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

[HelmutRoole]

By deduction, the people who think he's lying now... I mean, did they think he was telling the truth before about not doping? About the '06 Tour positive being a false positive?

Look, if you think he's lying now, then you must believe he was telling the truth before. And the vise versa is also be true. I fall in the vise versa camp because I never believed his positive for testosterone at the '06 Tour to be a false positive.

This is confusing, I admit. I'm not addressing the specifics of his positive test, rather more generally whether he rode a clean '06 Tour. I never believed he did that.

This is an argument for those who state, he was lying then so why should we believe him now. I'm saying that that argument doesn't make sense.

 

[Elagabalus]

This is confusing, I admit. I'm not addressing the specifics of his positive test, rather more generally whether he rode a clean '06 Tour. I never believed he did that.

This is an argument for those who state, he was lying then so why should we believe him now. I'm saying that that argument doesn't make sense.

Because, for whatever reason, they didn't like the look of his face or the cut of his jib and decided he's been lying the whole time-then AND now.

 

[Ferminal]

Because, for whatever reason, they didn't like the look of his face or the cut of his jib and decided he's been lying the whole time-then AND now.

If we're talking about cut faces, who could trust this guy?

 

[mad black]

Not payed...

http://twitter.com/nyvelocity/status/32442536719024128#

Are you going to admit that you were wrong about Kimmage paying Floyd, or continue to ignore the facts?

Yes, admitted I was wrong. I posted before I got to the point in the thread where the link was first posted. My bad.

It still doesn't alter my position towards FL. He's simply slinging mud at everyone without backing up any of it. His history has tought me that he manages to twist truth to whatever suits him at the current situation in his life. It's not any different now. Yes, he maybe right about things he says and there's certainly something wrong with cycling. But FL shouldn't be the one being heralded to be its saviour because he's a cheat and a liar. He will profit one way or the other from whatever happens next. He's already sold books to people on this forum (obviously, but why all of those aren't bitterly disappointed of him is beyond me). He's just published the biggest appetizer to the follow-up probably co-authored by Kimmage. You wait for it! He's cunning!

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yes, admitted I was wrong. I posted before I got to the point in the thread where the link was first posted. My bad.

It still doesn't alter my position towards FL. He's simply slinging mud at everyone without backing up any of it. His history has tought me that he manages to twist truth to whatever suits him at the current situation in his life. It's not any different now. Yes, he maybe right about things he says and there's certainly something wrong with cycling. But FL shouldn't be the one being heralded to be its saviour because he's a cheat and a liar. He will profit one way or the other from whatever happens next. He's already sold books to people on this forum (obviously, but why all of those aren't bitterly disappointed of him is beyond me). He's just published the biggest appetizer to the follow-up probably co-authored by Kimmage. You wait for it! He's cunning!

He was a cheat and liar just like Basso, Ullrich, Armstrong, Kohl, Mancebo, Hamilton, Vino, Kloden, Leipheimer, Menchov, Contador, Hincapie, Vaughters, Millar, Wigans, Evens and hundreds of others. Now he is not a liar any more.

 

[TexPat]

Yes, admitted I was wrong. I posted before I got to the point in the thread where the link was first posted. My bad.

It still doesn't alter my position towards FL. He's simply slinging mud at everyone without backing up any of it. His history has tought me that he manages to twist truth to whatever suits him at the current situation in his life. It's not any different now. Yes, he maybe right about things he says and there's certainly something wrong with cycling. But FL shouldn't be the one being heralded to be its saviour because he's a cheat and a liar. He will profit one way or the other from whatever happens next. He's already sold books to people on this forum (obviously, but why all of those aren't bitterly disappointed of him is beyond me). He's just published the biggest appetizer to the follow-up probably co-authored by Kimmage. You wait for it! He's cunning!

You're more cynical than I am. I reckon he's looking for forgiveness.
In honour of the birthday of Bob Marley, might I suggest a little Redemption Song for FL?

"Old pirates, yes dey rob I..."

Cheers,
TexPat

 

[La Vie Claire]

3. Cyclingnews, you s*ck. As if it wasn't obvious to anyone w/ an ounce of objectivity in their waterbottle. Hey, maybe there's still some journo positions open Mubarak state-run media...

Careful. Cyclingnews sucks posts go in a separate hard-to-find thread under an even harder to find board. Consider this a warning.

