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

[Benotti69]

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.

what i was responding too..

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?

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.

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 about winning it as we rode our 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 afterwards talked about his doping.

 

[thehog]

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.

To fair on Oscar he initially supported Landis. He changed his tune months later. The entire saga also destroyed Pereiro. He was never the same after that experience. He was the winner but not the winner. He wanted to claim the win but couldn’t claim the win. There were no winners in all of this.

 

[Paco_P]

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, 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.

This seems to ignore the reality that ALL of them are doping. This dude got caught and has dealt publicly with the hypocrisy - even he seems to recognize that doing so is not always itself free from hypocrisy - but where are Basso, Ullrich, Contador, Hamilton, Virenque, etc. talking about what went on, what goes on, and what will keep going on? The situation with Floyd is all Floyd's fault, but the situation with cycling is not all Floyd's fault, and it seems that he is sincerely trying to communicate that. I don't think he's doing it because he thinks he'll find absolution, although I think he'd admit that it does make him feel better (what's wrong with that, after all - one has to try to find a constructive way to deal with one's serious mistakes - and those who make no serious mistakes should keep their saintly mouths shut). He may be looking for a way to make money, and so forth, but it's understandable to be angry at the situation in which he's the one idiot who got caught, and most of the rest, including those who run the show, are still glorying in the fame and money. I'll take Floyd's reaction over Alberto's. It's more honest, if not completely so.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

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.

Stay on topic please. If you want to discuss how immoral we journalists are, open another thread.

Susan

 

[hrotha]

To fair on Oscar he initially supported Landis. He changed his tune months later. The entire saga also destroyed Pereiro. He was never the same after that experience. He was the winner but not the winner. He wanted to claim the win but couldn’t claim the win. There were no winners in all of this.

A possibility someone brought up some time ago, and about which I was skeptical, was that Pereiro's career went downhill simply because he was content with his Tour win and knew there's no way he could have replicated it or won something at that level again, so he decided to stop taking risks. After reading about the text message he allegedly sent to Jesús Losa, I think the theory was spot on.

 

[GoneWithTailWind]

ie the David 'Omerta' Millar feature today. Now that feature wouldn't get written if they pointed that that Millar is a hypocritical lying old doper who remains a defender of omerta. If they challenged him about his apparent blindness while at SD and his attacks on Landis etc

"We’ve not gone corporate but we’ve got that global international level."

David Millar or David Brent?

 

[Barrus]

A possibility someone brought up some time ago, and about which I was skeptical, was that Pereiro's career went downhill simply because he was content with his Tour win and knew there's no way he could have replicated it or won something at that level again, so he decided to stop taking risks. After reading about the text message he allegedly sent to Jesús Losa, I think the theory was spot on.

I don't think I have heard of these text messages, any link you got for that, because you made me intrigued

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

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).

Of course what's always hilarious is that many of those who believed him then don't believe him now.

They'll believe the utterly ridiculous, and refuse to accept the totally obvious.

 

[Roninho]

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 get why JB would prefer to have him dope. An even better landis as helper for LA, and i could see them wanting all teammates to dope as well so that they would have an extra incentive to keep their mouth shut about lance and doping (boy did that backfire ).

But to say someone who finishes 2nd in the dauphine isn't adequately prepared for the tdf is just wrong imo. The nr.2 in the dauphine would have been a guaranteed starter on most tdf's teams. I mean rabo had guys like niermann, boven, lotz, etc. in their tour squad those years.

So i still wonder, what made Landis think that without dope he wouldnt get on the team? And even if that was the case, why would he even choose for that?

When Landis made his claims it was said that he was introduced to doping by usp, and i got the impression it was a a bit forced on him/peer pressure,etc.. But after reading this it seems that he allready decided to take the dope without knowing if the team even did supply dope and even wanted him to dope.

It just amazes me. Really. A guy who just finished 2nd in the dauphine (prove that he could have a long and nice career without dope), who also has the extra burnden of knowing how doping goes against everything his family taught him and also against what he stood for just shortly before that (see the van petegeme reference). And he still decides to go for the dope.

