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

[gree0232]

Please, please, please, please, please?!?!?!?!?!

NO ONE is making this guy participate.

If he does not want people to disgaree with him, that is his choice. But if the strength of his position is emploring others to ignore anyone who disagrees with him ....

That says something about the strength of his conviction - and commitment to open discussion about doping in cycling and solution to the problem.

Such conduct should rejected, not encouraged.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Even Sports Illustrated takes issue with what is going on.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...274/index.html

Your generalization of "taking issue with" is far from the mark. SI questions, with the advantage of hindsight, the usefulness of the HemAssist medicine. At the time Lance was pursuing and obtaining it, it was well on the way to being considered a breakthrough synthetic haemoglobin. So much so that Baxter built a factory from the ground up to start making the stuff, as they felt it surely would be approved and go into production.

Just because, now, the HemAssist ultimately failed to be approved and probably would not have helped Armstrong (again, rife speculation) does not mean that it is a dead end in the legal work necessary to show Lance and his group were looking for, obtaining and experimenting with anything and everything to gain an advantage. Simply put, if the "police work" finds that lance sought out and obtained the stuff, it will be a significant nail in the coffin towards indicting and further convicting the guy of an assortment of fraud and other charges.

You say this article gets no "play" here. You are wrong. It has been widely discussed that the value of evidence regarding the HemAssist has nothing to do with what gain Lance would have gotten, whether it worked or not, or Fabiani's absurd claim that it would be "impossible" for Lance (or a henchmen) to get access to it. He takes us for fools with that remark, and you hold that article up as some new contradiction to the general view here and that rather than examine it, this place ignores it. Given all of that, and your position on it, it makes me wonder how much of the article, or other areas of this forum, you've actually read.

Your statement "Even Sports Illustrated takes issue with what is going on." fails to capture the content and also misses the greater context of why the info is important.

Good hard police work, evidence sharing, increased testing, and committment to follow the rules WILL.

And what indication (proof) do you have that indicates this is not happening? You take issue with the information that leaks, and don't pretend to be so naive to think prosecutors/DA's don't tactically leak info as to send messages to those they pursue that they are coming even closer to catching them.

If they get bits of info to the press from time to time, it could ultimately save the tax payers a whole load of money, as the culprits will soon realize they are nailed, and that may derail a protracted and expensive legal fight. Who wouldn't want that?

Paul Kimmage has not had insider access to cycling since he published his book..

And how, exactly, would you know this? I have a few connections with "insider access" and I've never been a pro or written a book on doping in cycling. Here is a guy who is a professional sports journalist, whose job it is to HAVE insider access, and yet you question it, nay, deny he does have it? Who are you to say what the guy does or does not have? That he keep his job, get the sit-down interviews WITH the individuals who are inside, tells me he does.... I don't think you have thought this through.

If Paul Kimmage works to expose the inner gears of the doping world of cycling by drawing these stories out of the like of Landis, I think it can give courage to others who've tested positive to come forward, work with the authorities and with the media to transfer their knowledge of doping so that ALL manners of pressure to rid the sport of doping can get put in motion. Paul is part of the solution, the part that has embraced freedom of the press, free from the pressures of the Omerta that keeps the truth buried.

Your posts take a theme of judgement on those who have reasonably deduced the truth, in advance of the whole of it being confirmed. You stand in judgement, as a matter of style, in which many here form their opinions. Citing McCarthyism and rumor and innuendo only serves to distract from the news that Popvych had PED's at his house, or that Lance (in all probability) gained access to what was considered at the time a significant breakthrough drug which had the distinct possibility of giving him a serious competitive advantage over the other dopers in the doping arms race.

If you choose to WAIT till the indictments come, or when the case is finished, appeals exhausted, that is fine, but if you continue to deliberately mis-interpret what is currently and clearly happening, then you are being intellectually disingenuous, which causes us to question your motives and purpose here.

