• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Floyd Landis Interview

Pretty interesting interview with Graham Bensinger (whoever that is...). Covers a wide range of topics on his history with the sport. Probably not a ton of new ground here for many, but a good watch to see him discuss all the events, both professional and personal. Touches on Armstrong, Postal, Phonak, the UCI, his friends, and quite a bit more.

YouTube Playlist here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLW5qT4HIAd1YJQj4dCsSSMyKhWNZVmC6-

I hadn't seen it before,but if this was covered elsewhere, obviously feel free to merge in another thread.
 
red_flanders said:
Pretty interesting interview with Graham Bensinger (whoever that is...). Covers a wide range of topics on his history with the sport. Probably not a ton of new ground here for many, but a good watch to see him discuss all the events, both professional and personal. Touches on Armstrong, Postal, Phonak, the UCI, his friends, and quite a bit more.

YouTube Playlist here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLW5qT4HIAd1YJQj4dCsSSMyKhWNZVmC6-

I hadn't seen it before,but if this was covered elsewhere, obviously feel free to merge in another thread.
This was from 2012 not a recent interview although posted on YouTube recently.
 
Interesting interview.
Seems they spoke at length before recording soft-ball questions designed to hit Pharmstrong out of the park.
Clearly Bensinger knows eff all about cycling; he's all about digging the dirt about the a-hole Pharmstrong.
I was hoping the guy would dig a bit deeper and inquire about the threatening phone calls made to LeMond.
Flandis seems to get a free pass on that.
 
I didn't watch the entire interview, so apologies if the subject was addressed.
Did the interviewer ask if Landis spilled the beans because Pharmstrong refused to take him on board after the TDF scandal?
 
Jul 27, 2017
5
0
0
Re:

red_flanders said:
Yeah, I thought of particular note were his comments about the UCI and chances for a clean sport. If one thinks it might be clean now have a look.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. Especially the bit about having friends within the UCI. Nothing has changed. The players are different, the game is the same!
 
Jul 18, 2010
934
0
0
Re: Re:

FlandersCobble said:
...Nothing has changed. The players are different, the game is the same!
The riders are somewhat different but the facilitators -- directeurs sportifs, training and physio staff, etc -- have changed but very little. The vast majority of them have never been held accountable for their roles in the doping, and are still doing business as usual.


One question I've been searching for an answer to since his confession is whether FLandis actually was using synthetic testosterone on that day. He's otherwise been so (seemingly) forthcoming, I've always found it odd the he's never remarked to the truth of it.

At about 1:35 in the segment titled, "Shock, cold sweats..." he says,
I knew I couldn't defend myself because I could say, 'I didn't do what this says I did,' but I couldn't say 'Here's what I did do'....
Which is the nearest I've heard/read him coming to say unequivocally he wasn't using Test on that day.

Later in that same segment, speaking to USADA's offer to be lenient if he would rat on Phamstrong,...
...I found it offensive. I found it as if ...as if they didn't care whether I was guilty or not, they were just happy that they had a circumstance where they could leverage somebody else's life to get what they really wanted. I felt like I was the guy in the middle ...and ...they're [USADA] not a government agency. Government agencies can do that; police forces, FBI, they can do that. Give deals to criminals to get other criminals. This is not that, this is a contractual agreement I had with them. They can't use that as blackmail against me to get someone else. And that upset me a lot, ...I mean ...things like that that happened along the way made me even more determined to fight. Because I didn't want to admit it and help them. That would make them look like the were actually doing their job, when they're not....
So if he happened not to be "glowing" (Tyler's Hamilton's metaphor) from Test on that day, and if USADA's pressuring to get him to grouse on Pharmstrong got his Mennonite dander up, I think that goes a long way toward explaining why he went to such seemingly absurd lengths ($2M USD) to contest his conviction.
 
Re: Re:

StyrbjornSterki said:
The riders are somewhat different but the facilitators -- directeurs sportifs, training and physio staff, etc -- have changed but very little. The vast majority of them have never been held accountable for their roles in the doping, and are still doing business as usual.
When you say the riders are different, how do you mean? I mean obviously they're different riders for the most part. Is that it? I think you have to look at systems here. If you have the same kind of people with the same incentives, same leadership, same rules (written or otherwise), you really have nothing different. Not sure we're saying anything different, just looking for clarification of your remark...

One question I've been searching for an answer to since his confession is whether FLandis actually was using synthetic testosterone on that day. He's otherwise been so (seemingly) forthcoming, I've always found it odd the he's never remarked to the truth of it.

At about 1:35 in the segment titled, "Shock, cold sweats..." he says,
I knew I couldn't defend myself because I could say, 'I didn't do what this says I did,' but I couldn't say 'Here's what I did do'....
Which is the nearest I've heard/read him coming to say unequivocally he wasn't using Test on that day.