 

[flicker]

He was a cheat and liar just like Basso, Ullrich, Armstrong, Kohl, Mancebo, Hamilton, Vino, Kloden, Leipheimer, Menchov, Contador, Hincapie, Vaughters, Millar, Wigans, Evens and hundreds of others. Now he is not a liar any more.

OK boss, I will believe that when Floyd gets a job, shuts up about what is wrong in cycling and sends me my $25 bucks for the darn book.

None of those above took my money and lied in print, none.

 

[mad black]

He was a cheat and liar just like Basso, Ullrich, Armstrong, Kohl, Mancebo, Hamilton, Vino, Kloden, Leipheimer, Menchov, Contador, Hincapie, Vaughters, Millar, Wigans, Evens and hundreds of others. Now he is not a liar any more.

I see! Because you said so???

Also, your list of names includes hug(h)e (J)accusations that have not even been defamed by FL (and he's doing a pretty good job of trying to make s++t stick on anyone he can possibly recall). If you believe that ALL of the above people doped or are doping then why do you even bother with pro-cycling?

 

[131313]

OK boss, I will believe that when Floyd gets a job, shuts up about what is wrong in cycling and sends me my $25 bucks for the darn book.

None of those above took my money and lied in print, none.

"took your money"??

Interesting choice of words. You gave your money of your own will....you bought a book, you got.....a book?

I really don't see the issue?

Does everyone who ever bought a book containing fabrications deserve a refund? If so, heaven help us (pun intended).

 

[Hugh Januss]

Careful. Cyclingnews sucks posts go in a separate hard-to-find thread under an even harder to find board. Consider this a warning.

And apparently the term they prefer is blows not sucks.

 

[Anonymous]

I see! Because you said so???

Also, your list of names includes hug(h)e (J)accusations that have not even been defamed by FL (and he's doing a pretty good job of trying to make s++t stick on anyone he can possibly recall). If you believe that ALL of the above people doped or are doping then why do you even bother with pro-cycling?

I think you are right. Floyd is a liar now but told the truth before. He really is the 2006 TdF champ.

Whew. Glad this was settled.

 

[MacRoadie]

Careful. Cyclingnews sucks posts go in a separate hard-to-find thread under an even harder to find board. Consider this a warning.

Is that the mysterious mayonnaise jar under Funk & Wagnall's porch that Johnny Carson so often alluded to?

 

[Hugh Januss]

I see! Because you said so???

Also, your list of names includes hug(h)e (J)accusations that have not even been defamed by FL (and he's doing a pretty good job of trying to make s++t stick on anyone he can possibly recall). If you believe that ALL of the above people doped or are doping then why do you even bother with pro-cycling?

If after all this time you don't believe that the doping problem in pro cycling is that deep then maybe you should change your name to 'gullible black'.

 

[leftover pie]

None of those above took my money and lied in print, none.

surely you have a copy of "It's Not About The Bike" lying around at home somewhere?

 

[mad black]

If after all this time you don't believe that the doping problem in pro cycling is that deep then maybe you should change your name to 'gullible black'.

I could argue that you're gullible for proclaiming FL is not a liar. Furthermore, this didn't answer the question of why do you bother with pro-cycling?

 

[Ferminal]

I could argue that you're gullible for proclaiming FL is not a liar. Furthermore, this didn't answer the question of why do you bother with pro-cycling?

Why should knowledge of the doping problem change ones enjoyment they receive from the action on the road? Give me the 2010 Giro any day, whether they are 100% clean, doping behind doors or openly doping, why should I be any less satisfied by the racing? Are you not going to watch LBL in 2011 because the last winner was probably doped, are you not going to watch the Tour because the last winner was convicted of doping?

 

[flicker]

"took your money"??

Interesting choice of words. You gave your money of your own will....you bought a book, you got.....a book?

I really don't see the issue?

Does everyone who ever bought a book containing fabrications deserve a refund? If so, heaven help us (pun intended).

I gave my money to Floyd on this premise. I knew he cheated but all the others I could see as his contenders were cheating. Thus an even playing field dirty yes but acceptable to me knowing cycling. The premise "a French conspiricy, sounded appealing to me as I could see how bitter the French could become being trounced once again by Americans particularly the unsophisticated Landis." Knowing almost nothing about Landis he looked like a rube from the Dukes of Hazard or some Faux American Country Western star. Or a super hard core NASCAR driver. Or maybe a driver of top fueler Drag racing. Also my cycnicism in the quality of drug testing in the tour. I could see the payoffs a mile away. I have been around the block many times.

Monty Python "Say no more say no more, wink wink, nod nod."

