Landis Credibility Boost?

[_Zipp0_]

The raw documents from the Landis/Verbruggen exchange over bank guarantees seem to indicate that Landis may have some credibility after all:

http://cyclocosm.com/2011/02/raw-documents-the-verbruggenlandis-exchange/

If Landis has credibility on this issue, does that lend credence to his other claims?

Mods - if there is some other thread you think this belongs in, move it. But I think this was a fairly improtant story.

 

[BotanyBay]

The raw documents from the Landis/Verbruggen exchange over bank guarantees seem to indicate that Landis may have some credibility after all:

http://cyclocosm.com/2011/02/raw-documents-the-verbruggenlandis-exchange/

If Landis has credibility on this issue, does that lend credence to his other claims?

Mods - if there is some other thread you think this belongs in, move it. But I think this was a fairly improtant story.

Credibility is something one earns back, not something that someone gets credit for in the past.

I think Floyd has made some fantastic strides in gaining his back, but it will be his future actions that answers your question. IMHO, of course.

 

[Granville57]

This is taking place right now in this morning's Mercury and the UCI thread.

This just put up by cyclocosm
http://bit.ly/gxF2EU

Fascinating reading.

(if not worthy of its own thread mod please merge into UCI corruption thread)

 

[Barrus]

To be quite honest I let this thread stand on its own, especially since a good debate about the notion of the UCI was going on in the other thread and I believed that this thread could be about the Landis and the possible increase in credibility coming from this information aspect in particular, as I thought to include this now would draw away from the good debate going on. So if you think I'm wrong in this, please let me know and I will erge the two threads and delete any ramblings that aren't really on the topic

 

[BikeCentric]

I really think he's going to have a lot of trouble earning his credibility back, and I say this as a very big fan of what he's done to blow the whistle on the pro cycling charade. The whole lying about drugs for years and especially the disgusting farce of the Floyd Fairness Fund is going to **** off a lot of people for a very long time. I'm ****ed off about it and I never even considered donating anything to him because I was certain he really used drugs. I guess there is some aspect of "if you were stupid enough to contribute to that fund then you deserved to loss your money" but I can't really go all-in on social Darwinism like that. Fraud is fraud.

 

[Granville57]

The whole lying about drugs for years and especially the disgusting farce of the Floyd Fairness Fund is going to **** off a lot of people for a very long time.

You raise a very valid point. I feel the only way that Landis could gain back the faith of those that donated to his fund would be for something very stunning to be unraveled by the Feds. By that, I mean something that could prove foul play in regards to his test results. I'm sure that is far from their focus, so it would have to be directly connected to some other type of fraud or manipulation that is on their radar.

I've always looked at that two ways.

1) It still seems to me very unlikely that Floyd would've jacked himself with any detectable substance prior to Stage 17, knowing full well that if he won the stage, not only would the eyes of the world be on him, but as a stage winner he'd be guaranteed a trip to doping control. Who knows, maybe he did juice himself but was given a green light from someone on the inside that all would be OK, only to later have the rug pulled out from under him. That would explain some of his outrage about the whole thing, but maybe he's in a position where he can't really tell all the details (pending investigation).

2) The FFF was based around him defending the charges against him and nothing more. He was forced to publicly say "I have never doped" but I never once believed that (and a bigger Floyd supporter you will not find). But I did find it believable that he wasn't guilty as charged. Why else would he have thrown away nearly everything? The lies, the deception, etc., I've looked at that as collateral damage that was unavoidable for someone in his situation. If he admitted to other doping "procedures" he would've been tossed on the spot. I accepted what I felt were lies to be a necessary evil to combat something else entirely that was going on. Was he guilty as charged? If not, then who knows what kind of conspiracy was in play?
(just check the other thread for some good ones )

Some of his fans will always be disappointed (to use the lightest term) that Floyd doped throughout his time at the top. But I think a great many of them would sympathize with him if it can be proved that he truly was the victim of either a very conscious effort to take him down, or a colossal mistake by the lab. (Ooohh, that just gave me an idea for the other thread...)