If it feels like it is because I am. I very much dislike your disingenuous positioning of the situation and feel you represent a lack of understanding of the facts, paired with a misguided view on almost each and every point you attempt to make. You are either doing it on purpose, or are too dense to get it. Either way, this is why give you my reactions.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Funny how eyewitness testimony doesn't count as evidence. Many a murderer is in jail because of eyewitness testimony. But the fanboys say Lance is above it.

But I guess that's why they call it brainwashing.

 

[gree0232]

You are moving the goalposts. I said nothing about unpararalled access.

You said "Kimmage has not had any access to cycling since his book - before festina"

That statement is INCORRECT. However you decide to rephrase it now, or tart it up with fluffy cushions, the fact is YOU ARE WRONG. Get over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_Ride

Rough ride was published in 1990. Festina happened in 1998.

But 'I' am factually wrong and an incoherent rambler?

Seriously, how is treating people who disagree with you in this manner going to solve doping?

All it does is create a group of enablers whose accussations become cynical and cyclical until the spiral out of control.

 

[Anonymous]

Your generalization of "taking issue with" is far from the mark. SI questions, with the advantage of hindsight, the usefulness of the HemAssist medicine. At the time Lance was pursuing and obtaining it, it was well on the way to being considered a breakthrough synthetic haemoglobin. So much so that Baxter built a factory from the ground up to start making the stuff, as they felt it surely would be approved and go into production.

SNIP

If you choose to WAIT till the indictments come, or when the case is finished, appeals exhausted, that is fine, but if you continue to deliberately mis-interpret what is currently and clearly happening, then you are being intellectually disingenuous, which causes us to question your motives and purpose here.

Wot 'e just said.

 

[gree0232]

Funny how eyewitness testimony doesn't count as evidence. Many a murderer is in jail because of eyewitness testimony. But the fanboys say Lance is above it.

But I guess that's why they call it brainwashing.

That is very true.

However, when there are multiple witnesses to an event, and some agree and soem disagree - then the benefot of the doubt goes to the accussed, not the accusser.

There are many people accussed of crimes who are NOT in jail based on the same thing.

 

[Benotti69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_Ride

Rough ride was published in 1990. Festina happened in 1998.

But 'I' am factually wrong and an incoherent rambler?

Seriously, how is treating people who disagree with you in this manner going to solve doping?

All it does is create a group of enablers whose accussations become cynical and cyclical until the spiral out of control.

How about you address Colm Murphy's post if you are not rambling.

How about you back up your assertions that kimmage and LeMond are financially assisting Landis with some evidence.

Or are you rambling?

 

[Anonymous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_Ride

Rough ride was published in 1990. Festina happened in 1998.

But 'I' am factually wrong and an incoherent rambler?

Look, it was you that said

Paul Kimmage has not had insider access to cycling since he published his book ... BEFORE Festina.

Not me!

You are now saying that what you meant is "kimmage hasnt had access to lance or contadors inner circle since his book was published.

Youve still not accepted the fact that he has had insider access to cycling since. Garmin for instance!

Im shutting up now before i get an infraction for baiting. You clearly arent going to accept that you made an erronerous statement.

 

[GoneWithTailWind]

Good insight - A Kimmage/Landis collaboration? Maybe their saving the full story for a book and this is just a teaser. Broaden the audience with a human interest story and then release the book. Has anyone asked Kimmage if he's working on a book? The timing seems excellent from a marketing perspective with the supposed upcoming indictments.

Also, 'in hiding' could simply mean 'in seclusion' for the 'tell all' collaboration? Insulated from the political backlash and mudslinging of the LA propaganda and vitriol machine.

I'd entertain the notion given what PK said about sitting down for 7 hours and hearing a level of detail that convinced him that Floyd was telling the truth. I'm assuming PK has read Positively False and that most of the detail he mentions didn't make it into the article.

