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

ThisRegard · 23-05-2011 05:26PM

Doesn't Lance also claim Bono as a dear friend, yesterdays Sunday Times article concluded with the following tweet from him to Armstrong, "Sometimes my friend, the lie is ugly but the truth is unbearable". Did he have insider info ?

happytramp · 23-05-2011 05:26PM

ROK ON wrote: »

"LA has never been NOTIFIED of a positive test. . ."

Fascinating.

Directly contradicts Hamilton's testimony....Someone's nose should be growing.

Undercover Elephant · 23-05-2011 05:39PM

el tonto wrote: »

Oh boy, the UCI really has put its head in the sand. Because it wasn't just Hamilton and Landis's word they were going on. As Shane Stokes summed up today:

According to the programme, the then-director of the lab analysing the tests said that the UCI put pressure on the laboratory to cover up the situation.

60 Minutes said that it had obtained a letter sent by the US Anti-Doping Agency USADA to the laboratory, which showed that the lab found initial results of a urine sample ‘suspicious and consistent with EPO use.’

The programme makers also said that the lab director had given a sworn statement to the FBI saying that a UCI representative ‘wanted the matter of the suspicious test to go no further.

The lab director said that a meeting was held with team manager Johan Bruyneel and Armstrong at the UCI’s request. No positive test was ever announced from the race, which came weeks before the rider won the third of his seven consecutive Tours.

What a peculiar article. Is this Armstrongesque sophistry or just really badly written?

A letter from USADA to the lab can't possibly establish what the lab was saying. Presumably it was a reply to some other communication, which 60 Minutes either haven't seen or don't want to discuss.

Is "suspicious and consistent with EPO use" a positive test or not?

Is "wanting the matter to go no further" the same thing as a cover up?

petethedrummer · 23-05-2011 05:58PM

Snappy the Moose wrote: »

Sorry folks my limitations of cycling exceed no further than the Le Tour de France, would anybody be so kind to summarise the series of events in relation to LA taking PED's. Thanks.

He beat all these guys (note this list is 3 years out of date):
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/346046/tour-de-france-1999-2008.html

He was on the motorola Team in the mid-90s and they were getting hockeyed cos most European teams were taking EPO. Motorola on their steroids(for some), bread and water couldn't keep up. Lance got cancer in '96 and returned to cycling in '98, on the US Postal Team.

When the Festina scandal hit in '98 alot of the french teams stopped doping to the extent they had been. The USPS Team(allegedly) came doped up to the gills in 1999 Tour of 'Redemption' and the next 7 years, later to be known as the Discovery Chanel team.

Armstrong had an exlusive relationship with the world's leading doping doctor. But only for training plans:rolleyes:.

To be honest, if they hadn't doped (allegedly*) they wouldn't have won anything. Its a system that the UCI pretty much allowed manifest (allegedly*). Armstrong was very talented, but given the extent of EPO use its impossible to tell how is true talent would measure up against others of his era if everyone had been clean.

The major problems the haterz have with LA over other dopers are the vehement denials, the cancer shield and the bitter pursuit of anyone who questions the myth.

*Do I have to use allegedly?

TinyExplosions · 23-05-2011 07:08PM

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Is "suspicious and consistent with EPO use" a positive test or not?

That's what struck me too... the UCI could be very carefully wording it to back up later and say "well yes, there was an anomaly that we discussed, but it wasn't a positive test" or some other claptrap

Pherekydes · 23-05-2011 08:11PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

List of people vindicated:
The entire nation of France,

Does this include Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

The rest of the list is quite ironic, no?

Undercover Elephant · 23-05-2011 08:49PM

TinyExplosions wrote: »

That's what struck me too... the UCI could be very carefully wording it to back up later and say "well yes, there was an anomaly that we discussed, but it wasn't a positive test" or some other claptrap

Possibly careful wording, but this isn't coming from the UCI. It's actually consistent with there being no test failure. If that were the case, it's perfectly understandable that the UCI wouldn't want the matter to be discussed publicly. They would have got themselves in a load of legal hot water.

I've no idea whether this is what happened, but there's quite a gap between what is obviously being suggested and what is actually being said. It looks a lot like FBI standard operating procedure - or bad writing.

ROK ON · 23-05-2011 08:52PM

Just watched the interview.
Body language is horrible IMO. Not saying he is lying, but he is far from convincing.

kenmc · 23-05-2011 09:00PM

ROK ON wrote: »

Just watched the interview.
Body language is horrible IMO. Not saying he is lying, but he is far from convincing.

Even still, he's far more convincing than the broken record spouting "I've never been caught"

AstraMonti · 23-05-2011 09:07PM

ROK ON wrote: »

Just watched the interview.
Body language is horrible IMO. Not saying he is lying, but he is far from convincing.

