Kimmage interviews Floyd Landis: Sunday Times + Bombshell NYVC transcript [merged]

[Granville57]

Gree,

You have no idea of what AL said before the GJ. Sorry.

(It's for the best...)

 

[Benotti69]

Notice the term 'basically' and he is certainly casting strong doubt on Roche for not condemning AC.

I would say Roche is casting strong doubt on himself by not commenting on hoping that cheaters are being kicked out of the sport.

So, lets try the reverse. If you are not excusing everything Lance is doing, and doing it vocally, then we can assume that you must be part of a system that wants to toss out rules. After all we KNOW that jurisprudence does not matter to a certain cabal of 'fans'.

uniballer plays by his own rules. There is a lot of evidence to back it up.
uniballer broke all the rules and that is why the Feds are investigating. That is why Uniballer is not suing Landis to restore the uniballer's good name as clean cyclist who is gonna save the world from cancer.

But I am not saying anything at all with such statements?

your not really saying anything

Paul Kimmage isn't stupid. He just has no basis AT ALL to question Roche's moral integrity of conduct as a rider regarding dope.

no Kimmage isn't stupid. He has every basis to question why a rider like Roche who made such a huge play on being cheated by a teammate wont call out Contador's doping in the column Roche writes for the Irish Independent. I suppose Woodward and Bernstein were wrong too to question the integrity of the White House?

It is called Yellow Journalism. It sells.

of which Kimmage does not practice and shows how wrong you and your postings are. Kimmage is a multiple award winning journalist not some pr hack.

The Sunday Times, Wall Street Journal, NYTimes, LA Times, Sports Illustrated are not members of yellow journalism as uniballer well knows

Now, how about you address my response to Colm.

Colm is one of the most clued in and eloquent posters on here and i would not dare answer for him or hope to at his high level.

 

[Benotti69]

So, does anyone think a book will come from any of Floyd's sit-downs?

If Kimmage co-authors, then critics may write it off as just more of the same form the "Rough Ride" guy. But again, Bonnie Ford has tons of material on tape, so that could be interesting.

I suppose, either way, the final chapter couldn't be written until all the legal proceedings are concluded. It could be awhile.

I dont think he would till its over. But he would be better of doing it with a Kimmage, Walsh or Ballestre type of journalist.

 

[Granville57]

I dont think he would till its over. But he would be better of doing it with a Kimmage, Walsh or Ballestre type of journalist.

Perhaps they could all collaborate in celebration of what they've collectively been trying to get the world to listen for years now. Brothers in arms. It could have a powerful effect. But once it's all over. Yes.

 

[thehog]

So, does anyone think a book will come from any of Floyd's sit-downs?

If Kimmage co-authors, then critics may write it off as just more of the same form the "Rough Ride" guy. But again, Bonnie Ford has tons of material on tape, so that could be interesting.

I suppose, either way, the final chapter couldn't be written until all the legal proceedings are concluded. It could be awhile.

No book. He's not going there again. And he's not going to wear a leather jacket either.

 

[Benotti69]

Perhaps they could all collaborate in celebration of what they've collectively been trying to get the world to listen for years now. Brothers in arms. It could have a powerful effect. But once it's all over. Yes.

this might take a long time to be over and final nail in the coffin. uniballer and friends have a huge amount to lose and dont like losing.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Fun thread!
I particular liked the one about Chantenay hacker Floyd now being sponsored by the AFLD.
Surreal.

 

[gree0232]

Ackowledge away, we need to know who these people are if they exist, otherwise how can we ackowledge them, is there any proof that the ones mentioned above have any financial interest? If not, then who?

Dr Kay is already listed as a 'sponsor'.

There are obviously people with an agenda out there, or no one would be looking would they? We say this is about 'truth', but there are two sides saying polar opposite things.

When that is the case, it is best to look at what is being generated to support the two sides. Both sides have long lists of 'evidence' and statements to support them - but, and IMO, this is key, none of it has risen to the point where we can indict Lance and Company.

