# Landis 'fesses up?!



## dellzeqq (20 May 2010)

According to the briefest report from the BBC. Anybody know anything about this?


----------



## ChrisKH (20 May 2010)

Yes, there's another post with a link on here somewhere.


----------



## ChrisKH (20 May 2010)

Probably to the BBC report....


----------



## psmiffy (20 May 2010)

Here


----------



## Chuffy (20 May 2010)

Road.cc and Cycling News both have it. 

None of this will come as any surprise to many of us and my best guess is that Teflon Tex won't give a stuff. Nor will the fan-boys, race organisers or UCI. Landis is too easy to discredit, he's left it waaaaaaaaaayyyyy too late and he'll need cast iron evidence to make anything stick. 

The only concern I have is that Bruyneel won't be sanctioned (a life ban would be appropriate) and that Zabriskie has been implicated. I'd like to hear the truth from him, especially given who he rides for these days.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (20 May 2010)

I agree; too little - too late. 

I think I believe every word, but 'the LA/cycling/sporting world at large' will dismiss it as the vindictive sour grapes of a bitter has-been, who's using his last gasp of publicity to reek revenge on his 'friends', before he sinks totally into the bottomless pit of obscurity.


----------



## Chuffy (20 May 2010)

Road.cc report has more detail.

Landis says he has no proof, other than his own training diaries. Oddly enough, I think this is about the first time he's told the truth since 2006. Shame he's f*cked up any chance of being taken seriously by bullshitting for the last four years...


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2010)

So why should he be telling the truth now?


----------



## raindog (20 May 2010)

This proves, if proof were needed, what a lying b stard he's been all these years. It looks as if it might just be his word against the others, but even so, this is a BIG one. Difficult to see how Prudhomme can accept Radio Shack for the Tour now.

I wonder what his motivation is? Maybe he was he offered money to keep quite and the cheque never arrived?


----------



## Skip Madness (20 May 2010)

Although no source has been given nor its veracity confirmed, on the Cycling News forums blackcat posted this, which looks pretty legit with quotes that corroborate those found in the press articles:


> 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
> ...


On the one hand, if he's being honest about things then he's doing the right thing. On the other hand, he really ought to have down the right thing years ago instead of setting up the Floyd Fairness Fund...


----------



## rich p (20 May 2010)

It makes you wonder that he frittered away his fortune trying to prove himself innocent when he knew he could never do that

I'm sure that it's all true though. Levi was caught way back when. Remember George shooting up to that mountain top stage win in the TdF.
As for LA don't get me started......
I'd love to see that slime ball Bruyneel nailed but without evidence this is not going to stick unless it persuades a few of the others to come out.


----------



## rich p (20 May 2010)

This bit implicates Andy Rhis, the formerowner of Phonak and owner of BMC who supposedly closed them down due to drug positives! The world's gone mad.



_In the email sent on April 30 to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Landis said that in 2006, after leaving the U.S. Postal Service team for a team sponsored by Swiss hearing aide manufacturer Phonak, he said he told Andy Rihs, the team's owner, that he had been involved in a blood doping program in the past with his old team and wanted to continue doing so with Phonak. He said Mr. Rihs, who is the chairman of Sonova Holding AG, the Switzerland-based parent company for Phonak, agreed to pay for the same doping operations at Phonak. After Mr. Landis's positive test—which was for testosterone and not blood doping—the team disbanded in 2006. Mr. Rihs and a Sonova spokesman could not be reached for comment_.


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2010)

Think I ll wait for the book then! When s it out..... ?


----------



## psmiffy (20 May 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Think I ll wait for the book then! When s it out..... ?



He has had plenty of time to come up with his "version" of events


----------



## Sysagent (20 May 2010)

Reason he has come "clean" (no pun intended) is that he assumed (wrongly or rightly) that he would get invited to JB and Pharmstrongs new chemical tour de force Radioshack, this didn't happen, he gets bitter and twisted like you do...

Imagine being dumped by your girlfriend because she wants to go out with a new bunch of younger more exciting people.

BUT

You have a load of dodgy intimate videos and photos of her and you, so what happens, the hate simmers and then boils, what do you do, well of course you get the dodgy stuff out and issue payback time don't you.

Also you have got to remember that Floyd is from a quiet religous Mennonitefarming boy background, imagine what's being going on up there in his head for all these years, he must have been turning himself inside out with it all.This could be quite possibly the best thing to happen to the professional cycling sport in decades in my opinion, well done on Floyd on having the balls to do it...

But of course all of what he is saying will have to be proved and we know the size of Pharmtstrongs empire, imagine the legal back-up he will have.

Also where does this leave Vaughters with having DZ on his "clean" team and Vaughters also being part of the US Postal team in the early eighties?

And also what about the American public who were paying for these pro-riders to dope under the US Postal banner?


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2010)

Don t think "balls" come into it. Its more to do with money and vengence.


----------



## dan_bo (20 May 2010)

Oooooh yeah


----------



## raindog (20 May 2010)

Sysagent said:


> And also what about the American public who were paying for these pro-riders to dope under the US Postal banner?


What about 'em? Maybe they're getting what they deserve.


----------



## Skip Madness (20 May 2010)

Regardless of what may or may not come of this, the UCI's response - talking of Landis seeking revenge and having a grudge against Armstrong - is shockingly partial.

Well OK, it's not shocking coming from McQuaid, but it's very depressing.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 May 2010)

wouldn't it be easier just to let them all cheat? If they kill themsleves in the process, it's just another dead doper. No shortage of them on or off bikes.

*dons flame-proof suit*


----------



## Skip Madness (20 May 2010)

It's not fair on anyone who wants to ride cleanly to tell them that they can't try to make a competitive living from cycling unless they're prepared to risk their health and potentially their life. It's race-to-the-bottom stuff in terms of health and safety and workers' rights.


----------



## rich p (20 May 2010)

Cunego, who has been implicated in the past and is under-investigation now for past indiscretions, has said in an Italian article that it is much cleaner than it was. So much so that he considers himself in with a chance of a GT again. 
It was clear that after he cleaned up his act a few years ago he could no longer keep up with Basso, Sella etc so he may be worth listening to.


----------



## fossyant (20 May 2010)

Toe Rag !


----------



## Sysagent (20 May 2010)

More news items from the net on it:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article7131677.ece

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703691804575255410855321120.html

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...-use-by-armstrong-others_117407#ixzz0oS7IiQeE

http://joepapp.blogspot.com/2010/05/floyd-landis-admission-of-doping.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/sports/cycling/21landis.html

Apparently Floyd has been on ESPN as well and said it is all bona fide and that it is he who has sent the emails / letters.


----------



## Hont (20 May 2010)

The revelations that Landis makes won't, I don't imagine, come as a surprise to an awful lot of people connected with cycling. I can well believe them as being thoroughly accurate.

However, Landis himself is clearly the worst type of scum. Trying to raise funds through public donations because he tested positive for Testosterone when he had actually taken HGH (or thought he had) and doing that knowing that he had taken Testosterone in the past, just not this time, is the worse kind of lying, cheating fraud. 

And now he takes four years to "clear his conscience". Sorry Floyd I don't believe you have one.


----------



## raindog (20 May 2010)

Skip Madness said:


> Regardless of what may or may not come of this, the UCI's response - talking of Landis seeking revenge and having a grudge against Armstrong - is shockingly partial.
> 
> Well OK, it's not shocking coming from McQuaid, but it's very depressing.


+1


----------



## Sysagent (20 May 2010)

Hont said:


> However, Landis himself is clearly the worst type of scum. Trying to raise funds through public donations because he tested positive for Testosterone when he had actually taken HGH (or thought he had) and doing that knowing that he had taken Testosterone in the past, just not this time, is the worse kind of lying, cheating fraud.



I wager that Pharmstrong is a bigger / richer one, imagine all the Cancer sufferers who have had him as an icon for all these years, not too mention the fawning American public...

Just goes to show how naive people really are.


----------



## Hont (20 May 2010)

Sysagent said:


> Also where does this leave Vaughters with having DZ on his "clean" team and Vaughters also being part of the US Postal team in the early eighties?



None of this will be news to him...

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/oct06/oct16news 

He's happy to have former dopers on his team as long as they are racing clean now - Millar being the highest profile example.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 May 2010)

am I right in thinking that this was precipitated not by Landis, but by the Wall Street Journal coming into posession of some e-mails, leaving Landis with no choice but to 'fess up?


----------



## Losidan (20 May 2010)

wonder if he'll give back the funds he raised for his campaign then. if i had donated I would want and IMMEDIATE refund with interest


----------



## Chuffy (20 May 2010)

If Landis is stating, explicitly, that Verbruggen was bribed by Bruyneel and Tex then he’s either going to have to produce some damn good proof or be stamped on for libel, which would have the net effect of rendering his entire testimony null and void. If all he wanted was to clear his conscience then fine, but if he genuinely wanted to do something constructive then he’s handled this incredibly badly.


----------



## Skip Madness (20 May 2010)

Losidan said:


> wonder if he'll give back the funds he raised for his campaign then. if i had donated I would want and IMMEDIATE refund with interest


I think he said that he wants to, but at the moment he has no money.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 May 2010)

Bit of a double-bind this one, isn't it? On the one hand, Landis is a cheat and a liar and by the admission of this e-mail a self-confessed liar - but do you believe the liar when he says he's telling the truth (Socrates will be smiling to himself wherever he is...)

But on the other hand, I find it hard not to believe the stuff about US Postal and Armstrong, given all the corroborating stories from so many people who have contact with them over the years. The bribery thing takes it to a new level, but we know that the top levels of sport are riddled with corruption - the IOC, football, tennis... why not cycling?


----------



## Losidan (20 May 2010)

i find it quite amusing to that under the Guardian article the first recommended advertisement is for EPO.


----------



## maurice (20 May 2010)

I'm inclined to believe it may be true, but Landis has just proved to everyone, one way or the other, that he's a complete liar and not to be trusted.

I wonder if he's writing a new book, it'd certainly be a good way to sell some copies.


----------



## HLaB (20 May 2010)

I saw the beeb report but didn't bother reading it; just heard on eurosport he's incrimentating everybody!


----------



## biking_fox (20 May 2010)

*Landis*


> Now we've come to the point where the statute of limitations on the things I know is going to run out or start to run out next month," Landis said. "If I don't say something now then it's pointless to ever say it."



Yeah right. because two months is clearly enough time for something to be done about it.



> find it quite amusing to that under the Guardian article the first recommended advertisement is for EPO.


So is the presumably googleads banner on the Velogames site.


