Come on down: Floyd Landis

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
hrotha said:
Technically they're different cases because Landis tested positive during the actual race. You can't take away Pereiro's win now, unless his own use of PEDs is proven.

Sure you can. Pereiro did not have a win. He only inherited Floyd's. There is little evidence that the second place finishers to Armstrong were doping for those specific Tours. They are no different than Pereiro.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
hrotha said:
Technically they're different cases because Landis tested positive during the actual race. You can't take away Pereiro's win now, unless his own use of PEDs is proven.

Oscar actually tested positive for salbutamol during the 2006 Tour but he had a sketchy TUE for it (but not backdated like Lance, he had the TUE before he tested positive). The AFLD claimed that Oscar didn't have a valid reason for the TUE and that the UCI were handing them out like candy.
 
BroDeal said:
Sure you can. Pereiro did not have a win. He only inherited Floyd's. There is little evidence that the second place finishers to Armstrong were doping for those specific Tours. They are no different than Pereiro.
He inherited Floyd's, yes. Which means it's his. Of course Pereiro was doping, but you still need proof. And, again, testing positive in the race itself is not the same as being stripped of a title due to unrelated circumstances, as far as the rules are concerned.
 
Epicycle said:
Oscar actually tested positive for salbutamol during the 2006 Tour but he had a sketchy TUE for it (but not backdated like Lance, he had the TUE before he tested positive). The AFLD claimed that Oscar didn't have a valid reason for the TUE and that the UCI were handing them out like candy.
Of course. He was also a client of Jesús Losa.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
BroDeal said:
Sure you can. Pereiro did not have a win. He only inherited Floyd's. There is little evidence that the second place finishers to Armstrong were doping for those specific Tours. They are no different than Pereiro.

there is a big difference though between a guy like Ulrich and a guy like Pereiro. Perreiro couldn't wait to get his names in the books and even snabbed at Floyd in the media. That's what friends are for.:rolleyes:
Ulrich on the other hand already stated various times he's not interested in Lance's victories.
Ulrich = an honorable loser
Pereiro = simply a loser
 
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...rong-landis-was-a-very-dangerous-enemy_270752

“Although Lance was a smart guy, I think his smartness was more the analytical type of intelligence; I don’t think he was emotionally intelligent,” Walsh said. “He didn’t realize Floyd Landis would constitute a very dangerous enemy. So when Floyd Landis got banned after the 2006 Tour de France, and came back, is reaching out to Lance for help, and Lance is basically, ‘get lost, you got caught, you’re a loser,’ Lance made an enemy of a guy who is incredibly dangerous. Floyd is tough. He’s hard. And when he takes his gloves off, he’s a formidable fighter. Floyd took the gloves off and wrote about what life was like at the U.S. Postal team.”

“Floyd’s allegations were the turning point of this story, and from that moment on, we had entered the end game,” Walsh said. “And it was going to end very good for the truth, and very badly for Lance Armstrong.”
 

TRENDING THREADS