Landis considers return to Tour de France

[BroDeal]

Take away all the stuff about doping, etc, blah...and you're left with the simple truth: if he comes back he'll get his *** kicked. It's too latenow -he had his chance and blew it.

I don't see that. If FLandis came back to the Tour then he would be a contender. Leipheimer is older than Landis is and is still riding strong.

 

[Anonymous]

Even if Landis does manage to race in the TdF again, I don't see him able to come close to a podium again.

But in all honesty, I was very happy to see him back in the pro peloton!

Any particular reason why?

We grew up in the same area. I know many of the roads that he rode on prior to becoming a professional.

well, thank god charles manson didnt grow up in your area.. you'd be petitioning for his release...

(and no, im not claiming floyd to be a mass murderer, im just suggesting that growing up in the same area as someone shouldnt automatically mean you have to support there re-habilitation...)

As for landis returning, i think theres more chance of crack, sorry, Rock Racing being given a wild card...

 

[Jarvis]

Leipheimer is older than Landis is and is still riding strong

That's because Bottle's still on the sauce

 

[James Jordan]

Nothing but a smoke screen designed to explain how nazi frogmen might have spiked Armstrong's samples even though no one at the lab knew which samples belonged to Armstong..

Yes they did, both the Lab and WADA admitted the the lab had been given the ID codes that identified Armstrong's samples

The test used is the same one used today.
The developer of the EPO test recently stated that the results of the retrotesting were scientifically valid and that there was not a scientific question about Armstrong doping. ..

No the test they currently use was developed in Australia. The lab in question were by their own admission trying to develop a new test. That test has never been peer review and is there for not valid.

He also said that EPO remains stable at the temperatures that the samples were stored at.
..

Again he is the only one stating this, without peer review

Yes, maybe we should get the facts right before slinging FUD.
..

There was a really good article on Cycling-news a little while ago, but for the life of me I cant seem to find it. The search function could do with some serious improvements

Let's also review the three other riders who we know also had positives in the 1999 retro-testing.

Triki Beltran: Tested positive last year for CERA
Bo Hamburger: The first rider caught by the EPO test. Got off on a technicality. After he retired he admitted that he had used EPO.
Jose Castelblanco: Served a two year suspension for doping. I don't remember the details.

Curious how the other three riders who tested positive all turned out to be dopers. Pure coincidence I am sure. Amazing how the retro-testing, which according to you could not have detected artificial EPO managed to detect three riders who all turned out to be dirty. Amazing.

I am not comfortable with arguments based on guilt by association. In my opinion it tends to be used to try and shore up cases where there is little, or no, hard direct evidence.

For example you cold say that all the current Saxo Bank riders must be dirty based on:
-a strong effort last year
-Basso's conviction
-suspicion over the Shlecks involvment with Perto

Armstrong has been given the opportunity to have the 1999 samples retested. He has refused. That says everything.

With all the problems that riders have gotten from that lab I would not be all that comfortable with them doing a retest either. I also agree with the comments that have been made in regards to the amount of sample left to test being viable. I have spoken to a couple of people in the testing community here and from what I can glean from them a single test under the currently approved protocol uses up the vast majority of the sample.

 

[bianchigirl]

James, just a little point of interest - Robin Parisotto who declared the 99 samples positive because the science was beyond question, was part of the team that developed the EPO test in the first place. The retesting that took place was not, as you assert, to discover a new test (in fact the French already had an EPO test before the Australian test that was adopted) but to 'test the test'.

Whichever way you look at it, those 99 samples are beyond dispute as a) belonging to Armstrong and b) containing enough EPO to test positive were a conventional test to be used.

Of course Armstrong could unequivocally prove his innocence and allow a test of the samples under the conditions offered by AFLD or a DNA test, both of which he has categorically refused.

As for Landis, I don't think he's really caught the zaitgeist has he? The French are quite serious about catching dopers, even if the UCI are not. If he ever gets to ride there again he won't win because a) he won't be on a strong enough team (and he's no Alberto Contador) and b) well, that's pretty obvious in these new 'cleaner' times, isn't it?

 

[CapeRoadie]

Fanboy, nice touch. I don't have the time or patience to go around and around but its nice to see you've softened a bit from your original post. For the record, I remember watching Lemond win the worlds and the TdF as a kid and how excited when over 10 years later another great American cyclist came along to win the TdF.

Haven't softened or changed from my original post whatsoever. I said then and say now that Armstrong is a mixed bag. There are things to appreciate about him (athletic ability, commitment to the cancer community) and things to dislike about him (doping history, lying, cheating, treatment of Bassons and Simeoni, bribe money to the UCI, arrogance, etc.)