----------



## Sysagent (20 May 2010)

WADA respond

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/News-Cen...m-WADA-President-on-Floyd-Landis-Allegations/


----------



## Smokin Joe (20 May 2010)

I wonder if this will encourage others to come forward? Rasmussen is another with nothing to lose.

Either way the implications for cycling are serious and very damaging. Sponsors are going to be hard enough to find in this economic climate, and if Armstrong's credibility with the general public (as opposed to cycling fans) is destroyed then the consequenses could go as far as to effect lottery funding in this country. The press would be very hostile to a badly tainted sport.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 May 2010)

The contrasting responses of WADA and the UCI say quite a bit. WADA says the allegations are serious and worth investigation. The UCI just attacks Landis and say that no-one who 'loves cycling' would do this... 

No wonder few trust the UCI to clean up cycling.


----------



## mangaman (20 May 2010)

I agree - do WADA have any legal "teeth" here to invetigate the claims (especially Lance's alledged failed test at the Tour de Suisse) ?


----------



## Hont (20 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> No wonder few trust the UCI to clean up cycling.


Indeed. Lets hope ASO don't rely on the UCI to do this years TdF testing.


----------



## montage (20 May 2010)

Landis states that he talked about it back in 2002 with Lance. Love him or hate him, Lance can't be blanketed as a complete moron, and only a complete moron would talk so openly about drugging with a team mate, who by the very nature of the sport, won't be under Lance's iron rod in the same team forever.

Lodes of old cobblers - most likely with money being involved. Lance may or may not have cheated, but I highly doubt Landis would have exchanged advice over the matter.


----------



## andy_wrx (20 May 2010)

I don't see how you couldn't have team-organised doping without the team, err discussing it !


----------



## rich p (20 May 2010)

montage said:


> Landis states that he talked about it back in 2002 with Lance. Love him or hate him, Lance can't be blanketed as a complete moron, and only a complete moron would talk so openly about drugging with a team mate, who by the very nature of the sport, won't be under Lance's iron rod in the same team forever.
> 
> Lodes of old cobblers - most likely with money being involved. Lance may or may not have cheated, but I highly doubt Landis would have exchanged advice over the matter.



Of course they talked about it. The detail Landis goes into seems very authentic to me and not the kind of way you'd make something up. If the story is twisted that FL is just being nasty to his old mates then it's just so much spin from the LA, Bruyneel, UCI machine.


----------



## psmiffy (20 May 2010)

Sorry Rich but there is just too much detail - and too few witnesses - Landis is the only one that there is any proof against - if it was happening on the industrial scale like has been described there would have been someone who wanted to make a name for themselves and blab with the associated Police raids etc

I am sure that with the increasing sophistication of testing and the habit of the drug testing people to hang onto samples that they would have at least got some of the the other players retrospectively at some time or other on the Testosterone - it would seem to be pretty easy to detect


----------



## rich p (20 May 2010)

We probably won't agree then, Smiffy, on this one. It rings true to me and there has always been a whiff of fish about LA, Big George and you only have to see the number of ex USPand Disco riders that got nicked after leaving the clinical methods of Bruyneel (allegedly).
Why would Landis make this up?


----------



## psmiffy (20 May 2010)

rich p said:


> Why would Landis make this up?



*because he is not quite right in the head*? to come out with all this after spending $1.? on a campaign to clear his name - it all sound the sort of stuff a fairly amateur Jack Higgins or Fredrick Forsyth could of cobbled up 

LA has always been there to be shot at - so far all the bullets have missed - but you have only got to watch current racing to see how a good team (and he had a team that contained people that could win in their own right) can get their bloke to the front of the main classification without him putting in real performances - the guy was just like a spider pulling the strings 

that is not to say I have not always wondered how it was that he emerged so suddenly after his illness


----------



## rich p (20 May 2010)

I didn't think we'd agree!
The circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is quite persuasive and the fact that so many of ex-team-mates were subsequently caught has to make you wonder why they apparently only took up doping after leaving USP, but hey ho!


----------



## psmiffy (20 May 2010)

rich p said:


> I didn't think we'd agree!



That's life  but I think it will be very interesting to see if WADA get of their collective bottoms and carry out an investigation or if LA bothers to go down the litigation route


----------



## mangaman (20 May 2010)

psmiffy said:


> Sorry Rich but there is just too much detail - and too few witnesses - Landis is the only one that there is any proof against - if it was happening on the industrial scale like has been described there would have been someone who wanted to make a name for themselves and blab with the associated Police raids etc
> 
> I am sure that with the increasing sophistication of testing and the habit of the drug testing people to hang onto samples that they would have at least got some of the the other players retrospectively at some time or other on the Testosterone - it would seem to be pretty easy to detect



Well they did hang onto Lance's 1999 sample and it was +ve for EPO, alledgedly. 

He didn't even directly deny it, or sue L'equipe for libel, but said on his website

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance[-]enhancing drugs."

Plus the circumstantial (in some cases) evidence

Frankie Andreu - admitted to using EPO while riding for them
Levi Leipheimer positive for ephedrine before joining them
Landis now claims he doped with them and implicates Hincapie
Heras and Hamilton caught after leaving the team

The way they cruised up the Alps as a team without breaking sweat. Someone's already mentioned the stage Hincapie won when he outclimbed Perrero. He is considered a classics man - one for Paris-Roubaix

It's like Boonen or Cancellara suddenly winning in the high mountains


----------



## rich p (20 May 2010)

mangaman said:


> It's like Boonen or Cancellara suddenly winning in the high mountains



..or Contador beating Cancellara in a TT


----------



## mangaman (20 May 2010)

rich p said:


> ..or Contador beating Cancellara in a TT



or, indeed, like Contador beating Cancellara in a TT


----------



## Ball (20 May 2010)

Interesting to read Lance's statement at the beginning of stage 5 of the Tour of Cali. Seems to point very much towards Landis's mental state. He says he doesn't want to make any derisive comments about the guy but goes on to reveal that he sent emails and texts at ludicrous hours of the morning and was reported to be talking to himself during the tour of the gila. But then the guy has just accused him of cheating. Landis sounds messed up if you ask me. 

That said, it really wouldn't surprise me if the allegations are true. There is something just a bit too special about LA and I totally take your point about George Hincapie. I've finally got round to reading Lance's book and have nearly finished. I've never liked the guy but have always respected his achievements, unfortunately this has just given a sceptic like me another chance to doubt.


----------



## montage (20 May 2010)

rich p said:


> ..or Contador beating Cancellara in a TT



That was a particular hilly (i.e. it was mostly uphill) TT if I remember in Conty's defence.
This is coming from a non-contador fan


----------



## mangaman (20 May 2010)

Ball said:


> Interesting to read Lance's statement at the beginning of stage 5 of the Tour of Cali. Seems to point very much towards Landis's mental state. He says he doesn't want to make any derisive comments about the guy but goes on to reveal that he sent emails and texts at ludicrous hours of the morning and was reported to be talking to himself during the tour of the gila. But then the guy has just accused him of cheating. Landis sounds messed up if you ask me.
> 
> That said, it really wouldn't surprise me if the allegations are true. There is something just a bit too special about LA and I totally take your point about George Hincapie. I've finally got round to reading Lance's book and have nearly finished. I've never liked the guy but have always respected his achievements, unfortunately this has just given a sceptic like me another chance to doubt.



This is typical Lance - he's insinuated things about Greg Lemond / Andreu now Landis without actually producing anything to deny he doped. 

He is seriously wealthy and litigious, but has never sued when his 1999 samples were positive for example. Ditto now. If Armstrong was clean and Landis is just a fantasist, he would sue his ass right now, big time - as Landis's accusations basically destroy his whole credibilty.

If he does take things to court, it will be interesting and Lance may be cleared.

If he doesn't and just puts out slurs on Landis's mental health and doesn't try to clear his name through the courts - it would imply he has something to hide.

After all the Landis allegations are basically saying his whole TDF winning career was built on the back of cheating, and his whole house of cards will tumble.


----------



## maurice (20 May 2010)

montage said:


> That was a particular hilly (i.e. it was mostly uphill) TT if I remember in Conty's defence.
> This is coming from a non-contador fan



iirc it was pretty flat, around a lake, with one small climb.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 May 2010)

it was indeed a flat course with one climb. Poor Phil tried to keep the disbelief out of his voice, but didn't quite succeed. The impression that Contador was a couple of slices short of a sandwich remains with me to this day

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/20052010/58/tour-de-france-armstrong-blasts-landis-doping-claim.html

Lance isn't having it....


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2010)

Why would Landis make this up, Rich P,...... cos the guy s a fruitcake. If you want to hang LA you ve got to find a more convincing witness......Maybe, a certain... Mr Livingstone.....I presume.


----------



## mangaman (20 May 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> it was indeed a flat course with one climb. Poor Phil tried to keep the disbelief out of his voice, but didn't quite succeed. The impression that Contador was a couple of slices short of a sandwich remains with me to this day
> 
> http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/20052010/58/tour-de-france-armstrong-blasts-landis-doping-claim.html
> 
> Lance isn't having it....



It was indeed


----------



## rich p (20 May 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Why would Landis make this up, Rich P,...... cos the guy s a fruitcake. If you want to hang LA you ve got to find a more convincing witness......Maybe, a certain... Mr Livingstone.....I presume.



Well, possibly but then I believed Frankie Andreu and his wife and Greg Lemond!
He may be a fruitcase but I can't see why he would make up the 'evidence' about the Girona fridge.


----------



## Crackle (20 May 2010)

It's impossible to say who's the greatest fantasist here. It's no smoking gun, it's not even a lipstick stain on the glass, it's a bit sad and desperate and gives further weight to anyone wishing to hide the truth about drugs in cycling. They can just point to Landis and get everyone to laugh along.


----------



## mangaman (20 May 2010)

Crackle said:


> It's impossible to say who's the greatest fantasist here. It's no smoking gun, it's not even a lipstick stain on the glass, it's a bit sad and desperate and gives further weight to anyone wishing to hide the truth about drugs in cycling. They can just point to Landis and get everyone to laugh along.



I'm not so sure crackle.

No-one has publicly accused Armstrong and his team of institutional doping in such graphic detail. That is a smoking gun for my money.

If it's not true, the legal might of Lance will fall on Landis like a tonne of bricks.

If Lance just makes vague inferences that Landis is off his rocker, but doesn't pursue legal action, it's hard not to think this is all true.

Why wouldn't Lance sue Landis - it's either true, or one of the most libellous statements in sporting history.