 

[andy1234]

Stay on topic please. If you want to discuss how immoral we journalists are, open another thread.

Susan

Don't take offence.
At least no more than every pro cyclist who is also deemed immoral without evidence.
This is discussion about a Journalist and his subject. The validity of both participants is surely going to be questioned?

 

[Roninho]

To fair on Oscar he initially supported Landis. He changed his tune months later. The entire saga also destroyed Pereiro. He was never the same after that experience. He was the winner but not the winner. He wanted to claim the win but couldn’t claim the win. There were no winners in all of this.

Actually imo he was exactly the same Pereiro. A guy who could finish barely in the top 10, a great nr 2 on your team. 2 (?) years after his win he had that awfull, awfull crash and never properly healed (both physically as mentally).

Pereiro was long beaten for the TDF-win when he got in a long break, taking back half an hour or so. His good finish in the TDF that year was comparable to Arroyo's near win in the Giro.

 

[Roninho]

This seems to ignore the reality that ALL of them are doping.

Actually, Sjonnie has a point Paco. Landis says he finished 2nd in the dauphine without dope. Assuming he is telling the truth about this then that result shows Landis was good enough to have a nice and long career in cycling. He still decided to dope, because he wanted more.

 

[Frosty]

To fair on Oscar he initially supported Landis. He changed his tune months later. The entire saga also destroyed Pereiro. He was never the same after that experience. He was the winner but not the winner. He wanted to claim the win but couldn’t claim the win. There were no winners in all of this.

Yeah i wondered about that part of the interview as i remembered him being a little evasive. One fairly immediate quote is here

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060728/ai_n16644762/

 

[Nearly]

Wouldn't the testosterone metabolites have remained in the previously drawn blood which in itself indicates a transfusion?

I seem to recall someone saying Floyd discounted this himself.

Overall, I found the transcript compelling and convincing but I struggle with my feelings towards him as I do with odd elements of his story.

It appears accepted that he has come clean only because he had nothing more to lose (brave as that may have nevertheless been) -- but he still does have some skin in the game. He has his liberty but he could lose even that for a period if charged with, and found guilty of, perjury --the prospect of which obviously concerns him even if he apears philosophical about it. Could admitting now to testosterone doping make such a charge much more likely (after all that was his defence) and therefore he continues to deny? Might he not want to preserve the Dauphine and possibly other results (on a personal, as opposed to LA/team level) by fudging the timing/limiting the scope of his doping as disclosed to avoid direct linkage?

We do no know what Kimmage has left out. Perhaps some of that might clarify these loose ends (although the testosterone denial is clear).

I must say the casual and seemingly gratuitous throwing of certain riders under a bus seems a little strange. If you think about it (in addition to those already out there) they are limited to a single well liked/known rider from each of Britain (Miller), Holland (Boogerd), Belgium (Van Petegem), Canada (Barry) and Spain (Pereiro), perhaps being less random in the case of Pereiro and Barry.

If "they are all doing it" it defies belief that these were the only names which could have come up in the 7 hours. Call me a cynic but this might have been Kimmage's calculated way of getting maximum attention across the cycling world (rather than any intended collateral damage on Floyd's part).

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Actually, Sjonnie has a point Paco. Landis says he finished 2nd in the dauphine without dope. Assuming he is telling the truth about this then that result shows Landis was good enough to have a nice and long career in cycling. He still decided to dope, because he wanted more.

Did he get 2nd in the Dauphine withour ever having doped?

Or does he mean he rode that week long race without blood top ups or taking anything during the course of that race?

If he was doping prior to that race, during training and other races it is nonsense to say he could have reached that level clean. He might have been artificially raising his baseline for some time prior to a short period of "going without".

 

[sniper]

I seem to recall someone saying Floyd discounted this himself.

Overall, I found the transcript compelling and convincing but I struggle with my feelings towards him as I do with odd elements of his story.