I'm glad you got excited by Lemond and Armstrong. Very American of you. Real cycling fans also got excited by Coppi, Bartali, Anquetil, Poulidor, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Kelly, Pantani and several others. In the grand scheme of things cycling, Armstrong isn't even top ten.

This is completely unfounded, how does one "dope more than anybody" but not test positive? Your making diamonds out of coal!

You are naive to think that all dopers get caught. Armstrong is the poster-boy for not getting caught. Explain the back-dated TUE for corticosteroids in 1999. Explain six positive urine samples for EPO from 1999. Yes, I agree, a statute of limitations had been reached. But that doesn't miraculously explain how those six samples test positive after 6 years. If anything, time would cause those samples to test negative, since EPO will eventually disappear over time. So if EPO was still showing up in 2005 in those samples, IT WAS THERE in 1999!

How narrow-minded of you to think that fans of a rider that you don't like are "wrong" and delusional "fanboys". You fill in all your HUGE gaps with whatever fits your opinion and pawn it as gospel. How typical? You are the classic arrogant cycling fan, with a "I'm better than you" attitude. You assume because of my defense of a specific rider that I'm less of a fan or less knowledgeable, therefore inferior. I'm going to do my own assuming and bet your the a$$hole that screams at everyone at your local weeknight road races but still finishes mid-pack only to blame "all the idiots" for screwing you.

But you see I don't "like" or "dislike" fans because they agree or disagree with me. I don't have any "gaps" in what I believe. I've researched it as thoroughly as anybody. You are the classic newbie to cycling, forming opinions based on little research, little evidence, from a position of not having read very much or investigated very much, who doesn't really know much about the sport beyond a couple of American riders. I never would call you "inferior"; no, that's coming from your head. But I do agree you are definitely less knowledgeable.

I'm going to bet that you're the **** who does the kicking and screaming at local Cat 5 road races, who keeps a saddle bag under your seat during the race, probably takes drugs and lies about it (like your friend Saint Lance), swerves all over the place putting the entire group at risk, does a solo breakaway and wipes out in the sand by the side of the road all by himself. As for me, I respect my co-riders and try to have fun. But not for one minute am I going to be duped by any pro athlete who claims to have never doped when all the evidence points otherwise. And we shouldn't give credence to anyone here who hasn't examined all the evidence that points to Lance Armstrong as a doper.

 

[CapeRoadie]

James, just a little point of interest - Robin Parisotto who declared the 99 samples positive because the science was beyond question, was part of the team that developed the EPO test in the first place. The retesting that took place was not, as you assert, to discover a new test (in fact the French already had an EPO test before the Australian test that was adopted) but to 'test the test'.

Whichever way you look at it, those 99 samples are beyond dispute as a) belonging to Armstrong and b) containing enough EPO to test positive were a conventional test to be used.

Of course Armstrong could unequivocally prove his innocence and allow a test of the samples under the conditions offered by AFLD or a DNA test, both of which he has categorically refused.

As for Landis, I don't think he's really caught the zaitgeist has he? The French are quite serious about catching dopers, even if the UCI are not. If he ever gets to ride there again he won't win because a) he won't be on a strong enough team (and he's no Alberto Contador) and b) well, that's pretty obvious in these new 'cleaner' times, isn't it?

bianchigirl, here we are. How does anyone question the results of Armstrong's 1999 six positive tests? He's guilty. He simply got away with it due to a UCI statute of limitations, that's all.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Yes they did, both the Lab and WADA admitted the the lab had been given the ID codes that identified Armstrong's samples

That is interesting.
Goes against everything I heard and read. The specific codes that matched the specific tests that related only to Armstrong's six samples?

From what I understand, the mathematical probability of anyone spiking all 6, without error, is extremely high.

I wonder could you cite your source, as I would like to read this fact?
Genuinely curious about this anomaly.

Welcome on board, BG. Chatting with Doc, just like old times. No wonder JC's a bit quiet!

 

[darv123]

Let the guy ride. He served his suspension.

 

[Jarvis]

Let the guy ride. He served his suspension.

And around we go again...

His hematacrit levels were quite interesting through the '06 tour though.

 

[lostintime]

See Landis Ride

Let everyone race, regardless. I am not a fan of the modern day witch hunt of the so called "dopers". All the glitz and color and money doesn't hide the fact that pro cycling is a barbaric sport. For the people who run the sport to persecute those who take what they "now" deem non-acceptable is a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. ASO has a conscience? They decide who participates? Laughable!!