----------



## Crackle (20 May 2010)

Well we'll wait and see, Armstrong is not shy about taking action, he's done it before but I kind of think he doesn't need to, Landis has no credibility now. It's not that I don't believe him but this is going to carry no weight at any level that matters except amongst racing fans.


----------



## mangaman (20 May 2010)

Crackle said:


> Well we'll wait and see, Armstrong is not shy about taking action, he's done it before but I kind of think he doesn't need to, Landis has no credibility now. It's not that I don't believe him but this is going to carry no weight at any level that matters except amongst racing fans.



I'm not so sure - the e-mails are pretty cohehent and specific.

Landis (like Virenque/Hamilton et al always initially challenge the ban), but that doesn't make him mentally deluded - they all do it.

He's also implicated others, such as Hincapie - surely he would consider legal action if this was all made up?

Everyone knows Landis lied and tried every trick in the book to get off, but that doesn't make him wrong on this. 

Hamilton was the same and a doping manual for him came out of Operation Puerto, implying industrial strength doping and then he was tested positive again on his comeback.

Floyd's made very, very specific allegations against people. 

It will be interesting to see the response - saying Flandis is mad is not enough- the individual, detailed doping allegations need to be disproved.

The onus is on Lance / Hincapie / Leipheimer etc I feel. If someone at my work said I was systematically doing something illegal and wrong, it wouldn't be enough for me to try to rubbish the accuser.

My employer would expect me to prove my innocence.


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2010)

Not at all.The onus is to prove guilt not innocence.


----------



## psmiffy (20 May 2010)

Crackle +1 why bother a) Landis has not got any money  As Crackle said Landis has no credability - It would be what I believe the Americans call a slam dunk in any American Court - Armstrong would probably get more negative press from the cruelty aspect c) I would think the US Justice Department has got a prior claim

In view of the fact there would appear to be no evidence - and if there was there are plenty of people out there that would form a line to serve it up - has not happened - Armstrong can poo poo the claims without losing any sleep or going to any effort - However if there is evidence however dodgy (and you would have to be a very brave publisher to serve it up as fact) then that would be a different matter


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2010)

Let s look at it from a different angle for a minute shall we. OK LA s a super talent but, we ve got to build a super team around him, we ll keep him squeaky clean, but the rest of the guys aren t up to it. So...... we ll pay em aload of dosh and if they get caught they re on their own. Everythings fine untill Landis who s a loose cannon goes off his head. Plausible..?
But as I indicated before, Kevin Livingstone wants no part in it. Goes to Telekom and finds the same thing happening. Like I said you ve got to find a reliable witness.


----------



## maurice (20 May 2010)

Another statement from Lance here, seems to rule out legal action against Landis.

http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/news_lance-responds-landis-allegations/


----------



## mangaman (20 May 2010)

psmiffy said:


> Crackle +1 why bother a) Landis has not got any money  As Crackle said Landis has no credability - It would be what I believe the Americans call a slam dunk in any American Court - Armstrong would probably get more negative press from the cruelty aspect c) I would think the US Justice Department has got a prior claim
> 
> In view of the fact there would appear to be no evidence - and if there was there are plenty of people out there that would form a line to serve it up - has not happened - Armstrong can poo poo the claims without losing any sleep or going to any effort - However if there is evidence however dodgy (and you would have to be a very brave publisher to serve it up as fact) then that would be a different matter



If it's such a slam dunk legally, presumably Lance / Hincapie / Leipheimer / Bruyneel will be forming an orderly queue to sue his ass?

There are a lot of people in the world that have always had doubts about Bruyneel/Lance etc and I think you'll find Landis' accusations will sound accurate in a lot of people's minds unless they have eveidence the're untrue.

I'm not saying you're guilty until proved innocent, but this has been an issue for years - eg Lance's positive 1999 EPO tests that he's never denied, the whole shabby Andreu/Lemond behaviour by Lance. His defence of Ferrari and opposition to anti-dopers like Bassons all add up Armstrong having a dubious reputation regarding doping.

I'll wait and see what Lance does,before rubbishung Landis's claims. If it's a slam dunk then he'll sue him and the evidence will come out

If he doesn't and neither do Hincapie/Levi/Bruyneel I'll find that suspicious to the point of an admission of guilt


----------



## Chuffy (20 May 2010)

Anyone think that Landis is almost daring Tex and Hog to take legal action? What's the betting that he's got a video of them all slurping down EPO cocktails tucked up his sleeve to be whipped out in a court case? 

Although as I've said before, too many people are invested in Teflon Tex for anything, _anything at all_ to stick.


----------



## Chuffy (20 May 2010)

Can't wait for next weeks Toto!


----------



## mangaman (20 May 2010)

maurice said:


> Another statement from Lance here, seems to rule out legal action against Landis.
> 
> http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/news_lance-responds-landis-allegations/




Cross posted - but as long as Lance does nothing but casts vague aspertions on Floyd's sanity I will not be convinced.

Someone who has been genuinly libelled in such a spectactular way as Floyd has done - ie rubbished Lance's entire career - would recieve the full Armstrong legal team on their ass. When that happens and things come out in a court, I'll have some more faith.


----------



## mangaman (20 May 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Anyone think that Landis is almost daring Tex and Hog to take legal action? What's the betting that he's got a video of them all slurping down EPO cocktails tucked up his sleeve to be whipped out in a court case?
> 
> Although as I've said before, too many people are invested in Teflon Tex for anything, _anything at all_ to stick.



I think you must be right Chuffy - as I have said his e-mails would basically destroy Lance and his team and the whole Livestrong myth.

I don't think Landis is mad - I think he has something on Lance. Otherwise he will be slaughtered in court.

I would have expected Lance's lawyers to have acted already, but nothing yet?


----------



## Chuffy (21 May 2010)

Tex is notoriously litigious but he also, IIRC, likes to settle stuff out of court if he knows that a court case would lead to potentially embarrassing revelations. I think that Landis is playing poker and Tex isn't _entirely_ sure what he might have in his hand....


----------



## lukesdad (21 May 2010)

Mangaman and Chuffy if you re relying on Landis you re clutching at straws.


----------



## Noodley (21 May 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Mangaman and Chuffy if you re relying on Landis you re clutching at straws.



What about if I add the weight of my pointing finger to it?


----------



## Chuffy (21 May 2010)

Relying on him for what? To bring down Tex and Bruyneel? No. To add to the picture we already have of the practices in US Postal and Discovery? Yes.


----------



## Chuffy (21 May 2010)

Noodley said:


> What about if I add the weight of my pointing finger to it?


J'accuse!


----------



## lukesdad (21 May 2010)

Well noodles thats a different matter I bow to your superior judgement. As usual Im not worthy...


----------



## Noodley (21 May 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Well noodles thats a different matter I bow to your superior judgement. As usual Im not worthy...



Case closed.


----------



## lukesdad (21 May 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Relying on him for what? To bring down Tex and Bruyneel? No. To add to the picture we already have of the practices in US Postal and Discovery? Yes.


No, you allready have! Not we!


----------



## Chuffy (21 May 2010)

lukesdad said:


> No, you allready have! Not we!


Once more, this time in English.


----------



## lukesdad (21 May 2010)

Eh !


----------



## Chuffy (21 May 2010)

Ah. I think I understand now. I mean 'we' to mean those of us who are not True Believers of the Church of St Lance. There might be one or two of us around on here...

Speaking of which, has Kennykool appeared yet?


----------



## mangaman (21 May 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Relying on him for what? To bring down Tex and Bruyneel? No. To add to the picture we already have of the practices in US Postal and Discovery? Yes.



I've got no idea what really happens but I suspect Flandis will do some serious damage to cycling - especially USP and Phonak. Like Chuffy, I'm not relying on anyone for anything.


----------



## lukesdad (21 May 2010)

Not at all.Youve obviously not been following the thread have you, just a snapshot of your own a opinion.


----------



## mangaman (21 May 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Not at all.Youve obviously not been following the thread have you, just a snapshot of your own a opinion.



I don't know if this is aimed at me 

If so I've no idea what you're blithering on about?

If it's aimed at someone else I apologise.

I think the next few days will reveal how this will pan out.


----------



## lukesdad (21 May 2010)

No its not aimed at you,bit slack on the posting, me blither.... perish the thought


----------



## lukesdad (21 May 2010)

Anyway. Whats the problem with LA! Look at all the Grand Tour winners since, and before They ve all been tarnished with the exception of Sastre. What is it...? He s rich?... He s American?... He s ?...Come on.... Lets hear It... Are.... He s made cycling Popular to the Mass s and we can thave that can we?


----------



## rich p (21 May 2010)

With regard to the supposed pay-off to the UCI, did anyone ever satisfactorily explain why LA donated $20K(?) to McQuaid last year?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 May 2010)

so we have the accusations of a self confessed liar and cheat, the track record of the most drug tested athlete in the history of sport who has yet to test positive, and a whole lot of innuendo with people largely advocating the pov they had of LA before the scandal broke, either he's a zero or a hero.

Why is LA so 'lucky' testing wise, over such a huge period of time, yet his colleagues and team mates and ex-team mates seem to have got caught with tedious regularity. Do we assume Indurain was a doper because he was so good?

nothing about cheating in professional sport ever surprises me, even when it disappoints me immensely.

Off to Paris today, hope my schoolboy French is up to reading the sports pages there.


----------



## kennykool (21 May 2010)

Suppose I should really have a post on here....

.....Load of rubbish! Landis is clutching at straws

That will be all.


----------



## Keith Oates (21 May 2010)

How a man who has spent all of his savings and a lot of his time trying to convince various people and institutions that he did not take drugs and can now turn around and say he did, is completely beyond my comprehension.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## User169 (21 May 2010)

mangaman said:


> I'll wait and see what Lance does,before rubbishung Landis's claims. If it's a slam dunk then he'll sue him and the evidence will come out
> 
> If he doesn't and neither do Hincapie/Levi/Bruyneel I'll find that suspicious to the point of an admission of guilt



I think that's a terribly unfair position to take. 

US courts (more accurately the lawyers) are notorious expensive - Landis is seemingly desitute, so isn't exactly going to be good for getting any costs or damages. Why should LA spend his own cash rebutting every outlandish claim made against him?


----------



## trustysteed (21 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> so we have the accusations of a self confessed liar and cheat, the track record of the most drug tested athlete in the history of sport who has yet to test positive, and a whole lot of innuendo with people largely advocating the pov they had of LA before the scandal broke, either he's a zero or a hero.
> 
> Why is LA so 'lucky' testing wise, over such a huge period of time, yet his colleagues and team mates and ex-team mates seem to have got caught with tedious regularity. Do we assume Indurain was a doper because he was so good?



totally agree, Greg.


