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

[TexPat]

Yes, completely and utterly, DUDE, (hope that's more Americanized for you) since to discredit means "To harm the good reputation of a person; to cause an idea or piece of evidence to seem false or unreliable.".
There's certainly some truth in what he says the problem being you can't tell what is and what isn't after all the lies he's been living and - stretching that fact again - making money by doing so.

Dude means someone who pretends to be a cowboy. I suggest leaving out any unnecessary terms such as these to avoid insult.
Discredit is a term I'm well acquainted with, and using your definition is akin to defamation. The point I'm trying to make is, one lie doesn't mean all lies. That is a fallacy.
Please provide evidence of Floyd being paid for the interview. To intimate or say this outright while knowing it to be untrue would be libellous.

Regards,
Mike the Yank

 

[Ferminal]

So Floyd spews a story to a sympathetic journalist about him being all sweet and innocent - just wanting to race, being forced into taking drugs and misled by 'cycling culture' and you just all swallow it hook-line-and-sinker?

Rather, the truth is Floyd realized he could not win on his talents alone and chose to dope to improve his chances. Nobody else enters into the equation, whatever he says, he is guilty, but he continues to not accept full responsibility and so this saga continues. Floyd would love you all to believe that he was the last person in the peleton to dope, but then he was one of the first to get an unfortunate positive. Oh how very inconvenient.

Whatever the 'truth', Floyd got caught doping, he chose to dope, it was his choice, his responsibility, his shame and the end of his career. I feel sorry for Floyd, I think he feels genuine shame for what he did, established that we all have personal responsibility for our actions, we can't blame other people or achieve absolution by pointing out that everybody else was wrong also. Maybe some people slipped though the net as appears very likely, but going back and trying to prove that the holes in the net were too large is a fool's game and not one that will ever make Floyd feel better about himself.

Yes, and Floyd does accept responsibility for his own actions. I'm not quite sure exactly what your point is.

 

[MacRoadie]

No way Floyd tilts windmills, how dare you Macroadie compare him to anyone in a Cervantes, Miguel novel.

The comment was about you, Einstein:

Unfortunately for flicky, he's a modern day Don Quixote jousting windmills. He tries to discredit those he thinks have elevated Floyd to some hero state, when no such people exist

It's you that jousts the windmills of your imagination: fighting against all the non-existent machinations of your mind, the so-called Floyd worshippers who never worshipped him, but merely respect whatever good might be done with the knowledge he possesses.

For the rational among us, we are quite capable of realizing Floyd lied and cheated on more than a few occasions. We can also, however, appreciate that there is value to some of what he says. If you'd bother to spend the time and effort analyzing what he says, winnowing the chaff from the wheat as it were as many on here do (rather then spending that time attempting to craft trite and marginally amusing rhetoric), you might actually separate the useful from the useless, use it to the benfit of cycling, and move on.

Or not...

 

[mad black]

Dude means someone who pretends to be a cowboy. I suggest leaving out any unnecessary terms such as these to avoid insult.
Discredit is a term I'm well acquainted with, and using your definition is akin to defamation. The point I'm trying to make is, one lie doesn't mean all lies. That is a fallacy.
Please provide evidence of Floyd being paid for the interview. To intimate or say this outright while knowing it to be untrue would be libellous.

Regards,
Mike the Yank

I've been looking for evidence and I have to admit that I didn't find any evidence of him being paid for the interview. But neither did I find any evidence of the contrary or that he hadn't been paid for an interview since May. He will, however, receive a percentage of whatever is recovered as a result of the Novitzky investigation. This does constitute a vested interest in playing one's heart strings as he does in the Kimmage interview.

What I did find during my search was an interview also done by the NY times. I'll just let this quote speak for itself in regards to the credit FL truly deserves.