I'd like to see Landis in the tour. Weather he took anything and weather or not performance can actually be enhanced by anything is a debate for which there is no conclusion.

 

[BroDeal]

Yes they did, both the Lab and WADA admitted the the lab had been given the ID codes that identified Armstrong's samples

This is simply not true. In order to identify who a sample belongs to both the code on the sample and the doping form is required. The codes on the samples mean nothing without the doping forms. Neither the lab nor WADA ever had the information on the doping forms. Thus at no point could they know which samples belonged to whom. Only the UCI has the "code key," and the UCI has refused to release that information because they don't want the identity of the riders who tested positive in the 1999 and 1998 retrospective testing revealed.

Again he is the only one stating this, without peer review

During the SCA arbitration Ashenden testified that his analysis of Armstrong's urine tests from 1999 painted a "compelling picture" that the cyclist "used EPO in the '99 Tour". The results showed a "pattern of abuse which very, very closely resembles what I would expect to see in an athlete actually using EPO".

In this article (not in English) Robin Parisotto strongly damns Armstrong: http:///www.felt.dk/index.php?id_parent=1&id=28&id_nyhed=17128

From the article: "Parisotto adds that there are so many indications that Armstrong has doped. "The many books in which witnesses put him in connection with doping, the positive EPO tests from 1999 the French sports newspaper L-Equipe wrote in 2005. And then there is the fact that everyone around him was doped and then were he to be the only one that was not - 'it's hard to believe."

He adds that the results which showed the American was doped in 1999 from a scientific view should be regarded as valid. "And the methods were also validated. It is clear that the question mark, the concerns about whether Armstrong was doped is really more of a legal nature than scientific. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in 1999, that he took EPO then. To deny it would be a lie"

I have spoken to a couple of people in the testing community here and from what I can glean from them a single test under the currently approved protocol uses up the vast majority of the sample.

Last October the authorities in France said that enough urine remains to retest many of Armstrong's 1999 samples. If I remember right some samples do not have enough urine left but others do. They gave Armstrong the opportunity to retest. He refused because he knows they will confirm what was already proved.

 

[BroDeal]

And around we go again...

His hematacrit levels were quite interesting through the '06 tour though.

Of course they were. Do you think anyone else that was competing with him was any different? I just don't agree with the scapegoat form of justice practiced by the UCI. FLandis messed up and got caught. He served his time. He should be able to race again. It is a farce when riders like Contador and Valverde are allowed to race while others are treated like pariahs.

 

[ExRower]

I think Landis has served his time. He may not have admitted, but he has served the time. If he's on a team that is selected, then he should be allowed to race.

 

[cody251]

I'm glad you got excited by Lemond and Armstrong. Very American of you. Real cycling fans also got excited by Coppi, Bartali, Anquetil, Poulidor, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Kelly, Pantani and several others. In the grand scheme of things cycling, Armstrong isn't even top ten.

This is CLASSIC! I'm an American that *gasp* is a fan of American cyclists! Holy crap! REAL cycling fans can name off classic non-American riders, and when they can't think of any other names they say "and several others". What does it matter who I'm like? I enjoy the sport of cycling, I've read much about what you speak of, yes all the "facts" against LA. The "don't believe everything you read" works both ways. Just like being a fan of Merckx (despite doping allegations against him too!)

Even if you and your gigantic brain have read everything there is to read about cycling (EVER), and "researched it as thoroughly as anybody" how does that make you a better fan than me? You don't call me inferior you just infer it into every word you type. I'm a newbie to cycling because of who I said I liked? I'm some how naive because of what I've written? I'll be sure to divulge all my knowledge to you so you don't fill in the gaps for me, again.

This is EXACTLY what I meant. You are the self-proclaimed superior cycling fan that thinks anyone who doesn't have your "level" of knowledge is a newbie and there is no place for newbies. You automatically label LA fans as naive, therefore inferior and "new" to the cycling scene.

This is why cycling gets a bad wrap in the US. You're non-welcoming attitude is the reason its so unpleasant around the road-racing scene for most new people. I've been around long enough to know, people like you and teams with riders like you are not fun places to be because no one new is worthy. I'm on a team that takes the time to teach, explains with out assuming and is open to helping new riders be safe and not make mistakes.

...local Cat 5 road races, who keeps a saddle bag under your seat during the race, probably takes drugs and lies about it (like your friend Saint Lance), swerves all over the place putting the entire group at risk, does a solo breakaway and wipes out in the sand by the side of the road all by himself. As for me, I respect my co-riders and try to have fun.

