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

[Polish]

Bazaar Voice / Public Strategies / Fabiani Talking Point #8

Thanks, Polish, for continuing to establish ever new and creative rationalizations for how it was OK for Lance to operate with impunity during his 7 year voyage in winning Le Tour.

Evolving now to the point where the sheer "safety" of how "they" merits recognition and applause.

I cannot fathom where your psychological gymnastics will take you when you are faced with mounting the balance beam of justice during the oncoming indictment and subsequent trial.

Just looking on the bright side.

C'mon, the sport HAS gotten cleaner and safer since 1999.
A lot cleaner and a lot safer.

Well, except for the cars crap.
Still way too many training injuries and sudden deaths due to cars.

 

[webvan]

If he didn't approach JB at that training camp, he may never have made the Tour. Of course, JB probably would have approached him sooner or later. But if Floyd said that he wasn't prepared to do anything it takes, he may never have been an important part of the squad.

That's the problem I have with the interview, Kimmage takes it for granted that Landis had to dope to be on the TDF team, why didn't he question that? It seems that as soon Landis figured he would be protected (LA TDS bust swept under the carpet) he threw morals to the wind.

If JB had come to him and said "Listen, you're a good rider but if you want to ride the TDF you'll have to go the extra mile", I would be a bit more "lenient", as it is, he saw the opportunity offered by the "immunity" and figured he'd go for it. It seems he never tried to stay clean after joining USPS, maybe riding one season "clean" to see what would happen.

Here's another quesiont Kimmage forgot :
- Is it true as Bruyneel has stated that you asked LA and Bruyneel for money after 2006?

 

[Granville57]

At that point I was already riding my bike but after that I don’t think I ever watched the Tour de France until Lance (Armstrong) won that stage sole after his team mate died in 94/95.

Kimmage: That was the first stage you ever saw?

Yes.

Kimage: That’s absurd! You were almost 20-years-old!

I suppose that illustrates, as clearly as anything, just how much Floyd really was in his own world. Would that explain his really not being familiar with Christophe Bassons? That the inner-workings and close-up stories were, and continued to be, off his radar?

Kimmage: I was more interested in what you knew about Bassons during his time with the Festina team in 1998?

No, I don’t know what he did or didn’t do there.

Or is does it illustrate just how much Basson's story was buried amongst the peloton? Was it that nobody want to talk about it, just push to the side, move on, business as usual? The most potent thing the peloton could would be to make a non-entity out of anyone that stood-up and spoke-out. Is that what we're a seeing demonstrated here? It would seem evident of the depth of willing denial within the pro ranks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's the problem I have with the interview, Kimmage takes it for granted that Landis had to dope to be on the TDF team, why didn't he question that? It seems that as soon Landis figured he would be protected (LA TDS bust swept under the carpet) he threw morals to the wind.

If JB had come to him and said "Listen, you're a good rider but if you want to ride the TDF you'll have to go the extra mile", I would be a bit more "lenient", as it is, he saw the opportunity offered by the "immunity" and figured he'd go for it. It seems he never tried to stay clean after joining USPS, maybe riding one season "clean" to see what would happen.

Here's another quesiont Kimmage forgot :
- Is it true as Bruyneel has stated that you asked LA and Bruyneel for money after 2006?

No - he did not.

It was Floyd who approached JB even before the season started and he said he was willing to do whatever he was asked to make the Tour team.
As for knowing the team was protected - again that came much later when he was training with LA.

Where has JB (or LA) said FL was looking for money after 2006?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I see he's sticking to the "finished second in Dauphine -02 clean" story. But that's surely the one thing he's still lying about, right?

It annoyed me when he said he'd never prevent a clean rider from winning. As if doping isn't preventing clean riders from winning? Don't kid yourself, Floyd! You and all the other dopers were collectivelly preventing clean riders from winning. But all in all, this interview made me feel sympathy for Floyd... even though the FFF was ******* terrible.