And here is the bigger picture point.

There ARE techniques that will work rearding anti-dopipng.

Lets take an bjective look at them.

1. Have LeMond's and Kimmage's diatribes resulted in a single investigation? A single anti-doping conviction? Even one?

So why should we encourage these public fussilades if we want to ride the sport of dope?

Clearly they do not work, and, if anything, such attacks make it harder for the sport to generate sponsors, maintain public interest, .... and they have generated not a single anti-doping conviction.

Why are we asking for more of this behavior?

2. In sharp contrast, the Guardia Civil, with legal loop hole closed, just nailed Fuentes. CONI has been searching with the Italian Carabinieri, the Feds have broken up doping rings here in the US, the same goes for France and Austria.

We nailed Valverde, Di Luca, Basso, Ullrich (basically), Landis, and even AC by following generating evidence, enough to support a conviction.

I see great promise in the effects, if not the instance, of showergate, or targetted searches of team hotels and vehicles. These actions inidcate that the authorities, Law Enforcement, are analysizing the situation and conducting targetted raids to generate evidence.

And these methods, ala Festina, Rumsas's wife - are generating positive results in anti-doping.

So what I am perplexed by is why there are committed anti-dopers who are demanding more Kimmage and calling the process resulting in anti-doping convictions biased, flawed, and corrupt - rather than demanding that we do MORE Of this?

Worse, there are clearly people so set in their ways, that they will litreally organize to ignore anyone pointing this out?

How is that relevant to Lance? Few of us know for certainty whether or not he doped. However, if we use this investigative process and cannot convict him - after 12 years of looking - then it is safe to assume that he was not doping.

But Lance is not some holy grail of doping. The techniques work, and that sometimes means that we will be letting people we are 'convinced' of doping ride away free and clear.

In the end, it is better to let a few dopers slip through the cracks than it is to begin punishing innocent riders based on speculative inquest.

If the guys are doping, there are multiple points in that system that we can trip them up with, targetted testing, supply networks, turning other riders (think Joe Papp) etc.

No other sport flatuates itself so much even as it does so much to combat doping.

There has got to be some rationality insitilled in the system. It cannot be a process driven by innuendo and accussation. It must, as per the WADA code, be driven by evidence.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

How is that relevant to Lance? Few of us know for certainty whether or not he doped. However, if we use this investigative process and cannot convict him - after 12 years of looking - then it is safe to assume that he was not doping.

.

Most informed observers don't even need the mountains of testimony and circumstantial evidence to know that Lance was doping - its written all over his riding.

All of us know he was doping - its just that some of you don't want the public at large to have it legally confirmed.

 

[Benotti69]

Dr Kay is already listed as a 'sponsor'.

Weisel sponsored Armstrong! i expect you to bang on about how wrong that was in a seperate thread

Have LeMond's and Kimmage's diatribes resulted in a single investigation? A single anti-doping conviction? Even one?

actually it's not diatribe. but that is not there job.

So why should we encourage these public fussilades if we want to ride the sport of dope?

keep trying to shoot the messengers. another fail.

Clearly they do not work, and, if anything, such attacks make it harder for the sport to generate sponsors, maintain public interest, .... and they have generated not a single anti-doping conviction.

not their job. how about you stop your diatribe about journalists and leMond ridding the sport of doping. that's the job of the federations and the riders if they want to ride in a clean peloton.

In sharp contrast, the Guardia Civil, with legal loop hole closed, just nailed Fuentes. CONI has been searching with the Italian Carabinieri, the Feds have broken up doping rings here in the US, the same goes for France and Austria.

that's because doping is illegal and thes bodies are doing their job. again fail in your argument

We nailed Valverde, Di Luca, Basso, Ullrich (basically), Landis, and even AC by following generating evidence, enough to support a conviction.

and armstrong is gonna get nailed

So what I am perplexed by is why there are committed anti-dopers who are demanding more Kimmage and calling the process resulting in anti-doping convictions biased, flawed, and corrupt - rather than demanding that we do MORE Of this?

when you can pay the uci to make positives diappear it is flawed, biased and corrupt. Again Fail.