Instead we saw the trial where Floyd obviously tried to blackmail LeMond, bringing up heineous recollections of Gregs' troubled childhood. On top of that hacking a fully functional modern anti- doping laboratory.

Then going on the Larry King show multiple times lying to a large American audience.

So yeah I figure that Floyd owes me. I do not want to use the word fraud it has been overused here.

I also figure that people here love Floyd because of his vendetta against USPS and Lance.

I am not that type of person but I respect their opinions.

 

[Sanitiser]

Beazed and Cyclosm has some interesting information regarding Testosterone level
http://twitter.com/Beazed
http://twitter.com/Cyclocosm

 

[Hugh Januss]

Why should knowledge of the doping problem change ones enjoyment they receive from the action on the road? Give me the 2010 Giro any day, whether they are 100% clean, doping behind doors or openly doping, why should I be any less satisfied by the racing? Are you not going to watch LBL in 2011 because the last winner was probably doped, are you not going to watch the Tour because the last winner was convicted of doping?

That and it's been "my sport" since 1971. I've raced and worked in the business since then and I know that the doping situation has gotten completely out of control. To the point where it threatens the continued existance of the pro part of the sport. How about you 'mad'? I bet you were drawn to the tour around about 2001 or 2002 and you think that "the look" is just about the most *****en thing ever, huh?

 

[TubularBills]

I gave my money to Floyd on this premise. I knew he cheated but all the others I could see as his contenders were cheating. Thus an even playing field dirty yes but acceptable to me knowing cycling. The premise "a French conspiricy, sounded appealing to me as I could see how bitter the French could become being trounced once again by Americans particularly the unsophisticated Landis." Knowing almost nothing about Landis he looked like a rube from the Dukes of Hazard or some Faux American Country Western star. Or a super hard core NASCAR driver. Or maybe a driver of top fueler Drag racing. Also my cycnicism in the quality of drug testing in the tour. I could see the payoffs a mile away. I have been around the block many times.

Monty Python "Say no more say no more, wink wink, nod nod."

Instead we saw the trial where Floyd obviously tried to blackmail LeMond, bringing up heineous recollections of Gregs' troubled childhood. On top of that hacking a fully functional modern anti- doping laboratory.

Then going on the Larry King show multiple times lying to a large American audience.

So yeah I figure that Floyd owes me. I do not want to use the word fraud it has been overused here.

I also figure that people here love Floyd because of his vendetta against USPS and Lance.

I am not that type of person but I respect their opinions.

Wow, a well reasoned and supported reflection - kudos.

Though I do miss the rainbows, unicorns and centaurs frolicking in the misty soft focus landscapes.

& for the record I don't love Floyd for the vendetta, I appreciate and respect his new found evolution to honesty and his doe eyed collision with the real world versus his sheltered upbringing - it inspires a certain empathy that resonates. Most, if not all of us can draw personal parallels between naive perceptions and the regret of ill advised actions, his story rings true on an instinctive level.

 

[mad black]

Why should knowledge of the doping problem change ones enjoyment they receive from the action on the road? Give me the 2010 Giro any day, whether they are 100% clean, doping behind doors or openly doping, why should I be any less satisfied by the racing? Are you not going to watch LBL in 2011 because the last winner was probably doped, are you not going to watch the Tour because the last winner was convicted of doping?

That is exactly why I enjoy watching cycling, too. I admire the performance but if after every finish I would be forced to think that the guy who just won simply had the best doping program I couldn't justify the admiration. In a way that'd be downgrading the performance I just witnessed.

That and it's been "my sport" since 1971. I've raced and worked in the business since then and I know that the doping situation has gotten completely out of control. To the point where it threatens the continued existance of the pro part of the sport. How about you 'mad'? I bet you were drawn to the tour around about 2001 or 2002 and you think that "the look" is just about the most *****en thing ever, huh?

You're very quick in jumping to conclusions and excoriating posters yet you fail do put forward any plausible argument for your line of thought. - Just an observation.

For what it's worth it's been "my sport" since 1991. Similarly I've been racing, working and spectating ever since but I don't share the view that the existence of pro-cycling is endangered in any way. I believe that Landis has done more damage to the sport than anyone before him. And he continues to do so with statements like "let's legalize doping" and interviews that are aimed at playing the heart strings not only of the educated cycling fan but that of the general public therby fostering the impression that every cyclist is doped.

 

[Ferminal]

That is exactly why I enjoy watching cycling, too. I admire the performance but if after every finish I would be forced to think that the guy who just won simply had the best doping program I couldn't justify the admiration. In a way that'd be downgrading the performance I just witnessed.