----------



## raindog (21 May 2010)

Landis will be mocked and denigrated by the people he's accused, the truth will be glossed over or covered up and the circus will roll on.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (21 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> who has yet to test positive



Just to correct you, that is not strictly true - he has not _technically_ tested positive. However samples provided by Armstrong from the 1999 Tour have tested positive for EPO. It is just that the test used was not available at the time.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (21 May 2010)

> Landis will be mocked and denigrated by the people he's accused, the truth will be glossed over or covered up and the circus will roll on.


That's about the size of it. There is no way of knowing who is, or is not telling the truth. It's possible to selectively gleen enough information to support any position you like over this. If 'the most tested athlete' mantra works for you, that's fine.

But if you're as cold, impassionate and objective as me, there's just the whiff of something fishy going on.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 May 2010)

William Fotheringham hits the nail squarely on the head -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/may/20/floyd-landis


----------



## Chuffy (21 May 2010)

Another piece in todays Grauniad (Richard Williams this time, not Fotheringham). It's a pretty reasonable summary of the history behind all this. It seems that this story has enough traction that it's getting big coverage, which may in turn force WADA et al to take the allegations seriously and investigate accordingly. Ultimately though, unless Landis has more evidence than he's admitting to (and would Honest Floyd lie to us about that?) then it probably won't come to much. However, anything that puts a hedgehog in Team LA's pants is fine by me...


----------



## Ball (21 May 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> I think that's a terribly unfair position to take.
> 
> US courts (more accurately the lawyers) are notorious expensive - Landis is seemingly desitute, so isn't exactly going to be good for getting any costs or damages. Why should LA spend his own cash rebutting every outlandish claim made against him?




I totally agree. Taking the litigation route would not only be hugely costly, with very little hope of reclaiming that cost at the end, but also a long slog. A massive case like this would be wholly time consuming and emotionally draining, when I imagine Lance and his team just want to get on with doping...I mean racing, sorry, and don't want an enormous libel case to take over their lives for the forseeable future.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 May 2010)

Ball said:


> I totally agree. Taking the litigation route would not only be hugely costly, with very little hope of reclaiming that cost at the end, but also a long slog. A massive case like this would be wholly time consuming and emotionally draining, when I imagine Lance and his team just want to get on with doping...I mean racing, sorry, and don't want an enormous libel case to take over their lives for the forseeable future.


The trouble with going to court is if you _do_ have something to hide, you can never be sure what will come out and who else will decide to bat for the other team.

Armstrong is better off attacking Landis as a crank and leaving it to die down.


----------



## Chuffy (21 May 2010)

Ball said:


> I totally agree. Taking the litigation route would not only be hugely costly, with very little hope of reclaiming that cost at the end, but also a long slog. A massive case like this would be wholly time consuming and emotionally draining, when I imagine Lance and his team just want to get on with doping...I mean racing, sorry, and don't want an enormous libel case to take over their lives for the forseeable future.


I'm kind of on the fence here. 
Yes, litigation would be expensive (but Team LA has lots of money and lots of lawyers) and there would almost certainly be no money at the end of it, because Floyd doesn't have any. However, surely stomping Floyd into the ground, which would be dead easy if he really has no hard evidence, would serve as a sharp warning to anyone else who has tales to tell. Wouldn't that be a price worth paying? Or is Team LA actually nervous about the embarrasment that a court case could bring? After all, if Floyd sub-poenaed Hamilton, Andreu and co it could be very, very damaging to Team LA's credibility and business interests.


----------



## andy_wrx (21 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> the most drug tested athlete in the history of sport who has yet to test positive




Not that one again !

That description of Armstrong comes from...Armstrong himself

It's certainly not true - someone produced figures for those cyclists who had been tested and Lance was way down the list : the most tested were sprinters, as they tend to win more often so get tested the most.

At one time, the most tested athlete across all sports was Marion Jones, and we know how those tests failed to catch her out...


----------



## Crackle (21 May 2010)

Chuffy said:


> I'm kind of on the fence here.
> Yes, litigation would be expensive (but Team LA has lots of money and lots of lawyers) and there would almost certainly be no money at the end of it, because Floyd doesn't have any. However, surely stomping Floyd into the ground, which would be dead easy if he really has no hard evidence, would serve as a sharp warning to anyone else who has tales to tell. Wouldn't that be a price worth paying? Or is Team LA actually nervous about the embarrasment that a court case could bring? After all, if Floyd sub-poenaed Hamilton, Andreu and co it could be very, very damaging to Team LA's credibility and business interests.



I'm rubbish at Poker but even I'd call Landis's bluff here. Nothing in his history suggests anything other than him being just a bit short of a few brain cells. If he's got evidence, send me a wheel, I'll eat it.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 May 2010)

Chuffy said:


> I'm kind of on the fence here.
> Yes, litigation would be expensive (but Team LA has lots of money and lots of lawyers) and there would almost certainly be no money at the end of it, because Floyd doesn't have any. However, surely stomping Floyd into the ground, which would be dead easy if he really has no hard evidence, would serve as a sharp warning to anyone else who has tales to tell. Wouldn't that be a price worth paying? Or is Team LA actually nervous about the embarrasment that a court case could bring?* After all, if Floyd sub-poenaed Hamilton, Andreu and co it could be very, very damaging to Team LA's credibility and business interests*.


Not to mention Lance's medical records.


----------



## Chuffy (21 May 2010)

I told you not to mention Lance's medical records!


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 May 2010)

Chuffy said:


> I told you not to mention Lance's medical records!


I was just confirming I wasn't going to mention Lance's medical records.


----------



## yello (21 May 2010)

no, *I'm* the most tested athlete of all time... and so is my wife


----------



## dellzeqq (21 May 2010)

Keith Oates said:


> How a man who has spent all of his savings and a lot of his time trying to convince various people and institutions that he did not take drugs and can now turn around and say he did, is completely beyond my comprehension.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I think Oatsy needs testing. No human being can produce 49 exclamation marks without chemical assistance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuffy (21 May 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> I was just confirming I wasn't going to mention Lance's medical records.


Excellent. We're agreed then. We're not mentioning Lance Armstrong's medical records.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 May 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Excellent. We're agreed then. We're not mentioning Lance Armstrong's medical records.


Well put, Chuffy.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind seeing his doctor's reports...


----------



## Chuffy (21 May 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> Well put, Chuffy.
> 
> Mind you, I wouldn't mind seeing his doctor's reports...


Which doctor's reports? Or should that be witch doctor? 

PS - new Toto. "Owls have a strict weight limit"


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 May 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Which doctor's reports? Or should that be witch doctor?
> 
> PS - new Toto. "Owls have a strict weight limit"



Witch doctor?

You mean Dr Who, surely


----------



## Chuffy (22 May 2010)

Oh we know who he is...
Glass of orange juice anyone?


----------



## Chuffy (22 May 2010)

Guardian have an instant poll on whether people believe in Lance or not. THESE INSTANT POLLS ARE NOT RELIABLE and I should know, being in the same line of work. However, I am surprised at the split in the vote. 

Given the amount of coverage this story has received, not just in the cycling media, does this suggest that we are on the verge of a seismic shift in public attitudes towards St Lance?


----------



## rich p (22 May 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/may/21/lance-armstrong-floyd-landis-media-doping

This article sums it up for me. 
Sounds authentic but no proof. Someone may probe deeper but it aint going to be the UCI.


----------



## mangaman (22 May 2010)

rich p said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/may/21/lance-armstrong-floyd-landis-media-doping
> 
> This article sums it up for me.
> Sounds authentic but no proof. Someone may probe deeper but it aint going to be the UCI.



Sounds as if they are going to investigate (ie the USADA, WADA and eventhe FDA) and use retrospective samples and reananlise them again.

If so, hopefully the truth will out either way and the matter can be resolved.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 May 2010)

There is a hint on Cyclingnews today that this may start to go deeper after all. It seems that two anonymous individuals (but apparently amongst those named by Landis) may now be 'cooperating' in return for leniency... this could run and run.


----------



## trustysteed (22 May 2010)

I am an unashamed Lance fan and I will be gutted if it turns out he has been doping all along. What has struck me with all the dopers that have been caught, is that they have all been pretty much completely self-serving. I find it hard to believe that someone who has put together such a great cancer foundation to help other people would do that. So, until there's definitive proof, I shall continue to admire, support and believe in Lance who is still one of my sporting heroes along with Ayrton Senna.


----------



## andy_wrx (22 May 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Guardian have an instant poll on whether people believe in Lance or not. THESE INSTANT POLLS ARE NOT RELIABLE and I should know, being in the same line of work. However, I am surprised at the split in the vote.
> 
> Given the amount of coverage this story has received, not just in the cycling media, does this suggest that we are on the verge of a seismic shift in public attitudes towards St Lance?




After the latest in a series of allegations about doping in cycling, do you still believe in Lance Armstrong and his seven Tour de France wins?
> Yes
> No

I had trouble answering that. 
_
Still believe_ ?
No, 'cos I haven't believed for probably 7 or 8 years.

How about, "after all the evidence which has been available for so long, are you surprised by these latest allegations ?"


----------



## raindog (22 May 2010)

andy_wrx said:


> _
> Still believe_ ?
> No, 'cos I haven't believed for probably 7 or 8 years.
> 
> How about, "after all the evidence which has been available for so long, are you surprised by these latest allegations ?"


LOL
I was looking for another box to tick too, but couldn't find one


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> There is a hint on Cyclingnews today that this may start to go deeper after all. It seems that two anonymous individuals (but apparently amongst those named by Landis) may now be 'cooperating' in return for leniency... this could run and run.


There is a report in the New York Times to that effect.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/sports/cycling/22cycling.html


----------



## Fab Foodie (23 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> There is a hint on Cyclingnews today that this may start to go deeper after all. It seems that two anonymous individuals (but apparently amongst those named by Landis) may now be 'cooperating' in return for leniency... this could run and run.



Yep, just in time for a big expose in say July? When the world is watching, what better way to make a few bucks?

Unfortunately this is likely to detract from the efforts on the road with the race taking second place in the world media.


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 May 2010)

According to The Times, Armstrong's ex-wife is co-operating with the authorities -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article7133884.ece

I've got a feeling the pin is about to be pulled.


----------



## iLB (23 May 2010)

i don't know if you linked the wrong story, but i didn't get that impression at all...


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 May 2010)

iLB said:


> i don't know if you linked the wrong story, but i didn't get that impression at all...


On the second page...

