• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

David Walsh piece

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
pedaling squares said:
Nothing lends credibility to Landis's claims like corroboration from people inside the team and also those who are not but who are inside Armstrong's inner circle. Evidence from Kristin could be devastating. She has remained silent for what 6 years post break-up? It would be hard to portray her as a desperate/bitter ex-spouse when she said nothing for so long and especially as she didn't start this ball rolling.

In particular if the only thing she does is to answer truthfully in a federal investigation. What's the alternative really? Lying to the feds? There's no third choice such as taking the fifth since whatever she has to tell it's not self-incriminatory.
 
Dec 2, 2009
57
0
0
goggalor said:
Indeed. It really feels like the tide is turning. If only a few people step forward to back up Floyd's claims now, then I think we might just see some change for the better in pro cycling, and some cold justice for its malefactors... The end of the Pharmstrong Reign of Terror.

I'm getting misty-eyed just thinking about it. A glorious new dawn awaits. :D

I note the hint of sarcasm in your last sentences, but in all seriousness, would Armstrong's fall really change anything in the sport? Big names have been chased out before, and where are we? Vino 2.0, Basso 2.0, Garzelli, Scarponi, Ricco, etc... Furthermore, if the doping has been so widespread before, should we simply assume Cavendish, Sagan, Gerdemann, Nibali, and other of today's better riders are doped as well? With Armstrong gone, what changes?
 
TeamSkyFans said:
nope.. it was a subtle hint that news corp are one of team sky's major sponsors ;) calm down before you injure yourself.

David walsh is very reputable and the article is very well researched.

LMAO...what research? He didn't research anything for this article.

This is a "oh ****!, the big story breaks and I'm camping in central bum**** but I gotta something in the paper with my name attached response"

I'm sure he's a fine journalist blah blah blah but this is a simple "don't forget about me" place holder
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Ginkgo said:
floyd's strategy seems to be 'i couldn't get away with doping - after trying my hardest to do so - so nobody else should be allowed to'.

very unsightly.

BPC - I am starting to feel sorry for you, seriously.

What are you going to do when the house of sand that was Armstrong gets engulfed by the tsunami?

Will you still support cycling? The riders? Which ones?
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Everyone is mentioning Kristin.

What about Sheryl Crow? Their breakup was somewhat odd. Lance said he didn't want to have more kids (but Sheryl wanted to, he said), they split and then promptly he has kids with his new wife**.

(**Correction: girlfriend, semi-permanent/permanent partner, steady, whatever. Lance is definitely a winner in this dept, you gotta admit).

Sheryl is a straight shooter, from what I can see. She would know if Discovery were doping. No way to hide it. She was there all the time in the Tour.

Wonder if Jeff Novitzky is checking.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
drb716 said:
I note the hint of sarcasm in your last sentences, but in all seriousness, would Armstrong's fall really change anything in the sport? Big names have been chased out before, and where are we? Vino 2.0, Basso 2.0, Garzelli, Scarponi, Ricco, etc... Furthermore, if the doping has been so widespread before, should we simply assume Cavendish, Sagan, Gerdemann, Nibali, and other of today's better riders are doped as well? With Armstrong gone, what changes?
The biggest news is not LA is a doper.

It is that Floyd says Lance paid the UCI to make a positive test go away.
Catching Lance himself - as you pointed out - would not change a whole lot, but showing the sporting authority as complicit and corrupt is.

This will require a massive shakeup of sporting authorities - indeed one on a scale never seen before, and I include CONI in the lat 90's in that observation.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Parrot23 said:
Everyone is mentioning Kristin.

What about Sheryl Crow? Their breakup was somewhat odd. Lance said he didn't want to have more kids (but Sheryl wanted to, he said), they split and then promptly he has kids with his new wife.

Sheryl is a straight shooter, from what I can see. She would know if Discovery were doping. No way to hide it. She was there all the time in the Tour.

Wonder if Jeff Novitzky is checking.

Ahem ahem.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
What exactly does this bit mean? "..... 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. The choice of Novitzky is significant because if his work in the infamous Balco case proved anything, it was that lying to federal investigators is not a good idea."

