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

niceonetom

Hermy

Cjoe wrote: »

Slightly naive

...or sarcastic perhaps?

petethedrummer

Lance is an Athiest. I think that would probably shock the American public more than doping.

Hail 2 Da Thief

Lance Armstrong bolsters legal team

Pair of attorneys added with prior success against federal investigators

Lance Armstrong has bolstered his legal team, adding two lawyers who have previously had success in court against US federal investigators.
The seven-time Tour de France winner has hired Elliot Peters and John Keker. The pair had previously represented Major League Baseball players and won a key appeals court case two year ago in which federal judges ruled that agents had no right to seize baseball's anonymous drug testing results.
The news agency, AP, reports that Keker, "criticised leaks of testimony to the media in the Armstrong case and called the investigation a waste of money."
Jeff Novitzky is leading an FDA investigation into doping that allegedly took place at Armstrong's former team US Postal during the late 1990s and 2000s.
Last summer, Armstrong had already hired defence attorney Bryan D. Daly and Mark Fabiani to help with any possible legal proceedings.

ROK ON

LA's legal team is correct about the waste of money angle. This is way too late to do anything about what happened.
What will it achieve?

Cycling is rotten to the core, but is it a good use of US taxpayers money to investigate that?

This will (like many investigations that we are familiar with in this country), in all liklihood end up costing more money than was allegedly spent on any wrongdoing.

Everyone is entitled to due process. I am wondering do all of the leaks (seemingly emanating from the feds), consititute grounds for throwing all of this out if it ever reaches court.

Given what we have heard, I believe that Novitsky has a duty to expedite this case. What else are we waiting for at this stage.

Sh1t or get off the pot.

petethedrummer

Nothing says innocent like a massive team of lawyers and a negative PR campaign against detractors.

Chips Lovell

ROK ON wrote: »

This will (like many investigations that we are familiar with in this country), in all liklihood end up costing more money than was allegedly spent on any wrongdoing.

Prosecuting everything costs money though, often far much more than "value" of the original crime.

If I hold up a bank and steal €20K, should my prosecution be dropped because legal fees will run beyond that?

ROK ON

petethedrummer wrote: »

Nothing says innocent like a massive team of lawyers and a negative PR campaign against detractors.

I dont believe for a second that he is innocent. He wanted to win, he knew what it took and went out and did it. Much as I dislike the man, a part of me admires his ball to do that. What I cant forgive is the backstabbing, bullying, and potential corruption.

petethedrummer

ROK ON wrote: »

Cycling is rotten to the core, but is it a good use of US taxpayers money to investigate that?

Possible misues of government funds, misuse of unapproved pharmaceuticals, fraud, perjury from SCA case(maybe?) etc... The Feds won't ban Lance from cycling or have any direct influence on the validity of past results. That's not going to be their end result. It might be a consequence of the investagation, though Not if the UCI had their way.

Anyways, most men spend most of their lives talking and thinking about sport when not thinking about sex. So whats wrong with the government having a hand in cleaning it up? The sporting authorities won't. Look at FIFA, not a hope they'd clean up without some government intervention.

ROK ON

el tonto wrote: »

Prosecuting everything costs money though, often far much more than "value" of the original crime.

If hold up a bank and steal €20K, should my prosecution be dropped because legal fees will run beyond that?

There are crimes and crimes. Cheating in my book is wrong and immoral. But it doesnt strike me as a crime that is worth an endless amount of resources to prosecute. There is a level, at which society must ask Why Bother?

USPS willingly sponsored a team participating in one of the most rotten sports on the planet. They did this in full knowledge of all of the scandals, particularly those of the late 90's early noughties. They bear some responsibility in this. Were public funds used improperly. More than likely IMO, but hell, its not like it should be a shock to anyone that a team controlled by an unrepentant doper in a sport where doping is the norm should allocate some of its funds on doping or turn a blind eye when its riders dope.

LA in my opinion is a cheat as is Bunyeel. More than likely there was collusion at a high level (from officials and/or medical professionals). However USPS were negligent also IMHO.

Is this a case worth investigating. YES. But due process must be followed (and I dont believe that it is), and there must be a limit. It cant simply drag on ad infinitum.

Even LA is entitled to a fair investigation/trial etc.

Chips Lovell

ROK ON wrote: »

USPS willingly sponsored a team participating in one of the most rotten sports on the planet. They did this in full knowledge of all of the scandals, particularly those of the late 90's early noughties.

