Come on down: Floyd Landis

[BroDeal]

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.

 

[Digger]

There's not much else that Floyd can say - it's all there in the 9 hour conversation he had with Kimmage on the NY Velocity website.

 

[Epicycle]

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.

 

[hrotha]

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.

 

[hrotha]

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.

 

[sniper]

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.
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

 

[Ninety5rpm]

This is Armstrong in 2010 responding to the Landis "allegations".

The last few seconds about "credibility" are especially priceless.

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY6gE4bSDI4

 

[Cloxxki]

Ullrich = winner in clean racing
Pereiro = an also-ran in clean racing

 

[thehog]

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.”