Floyd and Tyler's first defence strategy

[thehog]

This has been discussed on the CBS thread. Probably needs more discussion on its own. I know the positive tests themselves have been discussed ad nauseum but knowing what we know now and the prevalence of peloton wide doping along with the corruption how do we see Floyd and Tyler's first defence?

It appears Landis's first defence wasn't really "I didn't dope" it really was "Everyone dopes, we talk about it in the peloton on a daily basis, the UCI scrubs out positives for hard drugs on a regular basis, we get tipped off about surprise testing so how in the hell after I won the biggest race in the world against known dopers then how did I test positive for an above average testosterone level? - makes no sense!!" - in a corrupt world he was calling "conspiracy".

Same applies to Tyler. At the time we couldn't understand why they wouldn't just tell the truth. But in a sense they were.

They couldn't understand why they were picked out of 1000's of cyclists who were doping to test positive when for countless other tests they received a "pass".

Hamilton received warning letters on his blood parameters and in the past had expressed concern about losing his job. Why did he eventually test positive for someone else's blood in his system and for a new test. Still to this day I don't think he knows why. Floyd is the same.

Yes he was doping but not the way he was caught. Again in a corrupt world its hard to call "conspiracy".

Should they have approached it differently? If they came out with what they are now I'm not sure they would have got the airtime? and would have been laughed away by the UCI and the Armstrong camp.

 

[sniper]

Why did you appeal when you lost the USADA case?

Because I was pretty sure that…again, I had learned a lot of things along the way that I couldn’t have known before, but I was relatively certain that the arbitrators in the first case were already too invested in the other side winning

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...aul-kimmages-interview-of-floyd-landis_158328

In the big picture I was wrong but I focused on the part that I was right about and justified it in my head.

I became obsessed with fighting this far more than I was obsessed with racing bicycles. I spent 24 hours a day reading stuff. I became a scientist and a lawyer and I’d spend all my time at the law firm. I couldn’t stop and think; I couldn’t rest; I couldn’t sleep; I didn’t want to stop; I wanted to work 24 hours a day until this was fixed.

If Floyd thinks he got screwed over, he knows what he's talking about, he had obviously become a specialist.
IMO he can tell whether he could have been/ actually was screwed or not better than posters who find that this is all conspiracy crap.

I like Floyd's credibility. Nothing in the entire kimmage interview suggests he's still hiding something. He's not.

Of course, he could be wrong, and may unknowingly have been rubbed with testosterone by his soigneur.
But that's an option he also must have considered, and he still thinks he got screwed.

 

[Benotti69]

I am confused! What are they defending, they confessed!

 

[laziali]

Good OP. Not much more can be said.

 

[ChrisE]

This has been discussed on the CBS thread. Probably needs more discussion on its own. I know the positive tests themselves have been discussed ad nauseum but knowing what we know now and the prevalence of peloton wide doping along with the corruption how do we see Floyd and Tyler's first defence?

It appears Landis's first defence wasn't really "I didn't dope" it really was "Everyone dopes, we talk about it in the peloton on a daily basis, the UCI scrubs out positives for hard drugs on a regular basis, we get tipped off about surprise testing so how in the hell after I won the biggest race in the world against known dopers then how did I test positive for an above average testosterone level? - makes no sense!!" - in a corrupt world he was calling "conspiracy".

Same applies to Tyler. At the time we couldn't understand why they wouldn't just tell the truth. But in a sense they were.

They couldn't understand why they were picked out of 1000's of cyclists who were doping to test positive when for countless other tests they received a "pass".

Hamilton received warning letters on his blood parameters and in the past had expressed concern about losing his job. Why did he eventually test positive for someone else's blood in his system and for a new test. Still to this day I don't think he knows why. Floyd is the same.

Yes he was doping but not the way he was caught. Again in a corrupt world its hard to call "conspiracy".

Should they have approached it differently? If they came out with what they are now I'm not sure they would have got the airtime? and would have been laughed away by the UCI and the Armstrong camp.

Is that what their defense was at the time? I seem to remember vanishing twins and Jack Daniels, and solicitation of money while their looney supporters started websites and spammed forums. Is that what we call telling the truth?

No, I think if they would have come clean when it happened alot of good would have occured. The planets were not aligned in May 2010, which by coincidence was right after LA told FL to fark off in terms of RS.

As for the "why would I dope if I am concerned about my job" that is right out of the playbook of LA: "why would I put that stuff in my body after cancer". Why is that even a basis of a post? Our pretzel sympathies meander depending on who says what about LA. Pretty pathetic, as pathetic as LA playing to the rubes with that kind of assinine statement while promoting beer.

They both know why they tested positive. They cover up with the faux excuse of "I doped but not like they say". That is the last refuge of their dignity since they took so many stupid people for a ride.

 

[Berzin]

Of course, he could be wrong, and may unknowingly have been rubbed with testosterone by his soigneur.

This never happened.

These doping regimens are precise and are not part of some fly-by-night interactions between soigneurs and riders. That's how it was back in the days, but not anymore.

Both Hamilton and Landis were never asked by anyone in the press that I know of to explain in detail their doping regimens.