You are assuming that the sponsor knew as much about cycling as we all do now. Lets face it, the public rhetoric was that cycling had been cleaned up post 1998. 1999 remember was the "Tour of Renewal" and Armstrong was meant to be the clean new face of the sport. Unless you were pretty clued in, the drip of allegations only started around 2004, when it came out that he was using Ferrari. That was the last year they were a sponsor. I'm presuming he went to them like every other sponsor he had and assured them he was riding clean.

ROK ON wrote: »

Is this a case worth investigating. YES. But due process must be followed (and I dont believe that it is), and there must be a limit. It cant simply drag on ad infinitum.

Even LA is entitled to a fair investigation/trial etc.

It's been ongoing for a year. I don't think that's unreasonable given the scale of the investigation, the fact that evidence is being collected from multiple jurisdictions and that the prime suspect is very wealthy and is lawyered up to the gills.

joker77

petethedrummer wrote: »

Lance is an Athiest. I think that would probably shock the American public more than doping.

My gut tells me he'll conveniently find God if he ever does have to do the whole public shaming thing

a148pro

For what its worth, I believe LA is a doper, mainly because virtually everyone I've ever heard of as being successful in cycling was doping, not just in the last few years, but even back to Mercx. And if LA was so uber successful he was most likely doping too, particuarly if he was beating other people who were. He also seems to rarely actually deny doping. He comes out with things like I never failed a test, or its our word against his and we like our word, but is less inclined to actually issue a flat denial of doping. And as Kimmage pointed out, he has the least amount of time for people who admit doping, as though thats the real crime. IIRC the phrase he used at that press conference was people 'getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar' almost tacitly suggesting that he thinks doping is okay.

But I just watched the 60 mins video and I was not impressed. Hamilton is an appalling witness. He was really vague and hesitant and his body language didn't inspire confidence. He also very obviously did not want to be there and at times looked like he was coming up to proof, saying what he knew needed to be said. I think people should remember why he is testifying, and CBS said as much - he's been granted immunity from prosecution.

As others have pointed out, these kind of American investgators do not feck around. They play hard ball real hard over there. And people go to jail over there for doping. They've set their sights on bringing down LA pretty bad, and they're going to do it. And when they get the bit between their teeth they don't let go. Looking at this and Hamilton's demeanour, it seems likely what's happened is they've made him an offer he can't refuse. Give evidence or you'll do time. He has the look of a guy whos in a bad place and had nowhere left to run. And I'd say pressure was put on him to give the interview too. Here the media would be cautious in going to press in those circumstances, because the thing was effectively sub judice. But not in the States. 60 minutes is part of the propaganda war. They've been given access to what the investigation knows, with a view to getting the investigation's agenda, debunking lance, out there.

Now as I said, I believe he's unclean too. And I hate his personality. But I also believe in due process. And if there aren't test results there, or harder evidence that people like Hamilton and Landis, who from the charade of his book would seem similarly incredible, then I would be worried about the fairness of any such investigation. Its show trial stuff. People are talking about other team mates, and at some point it becomes irrefutable. But I think people need to be cautious about the agendas at play, and I'm not talking about book deals.

But why does it really matter anyway? LA most likely doped, maybe you could say he almost definitely, or definitely doped. But did not everyone else too? And are they not still? Does anyone believe the sport is clean now, or ever will be? And is Lance not right in a way - if everyone is cheating, should you not too. And if you do, is the real way to win just to be so fcuking brazen and unrelenting in maintaining you're clean?

Until a system is developed whereby the public can be confident that screening processes work then the sport is a bit of a farce unfortunately. I mean look at Contador at the moment and lads running after them dressed as bulls or whatever?

Hermy

a148pro wrote: »

But why does it really matter anyway?

It matters because cheating is wrong and cheats should not prosper.

a148pro

This is true.

But there should also be some focus on the sport at present. Is there a point in flogging a dying horse if its simply because he's the only one who, in official terms, got away with it (thus far), particulary if people are getting away with it right now?

What do people here think about cycling at the moment, is it clean?

petethedrummer

a148pro wrote: »

But not in the States. 60 minutes is part of the propaganda war. They've been given access to what the investigation knows, with a view to getting the investigation's agenda, debunking lance, out there.

I wouldn't agree, the more Armstrong knows about what was said in front of the Grand Jury, the more he can prepare his position. Its not going to help the FEDs having all this leaked.

a148pro wrote: »

Now as I said, I believe he's unclean too. And I hate his personality. But I also believe in due process. And if there aren't test results there, or harder evidence that people like Hamilton and Landis, who from the charade of his book would seem similarly incredible, then I would be worried about the fairness of any such investigation. Its show trial stuff. People are talking about other team mates, and at some point it becomes irrefutable. But I think people need to be cautious about the agendas at play, and I'm not talking about book deals.

