is the thrust of his testimony before a jury investigation in Los Angeles. This company is investigating the allegations Landis, that the U.S. Postal cycling team there was systematic doping. In the shirt of U.S. Postal Armstrong recorded six of his final seven victories in the Tour de France.

There were probably less served as a positive EPO test from The Boss came in 2001 surfaced. Landis Verbruggen said last year that a deal with Armstrong and threw his confidant / team manager Johan Bruyneel. In exchange for a substantial amount of money, reportedly over one hundred thousand U.S. dollars, the UCI would stop the test.

In the episode of 60 Minutes on the alleged doping by Armstrong, Hamilton supported the story of Landis. Armstrong, Hamilton revealed that the television cameras, had him "casually by" telling. "People made sure it was okay. I know the exact details, but the people of Lance and the other side - I mean from the governing body of the sport - invented a way to disappear. Lance has told me this himself. "
The UCI took yesterday in an official statement from these allegations, ex-president Verbruggen (69) even reacted furiously, "Hamilton says so about the same as Landis, without naming names of people to blame. Well, Landis has a trial on his trousers. He must prove his words in court. "

Recently, the UCI announced that Landis for defamation were brought before a Swiss court. Verbruggen: "What should I go with? Must I prove that I suddenly did not? That's the world upside down? Moreover, I think there is also a task for journalism. Now I always defend myself, every time an idiot with this kind of story is. But no one has yet proved.

"That's impossible, because there is nothing. I repeat again: Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never. And I say this not because I called a friend of him, because that is not true. I say it because I'm sure. Even if we would like, it would not be possible to bury a positive test. Test results are not only to the UCI, but also to the WADA (world anti-doping organization, ed.)

"So once and for all: under my chairmanship have such practices never occurred to the UCI."

Read the complete article today in the AD.
(Jeroen Schmale)

I just love "Well, Landis has a trial on his trousers.":D

Chips Lovell

Piece in English here.

Undercover Elephant

Oldlegs wrote: »

Isn't part of the testimony now coming out that LA was not clever enough to avoid a positive test. Rather, he and others were involved in making sure he was never informed of a positive test.

Well, we don't know. Maybe he failed a test in 2001. And maybe he didn't technically fail it but the lab had some concerns about it. The language being used is ambiguous. At any rate, he seems to have passed the other 499 or however many it is tweeted to be.

The UCI's response is bizarre, I agree. And I think the word they are using is "notified". That may seem rather pedantic, but it could be an important point. When you're dealing with legal issues, "notice" usually means something a lot more formal than "telling someone". So are they saying that no one ever told Armstrong that there was any problem with any test, ever? Or are they just saying that no one wrote a letter saying "Dear Lance, You're a cheating CU next Tuesday, and here's why. Love from us."? Or did they write the statement in Ukranian and not translate it very well? I have no idea.

Leroy42

I’m not overly interested in the LA doping story, to be honest. Was he taking PED’s, the evidence and circumstances at the time would suggest he was. Does this change the fact that he was a great champion? Well yes and no. It is disappointing to have the Hollywood story burst but anybody with half an interest in cycling at the time would have had reservations.

I have spent enough time in agony on the bike to at least get an inkling of how tough this sport is and how far these guys need to push themselves. So from that point of view I can understand, not condone it, but understand it.

The story seems to be being sold as LA was the driver in all this, Landis, Hamilton etc were all doing great until LA turned up and brought them to the dark side. Of course, once they left the team they could easily have gone clean and even dumped LA in the soup, thereby getting rid of one of their main competitors. I am not saying this negates the charges on LA, but these guys are proven liars and cheats so we need to be careful that we don’t believe everything they say. As they have proved in the past, they are willing to say whatever needs to be said to suit their cause.

Going back to the list of people who are vindicated, pure nonsense. The entire French nation, this the same country who hold Virenque as a national hero! This highlights one of the main problems. Hypocrisy.


While the LA story is good newsprint I really don’t have any interest. It seems that it was what was being done by the majority, if not all, of the peloton. He still had to go out and beat Ulrich, Hamilton, Pantani, Landis etc all of which are confirmed dopers. Again, not condoning it, just putting some perspective.


I am more interested in seeing what role the UCI played in this whole saga. Did they knowingly turn a blind eye, not just to LA but to others? Did they put the commercial interests of the sport ahead of the integrity? I think we all know the answers to this and while LA is now history, and apparently a very tainted one, we are still stuck with the UCI as the head of the sport. The real issue is whether we can now have any faith in the controls, and by extension the integrity of the sport as it now stands. What went on in the past is just that. By all means go after those that were involved, but only if we can take those learning’s and provide a better future. Given that Festina happened in 1998, I have very little faith in anything changing.


