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

Chips Lovell · 01-02-2011 07:39AM

Me, I did not have sex with that woman

dermur · 01-02-2011 08:35AM

David Walsh's interview on Competitor Radio gives lots of interesting detail - even if it is from 2007...

http://competitorradio.competitor.com/tag/david-walsh/

hinault · 01-02-2011 02:04PM

Lumen wrote: »

Landis is still walking around, and he's admitted to perjury. Maybe they're just slow.

Landis perjured himself in a civil court action.

In a criminal investigation, if someone provides false testimony to the FBI and are found to have done so, it is a federal offence and they will be prosecuted and jailed.

Lumen · 01-02-2011 02:11PM

hinault wrote: »

Landis perjured himself in a civil court action.

In a criminal investigation, if someone provides false testimony to the FBI and are found to have done so, it is a federal offence and they will be prosecuted and jailed.

Doesn't matter which court it is, perjury is perjury. The range of sentences is the same as giving false statements, up to 5 years in jail.

hinault · 01-02-2011 02:20PM

Lumen wrote: »

Doesn't matter which court it is, perjury is perjury. The range of sentences is the same as giving false statements, up to 5 years in jail.

Perjury is perjury as you say.
Landis committed perjury in a civil case.

Under US law, it is an offence to give false testimony to Federal Bureau of Investigation officer when supplying a statement in a criminal investigation.
This is separate to a witness supplying false testimony under oath during a criminal trial.

If Landis gives false testimony to a Federal Bureau of Investigation officer during a criminal investigation and is found to have done so, he will be prosecuted and jailed.
This is separate to any testimony given under oath in a criminal trial.

mcgratheoin · 02-02-2011 12:02AM

Lumen wrote: »

Doesn't matter which court it is, perjury is perjury. The range of sentences is the same as giving false statements, up to 5 years in jail.

True, but in practice, perjury is rarely chased up in civil cases, given as most cases hinge on one persons word against another. Landis is of course slightly different, having admitted lying.

The article itself is fascinating - it's interesting to get a real insight into what he says about the choices available to him at the time and his unrepentance for doping. Nice to see he accepts responsibility as well.

pmcd22 · 02-02-2011 01:24AM

Just read the transcript there. Floyd Landis is right, God if you read Lance's books you would nearly have him on a list to be saint.

i was too a critic of Paul Kimmage especially when he referred to Lance as a cancer of cycling. just the use of cancer to descirbe a person diagnosed with cancer was immoral.

i always thought that Lance bet the dopers because he had a strong team behind him that worked as a unit. Hard to believe now

At the end of the transcript, Paul Kimmage said basically there is no hope for pro-cycling in the future. i hope this is not the case, but i suppose this will be the case unless the higher authorities start to come out with the truth.

Anyways.. Floyd Landis has stood up, lets hope more will follow

Diarmuid · 02-02-2011 09:24AM

Whatever about Lance, the description of the UCI is even worse. As long as Pat/Hein are involved, pro cycling is a lost cause.

shaungil · 02-02-2011 11:28AM

Read it all last night. More sad than anything IMHO. I never loved pro cycling like most of the posters here and have been sceptical a long time. If the conspiracy is as deep and high (weird description) as described Kimmage is probably right, there is no hope.

I love riding my bike for myself for fitness adrenalin comraderie etc. I like to see Nic Roche do well and would be annoyed he was a doper but it doesn't really bother me that much. If my kids showed any potential at cycling I'd push them towards track rather than road.

The first step is to out the legends and show no-one is above the law and until that happens there is no hope. We'll see how things pan out but to be honest how many smoking guns have there been already.

Re Landis he knew what he was doing and is sorry now but just because he is an interesting character I can't feel a huge amount of smpathy for him personally , more his family and the father in law.