Unfortunately you definitely witnessed that for seven years, during one's exclusivity arrangement with Ferrari. Did the one with the best program win? Yes. Would they have won on a lesser program and without protection? Maybe.

Nowadays I doubt it's as black and white. I doubt you would find much different in the regime of Contador and Schleck. Back then paying doctors hundreds of thousands was probably just taking off, people were fine with EPO until 2001. Once it became a bit more technical it probably started making a difference (as opposed to the guy who could get the most leverage out of raising his HcT to 50%). But we've had 10 years of the transfusion age, most would more or less know what their best program is.

I'm not quite sure the position you hold is consistent. You worry about the influence of doping in the sport yet despise the man who instigated the investigation which has the biggest potential to force a change, the biggest change in over a decade. Of course that would be consistent if you live in a world where you believe Contador, Armstrong, Valverde, Basso, Schleck, Menchov, Ullrich to never have used oxygen vector drugs/transfusions.

 

[Berzin]

& for the record I don't love Floyd for the vendetta, I appreciate and respect his new found evolution to honesty and his doe eyed collision with the real world versus his sheltered upbringing - it inspires a certain empathy that resonates. Most, if not all of us can draw personal parallels between naive perceptions and the regret of ill advised actions, his story rings true on an instinctive level.

The respect issue is not something I feel comfortable judging him on. I'm glad he came out and did what he did, and I understand why he did it.

It certainly wasn't under the auspices of true repentance, of that I'm sure. He was left with a shell of a life after all was said and done and he couldn't find a job riding his bike after being basically blackballed by the very people still profiting from the business of pro cycling.

He wasn't let back in the old boy's club after following their rules so he decided to blow it up. It must have galled him to see Armstrong becoming even more of a hero for his "comeback". I think the combination of watching Lance parading around the peloton once again, receiving huge appearance fees and increasing his net worth while his own life lay in shambles was just too much for him to deal with. And if this was truly his motivation that's fine.

His moral compass does seem skewed and his Mennonite upbringing doesn't seem to have done anything positive for him. He seems oddly detached from all that, but that's an observation on my part, not a judgment.

I don't care much about his character because that's a peripheral side-issue that has been exploited to great effect by the Armstrong and Bruyneel, who will have to answer the same credibility question as to how they achieved their Tour success. The tide on that will be turning very soon, hopefully when the investigation has ended and the indictments are handed out.

I find it interesting that Kimmage never asked Landis about the computer hacking, his problems with the french court system and that incident with Greg Lemond when his childhood abuse was outed by one of the vile snakes in Landis' camp during his trial.

I just want to read about the logistics of the whole doping regimen US Postal were on, and I want to know who verified Armstrong and the teams' drug use.

Everything else is just wild speculation that quite frankly is getting boring already.

 

[andy1234]

The respect issue is not something I feel comfortable judging him on. I'm glad he came out and did what he did, and I understand why he did it.

It certainly wasn't under the auspices of true repentance, of that I'm sure. He was left with a shell of a life after all was said and done and he couldn't find a job riding his bike after being basically blackballed by the very people still profiting from the business of pro cycling.

He wasn't let back in the old boy's club after following their rules so he decided to blow it up. It must have galled him to see Armstrong becoming even more of a hero for his "comeback". I think the combination of watching Lance parading around the peloton once again, receiving huge appearance fees and increasing his net worth while his own life lay in shambles was just too much for him to deal with. And if this was truly his motivation that's fine.

His moral compass does seem skewed and his Mennonite upbringing doesn't seem to have done anything positive for him. He seems oddly detached from all that, but that's an observation on my part, not a judgment.

I don't care much about his character because that's a peripheral side-issue that has been exploited to great effect by the Armstrong and Bruyneel, who will have to answer the same credibility question as to how they achieved their Tour success. The tide on that will be turning very soon, hopefully when the investigation has ended and the indictments are handed out.

I find it interesting that Kimmage never asked Landis about the computer hacking, his problems with the french court system and that incident with Greg Lemond when his childhood abuse was outed by one of the vile snakes in Landis' camp during his trial.
I just want to read about the logistics of the whole doping regimen US Postal were on, and I want to know who verified Armstrong and the teams' drug use.

Everything else is just wild speculation that quite frankly is getting boring already.

+1
I can understand why it wasn't in the original article, but It seems a glaring ommision from the transcript of someone who wants to get everything out in the open.