Are past dopers credible?

[auscyclefan94]

I have been reading a lot recently on this forum and social networking such as twitter refering to Hamilton and Landis as being credible. There has also been a lot of 'chamois sniffing' of those people and that annoyed me.

I do believe that Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton are telling the truth but they are not credible. Credible is about being reliable and then to be belivable. They are believable but the fact FL and TH lied so many times does not make them credible. There has been some statements about Floyd and Tyler that they are credible. Can someone tell me how pathalogical liars are credible?


I found this piece of information which refers to credibility

Credibility refers to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message.

Traditionally, credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message (e.g., credentials, certification or information quality).

I was just wondering everyone elses thoughts on this topic. Are past dopers credible?

 

[redtreviso]

I have been reading a lot recently on this forum and social networking such as twitter refering to Hamilton and Landis as being credible. There has also been a lot of 'chamois sniffing' of those people and that annoyed me.

I do believe that Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton are telling the truth but they are not credible. Credible is about being reliable and then to be belivable. They are believable but the fact FL and TH lied so many times does not make them credible. There has been some statements about Floyd and Tyler that they are credible. Can someone tell me how pathalogical liars are credible?


I found this piece of information which refers to credibility



I was just wondering everyone elses thoughts on this topic. Are past dopers credible?

"credible"? is that word trademarked by LIVESTRONG.GOONS?

 

[Oldman]

Michael Milken runs a really big charity. He got away with Billion$, with a capital B. He's credible now after doing time.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Michael Milken runs a really big charity. He got away with Billion$, with a capital B. He's credible now after doing time.

So if he has scammed money off people through lying and deceit then how do we know he is trustworthy now?

 

[Anti-doping]

Are past dopers credible?

No!!

 

[nevada]

how many times have you heard " I only used it once" or that " i bought it on my own". Until they start telling all then they will never be credible.

 

[sida-mot]

Who is credible in the first place? In cases like this where everyone have something to gain or lose, are anyone really trustworthy? Even those that have not been proven liars would most likely lie if the stakes were high enough.

As for Landis and Hamilton I believe them this time. I watched the Hamilton interview and I think he is telling it like it is in this case. Thats all we can do right? Judge each situation, there are no 100% credibility.

I don't agree with calling them pathological liars. They followed the standard formula 1 A when tested positive; Deny, deny, deny. Most of us would probably have done something similar in their situation.

So first they say that they were clean and then they changed their stories to guillty. Thats when people goes on about them losing their credibility. I don't get that. They stopped lying and are now telling a story that is more in line with the evidence and then they lose credability?

For me it's judging each statement on it's own, what can be proven, what is likely, what would be his motives for lying about this, etc.

 

[thirteen]

considering nearly 99.9% of the peloton dopes or has doped (to varying degrees), we really have no choice if we want to hear their stories. and we need to do that if we have any desire to clean up the sport.

your definition of the word credible includes the word subjective and that is key.

you, of course, skewed the question in the first place by using pathological liars. to me, that is a hyperbole. Floyd and Tyler lied, yes, and lied repeatedly about drug use. but who in the peloton has not?

and, if there are indeed a handful of lily white riders out there, can they really give us the intel we need? i don't think so.

i get annoyed by all the vitriol spewed towards cyclists that have been caught, mostly because i believe they didn't play the game right, know the right people, and/or were just plain unlucky... there but for the grace of god and all that.

you don't have to kiss their a$$es, but give them a wee bit of respect when they tell it like it was.

i understand the passion behind wanting to clean up the sport. i do not understand all the hate that ensues.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Who is credible in the first place? In cases like this where everyone have something to gain or lose, are anyone really trustworthy? Even those that have not been proven liars would most likely lie if the stakes were high enough.

As for Landis and Hamilton I believe them this time. I watched the Hamilton interview and I think he is telling it like it is in this case. Thats all we can do right? Judge each situation, there are no 100% credibility.