Chips Lovell · 02-02-2011 11:58AM

Still reading the transcript. This quote jumps out at me as summarising the choices many riders face:

You say you could justify it because you weren’t cheating anybody else but you were cheating some people. There were riders in that 2006 Tour who weren’t cheating. What is your attitude towards those guys? How do you deal with that?

Well, here’s the facts; somebody is going to cheat those guys and I’d rather not be the guy getting cheated. There is no good scenario. There is no going and fixing it. I’m not going to the UCI to tell them – they are bought and paid for.

Mark OK · 02-02-2011 02:01PM

I see Boogerd has reacted to what was said about him;

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/boogerd-denies-landis-doping-allegations

and Periiro is defending Contador;

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pereiro-says-contador-innocent-but-it-cant-be-proved

The whole thing stinks.

I feel sorry for guys like Cadel Evans who ride clean (I hope I'm right in saying that).

This will never end and will destroy the sport as long as the UCI is running things.

joker77 · 02-02-2011 03:17PM

Finally finished it, the emails at the end make it look like Kimmage convinces him to quit cycling for good? Hmmm

A great interview I thought, Landis is trying to tell the whole truth where possible, I really believe that. I still don't think he's telling the whole truth though, and his justification of taking money from people to fight it is still a little out of whack for me.

Overall though, you'd hope that he has started something that's going to be bring about a major change in cycling.

Chips Lovell · 02-02-2011 03:35PM

Boogerd said that maybe its because he called Landis an "arrogant jellyfish" once. WTF?

Captain Havoc · 02-02-2011 03:46PM

I haven't read it, busy busy and all that but I still wouldn't believe a word he says.

mcgratheoin · 02-02-2011 03:52PM

el tonto wrote: »

Still reading the transcript. This quote jumps out at me as summarising the choices many riders face:

Yeah, it's interesting that he seems to respect Bassons for taking "option C" even though he didn't or couldn't do that. To be fair to him, I get more from what he's saying when it seems honest, rather than him saying he wishes he'd done what Bassons or Kimmage did. It gives an insight into how the riders that dope justify it to themselves.
On another note, if riders are that open amongst their families about doping, what may happen if Kristin Armstrong gets put on the stand under oath in the States?

joker77 · 02-02-2011 03:56PM

niceonetom · 02-02-2011 04:04PM

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I haven't read it, busy busy and all that but I still wouldn't believe a word he says.

Read it.

Either he's basically telling the truth or he is the most gifted and machiavellian liar I've ever come across.

I honestly don't understand how people can't see the difference between the obvious lies he's told in the past, when he had something to lose, and his reasons to lie were obvious and now, when he has nothing to lose and no reason to lie at all. If you judge it my content, the difference is unmissable - he clearly telling the truth as he sees it. If, on the other hand, you ignore the content and simply look at the track record of the person, it's harder to tell, but that's easily solved by reading his claims.

We all know the story of the boy who cried wolf, and we all think we understand the moral: don't tell lies because people won't believe you when you go on to tell the truth.

There is a second moral though, which is usually lost. It's not about the boy, it's about the villagers. Don't assume someone is lying because they have in the past. If you do that you might wake up to find that he, along with the sheep he was minding for you, have been eaten.

Chips Lovell · 02-02-2011 04:06PM

I thought the Captain was talking about Boogie?

Lumen · 02-02-2011 04:11PM

niceonetom wrote: »

I honestly don't understand how people can't see the difference between the obvious lies he's told in the past, when he had something to lose, and his reasons to lie were obvious and now, when he has nothing to lose and no reason to lie at all. If you judge it my content, the difference is unmissable - he clearly telling the truth as he sees it. If, on the other hand, you ignore the content and simply look at the track record of the person, it's harder to tell, but that's easily solved by reading his claims.

My take is that he's an unreliable witness, so anything he says which cannot be substantiated by other evidence must be taken with a pinch of salt. He may now honestly believe his own testimony, but that doesn't make his testimony reliable. He still has no explanation for the testosterone positive, for instance.