More to the OP, Do these documents boost Floyd's credibility? Well, he mentioned these things long ago, and they were never disputed by the UCI, so I had no problem accepting Floyd at his word on this. But it is enlightening to those that haven't followed Floyd's story so closely, and it does shine a very incriminating light on the UCI. Floyd will need much more than this to have his credibility "restored" but it does give it a "boost" in the right direction. It also may encourage others to come forward with evidence to support some of Landis' other claims. Only time will tell.

 

[fatandfast]

Landis has total credibility about his back pay issue.. There was never any question about it. His ugly American strong arm technique made the old men he was dealing with feel disrespected. Landis made the choice to lose everything he could have stayed on track with I didn't do it and there was some evidence that said he was innocent..He was never slammed by a unanimous decision any time he was tried. The fact that Landis had a disagreement with the fed 10 years ago was never in dispute..his revision of history a decade later is pretty incredible..Charlie Sheen is going to say in 2020 that he was really just using powder to clean his hotel room back in 2010

 

[Beech Mtn]

I really think he's going to have a lot of trouble earning his credibility back, and I say this as a very big fan of what he's done to blow the whistle on the pro cycling charade. The whole lying about drugs for years and especially the disgusting farce of the Floyd Fairness Fund is going to **** off a lot of people for a very long time. I'm ****ed off about it and I never even considered donating anything to him because I was certain he really used drugs. I guess there is some aspect of "if you were stupid enough to contribute to that fund then you deserved to loss your money" but I can't really go all-in on social Darwinism like that. Fraud is fraud.

I used to care about the FFF fraud a lot more before I found out it was really just the Floyd STFU Fund, with the majority of it bankrolled by high rollers associated with LA, USPS, USAC, etc.

 

[BotanyBay]

I used to care about the FFF fraud a lot more before I found out it was really just the Floyd STFU Fund

+1, Post of the day.

 

[VeloFidelis]

I can't argue with your moral interpretation of the dilemma with Floyd's credibility. It will always be easy for detractors to make a compelling case for bitterness and retribution. I think he probably knows that better than anyone. He did some bad sh!t in the defense of a lie. But as much as there is an unofficial rule book for doping in cycling which is universally followed, so to is there a well used rule book for denial. It is understandable when your world is falling apart to put your faith is a system of denial that is working pretty well for your peers.

What I get from the Kimmage / Landis interview is a guy who finally understands that cycling for him is really over. It's like the day long after your divorce that you finally stop hating your Ex ( and I know many of you get this). You stop caring who got the sofa, and who got the flat screen. You're just done... and your free. And it's no longer worth your time trying to influence the misinterpretations of the masses, and correct the gross inaccuracies of the story. You realize the futility of it all and just walk away.

I don't see any vendetta against Boogerd, he's just recounting a day at the Tour. He has nothing to gain by it. I am sure that there are a hundred other more incriminating stores that could be told, and which he realizes would never be accurately depicted anywhere, so what's the point.

Living with denial is a very powerful influence on someone's life. You don't have to be a celebrity to have first hand experience with that. I would take Floyd's unscripted comments about Boogerd, Pereiro, and Barry as fact over their formula denials. Even in to retirement they have a lot more to lose by not sticking to the rule book, than a guy who is no longer interested in the game

 

[Granville57]

The fact that Landis had a disagreement with the fed 10 years ago was never in dispute..his revision of history a decade later is pretty incredible..

I don't follow.

What history, from a decade ago, is he trying to rewrite?

 

[webvan]

I used to care about the FFF fraud a lot more before I found out it was really just the Floyd STFU Fund, with the majority of it bankrolled by high rollers associated with LA, USPS, USAC, etc.

"Big boys with Little toys" indeed...it's hard to believe they didn't know about doping in cycling, same goes for that USPS exec, as someone put it in another thread, everyone who's been involved in cycling "knows". Sounds like they were just turning their head the other way, while making Armstrong a rich man and paying for Landis' legal fees. They look pretty foolish now and the worse may yet be to come...