It appears accepted that he has come clean only because he had nothing more to lose (brave as that may have nevertheless been) -- but he still does have some skin in the game. He has his liberty but he could lose even that for a period if charged with, and found guilty of, perjury --the prospect of which obviously concerns him even if apears philosophical about it. Could admitting now to testosterone doping make such a charge much more likely (after all that was his defence) and therefore he continues to deny? Might he not want to preserve the Dauphine and possibly other results (on a personal, as opposed to LA/team level) by fudging the timing/limiting the scope of his doping as disclosed to avoid direct linkage?

We do no know what Kimmage has left out. Perhaps some of that might clarify these loose ends (although the testosterone denial is clear).

I must say the casual and seemingly gratuitous throwing of certain riders under a bus seems a little strange. If you think about it (in addition to those already out there) they are limited to a single well liked/known rider from each of Britain (Miller), Holland (Boogerd), Belgium (Van Petergem), Canada (Barry) and Spain (Pereiro), perhaps being less random in the case of Perreiro and Barry.

If "they are all doing it" it defies belief that these were the only names which could have come up in the 7 hours. Call me a cynic but this might have been Kimmage's calculated way of getting maximum attention across the cycling world (rather than any intended collateral damage on Floyd's part).

In any given 7-hour interview, you'll be able to isolate and highlight inconsistencies or ambiguities, especially if you weren't there, but are only reading the transcript.
In certain cases, you need one's facial expression to know what he meant. You don't have that here (though Kimmage did a decent job in putting some of Floyd's expressions into words). You have no full pragmatic context, which you need to properly interpret someone's words.
Python said 95% of what Floyd recounts is consistent and plausible. I think that is the best you can get. You will alsways find a 5% of ambiguity when you interview somebody. And an interview it was, not an interrogation.

EDTI: I admit that the odd elements are interesting for discussion. But to suggest that that brings down the interview in some way? nah..

 

[thehog]

A possibility someone brought up some time ago, and about which I was skeptical, was that Pereiro's career went downhill simply because he was content with his Tour win and knew there's no way he could have replicated it or won something at that level again, so he decided to stop taking risks. After reading about the text message he allegedly sent to Jesús Losa, I think the theory was spot on.

Was he ever paid the winnings? Maybe Cassie gave him a bonus based on the faux-win?

 

[hrotha]

I don't think I have heard of these text messages, any link you got for that, because you made me intrigued

http://www.publico.es/deportes/262746/laboratorio-fantasma-antidopaje

Unos SMS recibidos por Losa son la piedra angular de la investigación. Aparte del enviado por Maribel Moreno [positivo por EPO en los Juegos de Pekín] el 23 de marzo de 2009, llama la atención el de un ganador del Tour. "Menos mal que no soy ambicioso y no había tomado nada de lo que me habías dado... Has estado a punto de mandarme al paro y arruinar mi carrera".

Several SMSs received by Losa are the cornerstone of the investigation. Aside from the one sent by Maribel Moreno [positive for EPO during the Beijing Olympic Games] on March 23th 2009, another one sent by a Tour winner stands out. "Thank God I'm not ambitious and I didn't take anything of what you gave me... You almost made me lose my job and ruined my career."

The story goes this Tour winner (and you don't need a master's degree to know who he is) shat on his pants when Dueñas tested positive.

 

[hubbard]

interesting to read pk and fl are no fans of cyclingnews. and the suggestion that cn published stories are misconstrued . they have hit on a very pertinant point..

 

[thehog]

I seem to recall someone saying Floyd discounted this himself.

Overall, I found the transcript compelling and convincing but I struggle with my feelings towards him as I do with odd elements of his story.

It appears accepted that he has come clean only because he had nothing more to lose (brave as that may have nevertheless been) -- but he still does have some skin in the game. He has his liberty but he could lose even that for a period if charged with, and found guilty of, perjury --the prospect of which obviously concerns him even if he apears philosophical about it. Could admitting now to testosterone doping make such a charge much more likely (after all that was his defence) and therefore he continues to deny? Might he not want to preserve the Dauphine and possibly other results (on a personal, as opposed to LA/team level) by fudging the timing/limiting the scope of his doping as disclosed to avoid direct linkage?