Landis thought he was right when he fought his TdF positive because as a liar and a cheater, most of the time these type of people will deny their wrongdoing to the bitter end. The fact that he confessed afterwards is all well and good, but he and Hamilton have yet to describe exactly what they were doing and who aided and abetted their cheating.

We know from documents found that Dr. Fuentes was the man for Hamilton, but we do not know who was helping Floyd. He's never made a public statement about this.

There are no conspiracy theories as to why these two got popped. They were both doping, so it doesn't really matter.

 

[Cloxxki]

We know from documents found that Dr. Fuentes was the man for Hamilton, but we do not know who was helping Floyd. He's never made a public statement about this.

Didn't he say he'd learned a lot from just being at USPS, and then later hiring Del Moral to carry some bags for him to the Tour?
Do read the full Kimmage interview transcript. The spelling is aweful, but the content staggeringly frank. Best non-fiction I've read in years.

 

[D-Queued]

Is that what their defense was at the time? I seem to remember vanishing twins and Jack Daniels, and solicitation of money while their looney supporters started websites and spammed forums. Is that what we call telling the truth?

No, I think if they would have come clean when it happened alot of good would have occured. The planets were not aligned in May 2010, which by coincidence was right after LA told FL to fark off in terms of RS.

As for the "why would I dope if I am concerned about my job" that is right out of the playbook of LA: "why would I put that stuff in my body after cancer". Why is that even a basis of a post? Our pretzel sympathies meander depending on who says what about LA. Pretty pathetic, as pathetic as LA playing to the rubes with that kind of assinine statement while promoting beer.

They both know why they tested positive. They cover up with the faux excuse of "I doped but not like they say". That is the last refuge of their dignity since they took so many stupid people for a ride.

And, as we have seen recently in another thread, still refuse to update the site with the most important development - the admission.

Oddly, it is that admission which has provided the greatest hope - ever - that cycling will get cleaner. The false hero may now be a true hero.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Didn't he say he'd learned a lot from just being at USPS, and then later hiring Del Moral to carry some bags for him to the Tour?
Do read the full Kimmage interview transcript. The spelling is aweful, but the content staggeringly frank. Best non-fiction I've read in years.

Correct USPS was the grad school.

The set-up was as follows...

Contador's current "trainer" Pepi supplied the drugs to Floyd. Lim assisted with the "on-tour" transfusions along with Del Moral doing the "Ferrari" type back room analysis.

Wife, dog, father in law etc. performing the home-made prep and assistance with dodging the testers.

 

[thehog]

And, as we have seen recently in another thread, still refuse to update the site with the most important development - the admission.

Oddly, it is that admission which has provided the greatest hope - ever - that cycling will get cleaner. The false hero may now be a true hero.

Dave.

The Feds know and Floyd has yet to give the full public explanation to what happened at that Tour. In time we'll find out.

 

[Cloxxki]

Wife, dog, father in law etc. performing the home-made prep and assistance with dodging the testers.

Is it known how many time Floyd got to actually use his decoy operations? How many missed tests did he collect over his career? I could ask him myself, and he will likely answer it too, but he's got cycling to clean, I'll let him do his work. He's doing it better than the hundreds of great men that claimed they were going to.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Landis maintains he wasn't doing testosterone in 2006. On that basis, I suppose he might still consider himself innocent.



This guy claims practically everyone in competitive cycling violates the doping rules, sometimes unknowingly, ma huang, sudafed, ritalin, whatever:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/06/news/op-ed-series-2-dopers-suck-you-suck-so-do-i_177063

But this clearly is a Tu quoque argument. He's setting the table for a defense of Pharmstrong based on moral relativism. Which is like arguing that Churchill tormented his Jewish grammar school classmates by tugging on their prayer curls, therefore the only difference between he and Hitler was one of degree.


(Just illustrating the concept of moral relativism, not comparing of the degrees of their crimes)

 

[egtalbot]

Yes he was doping but not the way he was caught. Again in a corrupt world its hard to call "conspiracy".

Me personally, I don't buy this for a second, but really I don't think there's a lot of evidence one way or the other. 100m sprinter Ben Johnson said the same thing in 1988 - he tested positive for stanozolol, but his coach/doctor Charlie Francis claimed they had stopped using that by '84.

Most likely explanation is not a conspiracy, it's that these guys doped so often yet passed so many tests, that they can't believe they could fail a test unless someone is out to get them. The truth is every now and then a test does catch someone - rare, but it happens.

 

[zigmeister]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...aul-kimmages-interview-of-floyd-landis_158328





If Floyd thinks he got screwed over, he knows what he's talking about, he had obviously become a specialist.
IMO he can tell whether he could have been/ actually was screwed or not better than posters who find that this is all conspiracy crap.

I like Floyd's credibility. Nothing in the entire kimmage interview suggests he's still hiding something. He's not.

Of course, he could be wrong, and may unknowingly have been rubbed with testosterone by his soigneur.
But that's an option he also must have considered, and he still thinks he got screwed.

Floyd has classic psychological issues on many levels. His obsessive complusiveness on issues he feels that he is "right" on. His entitlement attitude. Then, his defiance mentality stemming from his childhood.