"The United States Anti-Doping Authority has taken a different line and appointed the federal investigator Jeff Novitzky to the case. Landis and Armstrong’s former wife are understood to be co-operating".


----------



## iLB (23 May 2010)

ahh second page, doh


----------



## eldudino (23 May 2010)

I think it's funny that the blood was stored in a small fridge in Armstrong's apartment. Surely people would've seen this fridge and asked questions? Landis' story all seems a bit thrown together to me.


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 May 2010)

eldudino said:


> I think it's funny that the blood was stored in a small fridge in Armstrong's apartment. Surely people would've seen this fridge and asked questions? Landis' story all seems a bit thrown together to me.


No one has ever queried why I have a fridge.


----------



## eldudino (23 May 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> No one has ever queried why I have a fridge.



A separate fridge, I would expect LA to have a pretty slick kitchen and not a separate wee fridge hanging around somewhere.


----------



## Telemark (23 May 2010)

eldudino said:


> A separate fridge, I would expect LA to have a pretty slick kitchen and not a separate wee fridge hanging around somewhere.



 you wouldn't want to accidentally use the wrong ingredients for freshly made black pudding, would you! 

Mind you, Americans love their fridges, the bigger the better for the main one, and small mini-bar style ones in other rooms are apparently not unknown in more up-market accommodation ....

T


----------



## rich p (23 May 2010)

Interesting if Kik spills the beans but she may be financially beholden to LA


----------



## mangaman (23 May 2010)

eldudino said:


> I think it's funny that the blood was stored in a small fridge in Armstrong's apartment. Surely people would've seen this fridge and asked questions? Landis' story all seems a bit thrown together to me.



People who saw the fridge were probably well aware of it's contents

That's the point Landis is making - it was institutionalised and they all knew about it.

I doubt the fridge was on public display, next to his food fridge - that would have been odd. Probably in a spare room or even a shed/garage so only people in the know would see it


----------



## eldudino (23 May 2010)

If it were I with a fridge full of blood I wouldn't have it on my property, that's more my point. I think it's a pretty risky thing to have hanging around, too big a risk IMO. The truth will out anyway, it'll be a good story, whatever the outcome!


----------



## Crackle (23 May 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> On the second page...
> 
> "The United States Anti-Doping Authority has taken a different line and appointed the federal investigator Jeff Novitzky to the case. Landis and Armstrong’s former wife are understood to be co-operating".



It means nothing in itself though. Just that they've chosen to answer some questions, it justs sounds better spun with the 'co-operation' tag.


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 May 2010)

If you google Jeff Novitzky you'll find he is not a blazer from the UCI who might not want to uncover too much in case it damaged the sport, but a Federal Investigator with plenty of form.

To quote from the Times article again,

"If Novitzky concludes that US Postal did run a doping programme, Armstrong and others could face charges. Through Tailwind Sports, the US Postal team was funded by taxpayers’ money. The penalties for misusing such funds are draconian".


----------



## Noodley (24 May 2010)

eldudino said:


> A separate fridge, I would expect LA to have a pretty slick kitchen and not a separate wee fridge hanging around somewhere.



I can see LA using that as a defence:

LA: "My kitchen is too slick for me to have a fridge full of blood"
Prosecution: "..but what about this slick SMEG we found...."
LA: "shoot"
Prosecution: "Nope, blood"


----------



## Crankarm (25 May 2010)

Who ever gets the first authorative account of the last 10-15 years of doping in cycling published could make a mint. Perhaps this is what FL is now considering? Lucrative film rights? More the Godfather than the Bob Champion story I would have thought. FL could definitely be portrayed as a Fredo - the hapless brother who becomes a liability to the family.......


----------



## rustychisel (25 May 2010)

trustysteed said:


> I am an unashamed Lance fan and I will be gutted if it turns out he has been doping all along. What has struck me with all the dopers that have been caught, is that they have all been pretty much completely self-serving. I find it hard to believe that someone who has put together such a great cancer foundation to help other people would do that. So, until there's definitive proof, I shall continue to admire, support and believe in Lance who is still one of my sporting heroes along with Ayrton Senna.




really sorry to be the one who has to break the news, but Ayrton Senna died quite some years ago...


----------



## MacB (25 May 2010)

It's easy to shoot at Landis, once a liar...., if this was all happening why hasn't it come to light, too many test for people to get away with it, etc.

Then look at Tiger Woods


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2010)

If LA can't win multiple tours without being a doper then what about other multiple tour winners? Or is it only because he is a Yank that people suspect him and assume the past and current european 'greats' are all as clean as a whistle.

It's a dirty sport but someone's got to do it. To paraphrase the song. 

The cynic might say surely it is far easier, and the weight of evidence, circumstantial or othwerwise, seems to bear this out, to beleive, odds on, that they are ALL dopers at some point in their careers.

But, as in all matters relating to the Tour, you're innocent until proven guilty unless you are an American. Why, in some people's minds, is a lower standard of proof (if proof is innuenedo, suspicion, circumstantial evidence, tests done years after samples were taken, test done outside the official testing frameworks, etc., etc..) required for non-European competitors?


----------



## trustysteed (25 May 2010)

and why do people keep saying eddie merckx is the greatest rider ever yet he doped with the rest of them in his career?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> But, as in all matters relating to the Tour, you're innocent until proven guilty unless you are an American.



Greg, this is a load of balls. And you appear not to have read anything in this thread or anywhere else about this as you are pretty much repeating what you wrote earlier.


----------



## raindog (25 May 2010)

trustysteed said:


> and why do people keep saying eddie merckx is the greatest rider ever yet he doped with the rest of them in his career?


The doping that went on before epo was invented was on a small scale and seems almost innocent these days. They were taking amphetamines and the like, which is only what rock-stars take to stay awake whilst on tour. I've not long finished reading Fignon's autobiography which was a bit of an eye opener. He first took amphetamines while riding a six day track event, where the conditions for the riders were pretty primitive, with a mattress on the floor for sleeping and a communal "bucket on the floor to p ss in", after a couple of days he was so tired through lack of sleep that someone gave him some pills to pop so he could finish the event. Personally I can forgive anyone in that era doing that, although technically forbiden, it's hardly a crime against humanity, but systematic blood doping has taken peds to a completely different level imo. Epo was just being introduced into the peloton when Fignon was about to retire, and he was offered some, while riding riding for the Italian Gatorade team, but refused.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2010)

Armstrong only scrapes into the Top Ten on what is probably the fairest and most careful list of the greatest cyclists ever... Merckx is by some distance the greatest. (You can check their methodology here)

Armstrong is still a top cyclist of course - certainly the greatest still riding today - doped or not, but it's his attitude to those who have talked about doping in the peloton that I think annoys people more than anything else, and makes them think he has something to hide. He is, by a lot of accounts, a pretty merciless and unpleasant character.


----------



## lukesdad (25 May 2010)

Most of the best were in their riding days, I think you ll find.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Greg, this is a load of balls. And you appear not to have read anything in this thread or anywhere else about this as you are pretty much repeating what you wrote earlier.



wrong wrong and wronger. 

The 'arguments' put forward in this thread, and elsewhere, have failed, yet again, to convince many people. I had the benefit of reading the French sporting press over the last weekend, and indeed over the last several years, in the company of some French cycling mates. I also well recall the bias in some sections of the press towards Greg LeMond when he was competing

Marion Jones = Lance Armstrong? I think not. Jones was alledged, in the Summer of 06 by the press, (The Washington Post no less, a paper with impecable investigative credentials) to have failed a properly conducted drug test and promptly withdrew from competition, and promptly copped a plea. Why was that then do you think? Turned out the B sample was clean, so was the press report a bluff!

LA has been accussed of all sorts yet responds with "catch me, I'm clean, here is a hyperbolic statement to support that, challenge me if you've got proof that satisfies the system". He must have huge stones (or maybe not)

That is the way the law works. Proof is required. Until then I can't see how any one can argue that LA is a cheat or not....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Armstrong is, by a lot of accounts, a pretty merciless and unpleasant character.



Really? I'm gonna have a heart attack and die of not surprised. That must be why the Tour greats, and other top athletes, have nicknames like "nice guy eddy", rather than "the cannibal", "the animal" or "the badger".

Winning things in sport, and elsewhere, generally requires a degree of remorselessness, a lack of pity, of mercy and a huge amount of focus on coming first.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Really? I'm gonna have a heart attack and die of not surprised. That must be why the Tour greats, and other top athletes, have nicknames like "nice guy eddy", rather than "the cannibal", "the animal" or "the badger".



I am not talking about his attitude to winning, as well you know; I am talking about his attitude to people in the peloton who speak out on drugs. As I said, you seem to ignore almost everything that contradicts your chosen view on Lance. We know he hasn't failed an official drugs test, but we also know what he has done to others who have spoken out, and we also know that he has failed at least one retrospective test for a substance for which there were not regular tests at the time (which of course is not an official test). And we also know that a lot of people associated with him have made quite substantial claims about his practices, rather too many IMHO for it to be just a result of bitterness or jealousy or anything else.


----------



## rich p (25 May 2010)

I'm not sure where you get this perception of anti-American bias, Greg. We, in general on here, had massive but unproven doubts about Ricco, Basso, Sella, Contador, Vino, Valverde, Rasmussen, Piepoli.....ad nauseam, none of whom are American. The evidence against them is either compelling but not proven, circumstantial, non-existant but fishy throughout the spectrum.
In fact most of us thought Tyler Hamilton was clean and courageous and applauded Landis for a wonderfully gutsy fightback on Stage 17!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2010)

rich p said:


> I'm not sure where you get this perception of anti-American bias, Greg. We, in general on here, had massive but unproven doubts about Ricco, Basso, Sella, Contador, Vino, Valverde, Rasmussen, Piepoli.....ad nauseam, none of whom are American. The evidence against them is either compelling but not proven, circumstantial, non-existant but fishy throughout the spectrum.
> In fact most of us thought Tyler Hamilton was clean and courageous and applauded Landis for a wonderfully gutsy fightback on Stage 17!



Yeah, exactly. Greg is just parroting the official line of the Cult of Lance.


----------



## Crankarm (25 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I am not talking about his attitude to winning, as well you know; I am talking about his attitude to people in the peloton who speak out on drugs. As I said, you seem to ignore almost everything that contradicts your chosen view on Lance. We know he hasn't failed an official drugs test, but we also know what he has done to others who have spoken out, and we also know that he has failed at least one retrospective test for a substance for which there were not regular tests at the time (which of course is not an official test). And we also know that a lot of people associated with him have made quite substantial claims about his practices, rather too many IMHO for it to be just a result of bitterness or jealousy or anything else.



