Another U.S. Postal Rider confirms systematic doping within team - N.Y. Times

[MacRoadie]

VeloNews on the ball again...

Still no mention of the NYT article on VeloNews.com. Good to see the "Journal of Competitive Cycling" is so timely and contemporaneous in their coverage of the sport...

 

[Oldman]

There have been debates as to the possibility that Landis doped with blood "tainted' with testesterone, and it was enough to trigger the positive. But as you say, it's almost moot. The point is he was freely doped to the gills and knows many others who were as well, and just as Bernard Kohl said, no testing came close to catching him for 99% of what he was doing.

That's the real point not being discussed enough here. The ratio of false negatives is alarming. It shows just out frivolous testing is, and how easy it is to get away with doping.

And the question if the UCI is actually complicit in designing testing parameters that are well enough manipulated by those doping as to be intentionally beatable. That is, unless; you pissed off the wrong politically connected DS, sponsor or other UCI insider.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

So you hate the truth? Is that what I'm supposed to read? You don't know where I stand on LA so I would say you have shown your ignorance. Think what Lincoln said next time. Keep in mind as well that just because you pile on with the fellowship of the miserable on this forum doesn't mean your right. I have clearly stated before my stance on LA far more eloquent than our bigoted OJ reference.

Why are you going on like this? Your comments were obviously wrong. You can read the Landis emails for yourself.

 

[lean mean &green]

And yet Ross complained long-and-loud when I alluded to the general tenor of posts on this sub-forum...

As for your claim: if I were ever called as an expert witness in any doping-related court case, all I could testify to would be:

1) I have no personal knowledge as to who has or has not doped (and don't really care, at least with respect to the identity of individuals); and

2) I do not believe that it is possible to use power data (regardless of whether it is crudely estimated from VAM, or directly measured using a powermeter) to identify who is or is not doping.

Or to put it another way: **** you.

this isn't agnosticism, it's selective apathy...and in case you're wondering it's not an acceptable approach

 

[MacRoadie]

So you hate the truth? Is that what I'm supposed to read? You don't know where I stand on LA so I would say you have shown your ignorance. Think what Lincoln said next time. Keep in mind as well that just because you pile on with the fellowship of the miserable on this forum doesn't mean your right. I have clearly stated before my stance on LA far more eloquent than our bigoted OJ reference.

Sums it all up right there...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

However, can you find anyone who doesn't believe that Bonds and Clemens doped? The tide of public opinion changed even without some official conviction or an admission. The same thing will happen to LA.

Decent analogy. There are still a few stragglers who think Bonds and Clemens didn't dope. And quite a few people who think it doesn't matter that much in the big picture. Lance is a more precarious position though, not because of his denials, but because of his "hope for cancer" message. He's leveraged a great deal on that brand.

 

[Anonymous]

There have been debates as to the possibility that Landis doped with blood "tainted' with testesterone, and it was enough to trigger the positive. But as you say, it's almost moot. The point is he was freely doped to the gills and knows many others who were as well, and just as Bernard Kohl said, no testing came close to catching him for 99% of what he was doing.

That's the real point not being discussed enough here. The ratio of false negatives is alarming. It shows just out frivolous testing is, and how easy it is to get away with doping.

Very well stated. It either shows how advanced these programs and doctors are, or just how far behind the "system" is. Or maybe both.

 

[workingclasshero]

PS - I hope this finally puts to rest that Julie Macur is no Kool-Aid drinker.

i don't think anyone would think that - especially not as good old lance had a moan about her on twitter the other day. that's like a badge of honour to a journalist that

 

[editedbymod]

Decent analogy. There are still a few stragglers who think Bonds and Clemens didn't dope. And quite a few people who think it doesn't matter that much in the big picture. Lance is a more precarious position though, not because of his denials, but because of his "hope for cancer" message. He's leveraged a great deal on that brand.

Good post.

This the other problem I have with Lance doping and the "everyone was doing" justification.

By Lance and USPS doping they needed a sophistiacated drug network of supply, transport and delivary.

By this network being set up to faciltate the drug use it remains in place. Thus the sellers, the mules and logistics are in place for the suppliers to sell drugs not only to USPS but other teams, other riders, younger riders down the ranks and worst of all introducing junior riders to drugs. The network facilitates and promotes drug use down the chain. There is much harm done and more than likely the odd cancer case from it's use.

The issue is not just "did Lance dope?" it's much much bigger than that.

