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

Chips Lovell

irishmotorist wrote: »

I'm not sure if it was mentioned here yesterday, but something that I only saw this morning was that Floyd said that Lance paide the UCI money to make a positive test in 2002 Tour de Swiss go away. Lance, apparently, didn't even compete in that. That, unfortuantely, adds hugely to the 'mad man with a vendetta' story if it's true.

He didn't actually. He said that Armstrong bribed officials to make a test go away from the 2001 Tour de Suisse, which he won. People have misread this because Landis said that Armstrong told him about this in 2002.

davyjose

irishmotorist wrote: »

It reminds me of a phrase - "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you".

Floyd may well not be coming across as the most coherent, but I'd imagine he's (for example) mixing a 2002 race up with a 2001 race, rather than fabricating the story. It's too easy a plot hole to miss if it's a story that is being invented.

he didn't race for US Postal in 2001 though. That's what makes it such a plot hole!

davyjose

el tonto wrote: »

He didn't actually. He said that Armstrong bribed officials to make a test go away from the 2001 Tour de Suisse, which he won. People have misread this because Landis said that Armstrong told him about this in 2002.

See my above post - he wasn't there in 2001

Chips Lovell

Here's what he said:

2002: I was instructed on how to use Testosterone patches by Johan Bruyneel during the During the Dauphine Libere in June, after which I flew on a
helicopter with Mr Armstrong from the finish, I believe Grenoble, to San
Mauritz Switzerland at which point I was personally handed a box of 2.5 mg
patches in front of his wife who witnessed the exchange. About a week
later, Dr Ferrari performed an extraction of half a liter of blood to be
transfused back into me during the Tour de France. Mr Armstrong was not
witness to the extraction but he and I had lengthy discussions about it on
our training rides during which time he also explained to me the evolution
of EPO testing and how transfusions were now necessary due to the
inconvenience of the new test. He also divulged to me at that time that in
the first year that the EPO test was used he had been told by Mr Ferrari,
who had access to the new test, that he should not use EPO anymore but he
did not believe Mr Farrari and continued to use it. He later, while winning the Tour de Swiss, the month before the Tour de France, tested positive for EPO at which point he and Mr Bruyneel flew to the UCI headquarters and made a financial agreement with Mr. Vrubrugen to keep the positive test hidden.

Wibbs

Junior wrote: »

Oh and the interesting thing about the dope test that Landis failed is that he has still said he was taking HGH which isn't what he failed the test for, I never believed he was clean back then, but by f*ck did he expose the labs as a pure and utter sham.

That interested me too. Like being pulled for drink driving and losing your licence. Admitting you were always driving under the influence, but not of alcohol but marijuana. Then again maybe he's still flogging that horse to explain why he kept protesting his "innocence" and asking for financial help to do so.

Chips Lovell

davyjose wrote: »

See my above post - he wasn't there in 2001

I know. He said Armstrong told him about it a year later.

RobFowl

Junior wrote: »

Oh and the interesting thing about the dope test that Landis failed is that he has still said he was taking HGH which isn't what he failed the test for, I never believed he was clean back then, but by f*ck did he expose the labs as a pure and utter sham.

I heard that the positive test was effectively a stitch up by aggrieved staff. He admits being doped to the eyeballs in that race but denies taking synthetic testosterone at that time.
That lab is a joke and I was surprised the ban stood due to the paperwork errors (when a sample arrived in the lab the only identifier is the number and they got that wrong !!).
I expect Armstrong to bluster his way out of it unless Hincapie or Barry do a Zabel and confess.......

davyjose

el tonto wrote: »

I know. He said Armstrong told him about it a year later.

If Armstrong did tell him, and I very much doubt LA would be foolish enough to do that, then it's still only a "your word against mine". In fact, it's "what you think you heard, against my word".

Lumen

Comment on BikeSnob's weaselly Landis-bashing blog entry wrote:

And over on weight weenies the templar knights of pure bicyling have not lowered them selves into this cess pool .... not one comment in passing of this tragedic event, just the purity of stem weight reduction suggestions and clincher wheels under 1000g.

Chips Lovell

^ The mods there always close doping threads.

aidanbike

Comment on BikeSnob's weaselly Landis-bashing blog entry wrote:

And over on weight weenies the templar knights of pure bicyling have not lowered them selves into this cess pool .... not one comment in passing of this tragedic event, just the purity of stem weight reduction suggestions and clincher wheels under 1000g.

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=73042

Its on the top of the page in cycle chat.

Lumen

aidanbike wrote: »

Its on the top of the page in cycle chat.

Is nothing sacred!

Agree with El Tonto that Sky's response will be interesting. They're not exactly friends with Vaughters as it is, and would seem to have little to lose despite one of their riders being implicated for past misdemeanours.