Another question is why the likes of Dick Pound and WADA could never get him, when it was clear they believed he was dirty and so should have been doing everything to uncover the scheme? How much credence can be given to a system which apparently can’t catch someone everyone else knows about? Does that not call into question every athlete?

Where is the evidence? With the amount of camera phones etc etc it seems unbelievable that nobody even got a shred of actual evidence. I know had I been one of those guys, or Emma O’Reilly et al, I would have gotten something purely from an insurance point of view. Of course the evidence could come out shortly, but it is surprising that these guys have not been able to provide anything concrete. Again, I’m not saying they are wrong but just asking the question. I also agree that many cases are proved without physical evidence, using testimony and putting numerous circumstances together to draw a cohesive picture.


LA was the biggest story (still is!) in world sport for years, and there were many people who had their suspicions and many who were actively trying to prove it. It is sad in a way that the story is not entirely true; we all like to believe in miracles, in the ability of any one of us the rise above any challenges. In my mind he is still the 7 times champion, and someone to be respected for what he achieved. Did he cross the boundaries, possibly, does that change, for me, the story, not really.


There are cheats in all sports, America loves them. Bonds, McGuire in baseball, rugby is rife with it (the blood capsule case in England, the Wales ‘try’ in the 6 Nations) we even have them here (that Meath player knew the goal wasn’t right but that didn’t stop them celebrating). For as long is there are ways to cheat, to increase the odds of success, athletes will take them. We need to rely on those in charge to ensure that the rules are fair and fairly applied. Have the UCI been doing this?

Caroline_ie

Leroy42 wrote: »

Going back to the list of people who are vindicated, pure nonsense. The entire French nation, this the same country who hold Virenque as a national hero! This highlights one of the main problems. Hypocrisy.

I disagree. When Virenque was denying having doped, the french people were not on his side. He was made fun by everyone in the media, he got ridiculed even more when he came out and said, 'well actually I did dope'.
It took him a long time to get back out and face crowds. To this day he is still remembered as the one who doped, We are not proud of him for this.
Jalabert would be the late 90's hero if you are looking for one.

Undercover Elephant

Leroy42 wrote: »

There are cheats in all sports, America loves them. Bonds, McGuire in baseball, rugby is rife with it (the blood capsule case in England, the Wales ‘try’ in the 6 Nations) we even have them here (that Meath player knew the goal wasn’t right but that didn’t stop them celebrating). For as long is there are ways to cheat, to increase the odds of success, athletes will take them. We need to rely on those in charge to ensure that the rules are fair and fairly applied. Have the UCI been doing this?

Your view of cheating tends to be coloured by who you are cheering for. I don't think I have seen Richie McCaw on the right side of a ruck in his entire playing career, yet this is precisely why he is regarded in New Zealand as a great player. As you say, Richard Virenque is a hero in France. Barcelona kick, dive, pull shirts, feign injury and act innocent to avoid giving away penalties - but it's ok because they're pretty.

That's part of Lance's problem, really. He's a pretty unpleasant character. Doesn't try to be anything else. So of course he's likely to be cheating, and this cheating is particularly outrageous.

Chips Lovell

Leroy42 wrote: »

The story seems to be being sold as LA was the driver in all this, Landis, Hamilton etc were all doing great until LA turned up and brought them to the dark side.

Eh, Hamilton said on Sunday that he and others on the team were doping before Armstrong joined US Postal.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Going back to the list of people who are vindicated, pure nonsense. The entire French nation, this the same country who hold Virenque as a national hero! This highlights one of the main problems. Hypocrisy.

Eh....



à l'insu de mon plein gré

Diarmuid

RPL1 wrote: »

No he didn't but Diarmuid did ... that's why he uses the word "apparently"!

I used the word apparently because Hincapie did not admit to making this deposition yet, but he clearly didn't deny it.

Liamo08

Quick question for the guys with a bit of knowledge on these kind of cases.

I'm guessing Armstrong’s defence here is going to rely heavily on producing a bunch of witnesses to contradict everything that Landis etc. are saying. I assume he's going to produce plenty of ex-teammates who will say that they never saw him taking anything or someone who will stand up and say "I was there when xyz alleged events happened and that's not what I witnessed". So what happens at this point? Is it merely down to the judge/jury as to which side of the argument is more believable or is it likely that physical evidence would be needed to convict someone if this is the situation?