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

petethedrummer

el tonto wrote: »

Barry denies:

Having read his truly awful book I'm not at all surprised, he never mentions the subject of doping once and he rode in the most doped era.

RobFowl

goldencleric wrote: »

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

And his DS is..........

(a clue is 60%)

Chips Lovell

petethedrummer wrote: »

Having read his truly awful book I'm not at all surprised, he never mentions the subject of doping once and he rode in the most doped era.

His blog isn't bad though. The guy can write.

Bunnyhopper

During the earlier Tours and Giros that he competed in Wiggins's weight was about 76kgs. When he competed on the track in Beijing in 2008 he weighed 82kgs. In the 2009 Tour he weighed about 72kgs, and his current weight is around 71kgs (see here and here).

I'm willing to accept that modified training and diet and an improvement in power-to-weight account for his improvements on the road, particularly as a climber. 71kgs is not a lot for a guy who is 1.9m tall (11st 3lb and 6' 3"), and a change of 5kgs - never mind 11kgs - has to be significant.

aidanbike

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-rejects-landis-allegations

Watch Armstrong Pooing a brick and notice the sound editing @ 2.38
" We cant speak of what he did on that team, (phonak) we can only speak of " sound scrubbed" " Notice the lips still move though

PR in full flow

Lumen

aidanbike wrote: »

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-rejects-landis-allegations

Watch Armstrong Pooing a brick and notice the sound editing @ 2.38
" We cant speak of what he did on that team, (phonak) we can only speak of " sound scrubbed" " Notice the lips still move though

PR in full flow

According to the livestrong site he said "We can only speak about what he did when he was on our team."

It seems like he just mumbled. Perhaps you should read something into that.

aidanbike

If he was just mumbling, i think he realised the way it could be interpreted.
That man is hiding a lot of skeletons.
A very unconvincing performance imo.

shaungil

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

During the earlier Tours and Giros that he competed in Wiggins's weight was about 76kgs. When he competed on the track in Beijing in 2008 he weighed 82kgs. In the 2009 Tour he weighed about 72kgs, and his current weight is around 71kgs (see here and here).

I'm willing to accept that modified training and diet and an improvement in power-to-weight account for his improvements on the road, particularly as a climber. 71kgs is not a lot for a guy who is 1.9m tall (11st 3lb and 6' 3"), and a change of 5kgs - never mind 11kgs - has to be significant.

Did LA not use a similar argument? No agenda here btw just wondering

Lumen

shaungil wrote: »

Did LA not use a similar argument? No agenda here btw just wondering

From what I've read, no-one but Lance and his confidants actually have accurate historical weight data for Lance. He claimed that he'd lost a load of weight but that claim has been disputed (unfortunately I don't have a link).

Wiggins' TdF performances from last year looked fairly human to my eyes, as did those of Lance. They both obviously suffered a lot and I think both got dropped on the climbs. Lance was tested enough that any doping would have to be very subtle.

Further up the podium things looked less clear...

In my mind it is important to try and maintain credulity that the best cyclists can now compete clean reasonably often. If we abandon that and assume they're all dopers then there less incentive for anyone to stay clean.

leftism

kennyb3 wrote: »

what about retrospective tests though?

Retroactive testing is one area that i hold a lot of hope for. The problem is at the moment it is generally only done if sanctioned by major sporting bodies as was the case 6 months after the Beijing olympics, and if memory serves correct most of the positive doping cases from the games were from retroactive tests. There is a time limit on backdating these tests AFAIK and samples are not kept on storage indefinitely. But on a positive note, WADA recently changed its guidelines with regard to retroactive testing which allows for greater timelines and more definite rules regarding positive findings.

There was a legal case a couple of years ago over the legitimacy of retroactive testing and i believe one of Lance's samples was implicated in that. A french lab claimed to have attainied positive EPO result from four of his urine samples dated from 1999. The case was thrown out of court on a technicality. Armstrong argued that the lab had "improperly handled the urine samples". How valid these tests are on long-term samples is still being determined. Its similar to arguing the validity of tainted DNA samples 15 years after a murder case etc..... As soon as scientists can verify testing accuracy on a long timeline, these retroactive tests should be even more successful (hopefully with less legal cases surrounding them).

Diarmuid

goldencleric wrote: »

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

hate to break it to you....

RobFowl

leftism wrote: »

There was a legal case a couple of years ago over the legitimacy of retroactive testing and i believe one of Lance's samples was implicated in that. A french lab claimed to have attainied positive EPO result from four of his urine samples dated from 1999. The case was thrown out of court on a technicality. Armstrong argued that the lab had "improperly handled the urine samples". How valid these tests are on long-term samples is still being determined. Its similar to arguing the validity of tainted DNA samples 15 years after a murder case etc..... As soon as scientists can verify testing accuracy on a long timeline, these retroactive tests should be even more successful (hopefully with less legal cases surrounding them).