Later in that same segment, speaking to USADA's offer to be lenient if he would rat on Phamstrong,...
...I found it offensive. I found it as if ...as if they didn't care whether I was guilty or not, they were just happy that they had a circumstance where they could leverage somebody else's life to get what they really wanted. I felt like I was the guy in the middle ...and ...they're [USADA] not a government agency. Government agencies can do that; police forces, FBI, they can do that. Give deals to criminals to get other criminals. This is not that, this is a contractual agreement I had with them. They can't use that as blackmail against me to get someone else. And that upset me a lot, ...I mean ...things like that that happened along the way made me even more determined to fight. Because I didn't want to admit it and help them. That would make them look like the were actually doing their job, when they're not....
So if he happened not to be "glowing" (Tyler's Hamilton's metaphor) from Test on that day, and if USADA's pressuring to get him to grouse on Pharmstrong got his Mennonite dander up, I think that goes a long way toward explaining why he went to such seemingly absurd lengths ($2M USD) to contest his conviction.
I took his comments pretty much the same way you did. I've seen him claim elsewhere (I can't remember where) that he hadn't actually taken testosterone that day. He remarked at another point in this interview about the false positive rate, and I assume him to be suggesting that his testosterone positive was such an event. He admits to blood doping and EPO, so I assume him to be referring to that when he says "...what I did do...".
 
Jul 18, 2010
934
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
When you say the riders are different, how do you mean? I mean obviously they're different riders for the most part. Is that it?...
Just that. The natural changeover of competitors that occurs over time. The old parts wear out and are replaced with more or less identical so the machine still operates as it always did.
 
Re: Re:

StyrbjornSterki said:
red_flanders said:
When you say the riders are different, how do you mean? I mean obviously they're different riders for the most part. Is that it?...
Just that. The natural changeover of competitors that occurs over time. The old parts wear out and are replaced with more or less identical so the machine still operates as it always did.
Gotcha, thx.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
seeing similarities makes it easier for our brains to process information quickly....of course
there are similarities ........when talking part in same activity

perhaps floyd was delivering for the producer but lance did not come across well.......'you laugh
at my jokes i don't laugh at yours'...........when lance /floyd were portrayed as buddies

lance /us postal was so different...will we ever see the like again?

rider + part owner of the team ruling with an iron rod making sure his own team members did
not win..............most of all if they departed to a rival team

Mark L
 
Re:

ebandit said:
lance /us postal was so different...will we ever see the like again?

rider + part owner of the team ruling with an iron rod making sure his own team members did
not win..............most of all if they departed to a rival team

Mark L
Well, it's happening right now.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
DanielSong39 said:
ebandit said:
lance /us postal was so different...will we ever see the like again?
Well, it's happening right now.
ok..we have the magician...........making much of it disappear

but who plays? lance the mogul....floyd the fall guy........cheryl the rock and
roll girlfriend

hob nobbing with film stars and presidents with a happening charity making
ya all warm 'n fuzzy

Mark L
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
StyrbjornSterki said:
The riders are somewhat different but the facilitators -- directeurs sportifs, training and physio staff, etc -- have changed but very little. The vast majority of them have never been held accountable for their roles in the doping, and are still doing business as usual.
When you say the riders are different, how do you mean? I mean obviously they're different riders for the most part. Is that it? I think you have to look at systems here. If you have the same kind of people with the same incentives, same leadership, same rules (written or otherwise), you really have nothing different. Not sure we're saying anything different, just looking for clarification of your remark...

One question I've been searching for an answer to since his confession is whether FLandis actually was using synthetic testosterone on that day. He's otherwise been so (seemingly) forthcoming, I've always found it odd the he's never remarked to the truth of it.

At about 1:35 in the segment titled, "Shock, cold sweats..." he says,
I knew I couldn't defend myself because I could say, 'I didn't do what this says I did,' but I couldn't say 'Here's what I did do'....
Which is the nearest I've heard/read him coming to say unequivocally he wasn't using Test on that day.

Later in that same segment, speaking to USADA's offer to be lenient if he would rat on Phamstrong,...
...I found it offensive. I found it as if ...as if they didn't care whether I was guilty or not, they were just happy that they had a circumstance where they could leverage somebody else's life to get what they really wanted. I felt like I was the guy in the middle ...and ...they're [USADA] not a government agency. Government agencies can do that; police forces, FBI, they can do that. Give deals to criminals to get other criminals. This is not that, this is a contractual agreement I had with them. They can't use that as blackmail against me to get someone else. And that upset me a lot, ...I mean ...things like that that happened along the way made me even more determined to fight. Because I didn't want to admit it and help them. That would make them look like the were actually doing their job, when they're not....
So if he happened not to be "glowing" (Tyler's Hamilton's metaphor) from Test on that day, and if USADA's pressuring to get him to grouse on Pharmstrong got his Mennonite dander up, I think that goes a long way toward explaining why he went to such seemingly absurd lengths ($2M USD) to contest his conviction.
I took his comments pretty much the same way you did. I've seen him claim elsewhere (I can't remember where) that he hadn't actually taken testosterone that day. He remarked at another point in this interview about the false positive rate, and I assume him to be suggesting that his testosterone positive was such an event. He admits to blood doping and EPO, so I assume him to be referring to that when he says "...what I did do...".
I remember that claim - kimmage interview a few years back?
 