Caroline_ie

anyone knows what was said during LA press conf? I think it was last night ... I could be wrong.

furiousox

All the names Landis has mentioned and not one of them has taken or threatened legal action against him.....

Signal_ rabbit

It seems to me that people who don't like LA on here want/do believe its true and are very quick to say 'I told you so', whereas on the other hand the people who like him are equally as quick to jump to his defense, it appears more like a popularity poll.

I think we should have our own Like/Dislike LA poll seeing as it's Friday.

I personally want to marry him and have his children....................!

Chips Lovell

furiousox wrote: »

All the names Landis has mentioned and not one of them has taken or threatened legal action against him.....

I seriously doubt anyone will mount an action. In a civil case, the burden of proof will be on them and not Landis and that might be tricky. This will be fought out in the media.

Bluefoam

From an outsiders perspective. I don't believe Armstrong for a minute. Whether he is guilty or not - his reputation is damaged on a number of fronts. I believe the sport is utterly corrupt both from a rider doping & a governing point of view. This email by Landis is additional to all the other info out there & is not isolated. Cycling will not recover for at least a decade.

The question that effects me most is wheather my childhood cycling heros are implicated. eg. Kelly & Roche.

The mass audience will not take cycling seriously until the sport has gone through a very significant period without incident or controversy & I don't see that happening in the near future.

BTW, whatever about doping - but the idea of self administered blood transfusions is sickening to most people & makes it difficult for people to empathise with the sport.

teufelswerk

el tonto wrote: »

I seriously doubt anyone will mount an action. In a civil case, the burden of proof will be on them and not Landis and that might be tricky. This will be fought out in the media.

I imagine in a civil case taken against the defamation of character it would be up to Landis to substantiate the claims rather than anything else. If anything this would be the best way of vindicating yourself after an accusation. The accused wouldn't have to prove themselves at all, Landis would need concrete proof to hold up in court, otherwise he'd be done for defamation?

ednwireland

greg lemond - blog

http://greglemond.com/blog/floyd-landis-admits-doping-0520/

I believe most of Floyd Landis’s statements regarding the systemic corruption in professional cycling. I imagine from my own experiences that today he is paying a heavy price for his honesty and I support Floyd in his attempt to free himself from his past. I hope that others- fans, riders and sponsor’s embrace this as an opportunity to bring about positive change in the sport

newstalk link

http://www.newstalk.ie/downloads/floyd-landis-accuses-lance-armstrong/

davyjose

Armstrong hinted at it. He said something like "I've sued many people before", in his press conference.

Lumen

davyjose wrote: »

Armstrong hinted at it. He said something like "I've sued many people before", in his press conference.

No.

From livestrong.com here:

(Asked if he will take legal action)" No, my days of legal action are over. Legal action takes time energy and a lot of money. I have sued a few people in my day and have been successful there and proved my innocence. But, I don’t need to do that anymore. My energy needs to be devoted to the team, to Livestrong, to my kids. I’m not going to waste time on that."

RobFowl

Bluefoam wrote: »

The question that effects me most is wheather my childhood cycling heros are implicated. eg. Kelly & Roche.

Best approach detailed below

leftism

Does anyone else think that these guys are possibly afraid to take legal action because they may end up under oath and suffer the same fate as Marian Jones?

The fact that Marian Jones did jailtime for lying under oath must be a massive disincentive for drugs cheats to take cases to court. Much safer to sit behind a table filled with microphones and tell the worlds media that the allegations are baseless...

Chips Lovell

teufelswerk wrote: »

I imagine in a civil case taken against the defamation of character it would be up to Landis to substantiate the claims rather than anything else. If anything this would be the best way of vindicating yourself after an accusation. The accused wouldn't have to prove themselves at all, Landis would need concrete proof to hold up in court, otherwise he'd be done for defamation?

Libel and defamation law is different to the US than over here. It's up to the person taking the case to provide proof, not the defendant.

partyguinness

It reminds me of the LA Olympics in 1984..there was mass cover up of the US athletes who tested positive, or the high moral high ground taken by the US against competitors from the old Soviet block...or how quick the US swimmers were quick to point fingers at Michelle Smith in 1996..even though the main US objector swam somthing like 5-6 secs faster than Michelle Smith 8 years earlier ....it was all indignation.

The attitude in the US is:

"We have the best sponsorship deals, best medical facilities, the best doping facilities, we can get away with it. If we are being beaten then you have to be on drugs."

That is coming from an old school teacher of mine whose wife competed for Ireland in the Olympics and he himself has been involved in national athletics in Ireland for over 50 years. In his opinion, 95 to 99% of Olympic track and field medalists are on drugs.

Cycling is no different.