 

[dbrower]

He was never slammed by a unanimous decision any time he was tried.

For the record, his appeal to CAS was rejected in a decision that was reported as unanimous, though apparently only the chair Mr. Williams, signed off on it.

-dB

 

[131313]

Landis has total credibility about his back pay issue.. There was never any question about it. His ugly American strong arm technique made the old men he was dealing with feel disrespected.

Of all of the idiotic comments I've read on the interwebs, this one may take the cake;"ugly American strong arm technique"?

1. did you even read the letters?

2. can you suggest a more appropriate response when you aren't paid for 5 months?

What would you do if your employer didn't pay you for 5 months? Do you really feel that suggesting legal action (after first being ignored when you ask nicely a few times) is in any way unreasonable?

The UCI's position is the sort of behavior you see in feudal systems??? To suggest that this is a "strong arm" technique and representative of an "ugly American" shows just how deep your bias is regarding Flandis.

Please let me know how you'd handle this with your employer after missing 5 months worth I paychecks. I look forward to your response...

 

[python]

personally, i think landis pussy walked with the uci compared to how I would have reacted if unpaid for 5 months.

but let me put it bluntly - the publication of the letter exchanges between landis and verbruggen was neither a boost nor a deflator of his credibility. it’s simply an evidence of how incredibly out of control the uci was and how authoritarian and arrogant verbruggen had become.

what we’ve seen in the last few days is not a credibility makeover but a belated attempt at repairing landis’s image. im all for that. he deserves better and i’m listening intently to everything he has to say. but with an open mind and through my own filters. landis’s world had swung between the 2 extremes too fast to abandon fact-checking when listening.


the real credibility challenge for landis will be in another place, in a California court room. i hear he wasn’t doing too badly so far…

 

[brianf7]

Landis has no credibility he raised money to fight a doping charge and after telling big porkies for two years he was suspended found guilty then after spending other peoples money he decided to tell truth.

What is the truth he won that stage in the TDF by a huge margin he cheated others and I know it wasnt Testosterone that gave him that big boost it was something else.

So lets hear what it was then I will give him a thought just a little thought of credability.

 

[fatandfast]

Of all of the idiotic comments I've read on the interwebs, this one may take the cake;"ugly American strong arm technique"?

1. did you even read the letters?

2. can you suggest a more appropriate response when you aren't paid for 5 months?

What would you do if your employer didn't pay you for 5 months? Do you really feel that suggesting legal action (after first being ignored when you ask nicely a few times) is in any way unreasonable?

The UCI's position is the sort of behavior you see in feudal systems??? To suggest that this is a "strong arm" technique and representative of an "ugly American" shows just how deep your bias is regarding Flandis.

Please let me know how you'd handle this with your employer after missing 5 months worth I paychecks. I look forward to your response...

I was commenting more on what all the people involved said. Landis explained that Lance told him he was going about things incorrectly. Both men had learned that the UCI/Verbruggen were displeased with Lanids's approach. Apparently Landis
also found some fault with his comments and asked Ochowicz to mediate between the irritated parties . Often Americans go off half **** believing that all other court system enjoy the benefit of equal footing in the legal system. In many courts were loser pays threats and litigation can be costly and even financially terminal. From the US justice system Americans feel free to try and get justice in court because the down side of losing does not involve them paying extensive costs after defeat. Landis apologized for his behavior..and as was said Landis was making @6800 dollars per year so the 3000 dollars he stood to get from the system was hardly worth the risk or trouble as he came to agree

 

[Boeing]

Credibility is something one earns back, not something that someone gets credit for in the past.

So exactly what point in time are we to measure credibility then?

 

[datalore]

On its own, Landis' testimony doesn't carry a great deal of weight. However, he has the power to influence more credible individuals and to gather hard evidence to support his claims. If he can do these things, his personal credibility issues won't be as much of a problem.