How come USADA gets to appoint the investigator? is Novitzky working for them, or the feds?:confused:
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
drb716 said:
I note the hint of sarcasm in your last sentences, but in all seriousness, would Armstrong's fall really change anything in the sport? Big names have been chased out before, and where are we? Vino 2.0, Basso 2.0, Garzelli, Scarponi, Ricco, etc... Furthermore, if the doping has been so widespread before, should we simply assume Cavendish, Sagan, Gerdemann, Nibali, and other of today's better riders are doped as well? With Armstrong gone, what changes?

Did you read the letter? It's not only Armstrong. It's Bruyneel and most importantly, a corrupt UCI. Moreover, Armstrong is not just a juiced cheat. He is a symbol for an entire era of corruption in cycling. To remove him would send a very strong signal to the pro peloton.

Unfortunately, the message has been corrupted in the past with Puerto probably one of the low points. Another case in point, the double standard in treating cheats. Some of them get blacklisted, some of them are welcomed back with open arms. Then consider the treatment of whistleblowers such as Jaksche. The disgrace could all end here. Zabriskie could come forward and still continue to ride well for instance. The UCI could be taken over by less corrupt officials. I know that some people there really mean business with the biological passport. Cycling could be reformed. It would be a shame to let the crisis go to waste.
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
It is that Floyd says Lance paid the UCI to make a positive test go away.

Yes, that is a very serious offense, if true. I bet this is where WADA's interest lies. This is the one thing that could really stick--and where there must be evidence somewhere--that is prosecutable.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
What exactly does this bit mean? "..... 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. The choice of Novitzky is significant because if his work in the infamous Balco case proved anything, it was that lying to federal investigators is not a good idea."

How come USADA gets to appoint the investigator? is Novitzky working for them, or the feds?:confused:

USADA does not get to direct federal investigations. Walsh gets some of his facts wrong in that article. The consensus is that Landis was talking about the 2001 Tour de Suisse, not 2002 like Walsh writes. The conversation that Lance and Lance had about it was in 2002, Lance was relating the events that happened a year earlier. I wouldn't put too much stock in the claim that Lance's ex-wife is cooperating with authorities until it's confirmed somewhere else.
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
TeamSkyFans said:
cracking article, from a news corp newspaper

interesting note that the times say KRISTIN ARMSTRONG is co-operating with the authorities along with landis - if thats true could be big news

For those of you on the other side of the pond, perhaps a bit of explanation.

"Not co-operating" = lawyered up and will talk to no one, using counsel to delay as long as possible.

"Co-operating" = possibly lawyered up (in this instance I would say most likely) and has agreed to meet with the appropriate investigators. This is in principle only an agreement to meet and does not indicate that the person that has been asked to meet with investigators will freely discuss the issues at hand.

"Understood to be co-operating" (which is what the article actually said) = a premise advanced by Walsh, without outside confirmation or without the usual disclaimer of "from sources who have requested anonymity because they have not been authorized to speak on the subject."

"Spilling the beans" = no explanation needed.

As with everything else this week, there are probably wheels within wheels and undoubtedly agendas by all participants.

I would be hesitant to draw any conclusions from what the general public has seen to date on this.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Cobblestones said:
In particular if the only thing she does is to answer truthfully in a federal investigation. What's the alternative really? Lying to the feds? There's no third choice such as taking the fifth since whatever she has to tell it's not self-incriminatory.

Spouses can't be forced to testify. IANAL so... are ex-spouses required to testify about things that happened while they were still married to the suspect?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Epicycle said:
USADA does not get to direct federal investigations. Walsh gets some of his facts wrong in that article. The consensus is that Landis was talking about the 2001 Tour de Suisse, not 2002 like Walsh writes. The conversation that Lance and Lance had about it was in 2002, Lance was relating the events that happened a year earlier. I wouldn't put too much stock in the claim that Lance's ex-wife is cooperating with authorities until it's confirmed somewhere else.
Yes, some of the piece is a bit sloppy - in particular the TdS part.

But I will give the benefit to DW as he is half way up the Himalayas (altitude training?) and had to travel 6 hours to write up the piece.

However I don't think he would have included any mention of Kik unless he was reliably informed from someone close to the investigation.

On the Fed's being involved - I am not sure if that is entirely accurate but it raises the question as to why would Jeff Novitzky be involved?
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
euanli said:
You called it. She will be labelled a bitter ex spouse.

Armstrong sure does seem to turn a lot of people bitter. I wonder why that is.

It's kind of tough to trash your kids' mom in the media....it's a dirty job, and I can only think of one 'certain fellow from Texas'* who could do it without batting an eye.