I don't agree with calling them pathological liars. They followed the standard formula 1 A when tested positive; Deny, deny, deny. Most of us would probably have done something similar in their situation.

So first they say that they were clean and then they changed their stories to guillty. Thats when people goes on about them losing their credibility. I don't get that. They stopped lying and are now telling a story that is more in line with the evidence and then they lose credability?

For me it's judging each statement on it's own, what can be proven, what is likely, what would be his motives for lying about this, etc.

I definetly refute that claim. I honestly would not enter the sport if it was just based on corruption and lies. My conscience is too strong that I couldn't keep on continually do that. Your statement about Pathalogical lying is questionable. Even if they all are lie, they still are all pathalogical liars.

thirteen, you are fair in saying that my description of FL and TH as pathalogical liars does skew the question a bit. Maybe I should of left out my own opinion out of the topic post.

 

[just some guy]

I definetly refute that claim. I honestly would not enter the sport if it was just based on corruption and lies. My conscience is too strong that I couldn't keep on continually do that. Your statement about Pathalogical lying is questionable. Even if they all are lie, they still are all pathalogical liars.

thirteen, you are fair in saying that my description of FL and TH as pathalogical liars does skew the question a bit. Maybe I should of left out my own opinion out of the topic post.

If you hate it that much why watch ?

 

[Benotti69]

As each every doper is different you cant generalise.

Hamilton and Landis are credible now with what they have told the grand jury.

Armstrong, Riccó, Millar, Shumacher, Contador, Scarponi, Di Luca, Basso et al no.

 

[sida-mot]

I definetly refute that claim. I honestly would not enter the sport if it was just based on corruption and lies. My conscience is too strong that I couldn't keep on continually do that. Your statement about Pathalogical lying is questionable. Even if they all are lie, they still are all pathalogical liars.

thirteen, you are fair in saying that my description of FL and TH as pathalogical liars does skew the question a bit. Maybe I should of left out my own opinion out of the topic post.

I wasn't saying that you would ever dope. I was merely saying that most of us would probably react in the same way in that situation, being caught that is. Most of us would never be in that situation ofc, but if we were... Calls for a bit imagination I know.

But in my view of the world that is what people do. We use lies to get out of tough spots more often than not. This is however an extreme example of a tough spot.

For me pathological liars lie about stuff just for the sake of lying even if it doesn't matter, like me claiming I have a blue car when it really is red (or is it?). I don't see Hamilton and Landis as pathological liars. I'm no doctor or psycologist so I'm not sure about that definition.

I think the US Postal story itself is far too complex to just be brushed of as fantasies of two pathological liars. It's true, it's so true that it can even be proven in the court.

So back to the OT: IMO, yes past dopers and liars can still have some credability, for me their credibility is greater if they have confessed and given a plaussible explanation as to why and how they did it. For me it shows that they are done with it, understand why it was wrong and that they are ready to get on with their lives.

 

[sida-mot]

As each every doper is different you cant generalise.

Hamilton and Landis are credible now with what they have told the grand jury.

Armstrong, Riccó, Millar, Shumacher, Contador, Scarponi, Di Luca, Basso et al no.

There is a difference between a man being credible and his story being belivable. Sure they are feeding us garbage right now but if they would confess and explain everything I would most likely believe them then.

We don't see these men as credible because we pretty much know that they are lying. If that lie change to be more in the line of the evidence I would have no problem with accepting that as the truth.

 

[Benotti69]

There is a difference between a man being credible and his story being belivable. Sure they are feeding us garbage right now but if they would confess and explain everything I would most likely believe them then.

We don't see these men as credible because we pretty much know that they are lying. If that lie change to be more in the line of the evidence I would have no problem with accepting that as the truth.

I list Landis and Hamilton as credible because, Landis 's story has sparked a massive investigation based on his, that has to be credible.