 

[Benotti69]

I'd entertain the notion given what PK said about sitting down for 7 hours and hearing a level of detail that convinced him that Floyd was telling the truth. I'm assuming PK has read Positively False and that most of the detail he mentions didn't make it into the article.

i bet a lot of the 7 hours was discussing stuff that was publishable or did not pass the sunday times legal team.

 

[Granville57]

You are moving the goalposts.

Trust me. Those goal posts are on wheels.

Join us...

 

[Anonymous]

Trust me. Those goal posts are on wheels.

Join us...

I just have. Before i get myself in any trouble.

 

[Granville57]

Or are you rambling?

Disengage. It won't stop otherwise. I'm your friend, and so is Ignore List.

 

[gree0232]

[quote}Even Sports Illustrated takes issue with what is going on.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...274/index.html

Your generalization of "taking issue with" is far from the mark. SI questions, with the advantage of hindsight, the usefulness of the HemAssist medicine. At the time Lance was pursuing and obtaining it, it was well on the way to being considered a breakthrough synthetic haemoglobin. So much so that Baxter built a factory from the ground up to start making the stuff, as they felt it surely would be approved and go into production.

Just because, now, the HemAssist ultimately failed to be approved and probably would not have helped Armstrong (again, rife speculation) does not mean that it is a dead end in the legal work necessary to show Lance and his group were looking for, obtaining and experimenting with anything and everything to gain an advantage. Simply put, if the "police work" finds that lance sought out and obtained the stuff, it will be a significant nail in the coffin towards indicting and further convicting the guy of an assortment of fraud and other charges.

You say this article gets no "play" here. You are wrong. It has been widely discussed that the value of evidence regarding the HemAssist has nothing to do with what gain Lance would have gotten, whether it worked or not, or Fabiani's absurd claim that it would be "impossible" for Lance (or a henchmen) to get access to it. He takes us for fools with that remark, and you hold that article up as some new contradiction to the general view here and that rather than examine it, this place ignores it. Given all of that, and your position on it, it makes me wonder how much of the article, or other areas of this forum, you've actually read.

Your statement "Even Sports Illustrated takes issue with what is going on." fails to capture the content and also misses the greater context of why the info is important.



And what indication (proof) do you have that indicates this is not happening? You take issue with the information that leaks, and don't pretend to be so naive to think prosecutors/DA's don't tactically leak info as to send messages to those they pursue that they are coming even closer to catching them.

If they get bits of info to the press from time to time, it could ultimately save the tax payers a whole load of money, as the culprits will soon realize they are nailed, and that may derail a protracted and expensive legal fight. Who wouldn't want that?



And how, exactly, would you know this? I have a few connections with "insider access" and I've never been a pro or written a book on doping in cycling. Here is a guy who is a professional sports journalist, whose job it is to HAVE insider access, and yet you question it, nay, deny he does have it? Who are you to say what the guy does or does not have? That he keep his job, get the sit-down interviews WITH the individuals who are inside, tells me he does.... I don't think you have thought this through.

If Paul Kimmage works to expose the inner gears of the doping world of cycling by drawing these stories out of the like of Landis, I think it can give courage to others who've tested positive to come forward, work with the authorities and with the media to transfer their knowledge of doping so that ALL manners of pressure to rid the sport of doping can get put in motion. Paul is part of the solution, the part that has embraced freedom of the press, free from the pressures of the Omerta that keeps the truth buried.

Your posts take a theme of judgement on those who have reasonably deduced the truth, in advance of the whole of it being confirmed. You stand in judgement, as a matter of style, in which many here form their opinions. Citing McCarthyism and rumor and innuendo only serves to distract from the news that Popvych had PED's at his house, or that Lance (in all probability) gained access to what was considered at the time a significant breakthrough drug which had the distinct possibility of giving him a serious competitive advantage over the other dopers in the doping arms race.

If you choose to WAIT till the indictments come, or when the case is finished, appeals exhausted, that is fine, but if you continue to deliberately mis-interpret what is currently and clearly happening, then you are being intellectually disingenuous, which causes us to question your motives and purpose here.

