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

RobFowl

TinyExplosions wrote: »

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.

An Italian court decision found that Roche had been administered EPO by Dr Ferrari. He strongly disputes this finding.

Kelly failed 2 tests one for Stimul an amphetamine which he contested but which was discussed in Wily Voight's book at length and and a decongestant at the Tour of the Basque country.

Kelly competed at a time when doping was rife but the vast majority of stuff they took had no effect on performance. Sounds daft I know but it's a fairly proven fact based on the scientific literature.

The problem with EPO et al is that they radically improve performance and turn Donkeys like Riis into TDF winners.

partyguinness

The problem with taking Landis on now is that he has thrown in the towel and given up. He is liable to say anything...loose cannon so to speak. Either he is confessing everything and is telling the truth or just trying to cause as much damage as possible...nothing to loose now.

MrCreosote

partyguinness wrote: »

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."

Absolutely spot on! The benefit modern doping gives means to me if some of the top riders are doping, then they all must be. Just doesn't make sense how anybody could believe a clean athlete can possibly beat so many dopers.

The only interesting thing is that Landis has admitted this- maybe angling for a new book deal? He's admitted himself he's broke.

Pro cycling is rotten to the core. I just pretend it's like WWF wrestling with nicer scenery.

Harrybelafonte

Bluefoam wrote: »

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

Kelly already tested positive, plus he goes damn quiet on Eurosport if doping is mentioned. Considering his reaction, and Roche's, to Kimmage's book, they very least they can be accused of is maintaining the "don't rat" attitude.

Armstrong's attitude to Simeoni shows he's of the same mindset.

davyjose

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

If he was using it, then he went arseways about it. it's generally accepted that the peloton started using it in the early 90's. After 3 TdF's and in what he called the form of his life, in 1991, he finished 13 minutes down.

He's also one of the very few former Champions to be outspoken about it. Of course there's no proof he was clean, but Jesus, if anyone ever won it clean, it was him.

Ruprecht

Armstrong is 40 in 2011 and is still 3rd favourite for this years tour. Whilst we all have our opinions on whether he doped before what is the story now? Is he just a miracle man or what? Who is still doping now? How did Ricco get away with more recent and blantant doping for so long? Is Contador doping like Le Mond has suggested? These are questions that need to be addressed.
Think there may be a few high profile drop outs before The Tour enters France.

leftism

TinyExplosions wrote: »

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

Thats what makes me suspect these allegations are true. Its easy for LA to sue journalists and newspapers since their stories are nearly always based around second hand evidence and testimony from a third party. Floyd Landis is a different kettle of fish... He is someone who could actually produce concrete evidence that might bury these guys. I'd say these riders are scared sh*&less that if it ended up in court, Landis could produce a smoking gun that could finally catch them out.

Doesnt it seem strange that none of them are willing to take it to court? I mean Lance himself said it yesterday; "I've sued a few people in my time". He's sued for a lot less than what Floyd is accusing him of. This is the most damning accusation ever aimed at him and his response is "oh i don't have the time or effort to waste on a proven lier". That seems like a stupid move if you KNOW your an innocent man, or more likely a very clever move if you are guilty and you could lose in a court case...

partyguinness

MrCreosote wrote: »

Absolutely spot on! The benefit modern doping gives means to me if some of the top riders are doping, then they all must be. Just doesn't make sense how anybody could believe a clean athlete can possibly beat so many dopers.

The only interesting thing is that Landis has admitted this- maybe angling for a new book deal? He's admitted himself he's broke.

Pro cycling is rotten to the core. I just pretend it's like WWF wrestling with nicer scenery.

I was finding to interesting to see in any major sport (track and field mostly) it generally tends to be the guy who nobody has ever heard and finishes 10th or 11th that gets caught doping. Now if he is doping and can only manage 10th place either:

a. he is not very good at doping and was unlucky and a once off

b. they all doped and he just got caught out.

So who is going to suggest that all the competitors above him are clean!

I mean, it was generally accpted that Ben Johnson was actually very unlucky (if you want to look at it that way) he just mistimed it by just one day. Only for that he was out the gap.