How is that relevant to Lance? Few of us know for certainty whether or not he doped. However, if we use this investigative process and cannot convict him - after 12 years of looking - then it is safe to assume that he was not doping.

whether or not he doped. fanboy that you are your finally coming to flickies level. next you'll be saying 'level playing field' 'he only did what others did'
he doped. you know it we know it he knows it and the world is beginning to know it.

But Lance is not some holy grail of doping. The techniques work, and that sometimes means that we will be letting people we are 'convinced' of doping ride away free and clear.

the techniques of bribery, best doping doctor,best doping program etc...

In the end, it is better to let a few dopers slip through the cracks than it is to begin punishing innocent riders based on speculative inquest.

now if this isn't a plead for please let lance go and then get the rest of the dopers. it is the saddest and the funniest plea yet from a fanboy. LOL i'm trying to watch the highlights of the Giro Provincia Reggio Calabria and cant from laughing to that...

..... evidence.

wait for Novisky to present it. i'll think you find more than enough to ruin your day, week or year.

 

[thehog]

Fun thread!
I particular liked the one about Chantenay hacker Floyd now being sponsored by the AFLD.
Surreal.

It was a good thread but the intent to hijack has worked. Poor modding. Well more to the point a lot of people got sucked in.

 

[Granville57]

Gree,
You have no idea of what AL said before the GJ. Sorry.

Most informed observers don't even need the mountains of testimony and circumstantial evidence to know that Lance was doping - its written all over his riding.

(It's for the best...)

This will just keep going and going and going if you allow it to.

I've tried. Time for me to go now...

 

[Benotti69]

It was a good thread but the intent to hijack has worked. Poor modding. Well more to the point a lot of people got sucked in.

i hoped it would get modded and i still hope that the recent rubbish gets deleted

 

[Digger]

(It's for the best...)

This will just keep going and going and going if you allow it to.

I've tried. Time for me to go now...

And in fairness to you I was taken in as you can see - but i am out of this one also.

 

[Barrus]

I had hoped the discussion would die out of it's own, but apparently it won't. SO now get back to the article itself and discuss what is said in there. And you guys can complain about the modding all you want, but it is just as bad that you keep on conintuing in the same manner

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Well, then lets discuss the evidence, as I have with you in the past.

Doping is a system. It requires a source, a transportation network, and system to administer and monitor, and, the grease to make it all work, money.

I have long stated follow the money, and the part of Landis's accussation that I was keenly interested in was his assessment that Trek Bikes were being sold to fund teh doping program. That appears no where in the SI article, and that to me, means it is likely going no where.

The SI article was criticized by many Lance supporters, including the paid shrill Fabiani, as containing no "new" information. The "Treks-for-Drugs" concept is not new. So, from your view, omitting it means the "Trek-for-Drugs" angle has no play? Rather, had they included it, do you concede that you'd regard it as stronger proof (in its redundancy) or as grasping on old "news"?

So we look at Hemassist, and at the end of another SI article, it ends with:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ester.200111.1st.ld.writethru.1274/index.html

"I could not imagine a cyclist using HemAssist or any HBOC day after day ... I would imagine that such a product would be used selectively for a most difficult mountain stage,'' Przybelski wrote in a follow-up e-mail to the AP.

"But of course,'' he added, "I don't believe these products were ever used.''

So the guy listed as a source in the original accussation of Hemassist has pretty much categorically denied that he thinks Lance used it.

This scientist has the benefit of hindsight and scientific insight that Lance could not have possessed back when it is alleged he was obtaining it.