“Everybody wants me to look them in the eye and say I didn't do it,” he told me. “I'm willing to do that, but really, what does that do? Is that logical to think you can tell by looking into my eyes? I don't think so. The only way that people would ever believe me is to admit it and say that I did it. That's it. Nothing else is ever going to be indisputable.” He followed this by saying that he had no plans to admit anything because there was nothing to admit. “I've never cheated once in my career,”

- Floyd Landis, 2007

 

[Ferminal]

“Everybody wants me to look them in the eye and say I didn't do it,” he told me. “I'm willing to do that, but really, what does that do? Is that logical to think you can tell by looking into my eyes? I don't think so. The only way that people would ever believe me is to admit it and say that I did it. That's it. Nothing else is ever going to be indisputable.” He followed this by saying that he had no plans to admit anything because there was nothing to admit. “I've never cheated once in my career,” “Everybody wants me to look them in the eye and say I didn't do it,” he told me. “I'm willing to do that, but really, what does that do? Is that logical to think you can tell by looking into my eyes? I don't think so. The only way that people would ever believe me is to admit it and say that I did it. That's it. Nothing else is ever going to be indisputable.” He followed this by saying that he had no plans to admit anything because there was nothing to admit. “I've never cheated once in my career,”

Yes, exactly, funny some people still play the "he lied then and he's lying now" card.

Anyone who believed in him then was a fool, likewise anyone who doesn't believe what he says now has a lot of truth in it.

(Of those who invest time to educate themselves on the situation).

 

[TexPat]

I've been looking for evidence and I have to admit that I didn't find any evidence of him being paid for the interview. But neither did I find any evidence of the contrary or that he hadn't been paid for an interview since May. He will, however, receive a percentage of whatever is recovered as a result of the Novitzky investigation. This does constitute a vested interest in playing one's heart strings as he does in the Kimmage interview.

What I did find during my search was an interview also done by the NY times. I'll just let this quote speak for itself in regards to the credit FL truly deserves.

- Floyd Landis, 2007

I use the same sort of logic in my undying belief in the existence of Santa Claus.

Please provide evidence of whistleblowers who've made their millions for ratting out the thieves, liars, and extortionists in corporate Amerika.
Seriously, you think he's hoping for a big pay out? Do you have any idea how long anything of the sort may take given the great efficiency of the US Justice system? He may as well hope for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While he waits, the money he owes all those lawyers will be gaining interest. I reckon he's screwed financially. Bankruptcy is the more likely scenario.
It's outlandish to think that money motivates whistleblowers. Completely ridiculous.

 

[Barrus]

I use the same sort of logic in my undying belief in the existence of Santa Claus.

Please provide evidence of whistleblowers who've made their millions for ratting out the thieves, liars, and extortionists in corporate Amerika.
Seriously, you think he's hoping for a big pay out? Do you have any idea how long anything of the sort may take given the great efficiency of the US Justice system? He may as well hope for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While he waits, the money he owes all those lawyers will be gaining interest. I reckon he's screwed financially. Bankruptcy is the more likely scenario.
It's outlandish to think that money motivates whistleblowers. Completely ridiculous.

Well, it is possible that the lawyers work under the mantra of no cure, no pay, although I think this is unlikely

 

[TexPat]

Well, it is possible that the lawyers work under the mantra of no cure, no pay, although I think this is unlikely

Agreed.
And any lawyer who took this case pro bono is either extremely altruistic (there are still some left!) or completely unaware of the very real complications in the primary witness. This could be a very long and drawn out case requiring loads of resources from any law firm.
Or it could be quick. Vamos a ver.

 

[TubularBills]

I use the same sort of logic in my undying belief in the existence of Santa Claus.

Please provide evidence of whistleblowers who've made their millions for ratting out the thieves, liars, and extortionists in corporate Amerika.
Seriously, you think he's hoping for a big pay out? Do you have any idea how long anything of the sort may take given the great efficiency of the US Justice system? He may as well hope for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While he waits, the money he owes all those lawyers will be gaining interest. I reckon he's screwed financially. Bankruptcy is the more likely scenario.
It's outlandish to think that money motivates whistleblowers. Completely ridiculous.

+1

Millions?

Hm, they might, if they have a really compelling story to tell and they can write.

Or, they have a really good story that eviscerates a sport and a fallacious legend + a gifted ghost.

This could be the greatest sporting story ever, of the greatest sporting fraud of all time + I like the guy in the middle, but more importantly, I want to hear the 'tell all' truth from someone that was there, that has the balls to tell it.

(besides you Tex, no offense - you will be vindicated.)

 

[andy1234]

It seems to me that people love a shaggy dog story...
If Landis was living in a nice house, still married, with a few million in the bank and he decided to tell all, would he be so warmly received?