You've got your finger firmly on the gossip button . You seem to know an awful lot of stuff about LA, what he has done, what he hasn't done ............. I suspect you might have been stalking him . Unless of course you are relying on 3rd, 4th or 5th person accounts of what is alleged to have happened or not?


----------



## rich p (25 May 2010)

rich p said:


> With regard to the supposed pay-off to the UCI, did anyone ever satisfactorily explain why LA donated $20K(?) to McQuaid last year?



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-uci-needs-more-transparency

Sorry, I meant $100K Well, that's cleared that up then


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Unless of course you are relying on 3rd, 4th or 5th person accounts of what is alleged to have happened or not?



2nd mostly - but that's the same way we find out about anything in pro-cycling, isn't it? Lots of backtracking by the UCI today BTW, saying it was a 'mistake' to accept Lance's donation and asking for investigations of four people named by Landis...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-acknowledges-accepting-armstrong-donation-a-mistake


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2010)

rich p said:


> In fact most of us thought Tyler Hamilton was clean and courageous and applauded Landis for a wonderfully gutsy fightback on Stage 17!


I remember screaming "doper" at the TV along with my friends. Funny that. Lazurus he was not.

I am not accusing this forum of anit-american bias I am accusing the media of anti-Armstrong bias btw, and since most forum-ites get their opinions via the media......

Nothing has been proved but speculation is rife. When (if) it is I will be in the forefront of those calling for him to be striped of his titles and flogged.

In the mean time I just ask myself "Why does he not get caught when they seem to catch nigh on everyone else?" and "Why are cycle sport fans surprised/disappointed when so-and-so tests positive?" It is a dirty sport, always has been and always will be. The assumption should surely be that most, if not all, GC leaderboard contenders are doping at some point or another.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Yeah, exactly. Greg is just parroting the official line of the Cult of Lance.




Do try and muster a sensible argument instead of attacking me. 

I'm simply acting as an agent provocateur, my involvement in the Cult of Lance ended when he failed to win on his comeback. What a loser.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I am not talking about his attitude to winning, as well you know; I am talking about his attitude to people in the peloton who speak out on drugs. As I said, you seem to ignore almost everything that contradicts your chosen view on Lance. We know he hasn't failed an official drugs test, but we also know what he has done to others who have spoken out, and we also know that he has failed at least one retrospective test for a substance for which there were not regular tests at the time (which of course is not an official test). And we also know that a lot of people associated with him have made quite substantial claims about his practices, rather too many IMHO for it to be just a result of bitterness or jealousy or anything else.




You made an unequivocal statement about the man's character in general.

How would you characterise his attitude to those who speak out on drugs in cycling. Plenty of otherwise clean athletes in other sports, some of which it has been my good fortune to play with, also speak in similar terms of those who out the issue. Why is this do you think?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (25 May 2010)

> The assumption should surely be that most, if not all, GC leaderboard contenders are doping at some point or another.


Correct.



> "Why does he not get caught when they seem to catch nigh on everyone else?"


It's possible that they don't catch nigh on everyone else. Maybe they only catch the over zealous or the sloppy. Perhaps we only catch a tiny minority. 



> "Why are cycle sport fans surprised/disappointed when so-and-so tests positive?"


I think it's quite nice that most sports fans are obviously optimists who want to think the best of people. 
Doesn't mean they're right.

Until the whole of doping is laid bare, we have no idea as to the magnitude of the problem. We're lead to believe we're seeing the last dying twitches of a bad, bad, bygone age. But how do we know? Perhaps they've all moved on to a new, undetectable phase. We just don't know. So when someone makes an allegation we have to examine the evidence and judge it purely on it's merits.


----------



## rich p (25 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> I am not accusing this forum of anit-american bias I am accusing the media of anti-Armstrong  bias btw, and since most forum-ites get their opinions via the media......
> .



??? That seems to imply that as we read the media, we are therefore anti -us???
The media, seem to suck up everything from LA to me, from his Godlike anti cancer malarkey to Planet Armstrong. I've rarely heard press criticism of him.

If you're allowed to shout 'doper' at Landis before you had proof why aren't others allowed to do the same with regard to LA, Basso etc?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> How would you characterise his attitude to those who speak out on drugs in cycling.



He is thoroughly nasty towards them - witness Simeoni.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2010)

rich p said:


> ??? That seems to imply that as we read the media, we are therefore anti -us???
> The media, seem to suck up everything from LA to me, from his Godlike anti cancer malarkey to Planet Armstrong. I've rarely heard press criticism of him.
> 
> If you're allowed to shout 'doper' at Landis before you had proof why aren't others allowed to do the same with regard to LA, Basso etc?



Perhaps we read different papers, then, and perhaps in different languages at times....

As for my name calling when have I said you can't do it..... just I would not have expected anyone to take my accusing Landis seriously neither can you expect anyone to take your accusing LA, et al, seriously in the absence of any substantive proof.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Perhaps we read different papers, then, and perhaps in different languages at times....



Yeah, but you said 'the media' (if you're going to accuse others of generalisation...). And I certainly don't get the impression that there is an anti-Armstrong bias in the media in general - very much the opposite. But it's clear that those journalists _who know about cycling_ have deep suspicions.


----------



## Origamist (25 May 2010)

Another Landis interview: 

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...e_d&id=5215959


----------



## Landslide (25 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> ...my involvement in the Cult of Lance ended when he failed to win on his comeback. What a loser.



Ha!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Yeah, but you said 'the media' (if you're going to accuse others of generalisation...). And I certainly don't get the impression that there is an anti-Armstrong bias in the media in general - very much the opposite. But it's clear that those journalists _who know about cycling_ have deep suspicions.



This is a cycling forum. So when I say media I don't mean 'Top Gear' magazine. I'm could not care less about what Heat magazine or Hello or some Sunday lifestyle supplement has to say about him. 

I'm talking about him, and what the media have to say about him, as an athlete/competitor. I don't give a feck what he has, or they have, to say about about what he does off, and unrelated, to the bike; that's just the usual "this week's Messiah" / "build 'em up and knock 'em down" celeb obsessed nonsense.

Sections of the French sporting press, generally more expert in cycling matters than all but a very few UK journo's, have been on his case for a very long time yet others, now proven to be dopers, have escaped their attentions. He has never been caught, yet others have been found with their pants round their ankles, get their wrists splapped and are allowed back to compete again.....

I find that all a bit odd, and I find it odder still that anyone who says "innocent until proven guilty, by the standards and tribunals of the sport" is accussed of being part of the Cult of whatever.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> He is thoroughly nasty towards them - witness Simeoni.



Why do you think that might be? Can you construe a position where a clean competitor might think another speaking out about drugs is less than contructive and possibly even harmful to a sport?


----------



## yello (25 May 2010)

I was reading an old thread when I came across this comment...



rich p said:


> I can't help wondering if him being nice to Landis is because Floyd has some dirt on him from the USP days



("him", in that context, being Lance Armstrong)

I guess any such truce is now over! Oh, and I draw particularly draw your attention to the post that followed the above...



Chuffy said:


> Cute theory. However, I don’t think that Landis or any other ex-Postie/Disco rider could possibly have anything strong enough to do any damage. The only exception would be Hincapie, perhaps. His cult has become so strong and there is so much history now that even if Landis published video of himself and LA sipping on homologous Type O and knocking back EPO cocktails the day before a team TT he would still be dismissed as just another jealous hater with a grudge. Team LA would do a hatchet job on him, the fanboys would never, ever accept anything that cast aspersions on their hero and the whole thing would be rapidly obscured in a cloud of ink from the lawyers. Nothing, and I do mean _nothing_ short of a personal confession, and maybe not even that, would have any real impact.


----------



## mangaman (25 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Why do you think that might be? Can you construe a position where a clean competitor might think another speaking out about drugs is less than contructive and possibly even harmful to a sport?



This is crazy - of course I can't condone a rider criticising another for even talking about doping. Are you saying the "omerta" is justified?

What about Bassons who was clean and had his career ruined by Armstrong for writing about it just after the Festina affair (and actually being verbally abused during the 1999 tour by Lance while Lance's 1999 test turned out to be positive for EPO!)

I think L'Equipe is anti Lance for that reason. It's not anti-American.

Greg Lemond is very popular there. as is Hincapie.

It doesn't just go after Lance either - the whole French sting which caught Ricco et al at the TDF was warmly applauded by L'Equipe


----------



## yello (25 May 2010)

mangaman said:


> Greg Lemond is very popular there. as is Hincapie.



Actually, as is Armstrong... just not with certain sections of the media and cycling fraternity.


----------



## rich p (25 May 2010)

yello said:


> I was reading an old thread when I came across this comment...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Blimey, what prescience!!!

Thanks Yello


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2010)

mangaman said:


> This is crazy



Of course it is.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Of course it is.



More shrewd incisive analysis of a complex problem.

Mangaman, Flying Monkey, go read some of the comments made over the years by professional rugby league and rugby union players and administrators. Maybe even draw a conclusion or two about the sheer lack of comment. 

I didn't say omerta was justified, but clearly in the minds of many clean sportsmen it is preferable to the alternatives.


----------



## mangaman (25 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> More shrewd incisive analysis of a complex problem.
> 
> Mangaman, Flying Monkey, go read some of the comments made over the years by professional rugby league and rugby union players and administrators. Maybe even draw a conclusion or two about the sheer lack of comment.
> 
> I didn't say omerta was justified, but clearly in the minds of many clean sportsmen it is preferable to the alternatives.



Sorry- I'm not interseted in rugby. What conceivable connection has it got to this thread anyway?

Can you justify your claim a clean cyclist - eg Bassons ( the reason I return to him is because the Festina team, under oath, testified he was the only clean rider in the team )

Why would a clean rider prefer the omerta? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Imagine in your job 60% of employees are cheating - eg fiddling expenses. 

You aren't. Apart from cowardice, what moral position could you come up with if you had evidence your colleagues were lying and thieving, and decide to say nothing - not just costing your employer, but also yourself, as you would earn less?


----------



## Crackle (25 May 2010)

yello said:


> Actually, as is Armstrong... just not with certain sections of the media and cycling fraternity.


Yes, I was surprised to find Frenchmen cheering him at the roadside and in bars, I thought he was universally disliked by the French but not at all.


----------



## mangaman (25 May 2010)

Crackle said:


> Yes, I was surprised to find Frenchmen cheering him at the roadside and in bars, I thought he was universally disliked by the French but not at all.




Come on crackle - don't ruin Greg's conspiracy theory with 1st hand accounts of real people


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> More shrewd incisive analysis of a complex problem.