Hamilton, because his is in front of grand jury and then he confirmed what his positives already told all of us. What had Hamilton to gain from his story, only peace of mind.

 

[just some guy]

I list Landis and Hamilton as credible because, Landis 's story has sparked a massive investigation based on his, that has to be credible.

Hamilton, because his is in front of grand jury and then he confirmed what his positives already told all of us. What had Hamilton to gain from his story, only peace of mind.

and because they are helping with your own thoughts, it is human nature to do so - you want to believe them so they are credible.

Really any person who changes their story or lies and has been proven to be lying is not credible.

telling the truth once does not make you Credible

 

[Jan the Man]

Credibility is purely dependent on the subjective opinion of the individual making the determination on credibility.

In a court of law a judge will often have to decide between two conflicting sets of evidence and decide on the credibility of each witness and which evidence he/she prefers, often with assistance of other evidence (sometimes expert evidence).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I was just wondering everyone elses thoughts on this topic. Are past dopers credible?

I think it depends.

Dopers who've "come clean" I think certainly have to come with some level of credibility - I am far more willing to believe Bernhard Kohl or Thomas Frei's words on the subject than, say, Ivan Basso's. Emanuele Sella was all "yup, I did it, this is what I did and this is where I got it from". It got to the point where he had to come out and publicly announce his not being involved when busts took place to avoid the "if in doubt, blame Sella" attitude that was supposedly forming around the Italian semi-pro world. Then again, Jörg Jaksche came clean but was criticised for selling it to a tabloid newspaper, and Patrik Sinkewitz was very open about what doping he'd been involved in and implicated by inference a number of teammates and teams - yet was caught doing it again once he returned.

Then again, like I said when Rui Costa announced that a UCI-accredited lab had found the supplements he took to be tainted, if these guys have testified to the Grand Jury then we are almost forced to give their statements an air of credibility because if they're not telling the truth, they're opening themselves up to a much, much bigger world of pain.

 

[AussieGoddess]

I do think both Floyd and Tyler have some pretty major credibility issues. The questions I would generally ask myself when assessing whether or not I beleive their allegations are

- the basic suggestions/claim that they are making - is it far fetched or within the realms of probability?

- have they lied before? is their word trustworthy?

- what have they to gain or lose by making the statements they are making?

In terms of Tyler and Floyd both .... they have lied substantially before. They have both raised money from the public to defend that lie. If they had been caught and admitted their use, they would have a lot more credibility in my book ... but to defend, defend, defend .... and then come out and say 'oh actually, I did do it after all' leaves a bad taste.

On the other hand ... to make false claims to the GJ they are facing perjury charges - so I think if they have both testified to what they are saying to the GJ (and we dont know what they actually said there yet) then I think they are probably believable.

As far as WHY ... they dont have a lot to gain by coming out with these allegations. Spite is really about it. The 'book deal' stuff is laughable, Tyler loses his gold medal - and for what? If he was making it up, he would not have done it to the GJ, he would just have published the book and claimed it in public where he wouldnt face perjury charges.

So yeah - in general, the Grand Jury is what does it for me. Otherwise I would say their previous lies would make them substantially less credible.

Hincappie on the other hand, has not tested positive ... but more to the point, has not lied about it or raised funds to defend a positive test. Its the denying that I have issues with more than the testing positive.

 

[luckyboy]

I think that all the rumours, circumstantial evidence, accusation etc. about Lance certainly help Floyd and Tyler.

I mean if they just came out with these accusations and we didn't know any of the other stuff we do, then they would kinda seem like bitter crackpots.

+1 on what Libertine Seguros said. Someone like Kohl would seemingly have little reason to lie seeing as he's never coming back.

 

[auscyclefan94]

If you hate it that much why watch ?

That's like saying if you hate doping so much why watch cycling. I watch cycling because I am passionate about the sport.