Chips Lovell

RobFowl wrote: »

Kelly competed at a time when doping was rife but the vast majority of stuff they took had no effect on performance. Sounds daft I know but it's a fairly proven fact based on the scientific literature.
The problem with EPO et al is that they radically improve performance and turn Donkeys like Riis into TDF winners.

I think this is a very important point. There is a huge difference between pre- and post-EPO era doping. Stimulants etc had marginal or dubious benefits. EPO or blood doping could turn you into a winner from an also ran.

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

Because 1.) he says he was clean, 2.) nobody has ever thrown up a credible accusation against him, 3.) his performances went downhill almost the minute EPO began being used widely and 4.) the guy is hugely outspoken about it, unlike most ex-pros.

DirkVoodoo

Proving Landis' doping accusations

Chips Lovell

Barry denies:

“I’ve always raced clean and that was the goal since I was a kid,” said the three-time Olympian. “My mother put those values into me and my mother made me promise I would go back to school the minute I felt I wasn’t progressing. Having their support has been crucial in all this.”

Landis, stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after testing positive for doping, now admits to doping throughout his career in a series of emails he sent to cycling authorities that have now gone public. He’s also fingering many of his former teammates, most prominently Armstrong, whom he alleges had blood transfusions during the 2003 Tour de France among many other transgressions.

Landis is also claiming that Barry and another U.S. Postal teammate, Matthew White, shared testosterone and EPO with him while training for the Vuelta a Espana in 2003.

Barry said he only rode with Landis one day leading to the Vuelta and that drugs were never part of the equation. He learned about the allegations just before starting yesterday’s 215-kilometre stage in Italy.

garminguy

maybe its just me but, he was banned for doping and now that he is admitting he doped uci do not believe him!

i was under the impression that cyclists found guilty of doping were banned for 2 years and fined a years wages, a certain vino served his 2 year ban but paid no fine.

MrCreosote

partyguinness wrote: »

I mean, it was generally accpted that Ben Johnson was actually very unlucky (if you want to look at it that way) he just mistimed it by just one day. Only for that he was out the gap.

And now his Seoul time would be beaten routinely in heats. Have training methods really moved on that much since then?

As for cycling...can anyone name a winner or a major Tour or Classic from the last 10 years who hasn't tested positive/been dragged through the courts/been banned from competing in some countries/had bags of blood with their dog's name turn up in some dodgy clinic?

Chips Lovell

Gilbert, for a start.

aidanbike

MrCreosote wrote: »

And now his Seoul time would be beaten routinely in heats. Have training methods really moved on that much since then?

As for cycling...can anyone name a winner or a major Tour or Classic from the last 10 years who hasn't tested positive/been dragged through the courts/been banned from competing in some countries/had bags of blood with their dog's name turn up in some dodgy clinic?

Phillipe Gilbert, Thor Hushovd etc

RobFowl

MrCreosote wrote: »

And now his Seoul time would be beaten routinely in heats. Have training methods really moved on that much since then?

As for cycling...can anyone name a winner or a major Tour or Classic from the last 10 years who hasn't tested positive/been dragged through the courts/been banned from competing in some countries/had bags of blood with their dog's name turn up in some dodgy clinic?

Carlos Sastre (although he rode for Once and Riis)
Boonen seems fond of the coke but otherwise no allegations.
Oscar Freirie hasn't been queried AFAIK
Thats a few anyway

davyjose

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Proving Landis' doping accusations

AFAIK, a cyclist has to give permission to release his Urine for re-testing.

RobFowl

davyjose wrote: »

AFAIK, a cyclist has to give permission to release his Urine for re-testing.

Nope it's kept and can be retested at any stage
(the A sample only though , the B sample remains sealed unless there is an adverse finding in the A one, the problems occur when the A sample was not kept)

ednwireland

partyguinness wrote: »

I was finding to interesting to see in any major sport (track and field mostly) it generally tends to be the guy who nobody has ever heard and finishes 10th or 11th that gets caught doping. Now if he is doping and can only manage 10th place either:

a. he is not very good at doping and was unlucky and a once off

b. they all doped and he just got caught out.