Landis and Hamilton were either lying about all the doping before or lying about it now.

If no doping went on, what reason in the world would George Hincapie have to say that it did? How could it possibly do him any good?

a148pro wrote: »

Until a system is developed whereby the public can be confident that screening processes work then the sport is a bit of a farce unfortunately. I mean look at Contador at the moment and lads running after them dressed as bulls or whatever?

How is this system supposed to develop? Most of the Cycling press have turned a blind eye towards doping. The UCI want to keep their heads in the sand. A bit of encouragement from the FEDs would speed the whole thing along nicely.

xz

Anyone who thinks that pro cycling is "clean" is dellusional. There will always be someone who wants that extra edge, and is willing to do whatever it takes to acheive it. The UCI need to grow a pair and tackle the problem head on, but their problem is, the names of riders cropping up unclean are just too big of a money loss for them.

The way to go, is for a breakaway governing body with independent policing, to clean up and hopefully bring in the revenue to the sport, all it needs is someone with the money to do it........thats the major obstacle.
It has been done before, take the PDA for example, a breakaway from the BDO (darts), which one is getting all the revenue and TV rights? Different scenario, I know, but it can be done.

AstraMonti

a148pro wrote: »

He also seems to rarely actually deny doping. He comes out with things like I never failed a test, or its our word against his and we like our word, but is less inclined to actually issue a flat denial of doping.

"I have never doped". How can anyone like (even more support!) a guy that look you straight in the eyes and lie to you?

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

xz

...................and a sport where the MAIN sponsor of the Tour of California does what for a living????????

In that interview, he seems to know what he's talking about as regards the testing procedures of the time. "It doesn't exist".
IMO he has doped, and it was done to such a level that he/they, were always one step ahead of the testing procedure

Hermy

a148pro wrote: »

What do people here think about cycling at the moment...

I think professional cycling has spent far too long rewarding dishonesty. I don't know how you fix it but there needs to be a way of rewarding, highlighting and publicising those who play fair in the sport. All the talk at the moment is about Alberto Contador and Lance Armstrong and all for the wrong reasons while those people in the peloton who are riding clean hardly get a mention.
I suppose it's a feature of many sports. In rugby certain players are described as the best because they cheat so well. In soccer the most skillful players think nothing of rolling around on the ground regardless of whether a foul has been committed against them. I don't understand this mentality where a player knowingly and willfully breaks the rules to gain an advantage. I don't understand what makes the most talented riders in the peloton choose dirty ways over clean.
I remember watching a snooker match - it may have been the Worlds - and a player called a foul on himself. Neither his opponent nor the ref nor the commentators knew initially why he did so but it soon became apparent that his sleeve had touched a ball while he attempted to take a shot. He could have carried on and none of us would have been the wiser but he was there to play snooker and for him not to have called a foul on himself would not have been playing snooker.
Similarly (iirc) Darren Clarke returned to the course in an Irish event the morning after play had been suspended due to bad light or adverse weather only to find his ball in a more favourable lie than it had been in previously. It didn't cost him a thought to chip the ball forward a couple of feet to where he reckoned the ball would have landed had he played from the original lie. And he did so for the same reason as the snooker player.
Contrast this with Terry Henry using his hand to put the ball in the Irish net and celebrating a goal when no goal had been scored. Again I am baffled that someone would see this as an acceptable way to play their sport. But that seems to be the way in soccer. It may be wrong but there's a general acceptance that it's always been this way and so it shall stay this way.
I think this same flawed attitude is what's destroying cycling. It is just accepted by so many that the way to the podium is through doping and to think otherwise is foolish. This is what has to change. The riders themselves need to stop thinking this way and instead see their sport as an honourable one which deserves better than the continued adherence to the old ways.
Again, I don't know how you instil this attitude in people - human nature being what it is and all that - but if it could be done, if riders could see the merit in this, then our wonderful sport could regain the prestige it so richly deserves.

Hermy

xz wrote: »

...................and a sport where the MAIN sponsor of the Tour of California does what for a living????????

That takes the biscuit!:eek:

ThisRegard

They say in rugby there are no rules, just laws to be interpreted.

TinyExplosions

Hermy wrote: »

I don't understand this mentality where a player knowingly and willfully breaks the rules to gain an advantage. I don't understand what makes the most talented riders in the peloton choose dirty ways over clean.

Again, I don't know how you instil this attitude in people - human nature being what it is and all that - but if it could be done, if riders could see the merit in this, then our wonderful sport could regain the prestige it so richly deserves.

ThisRegard wrote: »

They say in rugby there are no rules, just laws to be interpreted.