I was thinking the same, he is truly horrible, but it really comes even knowing how much pressure he had at that moment, he broke the omerta after all and that can't be easy.

Plastik · 23-05-2011 09:15PM

ROK ON wrote: »

Just watched the interview.
Body language is horrible IMO. Not saying he is lying, but he is far from convincing.

Came across with exactly the same feeling. I want to believe what he has said but he did a terrible job.

petethedrummer · 23-05-2011 09:20PM

Most American shows where someone is being heartfelt or confessing all seem odd. They just have a different way of going on, especially on TV. Even the interviewer is over egging the pudding with his dramatic pauses.

goldencleric · 23-05-2011 09:30PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

Most American shows where someone is being heartfelt or confessing all seem odd. They just have a different way of going on, especially on TV. Even the interviewer is over egging the pudding with his dramatic pauses.

Floyd: "That Tyler Hamilton guy is evil. Just listen to the music!"

dave2pvd · 23-05-2011 09:30PM

ROK ON wrote: »

Just watched the interview.
Body language is horrible IMO. Not saying he is lying, but he is far from convincing.

That's just the way he is. Compared to how he usually interviews, he actually did very well. Compare the on-camera performance of Sean Kelly of 1985 to Sean Kelly of 2011. That's how much TH has improved. So he was very bad back in the mid-90s! Today, he still has problems making eye contact. He's not exactly a type-A, that's for sure.

Regarding the 60 minutes interview style: yes, it seems odd. Especially when you're used to the Irish/English style, which is FAR more cutting and direct. An almost in your face-style of interview. Recall how 'W' Bush was so shocked by his interview when he visited Ireland? That's how alien to each other the 2 styles are.

lescol · 23-05-2011 09:34PM

The 60 mins Overtime video is interesting in explaining Hamiltons reactions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064874-10391709.html

rockman15 · 23-05-2011 09:36PM

ROK ON wrote: »

Just watched the interview.
Body language is horrible IMO. Not saying he is lying, but he is far from convincing.

Yeah the constant blinking, turning head away when giving statements.

Hardly inspires confidence in his statement. Nor does the certainty in his voice. Very shakey. Im no professional at speaches but, if your making a statement thats as damaging as this your going to have specifics, give the dates, times locations etc. The only certainty that he spoke of was a list of drugs, which incidentally would be reasonably recognisable in terms of sensationalist media sources. The package arriving at his house is perhaps the most vague example he give. "Whos name was on it?", "I...I...eh...dont know".

Andreau is more convincing.

happytramp · 23-05-2011 09:37PM

Pretty obvious the questions and answers were rehearsed or repeated for multiple takes. That's why it comes across slightly staged (almost like acting) because the interviewer and interviewee are probably trying to remember how they said it before. Wouldn't surprise me if there was a 'director' off camera saying stuff like "That was good, but can we try it again with more feeling"

Rubbish style of interviewing but maybe more palatable to their American audience.

tippx · 23-05-2011 10:15PM

Hope Paul Kimmig comes out as been totally justifyed for putting it up to LA on more than one occasion ,as well as LA rubbishing him at that famous press conference when he told Kimmige that he was not fit do sit on the chair he was on ,after Kimmage put it to him straight about hideing behind the cancer card
He was banned from going to any LA press conference,s after that and before that occassion as wel I think ?
Has any body read any peices from Kimmige lately? I think he stilll writes for the English times. He,s been spot on so far

JacksonHeightsOwn · 23-05-2011 10:24PM

rockman15 wrote: »

Yeah the constant blinking, turning head away when giving statements.

Hardly inspires confidence in his statement. Nor does the certainty in his voice. Very shakey. Im no professional at speaches but, if your making a statement thats as damaging as this your going to have specifics, give the dates, times locations etc. The only certainty that he spoke of was a list of drugs, which incidentally would be reasonably recognisable in terms of sensationalist media sources. The package arriving at his house is perhaps the most vague example he give. "Whos name was on it?", "I...I...eh...dont know".

Andreau is more convincing.

i couldnt agree more

the part where he says Armstrong put some testoserone in his mouth, then administered his own, he makes it sound like a 1990's rave and they where passing around yokes!!!

im not saying armstrong didnt juice, he clearly did, but Hamilton is speaking out of his arse at times, and is making Armstrong out to be the ring leader and they all just caved in to his peer pressure, utter rubbish, they all juiced because everybody else in the peloton was doing it!

petethedrummer · 23-05-2011 10:29PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Does this include Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

The rest of the list is quite ironic, no?

No the only joke one was the French nation. The others have all expressed reservations with Armstrong's victories or how cycling is being run.

Hermy · 23-05-2011 10:46PM

Idleater wrote: »

"Professional cycling commentator, poor cyclist, good dreamer."