That was a situation where the A sample had been tested declared clear and discarded. LA had signed a release to allow the B samples to b eused anonymously for research.
2 issues here one no-one should ever have been able to link the samples to the person they were taken from and 2 a failed test needs to be both the A & B sample (unless the athletes admits guilt). The A samples were declared "clean" and destroyed so legally that was the end of the matter.
The testing process for research also does not have the same chain of custody recorded so is inherently unreliable legally.

jman0war

Glad to hear Landis finally came out.
Looks like the rest of the gang are closing ranks, no surprises there.

I read that Floyd said the US team bus went to a quiet road one time and the whole team got blood transfusions.
Would love to be that bus driver now, it'd be nice holding LA over a barrel reckon he's got deep pockets.

We'll never catch cheaters that are taking blood transfusions, the only way is to create a culture where whistleblowing is rewarded.

kennyb3

leftism wrote: »

Retroactive testing is one area that i hold a lot of hope for.

Surely it is the only hope? The sport will never be clean(er) until competitors know that all the samples they give will be retroactively tested. the tests will never keep pace with the doping methods, surely its only catching them after and disgracing them that will ultimately lead to them not attempting to dope.

billaustin

Landis is a bitter bitter man and his allegations are falling in deaf ears, he's a proven liar and how can you believe anything he says. The timelines etc in his email are all out of sync as LA said yesterday. It's such a nuisance for me to hear abbout LA and doping all over agin though, he has never tested positive. You will always have people who love to try and break you down though.

Landis is just naming anyone he can get his hands on, Bruyneel, Zabriskie et al, he was a liar for so many years.

Hermy

billaustin wrote: »

Landis is a bitter bitter man...

Why?

Chips Lovell

billaustin wrote: »

It's such a nuisance for me to hear abbout LA and doping all over agin though, he has never tested positive.

Well that clears that up then.

Harrybelafonte

billaustin wrote: »

It's such a nuisance for me to hear abbout LA and doping all over agin though, he has never tested positive

Usual tripe the LA love gang wheel out. He has tested positive.

Read this run down of the 1999 test results by Michael Ashendon, that should clarify it for you.

Lumen

Austin you say? Hmmm.

ednwireland

it did make me go and buy this though http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9780345499622/From-Lance-to-Landis
13 euro !

billaustin 2 posts hmmmmmmmmmmm that you lance

petethedrummer

billaustin wrote: »

he has never tested positive.

Neither did Marion Jones. Look where she is now. Do you work for Public Strategies by the way?

It seems the Lovestrong chamois sniffers have reached boards.ie.

nacho libre

may the best cheat win. I wonder how David " show me the proof!" Duffield feels about these latest revelations"

shaungil

Lumen wrote:

]In my mind it is important to try and maintain credulity that the best cyclists can now compete clean reasonably often. If we abandon that and assume they're all dopers then there less incentive for anyone to stay clean.

You might excuse my cynicism for the whole last 10 years and I would be upset if Wiggins was proven to cheat but it's just too hard to believe anyone anymore. Money talks and that's what it's all about.
Too many people with too much too lose. Ex-cyclists now employed in UCI, media teams do they all just clear off? Insert icon for long sigh of sadness and resignation.

Look what Lemond has been put through.

Probably easier for me as I'm newer to cycling while most other posters are more in love than cycling as a sport. Now please don't tell me there's ever been any drugs in rugby.........Oh wait.

RobFowl

shaungil wrote: »

You might excuse my cynicism for the whole last 10 years and I would be upset if Wiggins was proven to cheat but it's just too hard to believe anyone anymore. Money talks and that's what it's all about.

Too many people with too much too lose. Ex-cyclists now employed in UCI, media teams do they all just clear off? Insert icon for long sigh of sadness and resignation.

Look what Lemond has been put through.

Probably easier for me as I'm newer to cycling while most other posters are more in love than cycling as a sport. Now please don't tell me there's ever been any drugs in rugby.........Oh wait.

We'll take your comment seriously once you shave your legs

jman0war

Michelle Smyth never tested positive either.

Just for tampering a urine sample.
But she kept her medals.

nacho libre

Bluefoam wrote: »

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

i've litte doubt Roche was cheating - indeed his comments on eurosport a couple of years ago, more or less implied that they were all cheating in his day and it was time to draw a line under it.

I'm reluctant to believe Kelly was doping but then again maybe that's being naive.

kennyb3

ednwireland wrote: »

billaustin 2 posts hmmmmmmmmmmm that you lance

or bill richardson?

niceonetom

It's Friday ffs. This thread desperately needs some lancefans.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

It's Friday ffs. This thread desperately needs some lancefans.

Indeed, Blorg is suspiciously quiet so far. Omerta!

ednwireland

Lumen wrote: »

Indeed, Blorg is suspiciously quiet so far. Omerta!

prob pulled over at the side of the road for a transfusion