Thank you for icing the cake. No tolerance for new riders, Cat 5's aren't worthy, style is everything, insults the guy who takes a shot and dies because he's new and you're one of the pr!cks around that won't teach him. CLASSIC!! You act like you've never been new, never made a mistake on the bike. Don't get razor burn shaving your legs before your Cat 3 race on your $12k euro bike, and don't scratch your BMW putting your bike away after not making the cut 15 min in. There, I'll fill in the gaps for you.

 

[180mmCrank]

Hope you feel batter after that...

I would put your flame proof jacket on because in my experience of this forum you are likely to get an equally elegant response...

'sword' - 'living and dying by' springs to mind

 

[CapeRoadie]

Hey Cody, let's just review how you started out here:

Look, you can hate on Lance all you want, be referring to him as "the cancer" is complete bull***t. What he has done for people who have dealt with cancer can never be quantified. Obviously you are not one of these people, instead some dirtbag taking cheap shots at him. You don't like him, we get it, and while I'm not sure I understand the "Lance Haters", I understand that making fun of cancer or those affected by it can at minimum be considered reprehensible.

Referring to doping as the "cancer" in cycling is a metaphor that Kimmage has been using a long time. It is an appropriate metaphor. Armstrong has been shown more than once to have been doping, first with a back-dated TUE for corticosteroids (often used to mask anabolic steroid use) and then in 2005 where six of his urine samples from the 1999 Tour were found positive for EPO with the newer available tests. So Armstrong is part of the cancer of doping culture in pro cycling. In NO WAY was Kimmage "making fun of cancer" or making fun of "those affected by it". That's an overreaction on your part.

I am one of those people affected by cancer. In no way would I misconstrue what Kimmage is saying as an attack or slur toward the cancer population. You're out of line.

Now, back to your last post.

This is CLASSIC! I'm an American that *gasp* is a fan of American cyclists! Holy crap! REAL cycling fans can name off classic non-American riders, and when they can't think of any other names they say "and several others". What does it matter who I'm like? I enjoy the sport of cycling, I've read much about what you speak of, yes all the "facts" against LA. The "don't believe everything you read" works both ways. Just like being a fan of Merckx (despite doping allegations against him too!)

I'm an American who is also a fan of American cyclists. But your defense of Armstrong is so typically American that I said you were being a typical American naive cycling fan. You actually sounded more like an Armstrong fan than a fan of cycling. There is a big difference among those two types.

And if you have read "all the facts" against Armstrong, then what do you make of those six positive tests? What do you make of his association with Michele Ferrari? What do you make of all the riders who rode with him having been found guilty of doping or admitted doping? You know, Beltran, Landis, Hamilton, Andreu, Heras. How do you explain his going after a breakaway with Filippo Simeoni in Stage 18 of the 2004 Tour? What was that all about? And when the Tour this year stated they would be happy to re-test the 1999 samples so that Armstrong could finally prove his innnocence, Armstrong refused. Now, why would he refuse such a chance if he were really clean? Give me a break, Cody. It's so blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention that it's almost a waste of time trying to convince people like you.

So yes. You appear naive.

Even if you and your gigantic brain have read everything there is to read about cycling (EVER), and "researched it as thoroughly as anybody" how does that make you a better fan than me? You don't call me inferior you just infer it into every word you type. I'm a newbie to cycling because of who I said I liked? I'm some how naive because of what I've written? I'll be sure to divulge all my knowledge to you so you don't fill in the gaps for me, again.

Never said I was a "better fan". Again, that's coming from your head. Please do divulge your knowledge on the issue of Armstrong's doping or "lack thereof". I maintain you don't really know that much. If you did, you could defend him. Please lay out your rational, not emotional, case.

This is EXACTLY what I meant. You are the self-proclaimed superior cycling fan that thinks anyone who doesn't have your "level" of knowledge is a newbie and there is no place for newbies. You automatically label LA fans as naive, therefore inferior and "new" to the cycling scene.

I don't think Armstong fans are necessarily naive. I just think that you are.
Maybe you're not new to the sport; maybe you are. I don't really care. I just think if you're going to post the sh** you started out with, you should try to make some sense.

This is why cycling gets a bad wrap in the US. You're non-welcoming attitude is the reason its so unpleasant around the road-racing scene for most new people. I've been around long enough to know, people like you and teams with riders like you are not fun places to be because no one new is worthy. I'm on a team that takes the time to teach, explains with out assuming and is open to helping new riders be safe and not make mistakes.