 

[fatandfast]

Landis was a very talented rider and may have thought that the admiration he was given at every level of US cycling would transcend. As with most of the recent cycling books written by American racers they are often depressed because they are alone and start at the bottom of an unfamiliar system. Landis gave a polite apology and then in true Landis form waits ten years to explain that he was throttled by Lance and Ochowicz to say he was sorry to a pr!ck that he thought was corrupt..true to most of Landis credibility issues he throws the stone and no sooner than it leaves his hand he start putting a spin of regret and lack of responsibility on its destination. Lance and others are slammed for not wanting to discuss decade old events that may or may not have ever happened. If anybody brings up Landis's behavior toward Lemond,writing a book, getting funds through fraud,lying to 3 courts systems under oath, illegally gaining access to French computers, people are told top move on and that Landis is being badgered..Landis step for step with Lance explains that he wants to talk about the present not the past..just a double standard

 

[Maxiton]

I really think he's going to have a lot of trouble earning his credibility back, and I say this as a very big fan of what he's done to blow the whistle on the pro cycling charade. The whole lying about drugs for years and especially the disgusting farce of the Floyd Fairness Fund is going to **** off a lot of people for a very long time. I'm ****ed off about it and I never even considered donating anything to him because I was certain he really used drugs. I guess there is some aspect of "if you were stupid enough to contribute to that fund then you deserved to loss your money" but I can't really go all-in on social Darwinism like that. Fraud is fraud.

That was exactly how I felt, as well, both then and now. When the "Floyd Fairness Fund" was announced, I just shook my head woefully. Everybody who contributed to it was choosing to give their money away to a cause - namely Floyd - they believed in. Still, and as you say, fraud is fraud.

<snipped for brevity>

It still seems to me very unlikely that Floyd would've jacked himself with any detectable substance prior to Stage 17, knowing full well that if he won the stage, not only would the eyes of the world be on him, but as a stage winner he'd be guaranteed a trip to doping control. Who knows, maybe he did juice himself but was given a green light from someone on the inside that all would be OK, only to later have the rug pulled out from under him. That would explain some of his outrage about the whole thing, but maybe he's in a position where he can't really tell all the details (pending investigation).

No one's yet mentioned a certain name. During that Tour, between stages 16 and 17, the announcers mentioned several times that Floyd's camp had consulted over night with Eddy Merckx. No one except Floyd and his inner circle knows what it was Merckx suggested Floyd do, but whatever the advice was, Merckx had confidence in it - as shown by his little bet in Floyd's favor.

Maybe Merckx convinced Floyd he had nothing to lose. If he lost, well, that had already happened; but if he won they'd never dare strip a Tour winner of the maillot jaune, even in the unlikely event that tests turned up something.

Another factor: we all know Merckx is tight with Armstrong . . . .

Floyd hasn't mentioned Merckx - but maybe that's because he already has enough problems. Casting aspersions on Merckx in the cycling community would be like slagging Jesus at Vacation Bible School. I hate to mention Merckx because he's my favorite rider. But perhaps it bears looking into.

"Big boys with Little toys" indeed...it's hard to believe they didn't know about doping in cycling, same goes for that USPS exec, as someone put it in another thread, everyone who's been involved in cycling "knows". Sounds like they were just turning their head the other way, while making Armstrong a rich man and paying for Landis' legal fees. They look pretty foolish now and the worse may yet be to come...

That's what ****es me off. USPS was happy to take the reflected glory and turn their heads the other way. They can't have been that naive. Could they?

 

[sniper]

the real credibility challenge for landis will be in another place, in a california court room. I hear he wasn’t doing too badly so far…

+1

landis has no credibility he raised money to fight a doping charge and after telling big porkies for two years he was suspended found guilty then after spending other peoples money he decided to tell truth.

What is the truth he won that stage in the tdf by a huge margin he cheated others and i know it wasnt testosterone that gave him that big boost it was something else.

-1

credibility is something one earns back, not something that someone gets credit for in the past.

I think floyd has made some fantastic strides in gaining his back, but it will be his future actions that answers your question. Imho, of course.

+1