Look at it another way. Until Floyd Landis explained to the doping authorities that athletes used EPO without impunity because the testers did not understand that athletes were taking it intravenously, whereby decreasing the amount necessary to effect a benefit and reducing the amount of time where the substance could be detected (from 2-3 days to 2-3 hours). Even as recent as early last year, this was UNKNOWN to the smartest anti-doping scientist. Assigning any authority, on an anti-doping level, to a scientist who has significant knowledge of HemAssist as to the method or administration method for which a new drug might be used is ignorance. From my source, the use of a synthetic hemoglobin is purpoted to be part of a "cocktail" technique. Stand alone, it probably has little value. When put into a hybrid approach, with EPO, transfusions, and managing the blood profile of an athlete and performance, I would wager a large sum that Mr. Przybelski has simply no clue.

I'll deconstruct your next points in order. Try to follow along.

Unlike many on this forum, I read both sides and try to be objective. However, when articles appear that caste great doubt on the use of Hemassist even being benefical .... I think it makes sense to consider that this was not the likely wonder drug of Lance.

Please concede that "benefit", even as could be understood by the anti-doping scientists, is immaterial to the usefulness of acquiring evidence that Lance obtained the HemAssist drug. Just obtaining it is a crime, and would be what is called a non-analytical positive, should this be ultimately confirmed as true.

"Either you burp or break wind. It's very uncomfortable. I tried it out on people and I can guarantee that they were all ill,'' he says.

Noting some side-effects that might occur do nothing to erase the damage arising from proving Lance did obtain it. Please concede that MANY PED's have loads of side-effects, from '*****-tits' to shrinking gonads, all the way up to heart arrhythmias and other circulatory damages (search under Kirchen, Kim). Citing some burps and gas as a deterrent for Lance to consider whether he would/would not chase this stuff is truly ignorant.

Hardly ideal for an elite cyclist. But some of them still gave this stuff a whirl, risking their health. Spanish rider Jesus Manzano keeled over at the 2003 Tour after, he says, he was injected with an HBOC used to treat anemic dogs. Audran believes Manzano's experience scared off other riders.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ester.200111.1st.ld.writethru.1274/index.html

Why would it effect Manzano in this method, but not Lance Armstrong?

So, are you now simply arguing that because "some" experienced anecdotal side-effects from similar medicines (of unknown names, administration methods, dosages, and also considering the contraindications that might have occurred since as the Manzano's of the world were also taking a plethora of other drugs) is another deterrent? Bit of a stretch and of low argumentative value.

BTW, you do not build factories to supply ONE athlete with a controlled substance - you do it because the product has a medical benefot that is used in hostpitals - not bike races.

Your train of thought was still boarding at the station with this one. I think what you were HOPING to imply was...wait, even I can't figure this one out. As it was, Baxter built a factory in Switzerland because all signs pointed to the medicine being approved and going forward. The reason it did not does not invalidate the things Lance believed about the upside of its potential use as a PED. Though, they are not mutually exclusive. Despite that there ultimately was no factory, does not mean athletes would suddenly stop seeking out the medicine, regardless of the side-effects or the actual benefit they truly would gain.

Additionally, these speculative investigations leave many of the doping point unanswered.

Only in your mind.

Where is the method of a sportsman, then largely unknown, getting access to a controlled medical product that NO other athelete gets access to? How is such a process economically viable? How do you make money by selling dope to ONE guy?

I contend that Lance, circa 1998 or thereabouts, would be largely known, if only for his cancer battle. Your following questions are simply too tangential merit a response. Questions of the motivations of the unknown unknowns, are silly.

Where is the trail of money leading us to Hemassist?

Call the Feds, though I get s sense they won't tell you and you'll have to wait for it to come out in court.

Where was it administered? By whom? And why did Floyd not mention this in his detailed accounts?

Immaterial questions, to start, as he does not ever need to have taken it. Simply obtained it. And, this is purported to be long before Floyd arrived at USPS (2002)... Do some research before posting what can best be described as a pure lack of information thinly veiled in ignorant questions.

Does this mean Lance did not dope? No.

I does mean that what is being 'leaked' is being done to generate pressure rather than indicate a looming indictment.