We do no know what Kimmage has left out. Perhaps some of that might clarify these loose ends (although the testosterone denial is clear).

I must say the casual and seemingly gratuitous throwing of certain riders under a bus seems a little strange. If you think about it (in addition to those already out there) they are limited to a single well liked/known rider from each of Britain (Miller), Holland (Boogerd), Belgium (Van Petegem), Canada (Barry) and Spain (Pereiro), perhaps being less random in the case of Pereiro and Barry.

If "they are all doing it" it defies belief that these were the only names which could have come up in the 7 hours. Call me a cynic but this might have been Kimmage's calculated way of getting maximum attention across the cycling world (rather than any intended collateral damage on Floyd's part).

I think the key is he’s not throwing anyone under a bus. He’s just telling it like it is. By not giving a name makes the story sound like innuendo or mere rumour. I think he lost the will to protect people long ago. If anything cycling tossed Landis under a bus.

Its strange that some people say that Landis is only doing this because he’s hit rock bottom and there’s nothing left – no options. Of course that’s why he’s doing it. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s the realisation that there is no other option to him now – he’s setting himself free before he moves on. Well he has the Pantani option but stregth to him not to go down that path. One day in 5 years we’ll all look back and thank Floyd for what he did. It won’t happen today or this year but we will. He’ll also thank himself.

 

[cprior]

I think Floyd just applied his binary logic

(…)

That's my take on Floyd.

Very well distilled, this "binary" thing shines through in many passages of the transcript.

 

[Roninho]

Did he get 2nd in the Dauphine withour ever having doped?

Or does he mean he rode that week long race without blood top ups or taking anything during the course of that race?

If he was doping prior to that race, during training and other races it is nonsense to say he could have reached that level clean. He might have been artificially raising his baseline for some time prior to a short period of "going without".

Yep, agree with your comment. So the big question is did he dope before that? From the interview i get the impression he is saying that he never doped untill after the dauphinee, starting with the patch.

 

[Barrus]

http://www.publico.es/deportes/262746/laboratorio-fantasma-antidopaje



The story goes this Tour winner (and you don't need a master's degree to know who he is) shat on his pants when Dueñas tested positive.

Thanks for this

 

[Roninho]

I must say the casual and seemingly gratuitous throwing of certain riders under a bus seems a little strange. If you think about it (in addition to those already out there) they are limited to a single well liked/known rider from each of Britain (Miller), Holland (Boogerd), Belgium (Van Petegem), Canada (Barry) and Spain (Pereiro), perhaps being less random in the case of Pereiro and Barry.

If "they are all doing it" it defies belief that these were the only names which could have come up in the 7 hours. Call me a cynic but this might have been Kimmage's calculated way of getting maximum attention across the cycling world (rather than any intended collateral damage on Floyd's part).

Off course it might be Kimmage's way, but actually i'm not that surprised that only a couple of names where mentioned. Boogerd, v.petegem and Pereiro where all mentioned to explain a certain situation. Those examples just seemed like the first that came up to him to explain something. Based on how the story of the refill in the usp bus, it seems to me if kimmage had asked for more names and situations Landis could have given them. And he actually might have, i don't think this transcript was everything they had talked about for 7 hours.

 

[thehog]

Off course it might be Kimmage's way, but actually i'm not that surprised that only a couple of names where mentioned. Boogerd, v.petegem and Pereiro where all mentioned to explain a certain situation. Those examples just seemed like the first that came up to him to explain something. Based on how the story of the refill in the usp bus, it seems to me if kimmage had asked for more names and situations Landis could have given them. And he actually might have, i don't think this transcript was everything they had talked about for 7 hours.

Did you take it with you to the Tour or give it to someone else?

I gave it to someone else. I can’t tell you the name because I gave it to the authorities so they can…I mean there are certain people’s names I don’t want to give out yet until they do what they have to do.