His "revelations" have lead to a federal investigation, which (IMO) is the right sort of response.

Chips Lovell · 02-02-2011 04:21PM

Lumen wrote: »

My take is that he's an unreliable witness, so anything he says which cannot be substantiated by other evidence must be taken with a pinch of salt.

What makes it so compelling is that it largely ties in with what we have heard already. The stuff about the UCI and US Cycling is fairly new though.

niceonetom · 02-02-2011 04:26PM

Saying I think he's telling the truth as he sees it is a long way from saying I accept everything he says as fact.

It's the reactionary (and anti-thinking) stance of he's-an-admitted-liar-therefore-everything-he-says-is-untrue that I find baffling. It's everywhere around this case and there are still loads of Lance-fans who are totally satisfied to dismiss any and all testimony on the basis that Landis lied in the past. The don't even need to know what he has said in order to be totally sure that it can't be believed. That's insane.

Lance would LOVE this to be a genuine case of he-said-she-said, but it isn't. These claims are testable, and for me they pass the first test; plausibility. Now let the feds find the corroboration.

The testosterone issue is interesting though. I can't see any reason why Landis would lie about that now. He admits to using both blood doping and testosterone, though not the latter when he tested positive. If anything I feel that the fact that he was caught for the wrong thing makes me doubt the reliability and competence of the testers and the UCI.

petethedrummer · 02-02-2011 04:27PM

el tonto wrote: »

The stuff about the UCI and US Cycling is fairly new though.

Not if you spend half your time reading the cyclingnews Clinic. Like I do.:rolleyes: I need a life.

Chips Lovell · 02-02-2011 04:31PM

niceonetom wrote: »

It's the reactionary (and anti-thinking) stance of he's-an-admitted-liar-therefore-everything-he-says-is-untrue that I find baffling.

"Epimenides the Cretan said that all Cretans were liars."

niceonetom wrote: »

The testosterone issue is interesting though. I can't see any reason why Landis would lie about that now. He admits to using both blood doping and testosterone, though not the latter when he tested positive. If anything I feel that the fact that he was caught for the wrong thing makes me doubt the reliability and competence of the testers and the UCI.

I'd like to see some expert opinion, but if he's telling the truth about not using testosterone in the Tour, the likely explanation is that it came from a blood bag. He claims that the numbers don't stack up for that scenario, but he's very much an autodidact in these matters.

dave2pvd · 02-02-2011 07:37PM

niceonetom wrote: »

The testosterone issue is interesting though. I can't see any reason why Landis would lie about that now. He admits to using both blood doping and testosterone, though not the latter when he tested positive.

I think I can see through this. Maybe.

Here's a possible scenario: while FL has finally come 'round to coming clean on a multitude of issues, he is still clinging to this lie. Why? Well, the Floyd Fairness Fund. With that charity drive, he swindled quite a bit of money from people who believed in him. Clinging to his original defense, and steadfastly denying reality regarding the testosterone finding is his way of (subconsciously?) keeping the demons in. I think the guy has a very fragile self-image. Revealing the truth on this could earn him several lifetimes of disapproval from those that are close. I don't know that he could take it.

It's also a possible defense if a class action suit is ever brought against him for the FFF.

So, how soon after Novitzky has finished his quest will Kimmage and FL have the book release?

spokeydokey · 02-02-2011 07:58PM

He admits doping on other occasions in the same race though

petethedrummer · 02-02-2011 08:04PM

dave2pvd wrote: »

I think I can see through this. Maybe.

Here's a possible scenario: while FL has finally come 'round to coming clean on a multitude of issues, he is still clinging to this lie. Why? Well, the Floyd Fairness Fund. With that charity drive, he swindled quite a bit of money from people who believed in him. Clinging to his original defense, and steadfastly denying reality regarding the testosterone finding is his way of (subconsciously?) keeping the demons in. I think the guy has a very fragile self-image. Revealing the truth on this could earn him several lifetimes of disapproval from those that are close. I don't know that he could take it.