Right you are. Armstrong put himself forward as drug free and sold his image on the fact that he was clean. All the while whilst he was encouraging younger riders to dope.

Not good.

Lance is a con man. Robbing from the poor and giving to himself. The fact that he passed himself off as a messiah all this time was his masterstroke. Why wouldn't you believe him?

I will add to this the French. For many years they jumped up and down and screamed doper. It wasn't Lance they hated it's just that they were sick of drugs being run through their country. They've now been proven right. I'm sure Americans wouldn't want a bunch of Frenchies distributing and trafficking drugs through the US.

 

[NashbarShorts]

I will add to this the French. For many years they jumped up and down and screamed doper. It wasn't Lance they hated it's just that they were sick of drugs...

No, I'm pretty sure it was LA they hated. Paying off the UCI, surpassing 5 wins, insinuating the weakness of French cycling, hiding in the shower from drug testers. That's enough to p1ss off most ppl, even the French.


"Was winning 7 Tours that offensive?"

 

[Elagabalus]

No, I'm pretty sure it was LA they hated. Paying off the UCI, surpassing 5 wins, insinuating the weakness of French cycling, hiding in the shower from drug testers. That's enough to p1ss off most ppl, even the French.


"Was winning 7 Tours that offensive?"

I think they're just not into cyclists who act like arrogant pr!cks Remember, they spat on Anquetil, and weren't to fond of Hinault or Fignon, either.

 

[ManInFull]

So you hate the truth? Is that what I'm supposed to read? You don't know where I stand on LA so I would say you have shown your ignorance. Think what Lincoln said next time. Keep in mind as well that just because you pile on with the fellowship of the miserable on this forum doesn't mean your right. I have clearly stated before my stance on LA far more eloquent than our bigoted OJ reference.

Ah, I hate to go off topic, but I'm not sure why you inferred that I made a "bigoted" OJ reference. It was just an OJ reference, thank you.

 

[CPAvelo]

Decent analogy. There are still a few stragglers who think Bonds and Clemens didn't dope. And quite a few people who think it doesn't matter that much in the big picture. Lance is a more precarious position though, not because of his denials, but because of his "hope for cancer" message. He's leveraged a great deal on that brand.

I think it is because of his cancer message that more people will care about the LA matter than about Bonds and Clemens. The AP ran a story a couple days ago about how this present scandal may hurt the LA Foundation: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hF6-n0BpcNqYORFKqOBHfw-lZxMwD9HC62K80

Midway through the article is this interesting information: "FRS, a privately held company, is expanding its commitment to Armstrong and the foundation. It plans to feature Armstrong, an FRS investor and board member, in national television ads this October. FRS also recently agreed to support the foundation for at least three more years."

Many benefited from his fame; many will experience some detriment due to his apparent fall. It is all very sad. Ironic too. If only LA/Bruyneel had been more clairvoyant, this probably could have been avoided by giving FLandis a place at the table.

The hubris is astonishing. They may be too proud to have regrets?

 

[Boeing]

I assume it is a US rider. Let's narrow it down a bit

Danielson?
Cruz?
Livingston
Casey
Clinger
Creed
Gerlach
Gragus
Labee
Kluck
O'Bee
Jemison
MaCrae?


Robbie Ventura?

 

[BikeCentric]

Wow, they are getting fast at killing BPC. He only got 4 posts out that time.

I noticed this as well. Bravo Mods and please keep up the good work!

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think they're just not into cyclists who act like arrogant pr!cks Remember, they spat on Anquetil, and weren't to fond of Hinault or Fignon, either.

They just hate excellence.

 

[Boeing]

The hubris is astonishing. They may be too proud to have regrets?

could very well be

 

[CPAvelo]

I assume it is a US rider. Let's narrow it down a bit

Danielson?
Cruz?
Livingston
Casey
Clinger
Creed
Gerlach
Gragus
Labee
Kluck
O'Bee
Jemison
MaCrae?


Robbie Ventura?

Creed seems a likely possibility. This is just anecdote to me, but I am under the impression, Creed choose the relative obscurity of racing in America because he didn't want to dope in order to have a career in Europe. If I were an investigator, I would want to talk to such people.

 

[SaftyCyclist]

I assume it is a US rider. Let's narrow it down a bit

Danielson?
Cruz?
Livingston
Casey
Clinger
Creed
Gerlach
Gragus
Labee
Kluck
O'Bee
Jemison
MaCrae?


Robbie Ventura?