I was a bit surprised that he "only" used a litre of blood for the Tour. Kohl slammed 1.5l and took CERA pre-Tour. He must have been exceptionally doped. I also thought Floyd used more blood in -06 because his values were such a trainwreck compared to 2005 (which were also indicative of doping), but I guess that's explained by him using a pint prior to TdF -05 to bring his crit up from a low level to 44, so he only took one pint during the race. In 2006, he came into the race at 44% without having already used half his stash, so he took a full litre post that inital blood test. It's funny that he talks about "maintaining continuous blood parameters" when his crit spiked from 44 to 48 when you'd expect it to fall to ~40 if he was clean.

The most dismaying parts were the ones about the UCI's corruption and riders from different teams talking about transfusions openly. This sport is truly ****** up! I find it absolutely bewildering that so very few riders speak up. Not even after their careers are over.

It doesn't take much to make Millar look a tool. He only has to open his mouth.

But it does make Wiggins, Millar and all the other 'clean' riders who have put the boot into Landis look like bigger tools than usual.

With the Oscar P and Boogerd stories about how 'open' it was was about doping it makes the Riis/Millar 'I had no idea what was going on at my team' excuse look like an even bigger pile of old toss than it did before.

That's the opposite of Millar's excuse. David pretty much blamed his team for his doping. Evryone around him wanted him to dope and he finally caved after years of cleanliness...

First tweet:


Vaughters:


my answer to that:


Vaughters:


Mine:


Vaughters:

You should ask him why he said “I believe Floyd is innocent” and "Floyd is basically paying for the sins of all the morons who came before him who have denied, denied, denied. He’s going to take the fall for everyone who has cried wolf before him." JV obviously knew that wasn't true.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Just looking on the bright side.

C'mon, the sport HAS gotten cleaner and safer since 1999.
A lot cleaner and a lot safer.

Well, except for the cars crap.
Still way too many training injuries and sudden deaths due to cars.

Is HGH any more detectable than it was in 1999?

Is intravenous EPO use any more detectable than it was in 1999?

Are autologous blood transfusions any more detectable (and if you utter Bio-Passport, you will be docked 100 points) than in 1999?

Is the UCI any more or less susceptible to corruption now than in 1999?

....wait, what were you saying?

I can only suppose you are implying that the "Blue Train" set new standards in employing the best doping doctors (health and safety managers) as an example of how to "keep the athletes safe" and somehow assign praise for how wisely they utilized USPS govt funds for such an innovating undertaking.

 

[yourwelcome]

Cool interview and I laughed out loud at the 'the only thing worse than reading Cycling News is talking to them', but as an aside, there's been so much emotional story-telling going on in this case... I'll be so happy to finally read some dispassionate evidence when the FDA team eventually state their case.

Reading about Kimmage's sweet little notes of anguish in his notebook just won't compare to 'Chapter 3: Results. 1) The retrospectively tested samples have all returned positive for EPO, cocaine, ice, crack and pipe tobacco', 'Chapter 10: UCI Officials Found To Have Acted Corruptly - Appendix. 18"... etcetera.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It annoyed me when he said he'd never prevent a clean rider from winning. As if doping isn't preventing clean riders from winning? Don't kid yourself...

I'm not going to cut and paste, but I got the impression he meant going out of his way to prevent others from winning, the way Lance did with Simeoni.

I also got the feeling if you asked him yes/no if he felt his (and other riders) doping prevented clean riders from winning he would unequivocally answer "yes".

 

[lean mean &green]

Whenever there is a new positive, there are always shouts of denigration - liar, cheat, scum... Ban him for life. This is such a harsh approach to someone who has made a reasonable and well thought out decision (to dope). The doper who is caught should not be the scapegoat for all the dopers who evade capture, and all the corrupt dealings of the system.