The long distance African runners are doped up as well. There is this bull**** notion that they have some sort of natural higher endurance levels. Mark my words. That "scandal" is a timebomb waiting to happen.

I love cycling but the sport lost all credability years ago.

I mean the USI accepted a $100k gift from Lance Armstrong to buy doping machinies...what a joke and Pat McQuaid sounded like it was the most natural thing in the world.

davyjose

Lumen wrote: »

No.

From livestrong.com here:

My bad ... I didn't read the full transcript; I read the bit about suing people before and being successful, which was obviously placed massively out of context.

TinyExplosions

Leroy42 wrote: »

Lance crashes out, a people think its a coincidence.

Seems a bit extreme, especially for a known control freak to put himself into such an uncontrobable situation as a crash in the peleton.

Jeez, whatever you believe about LA, this is just crazy. Why not just climb off. Claim muscle strain or stomach bug etc. Whenever I want to chicken out on a bike ride I certainly don't cause an crash!!!

Lets concentrate on the real issues instead of concocting some silly conspiracy theories.

ITts called sarcasm... I don't think there's many people on here who actually think his crash is a bit suspect!

blorg wrote: »

That statement from Sky is the only one yet that sounds reasonable. The statements from everyone else are sounding EXTREMELY fishy. As you say, all non-denial denial, they are not coming straight out and saying "I didn't do it."

Agreed, they are the only ones that seems to say "we've done nothing wrong, but will talk to our rider". Everyone else is terribly wishy washy

davyjose wrote: »

If Armstrong did tell him, and I very much doubt LA would be foolish enough to do that, then it's still only a "your word against mine". In fact, it's "what you think you heard, against my word".

I suspect back in 2001 Lance would be foolish enough to talk about it, as it wasn't a taboo in the peloton, and if team organised doping was going on with riders safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't get caught, I can easily imagine some banter going on between teammates. Don't forget, it was a different atmosphere then than it is now

furiousox wrote: »

All the names Landis has mentioned and not one of them has taken or threatened legal action against him.....

It'll be too expensive and risky, as they have to try and prove conclusively that they have never had anything to do with PED's, which might not be easy. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in this case (though I am open to correction on that)

Bluefoam wrote: »

The question that effects me most is wheather my childhood cycling heros are implicated. eg. Kelly & Roche.

The aren't implicated in the Landis emails, but Kelly tested positive twice, and Roche, while he never failed a test (as far as I remember), is fairly certain to have tried it too.

I think the most interesting thing in this case could be the Insurance payout for the 5 wins Lance got after the court battle... there's the (very slim) possibility now that he could get done for insurance fraud if any of these allegations have weight, and that's jail time most likely (we can but hope!)

TinyExplosions

teufelswerk wrote: »

I imagine in a civil case taken against the defamation of character it would be up to Landis to substantiate the claims rather than anything else. If anything this would be the best way of vindicating yourself after an accusation. The accused wouldn't have to prove themselves at all, Landis would need concrete proof to hold up in court, otherwise he'd be done for defamation?

If the plaintiffs want to sue, they have to prove that the statement made by Landis was false, so the burden of proof is on them to show that they didn't dope, and that Landis knows they didn't dope and was lying.

I don't think anyone will take the risk of suing Landis

niceonetom

Given the power and reach of the Armstrong empire, and the attention to detail and control that he generally exerts it seems like a HUGE omission to have allowed Floyd to have come to this point.

A secret is only as secure as its weakest holder, and Floyd's been inches away from public self immolation for a while now. Watching other banned dopers return to the sport while he fades into penniless pariah made Landis a ticking clock. It would not have been beyond the powers of LA to make a phone call or two and make sure that Floyd at least had a team, a wage, and the chance to appear in a few races here and there, probably not TOC, but maybe one of the lesser Pro Conti teams or something. For Armstrong, man management would have been a lot easier than the public clean up he has ahead of him now.

As tonto pointed out, I bet Hamilton's phone has been ringing off the hook since this broke. I would guess that Lance is one of those callers. Tyler wasn't crazy enough to start the fire, but he might be jilted enough to fan the flames if Lance can't bring him into the tent with some kind of deal.

Or maybe Lance should just sue Floyd in the UK. As far as I understand the law there, all you have to do it prove that a) you're loaded and b)your feeling were hurt.

Leroy42

Slight opff topic, but why is this general acceptance that Greg Lemond was clean?

I mean doping didn't start with LA, it's fairly clear, even from Kelly himeslf, that doping was around at the time.

Looking at the facts, a US kid arrives in Europe and does what nobody from the US had ever been able to do, and then goes on to fairly dominate the sport. 3 Tdf and Worlds etc. And nobody thinks this is suspicious?

How can people not think that he was using the same stuff to beat the guys that are faily suspect. Seems strange that so many are willin to accept that he is the clean god or something.