I was simply agreeing with Mangaman, as well you know. You appear to lack the knowledge of professional cycling or the good faith necessary to debate this issue as you are ignoring any of the specific issues raised by him, by me or by anyone else, merely asserting, selectively quoting, and misreading, and then trying to twist around to other sports entirely. It is you who should deal with the issues in _cycle racing_ (you know the subject of the forum) raised here, not demand that others deal with rugby!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I was simply agreeing with Mangaman, as well you know. You appear to lack the knowledge of professional cycling or the good faith necessary to debate this issue as you are ignoring any of the specific issues raised by him, by me or by anyone else, merely asserting, selectively quoting, and misreading, and then trying to twist around to other sports entirely. It is you who should deal with the issues in _cycle racing_ (you know the subject of the forum) raised here, not demand that others deal with rugby!




Fly away monkey boy, you have no idea what my knowledge of pro bike racing is or what my good faith does or does not extend to. 

I hope if I'm ever unfortunate enough to be in the dock then the jury members will be a little more sensitive the rules of evidence than the anti-LA camp are.


----------



## Crackle (26 May 2010)

Greg, if you go back, you'll find a lot of stuff discussing Armstrong. Here's one I picked out because it was one I was involved with and one where I've defended him. As an admirer of Armstrong it's been a slow and bitter realisation for me that this could be more than conjecture, rumour and bad blood.

Within that thread is a link to an extract of LA confidential written by Walsh. I did read the whole book after finding it on the internet, those links are now gone but there's a fair amount of discussion about it and his follow up book and the whole question of doping and blood tests and it's not hard to find, difficult to make sense of but not hard to find.


----------



## kennykool (26 May 2010)

Are we still talking about this?

Jeez Louise - I am officially bored of reading the same comments again and again on this site.

Has he been found guilty - NO
Has he ever failed a test - NO
Is there even a case getting built against him - NO

get on with your lives people

Landis is a mentalist - simple as that!


----------



## John the Monkey (26 May 2010)

kennykool said:


> Landis is a mentalist - simple as that!


...and Greg Lemond's just a crazy old guy, and Frankie... and so on.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Fly away monkey boy, you have no idea what my knowledge of pro bike racing is or what my good faith does or does not extend to



Both are demonstrable.


----------



## yello (26 May 2010)

kennykool said:


> Has he ever failed a test - NO



That's not quite true. He has retrospectively and also in competition, for which a doctor's note was produced. 

But for the sake of argument, no he hasn't.


----------



## just jim (26 May 2010)

yello said:


> But for the sake of argument, no he hasn't.



Result!


----------



## just jim (26 May 2010)

All these pithy Lance Lines has really whetted my appetite for The Tour this year so, personally like, this thread has been a complete success.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 May 2010)

Crackle said:


> Greg, if you go back, you'll find a lot of stuff discussing Armstrong. Here's one I picked out because it was one I was involved with and one where I've defended him. As an admirer of Armstrong it's been a slow and bitter realisation for me that this could be more than conjecture, rumour and bad blood.
> 
> Within that thread is a link to an extract of LA confidential written by Walsh. I did read the whole book after finding it on the internet, those links are now gone but there's a fair amount of discussion about it and his follow up book and the whole question of doping and blood tests and it's not hard to find, difficult to make sense of but not hard to find.



I'm not new to this. I've probably read every word published about the issue.

I'm almost certain he is or has been a doper. What gives me this certitude? Why, nothing more than the probability that they all are. Have I had direct first hand experience of dopers in pro cycling. Nope. In other sports? Yep. Did I denounce them? Nope. Did that mean I was a doper too? Nope. Have I seen others turn a blind eye to malfeasance in other spheres of human activity because of a misplaced/distorted code of honour? Yep.

Do I have any proof LA is dirty? Nope. Not a shred. Does anyone? Not so far. Has he been found guilty of anything by anyone? Nope. Not once to date. Have loads of others got caught over the same time period as he has been competing for the same offences? Yep, shedloads. Do a load of has-beens, and never-was's, like me, and narcissistic cycle forumites, also like me, constantly sound off that they know he is guilty. Yep. On what basis? Cos they read about it in the papers. 

Do I believe in the fundamental principal of Anglo-Saxon justice that someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. You bet your damned life I do.

You say he is dirty. Fine. PROVE IT.The debate will end and I will salute you for it.


----------



## Harbornite (26 May 2010)

Not sure if this has been posted before:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article7133884.ece

Apologies if it has, second page is interesting...lots of _'bitter people' _


----------



## kennykool (26 May 2010)

Well said Greg!!!!!!


Although I don't think he has ever been naughty. 

But yeah if someone shows me proof that he has then fair doos....I will still respect him the saw way I still respect Marco Pantani. Both are legends in my eyes


----------



## montage (26 May 2010)

Anybody who is better than me at cycling is a doper. fact.


----------



## mangaman (26 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> I'm not new to this. I've probably read every word published about the issue.
> 
> I'm almost certain he is or has been a doper. .




Wow - that really makes me wonder about your earlier posts - ad hominem attacks against Flying Monkey especially - for implying Lance is a doper.

Yet you're "almost certain" he is?

What's you're agenda? If you're "almost certain" Lance is doping, but launch personal attacks against people like Flying monkey and me, who are saying the same, what is your point?

The only thing I can think of is you see doping as a good thing and it's Lance's cleverness that you are applauding.

Or you are a just trolling?


----------



## dellzeqq (26 May 2010)

well Lance is second to none in dividing reasonable people...

I think, FM, that the list is balls. Much as I admire Louison Bobet he is so far from being in Lance's league that it's embarrassing. People criticise Lance for being a one race man, and it's a fair criticism, but if you asked Sean Kelly whether he would swap his four or five green jerseys plus seven wins of the Paris Nice for three yellow jersey's, let alone seven, my guess is that he'd have your hand off. 

Lance is phenomenal. His durability is extraordinay - world champion at 21, and podium finish at 37. I think only Bartali compares, and it might be that, had the war not interrupted his career, he would have won many more TdFs - but he didn't, and he has two to Lance's seven.


----------



## rich p (26 May 2010)

mangaman said:


> Wow - that really makes me wonder about your earlier posts - ad hominem attacks against Flying Monkey especially - for implying Lance is a doper.
> 
> Yet you're "almost certain" he is?
> 
> ...





This a thread that started with a legitimate, reasoned debate about Landis' accusations and apparent eyewitness accounts of organized doping which Greg has turned into a slightly bitter and aggressive personalized attack at those of us who think there is a case to answer. Whether or not you agree with the view that the circumstantial evidence amounts to a hill of beans is neither here nor there in terms of the law. This forum is not a court of law where proof is required, it's a free and hopefully friendly discussion of the issues, where no concensus will be arrived at but everyone will have had their say. To be honest I'm disappointed with the tone and I will dip out of this one now.


----------



## mangaman (26 May 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> , but if you asked Sean Kelly whether he would swap his four or five green jerseys plus seven wins of the Paris Nice for three yellow jersey's, let alone seven, my guess is that he'd have your hand off.




So are we forgetting Kelly's 

2 Milan San Remos
2 Paris Roubaix
2 Liege-Bostogne-Liege
3 Giro di Lombardia
1 Vuelta win ?

I think he would be pretty satisfied with one of the best all round cycling careers in history.

Other races than the tdf do exist, of course 

If you look at the above - Milan San Remo is considered the sprinters' classic

Paris Roubaix is the "hard man's race"

L-B-L is a hilly claasic usually won by the stage racers, as is the Lombardia.

Altogether a remarkable career by any standards. I've not met him, but I get the feeling he's quite satisfied with the way his career went.


----------



## Skip Madness (27 May 2010)

Armstrong's seven victories are an incredible achievement, but - and I say this as someone who is a great admirer of Armstrong's athletic talent and fortitude if not his character - if I had the choice of whose palmarès I would take between Kelly's and Armstrong's, it'd be Kelly's every time.

No question mark required on the Vuelta win, either - the question mark is over whether he should really have had two.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 May 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I think, FM, that the list is balls. Much as I admire Louison Bobet he is so far from being in Lance's league that it's embarrassing.



Well, the unadjusted version is remarkably similar to other ratings that have been produced. Perhaps you'd like to look at the methodology and tell us what exactly is 'balls'. I am not saying it isn't but I'd be interested in your reasoning.

Bobet possesses some of the most impressive palmares of anyone - he's certainly the 3rd best ever French road cyclist... but take a look yourself, particularly at the years 1951-1956. I don't think Armstrong ever won so many races, and such a variety of different types of races for so many years and also took the TdF for many of them. Even so, his multiple wins in the TdF still put him above Bobet, even without any adjustment for Armstrong's missing years. So yes, Lance is rated a better cyclist but to suggest that it is 'embarrassing' to find Bobet in his company is rather silly.

I think, BTW, that a lot of people would argue that Kelly was a better all-round racing cyclist than Armstrong - who, let me repeat again, I believe to be (by some distance) the greatest rider currently active. What any individual cyclist would value in terms of wins and in which races is an entirely different and personal question.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 May 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> well Lance is second to none in dividing reasonable people...



very true. he is even capable of dividing the minds of individuals... like me.

Flying Monkey, mangaman, rich p, everybody.... I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused. If anything I've said did, that was not my intention.

I've had a certain amount of direct and recent experience of the court, albeit a small court, of public opinion, muck sticking, and what it feels like to be unjustly accused of cheating when you haven't in a sporting context. One thing I fail to understand is why cycling fans (or other competitors) who are convinced by the evidence that LA is a cheat, well frankly, why don't they take some sort of direct action? Write to the team sponsors, the broadcasters, or go and sit in the road when he is competing, turn their backs on him when he rides by, put a broom handle through his spokes, something, anything.... other than bandying about accusations in forums.

Anyway I think there are _critical_ principals at stake in this issue regardless of my personal opinion on the matter of whether or not he is a doper, which I'm ambivalent about to be honest, and I will argue those principals robustly. (and perhaps not always fairly, or politely which does my cause no good...) 

My last words on this thread are .... I'm sorry.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Flying Monkey, mangaman, rich p, everybody.... I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused. If anything I've said did, that was not my intention.



You've certainly not caused me any offence, just some very minor frustration! But it's unusual enough to see anyone take a step back on an Internet forum, so for that you certainly have my admiration. Until next time...


----------



## trustysteed (27 May 2010)

if LA did cheat with EPO in the 99 TDF, and those samples were positive, how has he managed the other 6 TDF wins without being caught as surely he would have (and has) been tested multiple times over those years.

not excusing that 99 win if he did cheat, but if he hasn't tested positive since and therefore assuming he's clean, he's done pretty well to win a record 6 TDF's?