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.

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.

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.

THings like this add further skepticism:


"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.

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?

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.

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

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?

Where is the trail of money leading us to Hemassist?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Benotti69]

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

Kimmage did not accuse Roche of Doping.

And Kimmage is not Tabloid.

 

[gree0232]

Trust me. Those goal posts are on wheels.

Join us...

Are there really people who think that it is acceptable for a small cabal of posters to 'recruit' people into ignoring anything that doe snot agree with them?

You are right, despite a lack of evidence or inability to garner a conviction, because you ignore the people point it out?

I am glad I like cycling based on the spectacle of the race and NOT the conduct of its 'fans'.

 

[Barrus]

Okay folks, I think Dim had the right idea, ease it down now, before any lines are crossed. Or deal with the consequences when they are crossed, no matter who started crossing a line

 

[gree0232]

Kimmage did not accuse Roche of Doping.

And Kimmage is not Tabloid.

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

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'.

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

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.

It is called Yellow Journalism. It sells.

Now, how about you address my response to Colm.

 

[gree0232]

Look, it was you that said

Not me!

You are now saying that what you meant is "kimmage hasnt had access to lance or contadors inner circle since his book was published.

Youve still not accepted the fact that he has had insider access to cycling since. Garmin for instance!

Im shutting up now before i get an infraction for baiting. You clearly arent going to accept that you made an erronerous statement.

He has not had any access to the inner working of teh cycling world since he wrote that book and became a journalist.

Do you really think there are cycling teams that are bringing him onto their teams, a journalist mind you, and showing how they are systemically doping?

No team, no mangement, is bringing him anywhere near their inner workings.

That has not stopped him from accussing ALL of them of engagement in systemic doping.

So what IS his insider access that leads to all of this 'inside' information.

I would love to take a look at it, parse the evidence myself.

 

[Granville57]

Okay folks, I think Dim had the right idea, ease it down now, before any lines are crossed. Or deal with the consequences when they are crossed, no matter who started crossing a line

Which is precisely what I've been attempting.
If you follow these back, you'll see we've played this little game before.

Just wanted to clear that up. That's pretty much all I have to say on this topic.

Granville57's wrote

You described his post as "

That is a gross misrepresentation.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Gree,

We don't know who has said what at this point. If LA has testimony from the likes of Allen Lim, and Tyler Hamilton, that he didn't dope he will win.

For my money he doesn't, but I obviously could be wrong.

 

[Granville57]

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.

 

[gree0232]

Gree,

We don't know who has said what at this point. If LA has testimony from the likes of Allen Lim, and Tyler Hamilton, that he didn't dope he will win.

For my money he doesn't, but I obviously could be wrong.

yes, we DO KNOW what Allen Lim said, and that he contradicted Floyd. Among others.

Although I acknowledge that no one using the public domaine has knowledge of all things, we do have access to what has been leaked (and one side is not been pulling its punches on that one).

We CAN look at it and make judgement.

Again, I am not saying that there is no way that Lance doped. What I am saying is that based on the avilable information is it is reasonable to take a good hard look at Lance's actions.

It is NOT reasonable to conclude before the culmination of that process that Lance DID dope - for much the same reason you wrote.

The evidence at this point is not strong enough to conclude that Lance doped - surely it is enough to caste doubt and investigate.

And that is an issue aside.

There are some things that are proven to reduce dope, both sporting AND criminal, and those techniques, based n the riders they ARE catching ARE helping. We should be expanding those techniques.

What we SHOULD NOT be doing is running around simply accussing peopleor casting doubt on their performances unless we have some pretty strong reasonto do so.

Roche? THe fact that he was the nearest cyclist to Kimmage when he went off does not mean he is doper for not joining Kimmage. That is an absurd standard by which to judge whether or not an athlete has doped.

 

[joe_papp]

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

...

Not if current conditions/sentiments hold.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Gree,

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

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