Its sad that his life has gone t**s up, but I can't judge him any more favourably just because it has.

Lets make something clear here. He lost everything in the pursuit of trying to defend his doping charge, NOT as a result of becoming outspoken about doping in pro cycling.

He told all, when all other options had become unavailable to him.

It might be great news for the anti doping fraternity, but I can't belive how quickly the steadfast anti doping community on here have turned into warm and fuzzy friends of Landis.

 

[Roninho]

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.

What i just don't get is why would he be afraid to be left out of the TDF squad when he was capable of finishing 2nd in the Dauphine in 2002. That was an edition including the Ventoux, the Col de la Colombiere and the Joux Plane. Even on the strong usp squad a guy that finishes 2nd in the dauphine gets on the TDF squad.

Imo it sounds more like he just wanted to become really good and since the things that Lance was doing was obviously working he followed that path. That, or he allready was on something before this. Otherwise it makes not much sense to me.

It also makes one question how good doping works and how good landis was. I mean, finishing 2nd in the dauphine dope-free? That sounds like he could have had a very nice career as good domestique in the tdf and a free role in smaller tours (d-l, tour de suisse, maybe vuelta/giro going for stage wins).

 

[Roninho]

edit: saw there was a specific thread for this, so deleted it hear to not get this one off topic.

 

[Roninho]

So Floyd spews a story to a sympathetic journalist about him being all sweet and innocent - just wanting to race, being forced into taking drugs and misled by 'cycling culture' and you just all swallow it hook-line-and-sinker?

Did you even read the article? He was quite clear that he was not forced.

 

[euanli]

Except USPS rode hard. And every day to destroy the other teams. The blood bags were there to allow them to do that for three weeks. I imagine doing it over a week is no where near as hard and that USPS kept all the dope for the Tour.

 

[Ferminal]

What i just don't get is why would he be afraid to be left out of the TDF squad when he was capable of finishing 2nd in the Dauphine in 2002. That was an edition including the Ventoux, the Col de la Colombiere and the Joux Plane. Even on the strong usp squad a guy that finishes 2nd in the dauphine gets on the TDF squad.

Imo it sounds more like he just wanted to become really good and since the things that Lance was doing was obviously working he followed that path. That, or he allready was on something before this. Otherwise it makes not much sense to me.

It also makes one question how good doping works and how good landis was. I mean, finishing 2nd in the dauphine dope-free? That sounds like he could have had a very nice career as good domestique in the tdf and a free role in smaller tours (d-l, tour de suisse, maybe vuelta/giro going for stage wins).

Yeh, but why would JB take someone to the Tour who hadn't been given adequate preparation? It doesn't matter how good Floyd was undoped, because doped Floyd was always going to be better.

I think it's a question only LA/JB know the answer to. Was there anyone in the 7 years who wasn't on a program?

As Floyd describes that exchange, he never specifically stated that he wanted to dope, rather he was willing to do whatever the team wanted. Floyd didn't get on the Test until after that Dauphine. They still decided to get him on a program despite the ability he showed. Knowing that the Dauphine is a lot different to the Tour, just look at last year's top10.

 

[Benotti69]

There is an element of truth to both points.

He's probably not getting paid for the interviews but he is getting paid if Lance get's convicted.

wrong. Journalists fo Kimmages calibre do not pay for interviews.

that is tabloid journalism. tabloids pay for exclusives. Kimmage is not going to pay for it as it undermines totally the interview.

It is not done by reputable journalists.. Myth Period.

 

[Roland Rat]

I think it's a question only LA/JB know the answer to. Was there anyone in the 7 years who wasn't on a program?

Extremely unlikely. But I would bet my ratmobile that there were some on reduced programmes so as not to show up His Ballness. No point having exclusivity if someone from your own team betters than you.

 

[Benotti69]

I've been looking for evidence and I have to admit that I didn't find any evidence of him being paid for the interview. But neither did I find any evidence of the contrary or that he hadn't been paid for an interview since May. He will, however, receive a percentage of whatever is recovered as a result of the Novitzky investigation. This does constitute a vested interest in playing one's heart strings as he does in the Kimmage interview.

so you think he's recieved payment for his interviews and cant find evidence, but cant find evidence to say that he hasn't so therefore lets accuse him being paid. BS. PURE BS.