Professional??? I don't think so.

GT_TDI_150 · 23-05-2011 10:53PM

Tyler: "it very hard for me to talk about this, you know"

bullcrap! what he is saying is prob 100% true, but he already told the grand jury, he had told the people that mattered.

He talked to 60minutes for the same reason 98% of the guest come on the Late, Late Show.....he's selling a book!

c0rk3r · 23-05-2011 10:54PM

Begs the question, just who did win the 2000 tour de france ?

Rank Name Country Team Time
1 Lance Armstrong United States US Postal 92h 33'08"
2 Jan Ullrich Germany Team Telekom 6'02"
3 Joseba Beloki Spain Festina 10'02"
4 Christophe Moreau France Festina 10'34"
5 Roberto Heras Spain Kelme-Costa Blanca 11'50"
6 Richard Virenque France Team Polti 13'26"
7 Santiago Botero Colombia Kelme-Costa Blanca 14'18"
8 Fernando Escartín Spain Kelme-Costa Blanca 17'21"
9 Francisco Mancebo Spain Banesto 18'09"
10 Daniele Nardello Italy Mapei-Quick Step 18'25"

The only clean guys there are Fernando Escartin (8th) and Daniele Nardello (10th) but were they actually clean or just never tested positive

Someone should tell him the good news

NickDrake · 23-05-2011 11:00PM

c0rk3r wrote: »

Begs the question, just who did win the 2000 tour de france ?

Rank Name Country Team Time
1 Lance Armstrong United States US Postal 92h 33'08"
2 Jan Ullrich Germany Team Telekom 6'02"
3 Joseba Beloki Spain Festina 10'02"
4 Christophe Moreau France Festina 10'34"
5 Roberto Heras Spain Kelme-Costa Blanca 11'50"
6 Richard Virenque France Team Polti 13'26"
7 Santiago Botero Colombia Kelme-Costa Blanca 14'18"
8 Fernando Escartín Spain Kelme-Costa Blanca 17'21"
9 Francisco Mancebo Spain Banesto 18'09"
10 Daniele Nardello Italy Mapei-Quick Step 18'25"

The only clean guys there are Fernando Escartin (8th) and Daniele Nardello (10th) but were they actually clean or just never tested positive Someone should tell him the good news

Escartin clean?? Kelme were on a doping program that year. I think you need to do a bit more research on it. Numerous riders in Kelmer admitted they had a doping program during that period. Mario Saiz was involved their as far as I know too.

NickDrake · 23-05-2011 11:04PM

chrisbonnie wrote: »

i couldnt agree more

the part where he says Armstrong put some testoserone in his mouth, then administered his own, he makes it sound like a 1990's rave and they where passing around yokes!!!

im not saying armstrong didnt juice, he clearly did, but Hamilton is speaking out of his arse at times, and is making Armstrong out to be the ring leader and they all just caved in to his peer pressure, utter rubbish, they all juiced because everybody else in the peloton was doing it!

Very naive yet again. Stop trying to twist the facts. He is the third rider to state that Armstrong anf Johan were the ring leaders here.

Amazing some are still try to protect their Lancy.

GT_TDI_150 · 23-05-2011 11:21PM

"breaking news"

Just read on 'het nieuwsblad' that Italian investigaters have entered the Hotel of Team Radioshack and searched their cars, nothing was found though.

The would want to be retared if they got caught while all this LA stuff is going on?!?!?

a148pro · 23-05-2011 11:29PM

happytramp wrote: »

This guy is probably isn't feeling too good right now either.

Are you sure its not supposed to be ironic, like one of those anti smoking campaigns?

lescol · 24-05-2011 07:49AM

A bit of background to the Tyler Hamilton story

Tyler didn't want to talk to anyone. He wanted to ride off into the sunset and put all of this behind him. The feds didn't given him that choice

The "60 Minutes" producers made it clear that this wasn't going to be Tyler ratting out Lance, but about the problems with doping in the cycling world. The piece is about corruption in the sport writ large.

From:- http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/05/mandersoninterview.html

Diarmuid · 24-05-2011 08:05AM

lescol wrote: »

A bit of background to the Tyler Hamilton story

Tyler didn't want to talk to anyone. He wanted to ride off into the sunset and put all of this behind him. The feds didn't given him that choice

I'm sure that's true but it would be naive to believe that 60 minutes would run a feature on the story if Lance wasn't involved.

He's was the biggest name in the sport on the way up, he'll be the biggest name on the way down too.

Beasty · 24-05-2011 08:17AM

Can we please stick to Lance, his accusers and riders who are proven to have doped - we cannot allow speculation/comment about other riders you may suspect doped

Thanks

Beasty

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

Comments