What about Vaughters?

 

[ManInFull]

Many benefited from his fame; many will experience some detriment due to his apparent fall. It is all very sad. Ironic too. If only LA/Bruyneel had been more clairvoyant, this probably could have been avoided by giving FLandis a place at the table.

The hubris is astonishing. They may be too proud to have regrets?[/QUOTE]

I agree. If LA doesn't get back on the bike in 2009 and again this year, this may not have happened. Was it ego, demand for the lime-light, or greed that brought him back? Don't tell me it was to get the focus back on cancer.

Maybe LA/JB thought that Landis wouldn't go this far. Of if he did, Landis' claims wouldn't sound plausible coming from an admitted cheat and doper.

 

[Muerdago11]

Even if no one else said anything in grand jury testimony it would be hard for Armstrong to survive it.. Actually it would be funny to watch him squirm thinking of who might have said what. The same kind of funny when a dope slinger is promptly released from arrest and then thanked publicly for their cooperation.

Why would it be at all hard for him to survive it? Unless they get more than the testimony of admitted liars and cheaters all he has to do is deny it. Who else would be in a positiion to testify except admitted dopers who were there when it happened? Remember that the Government has to prove that Armstrong lied under oath in order to prove perjury. No matter who might testify against him, they'll need tangible evidence to prove perjury--that is to say physical evidence that he doped-- not just witnesses. They don't have it. Even if the Grand Jury found enough evidence to indict on some sort of fraud charge, a trial court would still have to find him guilty. Absent more than the testimony of the likes of Hamilton, Landis and anyone else whose evidence is based upon their own participation in fraud they'll never get a conviction. Assuming that he is in fact guilty, who in the world has the intestinal stamina to tough it out better than Lance. They'll never get him.

 

[Barrus]

Why are all the LA fans so hung up about the perjury part, even if included this will be a minor side note or be used as leverage to extract more information from him.

Probably most telling is the fact that Novitzky is certain he'll get a GJ indictment, even without the testimony of this mystery rider. This to me spells out great trouble for LA

@ Muerdao:

No matter who might testify against him, they'll need tangible evidence to prove perjury--that is to say physical evidence that he doped-- not just witnesses. They don't have it. Even if the Grand Jury found enough evidence to indict on some sort of fraud charge, a trial court would still have to find him guilty. Absent more than the testimony of the likes of Hamilton, Landis and anyone else whose evidence is based upon their own participation in fraud they'll never get a conviction.

Physical, tangible evidence is not necessary to get a conviction, if there are enough witnesses, physical evidence become irrelevant. Also, if there is fraud or money laundering, tax evasion, there will be a paper trial, there always is.
Also for LA an indictment will already be a huge blow to him, his future and his foundation, they will all crack, you can already see the public perception change, something that will really hurt him and his future plans

 

[CPAvelo]

Maybe LA/JB thought that Landis wouldn't go this far. Of if he did, Landis' claims wouldn't sound plausible coming from an admitted cheat and doper.

Or, that it would lead to a federal investigation with apparently far-reaching implications.

This all seems far beyond the omerta now. As far as cycling goes, there is no script for this. Hopefully, substantive changes in the sport will occur.

 

[ManInFull]

Why would it be at all hard for him to survive it? Unless they get more than the testimony of admitted liars and cheaters all he has to do is deny it. Who else would be in a positiion to testify except admitted dopers who were there when it happened? Remember that the Government has to prove that Armstrong lied under oath in order to prove perjury. No matter who might testify against him, they'll need tangible evidence to prove perjury--that is to say physical evidence that he doped-- not just witnesses. They don't have it. Even if the Grand Jury found enough evidence to indict on some sort of fraud charge, a trial court would still have to find him guilty. Absent more than the testimony of the likes of Hamilton, Landis and anyone else whose evidence is based upon their own participation in fraud they'll never get a conviction. Assuming that he is in fact guilty, who in the world has the intestinal stamina to tough it out better than Lance. They'll never get him.

I'm not holding out for a conviction. All that matters to me is a significant change in public opinion. A conviction is just icing on the cake.

 

[CPAvelo]

Why are all the LA fans so hung up about the perjury part, even if included this will be a minor side note or be used as leverage to extract more information from him.

Probably most telling is the fact that Novitzky is certain he'll get a GJ indictment, even without the testimony of this mystery rider. This to me spells out great trouble for LA

Why? Because what else is left for LA fans to grasp at? Pathetic, really.