----------



## wafflycat (27 May 2010)

trustysteed said:


> if LA did cheat with EPO in the 99 TDF, and those samples were positive, how has he managed the other 6 TDF wins without being caught as surely he would have (and has) been tested multiple times over those years.
> 
> not excusing that 99 win if he did cheat, but if he hasn't tested positive since and therefore assuming he's clean, he's done pretty well to win a record 6 TDF's?




David Millar never failed a drugs test...


----------



## dellzeqq (27 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Well, the unadjusted version is remarkably similar to other ratings that have been produced. Perhaps you'd like to look at the methodology and tell us what exactly is 'balls'. I am not saying it isn't but I'd be interested in your reasoning.
> 
> Bobet possesses some of the most impressive palmares of anyone - he's certainly the 3rd best ever French road cyclist... but take a look yourself, particularly at the years 1951-1956. I don't think Armstrong ever won so many races, and such a variety of different types of races for so many years and also took the TdF for many of them. Even so, his multiple wins in the TdF still put him above Bobet, even without any adjustment for Armstrong's missing years. So yes, Lance is rated a better cyclist but to suggest that it is 'embarrassing' to find Bobet in his company is rather silly.
> 
> I think, BTW, that a lot of people would argue that Kelly was a better all-round racing cyclist than Armstrong - who, let me repeat again, I believe to be (by some distance) the greatest rider currently active. What any individual cyclist would value in terms of wins and in which races is an entirely different and personal question.


Monkey, I've read the book (actually his brother's book) on Bobet. There is a photograph of him on my mantel. He never established the hegemony that Armstrong established, his reign was shorter and fractured, and, let's face it, he was a doper.


----------



## mangaman (27 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> very true. he is even capable of dividing the minds of individuals... like me.
> 
> Flying Monkey, mangaman, rich p, everybody.... I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused. If anything I've said did, that was not my intention.
> 
> ...



Sorry if I've appeared confrontational in this thread Greg. I hope you're sorted now regarding the crap you've been through.

I agree nothing is proven against Armstrong.

I suppose what I've been hoping for a while, is for someone (maybe Landis) to drop a virtual nuclear bomb that has the potential to expose the murky corners of all sports. And I'm hoping he's actually managed it. I notice the countries implicated - not just the US, but Belgium (Bruyneel), Canada (Barry) etc have all been mobilised to look into this. The FBI being involved will also be a seriously good thing I think in terms of reaching the truth.

It has to be a win-win situation as it will clear up all the rumours definitively, or prove them.

I'm sorry if you feel I was having a go at you personally - us West Sussex crew should stick together


----------



## mangaman (27 May 2010)

wafflycat said:


> David Millar never failed a drugs test...




That's the problem though Waffly as you know as a pro-cycling fan.

The abusers of drugs are generally ahead of the testers.

The main drug busts have involved "stop and searches" The Festina affair - none of them tested positive, or phone taps (which caught Millar) etc

The only way to beat doping is to make it illegal and let the police get involved. That is why the French teams are generally considered clean.

Unfortunately the UK has no such law and this is a tad worrying when we suddenly come from a culture where sports cycling is as popular as Crown Green bowls, to the best country in the world on the track and having the best road sprinter (Cav) and Wiggo's transformation into a mountain goat, in a few years. Other countries are looking at us suspiciously.

I don't know, but I would be happier if sporting fraud was illegal in this country. (It'll never happen because of the possibility of the top footballers'/rugby players' not being entirely clean )


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 May 2010)

mangaman said:


> Sorry if I've appeared confrontational in this thread Greg. I hope you're sorted now regarding the crap you've been through.



Yep, a (very) long time ago as a rugby player and very recently as a (community level rugby) referee. The worst thing a player or club official can call you is a cheat. Incompetant, stupid, inconsistent inept, too old, too slow, too fat, sure all of those and more, but please, never the C word. As a match official you are obliged to report it, and then your every word and deed is poured over by your peers and betters for months and your integrity is in doubt.

and be assured, no hard feelings towards anyone from me even if they are from East Sussex or beyond!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 May 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Monkey, I've read the book (actually his brother's book) on Bobet. There is a photograph of him on my mantel. He never established the hegemony that Armstrong established, his reign was shorter and fractured, and, let's face it, he was a doper.



Armstrong never established a 'hegemony' except over the TdF, although he did certainly contribute to the creation of the myth that the Tour was the only thing that mattered in cycling... 

Bobet was an artist, part of a generation of artists in cycling, along with Coppi, Bartoli, Anquetil et al. Armstrong is a brute. But yes, they both prepared themselves extremely well!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 May 2010)

mangaman said:


> Wiggo's transformation into a mountain goat



That one isn't looking so great right now though!


----------



## rich p (27 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> That one isn't looking so great right now though!



Goat keeps powder dry theory hope


----------



## mangaman (27 May 2010)

rich p said:


> Goat keeps powder dry theory hope




That's my theory - why not? 

Armstrong had no intention of winning the Giro last year - all preparation for the tour. Loads of riders do it.


----------



## Crackle (27 May 2010)

Yeah, but he had no hope of winning the Tour either


----------



## mangaman (27 May 2010)

Crackle said:


> Yeah, but he had no hope of winning the Tour either



True - but I think he has a podium chance.

Who else is there to compete with - Armstrong (if invited) who is surely past his best
Basso who has concentrated on the Giro
Sastre who hasn't been much better than Wiggins
Contador - clearly the favourite

Anyone else? I think Bradley could aim for the podium and if Contador falls off / gets ill who knows?


----------



## Crackle (27 May 2010)

Well this year the Schleck brothers are the obvious one's but I think Contador will take some beating. I'd never discount Armstrong though, even if his legs aren't quite what they were, his racing mind is.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 May 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Armstrong never established a 'hegemony' except over the TdF, although he did certainly contribute to the creation of the myth that the Tour was the only thing that mattered in cycling...



A fascinating arguement. Surely the myth that TdF is all that matters has been around for a lot longer than LA though? Certainly, in Europe, from what I've read that myth has been building since the restart of Le Tour after WWII. ote] It is, and always will be, perceived as the ultimate challenge by non-expert (I hesistate to say 'non-nerdy') cycling fans.



> Bobet was an artist, part of a generation of artists in cycling, along with Coppi, Bartoli, Anquetil et al. Armstrong is a brute. But yes, they both prepared themselves extremely well!



I fear that whilst we might perceive some to be artists and others brutes the reality is somewhat different and much less black and white. I never saw the classic post war era of the 50's and 60's in real time, far too young. But my reading and research suggests that contemporary reports show the greats, then as now, divided public opinion. Anquetil's losing duel with Poulidor on the Puy de Dome surely ranks as an example of the brutality of competition with no quarter given.


----------



## Smokin Joe (28 May 2010)

Crackle said:


> Well this year the Schleck brothers are the obvious one's but I think Contador will take some beating. I'd never discount Armstrong though, even if his legs aren't quite what they were, his racing mind is.



I think the chances of Armstrong riding this years Tour are very slim. It's getting way too hot and the last thing he wants is to finish every day and face a barrage of questions about doping from the media. He has far more to worry about at the moment than bike racing, and I can see him keeping as low a profile as possible.


----------



## rich p (28 May 2010)

I suspect Menchov is preparing himself for the Tour as we speak.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> A fascinating arguement. Surely the myth that TdF is all that matters has been around for a lot longer than LA though? Certainly, in Europe, from what I've read that myth has been building since the restart of Le Tour after WWII. ote] It is, and always will be, perceived as the ultimate challenge by non-expert (I hesistate to say 'non-nerdy') cycling fans.



Sure, absolutely. It's why I said 'contribute'... and yes, that has also had good spin-offs in drawing more people into cycling as fans and actual cyclists. It's not all bad. And as for Lance, he has certainly won other things, but he has simply never dominated the sport, only that one (however important) race. If you compare this to someone like Merckx... well, that was a hegemony!




> I fear that whilst we might perceive some to be artists and others brutes the reality is somewhat different and much less black and white. I never saw the classic post war era of the 50's and 60's in real time, far too young. But my reading and research suggests that contemporary reports show the greats, then as now, divided public opinion. Anquetil's losing duel with Poulidor on the Puy de Dome surely ranks as an example of the brutality of competition with no quarter given.



(I was just trying to appeal to / provoke dell's aesthetic sensibility...!  )


----------



## Crackle (28 May 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> I think the chances of Armstrong riding this years Tour are very slim. It's getting way too hot and the last thing he wants is to finish every day and face a barrage of questions about doping from the media. He has far more to worry about at the moment than bike racing, and I can see him keeping as low a profile as possible.



You think so! I would have thought nothing short of very strong wild horses would keep him out the Tour.

Menchov, I'd forgotten him and probably a few others.


----------



## mangaman (28 May 2010)

Will Valverde be allowed to start? 

He really seems to be made of Teflon


----------



## dellzeqq (31 May 2010)

Louison Bobet was a brute. Even the most sympathetic of biographers can't make him anything else. 

Now Hugo Koblet...




the 'pedaleur de charme'.


----------



## ColinJ (31 May 2010)

mangaman said:


> Will Valverde be allowed to start?
> 
> He really seems to be made of Teflon


I think his cycling Teflon has just lost its non-stick properties!


----------



## andy_wrx (1 Jun 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jun/01/alejandro-valverde-ban



> The UCI president, Pat McQuaid, said the governing body "had known all along" that Valverde was involved in the 2006 Operación Puerto case, which implicated around 40 riders in a blood-doping ring.
> "The message for cyclists is that at any time if you get involved in a doping program, at any time it could come back and haunt you," McQuaid said.


Talk about double-standards, Pat...

Doesn't the same apply to your Texan mate then ?


----------



## Skip Madness (1 Jun 2010)

andy_wrx said:


> Talk about double-standards, Pat...
> 
> Doesn't the same apply to your Texan mate then ?


You missed the end of the quote:



Pat McQuaid said:


> The message for cyclists is that at any time if you get involved in a doping program, at any time it could come back and haunt you bt dnt wurry if it waz b4 2006 lol.


----------



## raindog (3 Jun 2010)

Dick Pound has his say
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...685?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## andy_wrx (4 Jun 2010)

I think we need Dick running the UCI, not McQuaid and Verbruggen...


----------



## Harbornite (5 Jun 2010)

andy_wrx said:


> I think we need Dick running the UCI, not McQuaid and Verbruggen...



Very true, Pound comes across with a straight forward & upfront approach.


----------