Cycling doesn't get a bad rap in the United States. Cycling in the U.S> is very popular and will continue to be. I am very welcoming to new cyclists in the local road racing scene. I support a youth development team, I am working on supporting a new club in my region, and I encourage all sorts of new riders. I am sure you are worthy as a new cyclist. But none of that has anything to do with what we're talking about here.

Here, we're talking about Armstrong's doping and lying. And Paul Kimmage, who is a very respected journalist. Kimmage is one of the few journalists who doesn't kiss up to Armstrong, and isn't afraid of losing an interview with a man who only provides interviews with non-confrontational journalists. What kind of journalism do you want? Kiss-a** journalism?

Thank you for icing the cake. No tolerance for new riders, Cat 5's aren't worthy, style is everything, insults the guy who takes a shot and dies because he's new and you're one of the pr!cks around that won't teach him. CLASSIC!! You act like you've never been new, never made a mistake on the bike. Don't get razor burn shaving your legs before your Cat 3 race on your $12k euro bike, and don't scratch your BMW putting your bike away after not making the cut 15 min in. There, I'll fill in the gaps for you.

This thread isn't about mistakes on a bike. It's about mistakes in the interpretation of the reality of doping in the pro peloton and the overwhelming evidence against Armstrong. Actually it's about Landis being able to ride in France. I have a lot of tolerance for Cat 5's. I just don't have tolerance for you as another Armstrong apologist. Don't try to change the subject. You're one of those new guys who comes along and thinks he knows everything about cycling history and doping and ****es everyone off who's been around for a while.

Don't confuse this discussion with racing in the U.S. Cat 5's are very worthy! Style isn't that important to me, although your writing style is pretty defensive and reactionary. And, by the way, leaving your saddle bag on during a race is important to me because it's against USA Cycling rules and also dangerous. And shaving's probably a good idea when you find your sorry a** in the ER with road rash and they're picking hair out of your legs with bits of gravel and dirt. You're going to wish you had shaved your legs, numbnuts. And you're probably the fu**wit with a BMW with your carbon bike on the roof rack who drives into his garage with the bike still on top. Oh sh**! No more bike!

I think you should harden the f*** up and stop deluding yourself into thinking Armstrong is clean.

 

[BroDeal]

LOL. Cape givin' 'em 'ell.

 

[Anonymous]

BRAVO Cape, BRAVO!!

 

[last km]

I see the poster who started this thread seems to have gone to that place in hyper-space that is t'internet.......

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, but how do I post up my Avatar ???

 

[BroDeal]

I see the poster who started this thread seems to have gone to that place in hyper-space that is t'internet.......

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, but how do I post up my Avatar ???

Click on the "User CP" link at the upper right area of the page. Then click "Edit Avatar" on the left menu.

 

[last km]

Thanks Bro

 

[Mellow Velo]

Cape: fu**wit? I hope you aren't just holding the fort, until the missus arrives.

A perfect summation of the disparity which fuels these forums.
Bravo two, too!

 

[patricknd]

Hey Cody, let's just review how you started out here:



Referring to doping as the "cancer" in cycling is a metaphor that Kimmage has been using a long time. It is an appropriate metaphor. Armstrong has been shown more than once to have been doping, first with a back-dated TUE for corticosteroids (often used to mask anabolic steroid use) and then in 2005 where six of his urine samples from the 1999 Tour were found positive for EPO with the newer available tests. So Armstrong is part of the cancer of doping culture in pro cycling. In NO WAY was Kimmage "making fun of cancer" or making fun of "those affected by it". That's an overreaction on your part.

I am one of those people affected by cancer. In no way would I misconstrue what Kimmage is saying as an attack or slur toward the cancer population. You're out of line.





i too am affected by cancer. i was diagnosed 8 weeks ago. i find references to anyone as "the cancer" offensive. it is meant to provoke a reaction, pure and simple. anyone who equates cheating in sports with a horrible disease has a screwed up value system. one more thing. kimmage doped. as far as i'm concerned, pot meet kettle

 

[msjett]

t'internet and forums are a wonderful thing...but it helps to keep on topic, as entertaining as it is to see those outwit each other with comebacks better than most has beens....

If in the TDF, they place a ban on a team for having riders failed previous years drug tests, wouldn't that apply to any team that Landis rides in, in the future in TDF???

Also, if this topic was about Landis, why has so much time and effort been spent on someone whom this topic is not about.....