although i mostly agree with your thoughts i think the bolded is an oversimplification. most educated fans have come to terms with the idea that deciding to dope is a rational and logical choice made by the individual. we don't view it as acceptable but there's definitely an understanding among regular visitors of our "clinic". what's really hard to stomach about floyd's past is the decision to wage an unnecessary and excruciating legal battle lasting months, or even years actually, to clear his name. fans of the sport were forced to watch this 100 car pile up in super slow motion and were treated as fools. i'm starting to move on from this and it doesn't hurt that floyd's a very likeable personality but it's a lot to get past. he really glosses over this part of the story in this interview. he seems to exaggerate his anxiety. he paints a picture of his anxiety that resembles the PTSD of a soldier returning home from war that lasted for a year or two. the timing of his close friend/relative's suicide certainly contributed to his inability to cope but its a big hall pass for us to grant.

it was said that landis' legal approach at one point was to simply outspend the opposition. it is these endless and expensive appeals that exhaust anti-doping budgets and leave less money for stuff like.....more frequent and effective tests. they're crippling. i'll try and keep this a landis thread but i'm sure most will notice the comparison to more recent events. it is this cartoonish legal wrangling we should be intolerant of.

landis did most of this to himself. he seems to be coming to terms with that and seeing himself as less and less of a victim. i wish him the best. i hope he continues to speak openly and honestly about his experiences. i think it's good for him and kimmage's advice for him is better than either of them probably realize. i'm glad to see they've become more than just acquaintances. as others have suggested, floyd is still much closer to the top of my of people-to-share-a-beer-with list than the bottom.

 

[webvan]

No - he did not.

It was Floyd who approached JB even before the season started and he said he was willing to do whatever he was asked to make the Tour team.
As for knowing the team was protected - again that came much later when he was training with LA.

Where has JB (or LA) said FL was looking for money after 2006?

Ok, but my point still stands, why didn't Kimmage ask why Landis took it for granted he would have to dope to race the TDF? Why didn't he give it a shot (pun intended) without dope to see what would happen? Someone caught that he's claiming he finished the Dauphine 2002 in second with no doping (missed that, will go looking), surely that should have encouraged him to continue?

Some stuff just doesn't jive here, that and the fact he maintains he was framed for the 2006 TDF, whatever he says about moving on, it's obvious he's still trying to rationalize the whole fight that left him with nothing, no wife, no job, no money, etc...

As for Bruynell saying Landis had asked for money, here you go : http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/johan-bruyneel-floyd-landis-needs-help

What was he asking for when he was sending you emails?

Basically two things, since his positive test in the Tour de France he has been asking us for money, a lot of money to help pay for his legal advise. From the moment that his suspension was finished, on two occasions he asked for a position on the team, which of course I also did not respond to.

 

[leftover pie]

Great, then I'll leave it here for a while: http://gorillaroadie.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/landiskimmage-from-nyvelocity/

Page views don't matter to me, I have no ads. Just want to keep it public. I'd encourage others to repost as well.

cheers for that, epic read.

 

[webvan]

I see he's sticking to the "finished second in Dauphine -02 clean" story. But that's surely the one thing he's still lying about, right?

I went back to the interview but can't find that "finished second in Dauphine -02 clean" story, any pointers?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok, but my point still stands, why didn't Kimmage ask why Landis took it for granted he would have to dope to race the TDF? Why didn't he give it a shot (pun intended) without dope to see what would happen? Someone caught that he's claiming he finished the Dauphine 2002 in second with no doping (missed that, will go looking), surely that should have encouraged him to continue?

Some stuff just doesn't jive here, that and the fact he maintains he was framed for the 2006 TDF, whatever he says about moving on, it's obvious he's still trying to rationalize the whole fight that left him with nothing, no wife, no job, no money, etc...

As for Bruynell saying Landis had asked for money, here you go :

What was he asking for when he was sending you emails?

Basically two things, since his positive test in the Tour de France he has been asking us for money, a lot of money to help pay for his legal advise. From the moment that his suspension was finished, on two occasions he asked for a position on the team, which of course I also did not respond to

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/johan-bruyneel-floyd-landis-needs-help

Floyd said to JB he would do 'whatever it takes' to get on the Tour team - knowing what that implied.
He was broke and as almost all new emplyees in any job do you show how keen you are.
He had already decided that if it was necsessary to dope he would after having talked with Van Petegem.