I think ThisRegard has it nailed to a certain extent.... at least in my mind there's 2 'types' of cheating -the kind where you do a bit of diving, or ruck on the wrong side, or butt heads with a rival in a sprint, and then there's the chemical advantage that doping gives you, be it steroids in baseball/rugby, or EPO in Cycling. They are very different, and should be treated in different ways, like already happens (in that you can get a yellow card for diving, or demoted places for doing naughty things in a sprint).

I think the root cause of all of it however isn't so much human nature, as it is about money. You get more money if your team wins, so you take a dive or two to get a crucial penalty, or to win a sprint etc etc. Doping and cheating of that kind is also for the money and sponsorship deals that come from winning.

The big difference in my mind though is at the lower levels of the sport -there's far less diving and that sort of thing at lower levels of football (2nd and 3rd division etc), but doping in cycling seems to happen all the way from sportive level up, and seems to just be endemic in the sport as a whole (it's well known that a lot of Italian leisure riders juice up and there was the case of a few Cat 4 or 5 riders testing positive a few months ago in the UK).

TBH, I've kind of moved on from wanting Lance to get nailed (though it would make me smile), and am liking the pressure this is putting on the UCI, as that is where the problem is, and I think there could be a lot of pressure put on them by the ASO, seeing as they seem to want a clean sport, and hold the rights to all the major races, they could make things very difficult for the governing body.

dave.obrien

xz wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that pro cycling is "clean" is dellusional.

While to an extent I agree (in so far as there's definitely still a fair bit of it going on, even if it is less than before), my gripe is with the public perception of cycling as being unique in this regard.

Richie Sadlier recently wrote a piece for one of the newspapers talking about a meeting he had with his clubs doctor a few seasons before he finished his career. This doc had him on a food supplement for a season or two previous to that, but advised him to stop. When Richie asked why, the doctor told him it was because a chemical in the food supplement was on the banned list, and it was getting a bit suspect.

He was a footballer at a reasonable, but hardly stratospheric level. Similar stories come out of rugby, athletics, even golf, ffs. Professional sports is a dirty and immoral thing, where any advantage will be sought, and getting away with it is more important than truth.

I hope Lance gets hung out to dry, and that the UCI get serious about its' own ineptitude. Time to either totally change the UCI, or establish a new cycling body and be done with the UCI altogether.

ednwireland

xz wrote: »

...................and a sport where the MAIN sponsor of the Tour of California does what for a living????????

makes anti cancer drugs ???????????
employs a lot of people in cork

TinyExplosions

ednwireland wrote: »

makes anti cancer drugs ???????????
employs a lot of people in cork

And just in case you're not being a little sarcastic, makes EPO...

Crasp

TinyExplosions wrote: »

And just in case you're not being a little sarcastic, makes EPO...

damn those renal failure patients

ednwireland

TinyExplosions wrote: »

And just in case you're not being a little sarcastic, makes EPO...

yeh i doubt they were giving out free samples at the race

manwithaplan

TinyExplosions wrote: »

doping in cycling seems to happen all the way from sportive level up

What?

I am obviously screamingly naive but what sort of dimwit sportive or lower cat rider would even contemplate doping.

I can understand, but not condone, how a professional might want to maximise his earnings/palmares/whatever during the short time available to him or even how those on the cusp of top level cycling might be tempted to nudge themselves over the bar. I can see how the authorities find themselves in conflicted positions due to the influence of money and politics.

But I can't understand how some soft ****e of a weekend warrior would sit back in satisfaction having knocked some time of a TT personal best or having crossed the line first in some mickey mouse race, knowing that they had cheated and risked their health in the process. They don't even have the comfort of the misguided belief that everyone else was at it so the victory still means something.

May their brakes squeal in protest and may the wind be always at their front.

Idleater

manwithaplan wrote: »

I am obviously screamingly naive but what sort of dimwit sportive or lower cat rider would even contemplate doping.

I remember reading a while back about doping in Gran Fondo events but haven't an idea on what the competitive advantage to doping in sportives is (bar possible ODing on gels)!

A number of gran fondo riders have even tested positive for doping: in 2009 it was ex-pro Emanuele Negrini, who was on the podium of the GF Sportful (ex-Campagnolo); in 2010, Michele Maccanti, "winner" of the GF Sportful and the Maratona dles Dolomites, was discovered to have been found positive for EPO at a race in mid-May (this was not immediately known due to a lack of communication among the various federations). Unfortunately, even many of the smaller, local gran fondos are invaded and "won" by these so-called champions. I suppose they are paid a bonus for each "victory" or placing, and such events are easy money. Since they have cicloamatore licenses, there's no way to keep them from "competing."