 

[veganrob]

Time will tell if Floyd and Tyler are credible. Those are certainly not outlandish accusations they are making, are they. At least in this instance. I certainly would not call them pathological liars either having not known them their entire life.
They made bad decisions to dope. Many, many do. And then made more decisions denying it after being caught. I don't think anyone here is so pure that they have never done something like that before. Probably not of that magnitude anyway. And we all can't say what we would do when put in their situation.
They will have to prove their credibility over time and regain a good reputation. I'll give them that chance. Can we throw stones at someone their entire life for messing up? Even if we know they have changed their behaviour. And we have to be careful when questioning their motivation for coming clean also.
It is like an alcoholic that quits drinking. Can he never be trusted again? Or a person guilty of a crime. At what point do we accept him back into good social standing.
Time will tell with these guys. But give them a chance. They seem genuinely ready to put the past in the past and start a new life.

 

[movingtarget]

I have been reading a lot recently on this forum and social networking such as twitter refering to Hamilton and Landis as being credible. There has also been a lot of 'chamois sniffing' of those people and that annoyed me.

I do believe that Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton are telling the truth but they are not credible. Credible is about being reliable and then to be belivable. They are believable but the fact FL and TH lied so many times does not make them credible. There has been some statements about Floyd and Tyler that they are credible. Can someone tell me how pathalogical liars are credible?


I found this piece of information which refers to credibility



I was just wondering everyone elses thoughts on this topic. Are past dopers credible?

I think it's natural to be suspicious of past dopers. The fact that Bernard Kohl retired and turned his back on the sport completely was a satisfactory step in my eyes. Too bad most of the others don't do the same thing and people like David Millar make me nauseous with his "us and them" conversations with reporters. Just because Landis and Hamilton testified before a grand jury does not mean that they are telling the truth. Juries are lied to all of the time. When you get people making sweeping statements about others, who have ruined their own careers, lied in the past and changed their stories. I have doubts. This current information is exactly what the Landis supporters and Armstrong critics want to hear. I watched the 60 Minutes interview with Hamilton and I was not totally convinced.

What concerned me more than Hamilton's interview were the donations made by Armstrong. The conflict of interest was blatant but they still allowed him to make the donations. Very strange. I would like to hear Hincapie being interviewed. For me that would be more credible than the testimonies from the others.

 

[lancaster]

people who have admitted that they did stuff that we know they did are more credible than people who deny things that we know they did.

are tyler and floyd completely credible? NO, they have a history of lying
are they completely trustworthy? NO, they have a history of lying
do they have suitable expertise to know? YES

are any gt gc riders from the late 90's early 00's who continue to deny that they doped credible? NO, not even a little, particularly since there is so much evidence against the whole lot of them.

is it credible for LA to deny doping, when eye witnesses say they saw him, he failed multiple drugs tests (that we know about) and was thrashing a wide variety of talented and heavily doped riders.


in summary, if i was looking for the most credible people in the world TH and FL would not be them. however confirming with there admissions, what we know to be true adds to credibility rather than detracts.

the people who really have no credibility are those who we know doped, but deny it (kloeden, fschleck, basso, armstrong to name a couple) as they have both a history of lying and are lying at the present. i don't believe everything i hear from floyd or tyler, but i don't believe anything i hear from lance.

 

[The Hitch]

Hell yes. who do they usually get to testify against the mafia. People from the street or proven murderers and thugs.

 

[Benotti69]

and because they are helping with your own thoughts, it is human nature to do so - you want to believe them so they are credible.

Really any person who changes their story or lies and has been proven to be lying is not credible.

telling the truth once does not make you Credible

not helping me with my thoughts at all.

If you believe Armstrong after all the proof on the table, without the testimonies of former team mates Landis and Hamilton there are the non proven liars of a former masseuse, former personal assistant then urine samples, positive cortisone test, hospital room testimony and lots of other things that point ot a man who systematically doped his whole career.

But if you want to continue that line of thinking in your thoughts and if you cannot add 1+1 and arrive at 2 then i cannot help you.