Most of the Floyd Fairness fund came from a group of wealthy backers. I'll let you decide whether they knew he was lying or not.

He established the Floyd Fairness Fund and sought financial support.

Backing came from some of the same people who bankrolled Tailwind. Mr. Weisel chipped in $50,000, says Mr. Landis. Mr. Bucksbaum sent tens of thousands to Mr. Landis's law firm. Mr. Williams, the Connecticut businessman, and Mr. Cashin, the private-equity executive, sent money. Mr. Landis says he spent about $2 million on his defense, and that about 70% of the outside money he raised came from this circle of wealthy cycling backers.

Donors interviewed by the Journal say they had no clue Mr. Landis wasn't telling the truth. "I believed him when he said he was innocent, and then was highly disappointed when he later said he lied and cheated," says James Cox Kennedy, chairman of Cox Enterprises, who donated and held a fund-raiser at the company's Atlanta headquarters. Mr. Kennedy was not a Tailwind investor.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011490820993006.html

He has also vowed to pay it back: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-vows-to-repay-floyd-fairness-fund-donors

This may be the means by which he will do it:

As a whistle-blower, Landis could collect up to 30 percent of any money the government recovers if fraud is determined.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/09/news/landis-files-whistle-blower-lawsuit_138419#

dave2pvd · 02-02-2011 10:47PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

Most of the Floyd Fairness fund came from a group of wealthy backers. I'll let you decide whether they knew he was lying or not.

He has also vowed to pay it back: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-vows-to-repay-floyd-fairness-fund-donors

This may be the means by which he will do it:

Pete,

I agree that most of the dollars probably came from wealthy backers. However, there were many, many small donations made by everyday people who wanted to believe in the guy. I know quite a few among the local racing scene here who contributed. That same JC Kennedy mentioned in the quote (an owner of the AJC newspaper) you referenced has been a long time sponsor of racing in Atlanta. Several of my buddies went to that very fundraiser.

His vow to pay the money back.....yeah, right. I mean, how the h3ll could he even do that? Not going to happen, I say.

Indeed, that whistleblower suit just might be his ticket to survival.

RobFowl · 02-02-2011 11:36PM

dave2pvd wrote: »

Indeed, that whistleblower suit just might be his ticket to survival.

It's that aspect that leaves me slightly doubting his motives.
The essence of his story I feel is largely truthful. Exact details will always get slightly mixed after a few years and if it was as routine as it appears then races, years, timings etc might easily gets mixed up.

As a witness in front of a trial jury (if it came to that) he could be made look like a very dubious witness as legal eagles are experts at doing just that...

That said LA's reputation is in the process of getting publicly, slowly and completely dismantled.

If it plays out as Landis describes it then Verbruggen, McQuaid, the UCI and maybe even pro cycling could be finished or changed completely.

We've seen a lot of false dawns dating back to before I was born but this could be he point where doping and cycling finally cut the previously unbreakable bond..

manusapple · 02-02-2011 11:54PM

Anyone who doesnt think Lance was doping, is clearly delusional !

niceonetom · 02-02-2011 11:54PM

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/amgen-tour-of-california-scraps-open-investigation-rule

The UCI allowed LA to un-retire and compete without having the required time under anti-doping scrutiny when he went to the TDU in 2009 and now USADA has come out in favour of the Tour of California allowing Lance to compete even if he;s under investigation when it starts...

It seems Lance will have the rules changed to suit him at both ends of his comeback, should he choose to ride the TOC.

Sometimes it's hard not to feel that the powers that be in this sport are treating its fans with contempt. As an entity cycling looks like a bad joke and it's only going to get worse as this Landis affair gets trough the courts. At a time when it's really becoming clear just how rotten the sport has become and how the necessary divides between those who compete, those who promote events, and those who should keep the sport clean has been totally illusory for years, even now they can't prevent themselves from making moves like this.

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

Comments