So who is going to suggest that all the competitors above him are clean!

I mean, it was generally accpted that Ben Johnson was actually very unlucky (if you want to look at it that way) he just mistimed it by just one day. Only for that he was out the gap.

doping is expensive to do right (didnt landis say it cost him $90,000for a year) heard figures like that before, they comeing down the field has got hold of some stuff but doesnt know the ins and outs, exact time frames etc cos he cant afford to pay the doctors, likewise guys at the end of their careers also seem to push it cos they arent getting the results and are more likely to be injured etc so push the envelope tighter

leftism

I was training with an olympic biathlete a few years ago and over a few pints in the local pub at the end of the training camp the conversation turned to doping...

He was very open about the doping that went on in his sport, that he had tried the stuff for 2 months, it was too expensive and didn't like some of the side effects. The scariest thing he told me though, was the system they had in place with the testers. Lab technicians in WADA are being paid a lot of money to inform the teams on new testing protocols coming online. Its a simple enough system.

1) WADA get supplied with any new pharmacutical drug that is coming on the market.

2) Their labs assess if the drug has performance enhancing effects and if so, they begin developing a test for it (this is a slow process)...

3) Information is sent out on new drug X and Y which just arrived into the lab. It its unlikely that the lab technicians will have a test for it for 2 or 3years.

4) About 2 years later, warnings are sent out when a positive testing protocol is achieved for drug X or Y.

5)Repeat parts 3) and 4)

That is basically how the top athletes (those that can pay for the information) stay ahead of the testers...

davyjose

RobFowl wrote: »

Nope it's kept and can be retested at any stage
(the A sample only though , the B sample remains sealed unless there is an adverse finding in the A one, the problems occur when the A sample was not kept)

Hmm, I wonder where i heard that so? Anyway, LA better hope the next 3 years pass before the ideas in that article come to fruition.

leftism

davyjose wrote: »

AFAIK, a cyclist has to give permission to release his Urine for re-testing.

They ask you for permission to use your sample for WADA research in the case of your sample being clean. You just tick a little box at the bottom of the testing form if you don't want WADA using your sample for research.

Bluefoam

A guy I worked with was a fitness fanatic - always got slagged for using performance enhancers, but always denied it.

He developed a cyst on his spine/brain & basically admitted that he believed it was caused by the drugs he was using.

Unfortunately the the initial surgery didn't get the full cyst & it came back with a vengeance. He is now in quite a bad way. Hes a very nice guy and it upsets me to think that he was led into this & it worries me that others are doing the same without understanding the possible consequences.

ROK ON

el tonto wrote: »

Gilbert, for a start.

He is fast becoming my favourite cyclist. IIRC he did an interview with Walsh or Kimmage where he said that it would not be possible for him to win a grand tour due to doping. Apparently he dominated junior ranks and a lot of weaker riders than he have been more successful at pro level. Know that can be due to many things. Honestly if Gilbert or Wiggins doped I would probably cry. Would be like finding out that Santa doesn't exist.

goldencleric

ROK ON wrote: »

Honestly if Gilbert or Wiggins doped I would probably cry. Would be like finding out that Santa doesn't exist.

... please tell me there arent any questions about Cancellara because I would feel the same way ...

Chips Lovell

Ermmmmm....

goldencleric

Awh man!

davyjose

ROK ON wrote: »

He is fast becoming my favourite cyclist. IIRC he did an interview with Walsh or Kimmage where he said that it would not be possible for him to win a grand tour due to doping. Apparently he dominated junior ranks and a lot of weaker riders than he have been more successful at pro level. Know that can be due to many things. Honestly if Gilbert or Wiggins doped I would probably cry. Would be like finding out that Santa doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, too much about Wiggins' TdF last year raises alarm bells.

goldencleric

... I think in future events, all winners should be assumed to be dopers and locked up until proven otherwise ... would make some races a lot more exciting, possible track stands on the road to avoid coming first.

kennyb3

leftism wrote: »

That is basically how the top athletes (those that can pay for the information) stay ahead of the testers...

what about retrospective tests though?