Jul 18, 2010
934
0
0
Re: Re:

Archibald said:
I remember that claim - kimmage interview a few years back?
Nice catch.

Kimmage: "So you take the yellow jersey in the Pyrenees at Val ‘D’Aran, lose it to Pereiro two days later, win it back on Alpe D’Heuz, lose the next day at La Toussuire and move back into the driving seat the next day with the epic ride to Morzine. You submit to doping control after the stage and submit a sample with traces of testosterone. Where did that come from? My read was that it was in a transfusion?"

FLandis: "That was the hypothesis that a lot of people came up with and I couldn’t defend against it at the time because I couldn’t just say ‘This is when I did the transfusion and this is when the positive test came.’ But then they went back and ran the B samples on other tests and the pattern of the positives they came up with can in no way be related to the blood bags. It just doesn’t make sense. And the complexity of the test made it so that they could convict me without anybody actually looking at what they actually did. That lab…they probably do some good tests but the results they came-up with were absolutely senseless. They really never did identify testosterone. And the dumb part is…I actually took testosterone the year before that – the cream stuff I used the entire race – and I was tested and nothing came up. But then I decided if I am going to carry around drugs, I might as well carry around something that’s in a syringe. Doing testosterone was easier but growth hormone worked better."

Kimmage: "What does ‘worked better’ mean?"

FLandis: "It felt better. The effects of these hormones are delayed. It’s not like taking an amphetamine or a drug where you feel something different immediately; you really have to pay attention because the differences are subtle. Some anabolics work faster than others; some cause you to retain water more; for me, the growth hormone didn’t make me feel as stiff and bloated as the testosterone did. And there was no risk (of detection) with the growth hormone at all, apart from just physically having it, so I just decided I would do that. USADA (the United States Anti Doping Agency) have asked me to try and reconcile the tests with what happened, and I don’t want to discredit them or WADA (the World Anti Doping Agency) because I do think that there are some people there trying to do the right thing, but I stand by my argument that if you are going to have this strict liability thing, where people are responsible for everything they’ve got in their system, then you better get it right. I did use testosterone leading-up to the Tour, and I know what the clearance rate is, and I know more now about how the carbon-isotope test works and how long the delta change in the carbon isotope should last and how it should degrade over time and I can’t match it up with a blood transfusion. It just doesn’t make sense to me."
Still no direct denial but pretty close.
 
Aug 29, 2016
261
19
3,060
Re: Re:

Landis still maintains that he didn't take testosterone during the 2006 Tour. Here is a quote from a SI article only a year ago:
It was 10 years ago this month that Landis won the Tour de France on the strength of what was arguably the most epic one-day ride in cycling history. That feat, we now know, was made possible by a smorgasbord of PEDs, which did not include, he insists, the one for which he was popped...
His feelings of shame and regret would quickly give way to anger. He fumed at the officials at USA Cycling and the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), who he claims knew about doping in the sport but turned a blind eye to it. He was angry at the false friends who’d abandoned him and at the French lab technicians who’d detected in his urine sample traces of exogenous testosterone, a drug he contends he did not use during that Tour. Sure, he’d infused blood, injected erythropoietin (EPO) and human growth hormone (HGH). But he’d beaten those tests fair and square! That pissed him off, as did his knowledge—often firsthand—that many of his peers in the peloton were as dirty as he was, if not dirtier...
I recall also seeing a direct quote about the issue from Landis somewhere not too long time ago but not quite sure where. If he is right, then the much criticized Floyd Fairness Fund actually did have some validity behind its mission even when most of the contributors would not have wanted to contribute had he admitted taking all the other stuff.

https://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/07/07/floyd-landis-cycling-tour-de-france-doping
 
Nov 14, 2013
63
0
0
samhocking said:
Not the most elequently put argument in the World, but certainly causing some hot debate at moment,
https://www.facebook.com/rogergilworthington/videos/10209890730292170/
Understatement :Neutral:

When was this?

Putting aside Floyd Landis's kind of classless "style", this has been debated largely those last weeks.
1st, we're not so sure anymore he died because of the drugs
2dn, the simple fact that he died "on bike" is something big enough for him to be remembered there.
3rd, if he did indeed died because of drugs, he became the ultimate victim of a culture that was already present back then. Paying respect to the man doesn't means every rider busted ought to be given a free pass.
4rth, seriously, what about those comments about cocaïne. That's news to me, and even if true this is petty...
 
Nov 14, 2013
63
0
0
DanielSong39 said:
The dude died; it's still a tragedy no matter how you look at it so let's cut Landis some slack here.
:confused: :confused:

surely you meant let's cut simpsons som slack? Or we didn't watch the same thing
 
Think Landis's point is the sport embraces the doping of some riders and their achievements remain whiles others the reverse happens. If you break it down to fundamentally knowing both riders were doping to win Tour it's hypocritical.
I think the difference in timeframe blurs this a bit, but in 1965 amphetamines were illegal and in 1967 was on IOC banned list, so even 'legally' Simpson was cheating, not just morally.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS