Floyd to be charged with fraud

[Digger]

A "limited confession" is not "coming clean" in my book. That's what you don't seem to get. As to how a limited confession is of any use, I already explained that.

Seriously you need help.
In order to do what you said, he would have to say I doped, and literally run out of the building and never be seen again.
Any follow up question, he'd have to cover his ears and say like a child 'I can;t hear you I can't hear you.'

 

[Digger]

Landis should really have listened to the 'logic' on here before he proceeded. I doped. Next question. No can;t answer that. Next question. Can't answer that either. Next question. No comment.
End of press conference. Brilliant.

 

[hrotha]

Seriously you need help.
In order to do what you said, he would have to say I doped, and literally run out of the building and never be seen again.
Any follow up question, he'd have to cover his ears and say like a child 'I can;t hear you I can't hear you.'

First off, drop the insulting stuff, k?

Secondly: are you serious? You think he'd have paparazzi at his door for the rest of his life or something? He didn't have to give interviews, and no one can force him to answer a question.

 

[aphronesis]

Seriously you need help.
In order to do what you said, he would have to say I doped, and literally run out of the building and never be seen again.
Any follow up question, he'd have to cover his ears and say like a child 'I can;t hear you I can't hear you.'

Sorry, in what context? Hrotha's basic point is that there are ways for him to have fallen on his own professional sword and retain some personal self-integrity. They needn't be as simple minded as the options you're committed to.

Is it that difficult and exacting to detach the moral and emotive registers of this discussion from possibilities of action?

 

[Digger]

First off, drop the insulting stuff, k?

Secondly: are you serious? You think he'd have paparazzi at his door for the rest of his life or something? He didn't have to give interviews, and no one can force him to answer a question.

You keep reciting examples such as Oscar and Frei. How can you possibly compare them to Floyd? You honestly think he'd be let alone? Seriously? If he, at the time, wanted to cycle again in the future, how was he going to avoid press for the rest of his life? Do you not think 'no comment' arises even more suspicion?

 

[Digger]

Sorry, in what context? Hrotha's basic point is that there are ways for him to have fallen on his own professional sword and retain some personal self-integrity. They needn't be as simple minded as the options you're committed to.

Is it that difficult and exacting to detach the moral and emotive registers of this discussion from possibilities of action?

This makes little sense in theory, but the practicalities of this plan would be insane. The reality is that Landis was in a unique position in two ways. No other riders faced the circumstances he did. Plenty tested positive but none had (a) won the Tour, and (b) raced on a team with Lance.

 

[hrotha]

You keep reciting examples such as Oscar and Frei. How can you possibly compare them to Floyd? You honestly think he'd be let alone? Seriously? If he, at the time, wanted to cycle again in the future, how was he going to avoid press for the rest of his life? Do you not think 'no comment' arises even more suspicion?

If he didn't make either a true confession or a limited confession because he wanted to keep riding and he thought he wouldn't be able to otherwise (which I disagree with, but for the sake of the argument), then that's still a moral decision he made.

Would they let him be alone if he made a limited confession? Well, obviously the journalists would bring it up in every single interview. So? They can't force him to answer. Last time someone asked Valverde, he said "I'm not going to say anything else about that." The journalist asked three times, every time he got the same answer. How is that not possible? How is it not an option? Sure it makes people think there's more to it than what you're telling. So? I'm not saying he should have gone for a limited confession to make people believe there was nothing else going on behind the scenes.

(And since you guys keep on misrepresenting what I'm saying, I'll repeat: I DO NOT THINK A LIMITED CONFESSION WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST, MOST MORALLY RIGHTEOUS CHOICE FOR LANDIS, just that it beats setting up the FFF and fighting the charges)

Floyd's status as a TdF winner just means the situation would be 10 times as big news, but that's all.

 

[aphronesis]

This makes little sense in theory, but the practicalities of this plan would be insane. The reality is that Landis was in a unique position in two ways. No other riders faced the circumstances he did. Plenty tested positive but none had (a) won the Tour, and (b) raced on a team with Lance.

Yes, and by definition the situation in which Landis found himself was insane. Virtually no one on this forum misunderstands the unprecedented gravity and freefall of the situation that grew up around him. Few have suggested that they would have done any better in the moment or been able to step outside it as things were going on. At the same time, that doesn't mean that there weren't other options. The crucial distinction here is that he made decisions--any of which carry different consequences. Unlike choices, say, of ordering one thing for dinner rather than another--effects may vary, but the overall outcome is mostly the same.

Lance is irrelevant here in the sense of how Landis could have decided to go forward--notwithstanding his huge specter in the profession at that time.

 

[thehog]

So no comment - did Lance dope - no comment.
That wouldn't have caused problems.
Seriously this place is beyond help. Most of yee are Simple Jack candidates.

Floyd also had Lance on one end of the phone telling him to sound more convincing in his denials.

What hope did the guy have - he was screwed which ever way he turned.

At the point Lance was still a distance alley. No way he could spit in the soup. He'd seen it all before and knew Lance better than anyone.

I'm with you Digs some of the guys on this forum think Floyd had the time to work out an carefully executed plan in confessing a half truth and that everyone one would have bought it and not asked any further questions. Unbelievable.

Floyd had Jaske and Sinkewitz as inspiration at the time on what happens when you tell the truth. Guys who ever rode again and were banished from the sport.

 

[ChrisE]

So no comment - did Lance dope - no comment.
That wouldn't have caused problems.
Seriously this place is beyond help. Most of yee are Simple Jack candidates.

Of course it would have caused "problems" with the media. Screw the media.

You want to apply some special case to his being a TdF winner. You go find some bylaw in some ada or where-ever that says when somebody is popped AAF they must confess all doping transgressions during their career, implicating all known associates. Good luck with that search. Screw the media as well....what he chooses to tell them is his choice.

 

[Digger]

Yes, and by definition the situation in Landis found himself was insane. Virtually no one on this forum misunderstands the unprecedented gravity and and freefall of the situation in which he found himself. Few have suggested that they would have done any better in the moment or been able to step outside it as things were going on. At the same time, that doesn't mean that there weren't other options. The crucial distinction here is that he made decisions--any of which carry different consequences. Unlike choices, say, of ordering one thing for dinner rather than another--effects may vary, but the overall outcome is mostly the same.

Lance is irrelevant here in the sense of how Landis could have decided to go forward--notwithstanding his huge specter in the profession at that time.

The earlier part of your post is fair.
The final part is however nonsense. Lance ran and runs cycling. Floyd witnessed first hand Lance doping. USADA wanted Floyd to get to Lance. To say Lance is irrelevant is simply untrue. Lance and current riders on Garmin had to have been an issue. Not ideal, but reality. Lance is and was a unique figure in cycling as regards the power he wields.

 

[Digger]

Of course it would have caused "problems" with the media. Screw the media.

You want to apply some special case to his being a TdF winner. You go find some bylaw in some ada or where-ever that says when somebody is popped AAF they must confess all doping transgressions during their career, implicating all known associates. Good luck with that search. Screw the media as well....what he chooses to tell them is his choice.

This place....so he admits he doped...then what. Practically how can that work? No comment, no comment, no comment. TDF winner i keep mentioning because it was the biggest story in cycling by a mile. No other doping case even compares.

 

[thehog]

If he didn't make either a true confession or a limited confession because he wanted to keep riding and he thought he wouldn't be able to otherwise (which I disagree with, but for the sake of the argument), then that's still a moral decision he made.

Would they let him be alone if he made a limited confession? Well, obviously the journalists would bring it up in every single interview. So? They can't force him to answer. Last time someone asked Valverde, he said "I'm not going to say anything else about that." The journalist asked three times, every time he got the same answer. How is that not possible? How is it not an option? Sure it makes people think there's more to it than what you're telling. So? I'm not saying he should have gone for a limited confession to make people believe there was nothing else going on behind the scenes.

(And since you guys keep on misrepresenting what I'm saying, I'll repeat: I DO NOT THINK A LIMITED CONFESSION WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST, MOST MORALLY RIGHTEOUS CHOICE FOR LANDIS, just that it beats setting up the FFF and fighting the charges)

Floyd's status as a TdF winner just means the situation would be 10 times as big news, but that's all.

You have to remember the timing back in 2006. The sport was coming off the biggest drug bust since Festina. Riders were being banished left, right and centre for their confessions. McQuaid was making sure riders like Jaske, Sinkewitz and others never rode again for spitting in the soup.

You think Floyd would have been served well by a full and open and frank disscussion on his doping and the sport? Even after Purteo? He did want to keep his job! A half truth would never have been believed along with knowing full well that the second place getter was also doping.

Your logic is completely flawed. Floyd biggest mistake was listening to Lance but I bet 99 out of 100 riders in his position would have done the same.

 

[hrotha]

You think Floyd would have been served well by a full and open and frank disscussion on his doping and the sport?

Obviously not. That's why I'm referring to that option as the "ideal" one, and the "hardest". I'm aware you had to be a bit of a hero to take that path.

My whole point, however, is that there were other choices, some of which were less morally questionable than what he ended up doing.

 

[Digger]

If he didn't make either a true confession or a limited confession because he wanted to keep riding and he thought he wouldn't be able to otherwise (which I disagree with, but for the sake of the argument), then that's still a moral decision he made.

Would they let him be alone if he made a limited confession? Well, obviously the journalists would bring it up in every single interview. So? They can't force him to answer. Last time someone asked Valverde, he said "I'm not going to say anything else about that." The journalist asked three times, every time he got the same answer. How is that not possible? How is it not an option? Sure it makes people think there's more to it than what you're telling. So? I'm not saying he should have gone for a limited confession to make people believe there was nothing else going on behind the scenes.

(And since you guys keep on misrepresenting what I'm saying, I'll repeat: I DO NOT THINK A LIMITED CONFESSION WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST, MOST MORALLY RIGHTEOUS CHOICE FOR LANDIS, just that it beats setting up the FFF and fighting the charges)

Floyd's status as a TdF winner just means the situation would be 10 times as big news, but that's all.

But if he doesn't fight the charges, he has to admit he doped. Which leads me back to the original problem. Practically it can't work...unless he wants to lead the life of the Unibomber and become a recluse. And you concede my point in your last line by saying it would be 'ten times' as big. With the Lance issue can you imagine. Also can you imagine what people in cycling would be saying each time he answered a question with 'no comment' on whether he doed with USP. Slowly Lance and Hog would throw him under the bus, followed by Fat Pat.

 

[ChrisE]

Floyd also had Lance on one end of the phone telling him to sound more convincing in his denials.

What hope did the guy have - he was screwed which ever way he turned.

At the point Lance was still a distance alley. No way he could spit in the soup. He'd seen it all before and knew Lance better than anyone.

I'm with you Digs some of the guys on this forum think Floyd had the time to work out an carefully executed plan in confessing a half truth and that everyone one would have bought it and not asked any further questions. Unbelievable.

Floyd had Jaske and Sinkewitz as inspiration at the time on what happens when you tell the truth. Guys who ever rode again and were banished from the sport.

You two, who rail against PED use, are ironically on crack.

In a peloton where Ivan Basso is welcomed back with open arms with his "intended to dope" BS you find FL saying "yeah I doped in the 2006 TdF, next question" ludicrous. What people will "buy" or not is irrelevant. He is not compelled to make people "buy" anything...he would serve his suspension, not dupe rubes into giving to FFF, and still have money left over to live or race in a few years, etc.

Instead he chose to fight it, ie omerta, which is a totally understandable position but in hindsight was pretty stupid, when combined with the ingenious idea of tapping into the stupidity of his supporters to help fund his defense.

Yes, take your lumps and move on is a "carefully orchestrated plan". So is using the bathroom, apparently.

 

[aphronesis]

The earlier part of your post is fair.
The final part is however nonsense. Lance ran and runs cycling. Floyd witnessed first hand Lance doping. USADA wanted Floyd to get to Lance. To say Lance is irrelevant is simply untrue. Lance and current riders on Garmin had to have been an issue. Not ideal, but reality. Lance is and was a unique figure in cycling as regards the power he wields.

The second part of my post is not nonsense, by my lights, in that it changes little in terms of where Floyd is today. Again, it's not about--or dismissive of--the power Lance holds (or held), but how Floyd factored that into what he felt he had to and could do with himself and for himself.

 

[Digger]

Obviously not. That's why I'm referring to that option as the "ideal" one, and the "hardest". I'm aware you had to be a bit of a hero to take that path.

My whole point, however, is that there were other choices, some of which were less morally questionable than what he ended up doing.

You keep saying that, but really there wasn't. I will concede if he never cycled with Lance or saw him doping, it's different. But when you have Lance on the phone within a day.....Lance and himself weren't even talking, yet Lance phones him. Lance was sh**less.

 

[thehog]

You two, who rail against PED use, are ironically on crack.

In a peloton where Ivan Basso is welcomed back with open arms with his "intended to dope" BS you find FL saying "yeah I doped in the 2006 TdF, next question" ludicrous. What people will "buy" or not is irrelevant. He is not compelled to make people "buy" anything...he would serve his suspension, not dupe rubes into giving to FFF, and still have money left over to live or race in a few years, etc.

Instead he chose to fight it, ie omerta, which is a totally understandable position but in hindsight was pretty stupid, when combined with the ingenious idea of tapping into the stupidity of his supporters to help fund his defense.

Yes, take your lumps and move on is a "carefully orchestrated plan". So is using the bathroom, apparently.

Basso was chased down by CONI even after Bruyneel looked into his eyes and had had him riding for Discovery. Riders were protesting saying they wouldn't sit on the start line with him. Before long Basso was banished from the sport after a 3 year battle. That was hardly "open arms" ! It even took an agreed confession from Riis from a pact the both of them made.

True after his suspension and several apologies for his half confession he rode again. But it wasn't as simple as turing up to the next bike race as you suggest.

Now who's making the story more convenient?

 

[Digger]

You two, who rail against PED use, are ironically on crack.

In a peloton where Ivan Basso is welcomed back with open arms with his "intended to dope" BS you find FL saying "yeah I doped in the 2006 TdF, next question" ludicrous. What people will "buy" or not is irrelevant. He is not compelled to make people "buy" anything...he would serve his suspension, not dupe rubes into giving to FFF, and still have money left over to live or race in a few years, etc.

Instead he chose to fight it, ie omerta, which is a totally understandable position but in hindsight was pretty stupid, when combined with the ingenious idea of tapping into the stupidity of his supporters to help fund his defense.

Yes, take your lumps and move on is a "carefully orchestrated plan". So is using the bathroom, apparently.

Did Basso witness Lance doping? That's where your 'theory' falls down,
Floyd did you witness Lance doping? No comment. Yeah that's not going to cause problems.

 

[Digger]

The second part of my post is not nonsense, by my lights, in that it changes little in terms of where Floyd is today. Again, it's not about--or dismissive of--the power Lance holds (or held), but how Floyd factored that into what he felt he had to and could do with himself and for himself.

So if Floyd ever wants to cycle again...how can Lance not be relevant in his decision? Go up against Lance, you don't cycle pro again. But you say Lance is not relevant.

 

[Digger]

Of course it would have caused "problems" with the media. Screw the media.
You want to apply some special case to his being a TdF winner. You go find some bylaw in some ada or where-ever that says when somebody is popped AAF they must confess all doping transgressions during their career, implicating all known associates. Good luck with that search. Screw the media as well....what he chooses to tell them is his choice.

Which in turn would have caused huge problems and doubt within cycling. The media would not turn a blind eye to that kind of nonsense answer about doping and USP. Imagine what Kimmage or Walsh would say to that bull.

 

[ChrisE]

Did Basso witness Lance doping? That's where your 'theory' falls down,
Floyd did you witness Lance doping? No comment. Yeah that's not going to cause problems.

Did the AAF in 2006 have anything to do with LA? WTF does Basso getting caught up in OP and offering a BS excuse have to do with being more honorable than FL accepting his punishment instead of fighting it, just because FL was on USPS 2 years earlier? Are you drunk?

Last time I checked he got popped for synthetic testosterone, not being a victim of LA or the inner working of USPS over 2 years earlier. Here's a newsflash for you.....not everything bad in cycling is because of LA. This may come as a shock to you. Again, "problems" resulting from a hissy fit by the media will die down over time IMO.