That is on top of the complusive lying, deceiving and host of other issues.

Oh wait...we now have a "I'm tell the truth and everybody needs to listen to me..." attitude after all has failed him and how it is the World's fault, and his parents fault.

Tyler is of the same mold. OH, but everybody else did it...

 

[MarkvW]

Floyd has classic psychological issues on many levels. His obsessive complusiveness on issues he feels that he is "right" on. His entitlement attitude. Then, his defiance mentality stemming from his childhood.

That is on top of the complusive lying, deceiving and host of other issues.

Oh wait...we now have a "I'm tell the truth and everybody needs to listen to me..." attitude after all has failed him and how it is the World's fault, and his parents fault.

Tyler is of the same mold. OH, but everybody else did it...

These are the people Armstrong surrounded himself with. Fellow dopers trying to win in a dope-saturated environment.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Me personally, I don't buy this for a second, but really I don't think there's a lot of evidence one way or the other. 100m sprinter Ben Johnson said the same thing in 1988 - he tested positive for stanozolol, but his coach/doctor Charlie Francis claimed they had stopped using that by '84.

Most likely explanation is not a conspiracy, it's that these guys doped so often yet passed so many tests, that they can't believe they could fail a test unless someone is out to get them. The truth is every now and then a test does catch someone - rare, but it happens.

I see some simple opportunities for a failed test.

1. the PED combinations they were using fired a false positive.
2. It was a plain false positive. Remember the tests require legitimate skill to do.
3. Both riders lost the double-secret UCI popularity contest.

In Landis' case, a TdF win would overshadow the Wonderboy myth. As tight as the UCI has been with Wonderboy throughout this mess I would not be surprised it is as simple as another call from Wonderboy ending another career. Even now, the UCI is defending Wonderboy's ridiculous performances.

 

[Anti-doping]

At the time we couldn't understand why they wouldn't just tell the truth. But in a sense they were.

They couldn't understand why they were picked out of 1000's of cyclists who were doping to test positive when for countless other tests they received a "pass".

?
This is why many defended riders like Pantani and Ullrich, and some defends Pharmstrong for the same reason. Because they knew almost everone was doping, why should just some of them take the blame, when most of them did the same thing?

Some said that Landis was ruining procycling when he was caught. Insane! He was just not as powerfull and important for procycling as Merckx, Hinault or Armstrong.

Broader picture; doping is not so much about if one certain rider doped or not. It's about an insane sub-culture. A culture that neither UCI, ASO or any other cared to stop.

 

[DISTRICT 9]

The Feds know and Floyd has yet to give the full public explanation to what happened at that Tour. In time we'll find out.

There is no way ManRod will ever give a forthright confession, look at his recent tweets. Floyd hasn't just gone "off the reservation" Floyd has gone aboriginal.

 

[Teddy Boom]

Me personally, I don't buy this for a second, but really I don't think there's a lot of evidence one way or the other. 100m sprinter Ben Johnson said the same thing in 1988 - he tested positive for stanozolol, but his coach/doctor Charlie Francis claimed they had stopped using that by '84.

Funny you should bring that up...

“The answer you are looking for,” he says finally, “is André Jackson.”

Truth be told, this is not a surprise. Johnson and Charlie Francis began suggesting someone had spiked his post-race beer almost the moment he tested positive back in Seoul. And for a while, a great many Canadians wanted to believe him, especially when it emerged that the mystery man was a friend of his hated U.S. rival Carl Lewis. An Edmonton businessman even offered a $10,000 payment if “Mr. X” would agree to testify at the Dubin inquiry into steroids in sport. The man never took up his offer. The inquiry examined the claim, but ultimately dismissed it, concluding the sprinter had simply been undone by a mislabelled vial of steroids—injecting stanozolol, which took 28 days to clear the system, instead of his usual furazabol, which took 14.

In Lewis’s 1990 autobiography Inside Track, the nine-time Olympic gold medallist, who continues to be dogged by allegations of his own performance-enhancing drug use, devoted two chapters to Johnson and Seoul. He confirmed Jackson was in the doping control area after the race, even including photos of his friend and his nemesis grinning for the camera. Lewis was a little vague about his exact relationship with Jackson, nicknamed “Action,” describing him only as a family friend. As for how he came to be in the room, Lewis writes he had no idea. “But I’m never surprised when André shows up, no matter where it is, floating around doing whatever he wants, being in places he doesn’t belong. Some people just have that knack.”
Interest in the mystery man dwindled after Johnson failed a second doping test in 1993, and was handed a lifetime ban. But a decade later, the tale began to pop up again, mostly in the British press. Since then, Johnson has identified Jackson as the saboteur on a number of occasions, going so far as to allege he had obtained a taped confession.

 

[powerste]

These are the people Armstrong surrounded himself with. Fellow dopers trying to win in a dope-saturated environment.

IMHO this is in many ways more central to the situation at hand than trying to figure out exactly who lied/who's lying about exactly what, and exactly when. Willing dopers banded together and became, collectively, more accomplished dopers. Who'da thunk it?