*The use of ' a certain Texan ' is copyrighted by the Paul Sherwen Chamois Sniffer club. All rights reserved. 1999-2050
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Epicycle said:
USADA does not get to direct federal investigations. Walsh gets some of his facts wrong in that article. The consensus is that Landis was talking about the 2001 Tour de Suisse, not 2002 like Walsh writes. The conversation that Lance and Lance had about it was in 2002, Lance was relating the events that happened a year earlier. I wouldn't put too much stock in the claim that Lance's ex-wife is cooperating with authorities until it's confirmed somewhere else.

Yup. It's a great summation of what has gone before, but if he had done all hos won homework, he would have found plenty of informed sources that would have put him straight on the 2001/2002 confusion for starters. It suggests that there was some lazy regurgitation in there, which casts doubt on that what follows.

Kirstin is actively cooperating is something that would be genuine bombshell news if it is true, I haven't seen that stated as a fact anywhere.

If true, it would put the comments by Landis that Kirstin was a witness in a whole new daylight, and with the feds around, a troubling one for Lance. But since Walsh misses the plank on other points, maybe he has also been a bit too quick to jot this one down as fact. If Landis indeed has a second witness, it isn't "my word against against his". So I think we are missing something here.

Maybe Kirstin has said that she won't volunteer info, but if she is ever asked under oath, show won't lie. And that is why Landis is trying to get this to court? I can find no other way to get Kirstin's involvement lined up with the rest of the soldiers that we know about, if she actually is involved.

I am also awaiting conformation of that before I swallow it. Too big a piece in the jig saw.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Yes, some of the piece is a bit sloppy - in particular the TdS part.

But I will give the benefit to DW as he is half way up the Himalayas (altitude training?) and had to travel 6 hours to write up the piece.

However I don't think he would have included any mention of Kik unless he was reliably informed from someone close to the investigation.

On the Fed's being involved - I am not sure if that is entirely accurate but it raises the question as to why would Jeff Novitzky be involved?
Novitzky is definitely involved. What exactly his angle is I don't know. He works for the Food and Drug Administration now. He worked for the IRS during the BALCO investigation. But USADA doesn't appoint investigators or direct federal investigations even though they work with the feds and share information.
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
BroDeal said:
I don't think we should get our hopes up too much. There are lots of ways this can play out.

Armstrong will be calling in a lot of markers in, and he has lots of people who owe him.


I would agree. A lot of posters are getting a little ahead of themselves. This could come down to what the definition of 'is' is.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
drb716 said:
I note the hint of sarcasm in your last sentences, but in all seriousness, would Armstrong's fall really change anything in the sport? Big names have been chased out before, and where are we? Vino 2.0, Basso 2.0, Garzelli, Scarponi, Ricco, etc... Furthermore, if the doping has been so widespread before, should we simply assume Cavendish, Sagan, Gerdemann, Nibali, and other of today's better riders are doped as well? With Armstrong gone, what changes?

...nothing changes...american cycling goes in the trashcan [barely enough big races/sponsors now]...while each and every winner of major races is met with suspicion of doping, especially unusual performances...Walsh and LeMond are already going after Contador and the Science of Sport article about pre and post LeMond w/kg is an eye-opener...and then you start wondering about Indurain and how he was able to beat a man by over 4 minutes when the year before the difference between them over similar distance was less than 10 seconds...even Indurain's numbers skyrocketed as EPO came to the fore...if LeMond's 5.7 w/kg represents some type of baseline then everything that has come after it is evidence that something more than technological advances and training techniques are at work...

...i'll go on the record as being in Armstrong's corner but do i think beyond the doubt he has'nt indulged in a little "tweaking"...absolutely not...he would've been on EPO during his recovery from cancer...

...Armstrong's relevance in professional cycling is fast fading, comeback notwithstanding...and somebody has to win these races, even if you believe that everybody does it...at some point a totally clean peloton will still produce a winner and perhaps a dominant one...that is the specific point of a race, to find a winner, regardless of the route taken to said victory...and if Armstrong's tour wins are bad then what remains at the top of cycling that is good?

...interests internationally will of course have more interest in seeing him torn down but my fellow Americans are fooling themselves if they think that Armstrong's head on a platter will be good for American cycling...cycling is'nt really cultivated in the US...not like Europe and it could be a long time before another american rider stands on a podium in France...

...as far as Landis is concerned, he's trying to be a hero but he's anything but...he tried to bankrupt the forces aligned against him while extracting monies from fans who believed that he was innocent...and for him to state that his positive is still bogus but that he extensively used dope is an exercise in some serious denial/dissonance...the good Dr. Kay believes he's innocent but what must he believe after his confessions and allegations?...

...his motivations must be questioned and altruism ain't high on that list...why haggle Bruyneel and Armstrong during the past four years why haggle the TOC organizer...my take is that Floyd could'nt extract what he wanted from those he deemed capabale of helping restore his place in cycling...if Bruyneel lets him on the team [or helps him financially] and if TOC allowed him to race do we believe that he keeps his mouth shut and continues his denials of using PED's?...Landis is trying to ride a coin and land on the right side but it won't happen, regardless of what happens with Armstrong...

...he's misrepresented himself too many times and in too many ways to be seen as anything more than a rat...and no i'm not calling him that personally but his represents a scorched-earth policy laced with vindictiveness and it has less to do with sleeping at night than making sure he takes a few down with him...he can sleep better at night by returning all the money he took under false-pretenses...

...there is less a need for a clean up domestically than there is internationally...that's where the most prestigious races occur and where the best in the world compete year-round...even LeMond pretty much threw domestic cycling over his shoulder when he moved to Belgium...stateside racing does'nt bring you much acclaim or money for that matter...cycling is largely an amateur sport in America, much more so than in Europe...

...stateside fans of Armstrong care less about endogenous/exogenous EPO, testosterone, hgh or anything more technical than the absolute number of tour wins and the fact that he's a cancer survivor with world-wide influence...

...LeMond has his heart in the right place but is a bit overzealous with his announcements at times...he's overcompensating now for what he did'nt do before his abuse announcement...sadly, we may never see a totally clean peloton, not when the riders that matter think that their peers are hopped up on a little "orange-juice"...

...as far as Lance goes...he probably should've stayed retired...as the hour grows late someone might just come forth with some pretty damaging information, without worrying about potential retribution...
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
You know, although we keep circling the wagons around Lance & bruyneel, the thing I hope most, is that this will penetrate the organisations that are supposed to keep the riders in check. This needs to stop where the buck stops, the rotten eggs in the UCI and the national organisations.

With the feds involved we finally have a chance get the watchmen scrutinized. That is our only hope to see a culture change. If Lance will be exposed or not, is guilty or not, is a total sideshow. The danger is that it will become the main act, and seeing a symbol burned would be satisfying to many. But it is the building's core that needs to be rebuild, not just yesterday's shack in the back yard that was about to be replaced anyway.
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
drb716 said:
I note the hint of sarcasm in your last sentences, but in all seriousness, would Armstrong's fall really change anything in the sport? Big names have been chased out before, and where are we? Vino 2.0, Basso 2.0, Garzelli, Scarponi, Ricco, etc... Furthermore, if the doping has been so widespread before, should we simply assume Cavendish, Sagan, Gerdemann, Nibali, and other of today's better riders are doped as well? With Armstrong gone, what changes?

The words will change, the song won't.
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Francois the Postman said:
...not just yesterday's shack in the back yard that was about to be replaced anyway.

Oh great, now on top of everything else you want Flandis to move? :D

Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
bobs *** said:
It's kind of tough to trash your kids' mom in the media....it's a dirty job, and I can only think of one 'certain fellow from Texas'* who could do it without batting an eye.


*The use of ' a certain Texan ' is copyrighted by the Paul Sherwen Chamois Sniffer club. All rights reserved. 1999-2050

...and that works both ways...i'm sure they both still interact having had children together...this is nice way to seriously divide children from their parents, even ones that don't live under the same roof...i'll believe it when i see it printed stateside...
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
Parrot23 said:
Everyone is mentioning Kristin.



(**Correction: girlfriend, semi-permanent/permanent partner, steady, whatever. Lance is definitely a winner in this dept, you gotta admit).

Sheryl is a straight shooter, from what I can see. She would know if Discovery were doping. No way to hide it. She was there all the time in the Tour.

Wonder if Jeff Novitzky is checking.

I think she is there merely to break his fall as he gets in bed.

As for Crow, she swings from one famous sports/celeb dude to the next like a monkey swings from vine to vine.

2 slyuts can't survive in a relationship. They are both afraid to be the one to get used.