So? The media often "knows" things they can't print, so what's your point? It seems to me they are running these articles as a pre-cursor to the larger "LANCE INDICTED" stories. Sounds like good marketing and business to me. You do understand the media/publishing world is a business, right?

I am not trying to say that doubting Lance's performance is irrational. I am saying that what is being pressented is speculative and is NOT strong enough to garner an indictment, much less a conviction, at this point.

Only depends on the criteria by which you judge are set. I feel there is more than enough out there, and by understanding the process by which it must legally be vetted and double-and-triple corroborated for it to make into print, to establish the confidence I need. Your mileage may vary, and surely it does.

After 12 years of looking .... at some point the abscence of evidence is evidence.

Where is there an absence of evidence? Might help if you articulate how you discern between evidence and what you define as such.

And none of that makes it right for Paul Kimmage to basically call Roche a doper for not insulting AC.

There has got to evidence in this process, or all we are doing is turning cycling into a soup opera.

I am glad we nailed, Basso, Ullrich (basically), Valverde, Schumacher, Rebellin, DiLuca, etc. and I am glad we did it within the rules of the system. Even Landis was caught and convicted by the system, not a nefarious conspiracy.

THAT is anti-doping. Tabloid accussation is not.

The evidence is mounting. It won't be placed in public view in an ad-hoc way but what is trickling out is more than enough to establish doping "to the comfortable satisfaction of those who take the time to research and figure out what is what". BTW, the Wall Street Journal is not a tabloid.

 

[Martin318is]

There have been at leat 2 very clear warnings recently in this thread.
Please take this one as a THIRD that any off topic or unacceptable posting after this post will almost certainly result in the post being deleted, the poster being at minimum warned via infraction, or suspended.

regards,
Martin

 

[Nearly]

......forgot to mention. He still states he didn't use testosterone at 06 Tour.

There's some strange UCI link going on here but he obviously cant too much.

......This article will be read by many thousands of those people, who know have a bit of an insight into floyd. For me this article will have a big impact on public opinion of the "non cycling fans". It gives floyd a lot of credibility.......

I think another thing people reading this article will take from it is that, this time, Floyd is telling the truth, I think that's maybe what Kimmage was aiming at, restoring the credibility of a man who's been stated as having no credibility. I goes into the fact that he's not profiting from this, he's also deliberately perjured himself and thinks he may go to jail, but he's told the truth now and he's getting to a point where his demons may go away.

I shake my head - unless selectively telling the truth is OK. The 2006 positive got more public and detailed legal and expert scrutiny attention than any other. Are we all agreeing he was framed? Hog, what is this "UCI link" you are hinting at?

 

[fatandfast]

I read the article. Not much new. Couple of strange comments by Landis about Lance. Lance told Lanids that writing hate emails and trying to "explain" how wrong everybody was is bad form. It never says if he got his back pay from Mercury but one thing is sure that Landis didn't get the message about writing threating emails. Kimmage is pretty positive but as a penniless liar the conclusion is that Landis will make news for doing something desperate very soon.I think Kimmage should have spent less time writing about how many expresso drink Landis can down.

 

[peloton]

What is the story with Mercury, Landis and the UCI?

 

[Adamastor]

Gree,

You have no idea of what AL said before the GJ. Sorry.

I think it's spinning not leaking, again just my opinion.

Who's AL? Sorry missed stg?

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Who's AL? Sorry missed stg?

Allen Lim the guy who knocked 40 seconds off Taylor Phinney's IP

 

[MacRoadie]

It never says if he got his back pay from Mercury but one thing is sure that Landis didn't get the message about writing threating emails.

Nobody ever got a penny of the money Wordin took.

 

[tofino]

Didn't read the article but looks like Kimmage missed one direct question.

When Landis made the decision to dope who was "in the room" with him. Plus he didn't win the Tour by packing his own bags, someone helped him.

 

[Granville57]

Didn't read the article but...

Start here...
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7473