Which in turn would have caused huge problems and doubt within cycling. The media would not turn a blind eye to that kind of nonsense answer about doping and USP. Imagine what Kimmage or Walsh would say to that bull

LOL. Yes, we need to avoid anything that causes doubt within cycling.

In your world FL saying he accepts the AAF and will serve his suspension would raises further doubt vs the FFF omerta/debacle, unless he held a press conference and gave a power point of all associates he either saw or enabled his doping over the last 6 years.

Let's forget about all the legal trouble he would have had to endure with all of those accusations, as opposed to him still being suspended, just to not sow seeds of doubt upon the cleanliness of cycling.

I'm beginning to think you are just trolling here with this totally assine opinion. If so, good job.

 

[ChrisE]

Basso was chased down by CONI even after Bruyneel looked into his eyes and had had him riding for Discovery. Riders were protesting saying they wouldn't sit on the start line with him. Before long Basso was banished from the sport after a 3 year battle. That was hardly "open arms" ! It even took an agreed confession from Riis from a pact the both of them made.

True after his suspension and several apologies for his half confession he rode again. But it wasn't as simple as turing up to the next bike race as you suggest.

Now who's making the story more convenient?

WTF? Basso was banished after a 3 year battle? He returned in fall of 2008. And, I don't recall mass rider protests. Stop making shyt up.

I wrote he was welcomed with open arms after his suspension while never really backtracking on the "intended to dope" BS. Don't blur this situation with "Burhneel this, CONI that".

This as opposed to how detrimental, crazy, and impossible it would be, according to you and digger, for FL to just admit he doped, accept his suspension, and move on. That was impossible, according to you, and would have just been the downfall of cycling yet cycling survived the omerta and FFF shenanigans. I am really having a hard time here believing that I am having this debate along these lines.....digger upthread said hrotha was stupid. If hrotha is the stupid one in this discussion then you two are somewhere in the "bucket of hair" range on the intelligence meter.

With that, unless you two can bring some sanity and reasonable debate to this subject I am gonna move on. Between you two and puzzo upthread saying people should be exhonerated from crimes if they admit to it is just a little too much for me this morning.

 

[Digger]

Did the AAF in 2006 have anything to do with LA? WTF does Basso getting caught up in OP and offering a BS excuse have to do with being more honorable than FL accepting his punishment instead of fighting it, just because FL was on USPS 2 years earlier? Are you drunk?

Last time I checked he got popped for synthetic testosterone, not being a victim of LA or the inner working of USPS over 2 years earlier. Here's a newsflash for you.....not everything bad in cycling is because of LA. This may come as a shock to you. Again, "problems" resulting from a hissy fit by the media will die down over time IMO.



LOL. Yes, we need to avoid anything that causes doubt within cycling.

In your world FL saying he accepts the AAF and will serve his suspension would raises further doubt vs the FFF omerta/debacle, unless he held a press conference and gave a power point of all associates he either saw or enabled his doping over the last 6 years.

Let's forget about all the legal trouble he would have had to endure with all of those accusations, as opposed to him still being suspended, just to not sow seeds of doubt upon the cleanliness of cycling.

I'm beginning to think you are just trolling here with this totally assine opinion. If so, good job.

ChrisE accusing someone else of trolling. I've seen it all.

Right you seem to have come up with your own little convenient version of what I have been saying. So maybe I will go through the alphabet with you and teach you how to read. Basso was mentioned as an example of hwat Landis should have said. I said Basso did not witness at first hand Lance doping. Whether you are too stupid to admit this or not, being on the same team as Lance and witnessing him doping changes it all. People are saying he should have given a limited confession. If you had bothered to read. This is not possible due to USP, Lance and other reasons. He would never be able to work in cycling again with a limited confession. Pat would insist on him exonerating lance and saying he never doped or witnessed doping with USP. A no comment to this would never have been allowed by the UCI or Lance. Now you can miscontrue what i am saying, if you like, or else you are too dumb to figure it out. Do you honestly think it was tenable to keep giving a no comment answer to this question, when he returned from the suspension.