As for the money that Floyd supposedly asked JB for........ well there was no mention of it in the emails that LA and Radioshack released. JB lied.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I went back to the interview but can't find that "finished second in Dauphine -02 clean" story, any pointers?

I think he is deducing that Floyd rode the 2002 Dauphine clean based on the Landis claim that the first time he doped was right AFTER when they flew from there to St. Moritz and Lance handed him test or EPO (or something like that).

Now, can we imagine that Floyd rode a clean Dauphine, with the tactical protection of USPS and Lance leading? Sure. It is also reasonable to think he rode a clean Tour de L'Avenir and took 4th in 2000? Sure. I don't find those implausible.

 

[Granville57]

As for Bruynell saying Landis had asked for money, here you go : http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/johan-bruyneel-floyd-landis-needs-help

I think we have to consider anything coming out of Johan's mouth to be disingenuous. Did Floyd ask for money? Well, he certainly was getting money from Lance and Johan's inner circle, so what does that say?

Most of Floyd's "defense fund" was coming from the wealthy "associates" of Weisel and that ilk. So I have do problem completely dismissing Johan on this one. He failed to mention whether or not "they" gave Floyd any money. Which they did.

 

[Granville57]

The other reason I brought up the "hadn't seen a stage of the Tour until he was 20-years-old" thing is that I think it puts another light on Floyd's perspective that touches on some of what Francois is saying.

Floyd didn't grow up with a romantic vision of the Tour, it's history, the riders, the legends, etc. He didn't grow up with any vision of the Tour. Once he discovered that that was the race to win, then his ambition led him to, "Well, I want to win that one then."

Further, most of what he learned along the way was through USPS. That was his lens. He quickly surmised how the game was played, and made the decision to jump into the game. Does this excuse from not taking the same route as Bassons? No. But Floyd's background and upbringing was so far removed what any European pro's would've been, so that it's not an apples to apples comparison. I think Floyd just applied his binary logic to the situation at hand. The winners, and all the teammate around him, were all dopers. He wanted to win.

Even the romantic vision that most of us might have of the Tour, and pro cycling in general, just wasn't part of Floyd's reality. I don't think we can fault him for that. It was a dark and twisted game this ex-mennonite found himself in the middle of. This was suddenly his reality. The "higher moral ground" may have seemed like some imaginary place that didn't even exist in that world. He didn't make the rules.

I think that Basson's perspective, and Kimmage's own perspective as a rider, were based upon a foundation and upbringing around the sport and the history of that sport that didn't exist for Floyd. That doesn't give him a moral "pass" on everything he did. I just think it was very binary for him. The "rules" are not as they appear. Things in this universe don't happen that way, they happen this way. So I'll just go this way.

That's my take on Floyd.

 

[Topangarider]

Can anyone think of examples (from the public domain) of things ending well for whistleblowers? Some pharma execs have walked away from their careers emotionally and financially intact (if not wealthier). But not many other cases come to mind.

 

[webvan]

I think we have to consider anything coming out of Johan's mouth to be disingenuous. Did Floyd ask for money? Well, he certainly was getting money from Lance and Johan's inner circle, so what does that say?

Most of Floyd's "defense fund" was coming from the wealthy "associates" of Weisel and that ilk. So I have do problem completely dismissing Johan on this one. He failed to mention whether or not "they" gave Floyd any money. Which they did.

Good points, would have been interesting for Kimmage to ask Landis.

Floyd said to JB he would do 'whatever it takes' to get on the Tour team - knowing what that implied.
He was broke and as almost all new emplyees in any job do you show how keen you are.
He had already decided that if it was necsessary to dope he would after having talked with Van Petegem.

Same as above, even more so in this case, why didn't Kimmage dig deeper, this seems to me to be the crux of the matter. Landis seems to imply he doesn't like to play by the rules (starting with the question his parents couldn't answer) so why did he take that it granted he had to dope without even trying?