 

[andy1234]

so you think he's recieved payment for his interviews and cant find evidence, but cant find evidence to say that he hasn't so therefore lets accuse him being paid. BS. PURE BS.

I agree it is BS, but...
Isn't this exactly the same logic you have applied time and time again to "suspected " doping riders?

 

[Benotti69]

It seems to me that people love a shaggy dog story...
If Landis was living in a nice house, still married, with a few million in the bank and he decided to tell all, would he be so warmly received?

what i was responding too..

actually plenty have walked away from the sport and not tested positive and yet have recounted their doping while they are comfortable and not in Floyd's position.

Stephen Swart to name 1, Paul Kimmage #2, Christophe Bassons #3 and there are others.

So I can easily imagine Floyd sitting in this group of people respected for their decisions to not dope and tell all or to have doped and told all.

None of them won the TdF and spent years lying about how they did it.

no they didn't but andy1212 never applied that to his statement.

Floyd never bought the romantic myth of the TdF, he saw is at the highest achievement in cycling. He discovered it at 20 years of age. Big difference for all us fans and other pros who recognised it and dreamt winning about it as we rode or bikes as teens. I wonder would the others have done the same. Bassons absolutely not, but Swart doped, Kimmage doped for 3 criteriums. Would Kimmage have doped to win the TdF? he might have. Swart had retired from bike racing and afters talked about his doping.

 

[Benotti69]

I agree it is BS, but...
Isn't this exactly the same logic you have applied time and time again to "suspected " doping riders?

I know the world of Journalism from personal experience.

To say i apply the same logic to suspecting dopers is not true. But if you want to start a new thread to discuss, do and dont take this one off topic.

 

[Chuffy]

actually plenty have walked away from the sport and not tested positive and yet have recounted their doping while they are comfortable and not in Floyd's position.

Stephen Swart to name 1, Paul Kimmage #2, Christophe Bassons #3 and there are others.

So I can easily imagine Floyd sitting in this group of people respected for their decisions to not dope and tell all or to have doped and told all.

None of them won the TdF and spent years lying about how they did it.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

They were transfusing blood for crying out loud.
Probably the kindest gentlest type of doping known to Pro Cycling.

Healthier & safer than the ether sniffing from long ago.
Heathier & safer than the amphetamines and barbituates from the 70' & 80's
Healthier & safer than EPO Transformations of the Body etc.

Floyd ended up with a booboo bruise on his arm waawaa.
Bogerd joked about it.
Pierro blood transfused - OMG what a shock.

Hinault has commented once that transfusing one's own blood is not even considered a PED in his book....

And USPS had multiple docs per rider from Floyd's e-mails.

Seriously, among the many many many team doping programs and the do-it-yourself doping programs in the history of Pro cycling, the USPS program was probably among the safest. I would bet THE safest.

Hog says "Sad cycling never got to see the 2004/05 Tours we wanted. How could anyone compete". How sad boohoo. Until you realize some teams & riders were using stronger stuff in 2004/2005 than the USPS blood transfusions and hydration bags lol

Ask Jesus Manzano how safe transfusions are.

 

[andy1234]

I know the world of Journalism from personal experience.

To say i apply the same logic to suspecting dopers is not true. But if you want to start a new thread to discuss, do and dont take this one off topic.

Well, if you do know the world of Journalism, and I'm making no accusations towards Kimmage here, you will know that they can make the UCI look like Choirboys.

 

[Paco_P]

Other than that, hangs Oscar Periero out to dry

Actually, what he said about Pereiro is more nuanced, and more human.

"Q: I’m surprised, but I shouldn’t be, it makes perfect sense. When Contador was busted recently you had people like Basso and Schleck supporting him.

A: Yeah but here’s the problem - Pereiro said the opposite and that I stole it (the Tour) from him. But he was guilty too.

Q: Yeah, that’s worse.

A: Well I don’t know if it’s worse but it’s harder for me to take. What do you say? ****! I don’t know. I mean what they should say is just ‘Look, everyone is immune – just tell us what the **** is going on?’ That’s what I suggested to USADA and WADA that they just give everyone immunity and just get the facts but they won’t do it."

When he says "I don't know it it's worse but it's harder for me to take", he says something really interesting. I found that one of the more deeply moral, honest statements in the whole interview. The man has a sense of his own weaknesses.