Maybe Kimmage will release more of the 7 hours at some point to fill in the gaps.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Indeed. One of about 20 people who kinda remember her can't even remember her first name!

Irrespective of me getting her name wrong, the point stands. The one time a candidate with a reform/anti-corruption/anti-doping platform has stood they have got nowhere - which reflects the lack of support for reform in the UCI.

Tyler's Twin - With Millar I was thinking more of his time at SD - a team which had Mayo, Piepoli and Ricco on its books and yet Disco Dave tells us he saw nothing...

I can only conclude that Millar is either telling the truth but is very very stupid, to the point where he'd forget to breath if someone wasn't reminding him, or he is a liar.

 

[BroDeal]

The missed opportunity about this is that Kimmage's actual article was pretty weak. Aside from a few new details it read like it was simply derived from the earlier WSJ and ESPN articles. The actual transcript is fascinating.

 

[python]

this was the longest interview i ever read..very draining to follow.

i almost feel it was too long, too personal, too emotional to digest in one sit-down..but i don’t feel like i’ll go back and re-read any parts because fundamentally i finished reading with the impression it added little to what i already constructed in my own mind about floyd the person - his tormented world, his personality traits, his motives, his conscience and mood swings.

one thing that continues to stand out for me is his tenaciousness, the utmost degree to which he can be driven, regardless of what he applied himself to…be it racing, perfecting his ‘programme’, avoiding detection, beating the suspension, learning …they all point to a person with fanatical determination. if this is not clinical, it's an admirable trait by itself and it could make him a very successful person had he started a career in a less rotten environment.

i hope he does make a complete switch as he obviously has plenty of brains and passion... . particularly i believe staring a family and becoming a father will cure him.

But something tells me he may not turn easily because despite believing 95% of his story I still found significant factual and ethical disconnects in it. Will elaborate if the thread moves that way...

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Can anyone think of examples (from the public domain) of things ending well for whistleblowers? Some pharma execs have walked away from their careers emotionally and financially intact (if not wealthier). But not many other cases come to mind.

http://www.taf.org/top20.htm

This does not list what the "whistleblowers" received caee-by-case but it puts into context how the US Govt reacts to being defrauded.

Any whistleblower case that Landis might have filed is a very real problem for those named, with serious financial jeopardy attached. Paired with the criminal investigation, it makes the taunts of a certain "Juan Pelota" even more ill-advised.

Notice how many settle? Consider the type of advice and risk analysis that counsel for each of these offered to their clients in the course of each case. Do you get a sense that there will be a point at which those named could turn on each other or simply fold and enter into settlement talks?

How do you think the implications of a looking criminal investigation, running alongside such a case can affect the confidence of those named. Burning the candle at both ends is a visual that comes to mind.

 

[Anonymous]

Pretty mush agree with Francois. The truth is 4 years is a heck of a long time to come clean. And to be honest let's say he did play the game, came back after two years who says he wouldn't of doped again?

Fate has a way of crushing you into submission.

I care f**k all why he did it. He did it. If you read it, and his information doesn't ring true, you have what is called "denial." Research the term and get back to us.

 

[woodburn]

Would have liked Kimmage to ask about the phone call LeMond and Landis had where Landis allegedly admitted to doping. And also their relationship now.

 

[PotentialPro]

http://www.taf.org/top20.htm

This does not list what the "whistleblowers" received caee-by-case but it puts into context how the US Govt reacts to being defrauded.

Any whistleblower case that Landis might have filed is a very real problem for those named, with serious financial jeopardy attached. Paired with the criminal investigation, it makes the taunts of a certain "Juan Pelota" even more ill-advised.

Notice how many settle? Consider the type of advice and risk analysis that counsel for each of these offered to their clients in the course of each case. Do you get a sense that there will be a point at which those named could turn on each other or simply fold and enter into settlement talks?

How do you think the implications of a looking criminal investigation, running alongside such a case can affect the confidence of those named. Burning the candle at both ends is a visual that comes to mind.

Nice find there. I see some common elements, and a potential pathway for the FDA case to progress.