Landis letter re drug use in cycling

Page 59 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 13, 2009
653
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
The fact that many of us believed he was a liar when he denied doping, but we believe him now that he admits what many of us have known for years is ironic to you?

Yes thats what I just said.
 
Jun 9, 2009
140
0
0
eleven said:
Evidence of...what, exactly, that would lead to a criminal investigation in the US?

Possession and distribution of controlled substances. Conspiracy. Racketeering. There is a laundry list of possible criminal offenses in Landis' allegations.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,316
2
0
I am starting to get sick to my stomach. not from the photos but it is all coming down.

Tomorrows trip to the top for the stage is sudden apathy now and my 4 days in July watching bikes go up hill seems to be less romantic then it ever was

Go Lakers
 
Nice to hear John Fahey and WADA give an objective statement. McQuaid and UCI, just sad and once again disappointing. He really does need to go and the UCI needs a total overhaul. Just as LeMond, Shenk and others have said.

I'm not ready to say Floyd rightfully won the 2006 Tour, But don't forget that in addition to Kloden, it's highly likely Rasmussen, Valverde, Menchov, Periero, and probably F Schleck were charged as well.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
frizzlefry said:
Yes thats what I just said.

So calling him a liar when he lies, and not calling him one when he's telling the truth is ... ironic? I don't think you grasp the concept of irony.
 
Aug 16, 2009
181
0
0
ESPN's Ooutside the Lines...

poll says only 14% respect Flandis more after admitting use and naming others, 86% have less. That's going to be the public opinion around the US I believe.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
eleven said:
Evidence of...what, exactly, that would lead to a criminal investigation in the US?

Density of granite.

Their sponsor was the federal govt. They will want to know what happened.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Franklin said:
There isn't enough for criminal charges unless further evidence shows up. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me. Even the Verbruggen cover up isn't a case yet, though I'm sure it will be ground for investigations.

This will be enough ammo for every country to turn every cycling bus inside out, so I expect quite a few raids.

My statement supposed an investigation uncovering more info.
 
I'm too starting to think this is it for his season, and maybe career. I can't see him getting to the Tour, and even if Shack is there, they'll be forced to ride completely clean as the atmosphere will be so hot. If what Floyd claims about JB and his teams is true, this spells disaster along the lines of Willy Voet's description of Festina's demise in 1998.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
So, LA retiring from the ToC should bring the focus squarely on DZ, LL, GH. Someone should ask them serious questions. Why not ask Levi directly about 1996 to start with?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
altark123 said:
poll says only 14% respect Flandis more after admitting use and naming others, 86% have less. That's going to be the public opinion around the US I believe.

yep...people need their myths...floyd needs someone to step forward...or this will be under the boat in no time...
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
scribe said:
Well, they got the claims of someone who just reversed his rigorous claims of the last several years. That's enough, no?

seriously...i think some of what he says is probably true.

But again, he's still making up **** about his failed 2006 test.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm too starting to think this is it for his season, and maybe career. I can't see him getting to the Tour, and even if Shack is there, they'll be forced to ride completely clean as the atmosphere will be so hot. If what Floyd claims about JB and his teams is true, this spells disaster along the lines of Willy Voet's description of Festina's demise in 1998.

I have to agree here. I doubt we'll see Armstrong near a race again. The French press will tear him to pieces if he comes there, not to mention what Contador will do to him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
wonder how folks over at radioshack are feeling right now? I mean the idiot CEO and lackeys who came up with the funds...
 
Colm.Murphy said:
Their sponsor was the federal govt. They will want to know what happened.
Sort of. And I agree with you. But you seem aware of how this works, and the feds usually don't go after someone until they have solid evidence, and that could take a while here. But when they do, they have an extremely high conviction rate. Once the ball gets rolling though, it tends to roll, as people want to save their skin, thus cooperate and plea out. LA isn't in a position to do that.

Agree Cobblestones, at last year's TOC Levi joked about getting softball questions. Let's get a reporter in there to throw him some real pitches this time.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
gjdavis60 said:
Possession and distribution of controlled substances. Conspiracy. Racketeering. There is a laundry list of possible criminal offenses in Landis' allegations.

Where is the evidence of possession of a controlled substance in the US?

Distribution?

Conspiracy?

Racketeering?

Methinks you are just tossing charges against the wall of public opinion in the hopes that one sticks.
 
May 13, 2009
653
0
0
Cobblestones said:
So calling him a liar when he lies, and not calling him one when he's telling the truth is ... ironic? I don't think you grasp the concept of irony.

No, calling him a liar, and then believing every word he says when it suits the agenda.
 
frizzlefry said:
How do you respect someone who exhausted all his appeals, and then told the truth?

You f-ucking DIVOT.

That's how the procycling game is played!

How have the last batch of dopers reacted?

From Virenque to Di Luca. Deny deny deny.

And it used to work. So what the hell, give it your lawyer's best shot!
 
Cobblestones said:
So, LA retiring from the ToC should bring the focus squarely on DZ, LL, GH. Someone should ask them serious questions. Why not ask Levi directly about 1996 to start with?

I might be a good idea to contact the media about that and give them the idea. That is now adds extra juice to an already juicy story.

USA Cycling refusing to confim it adds to the corruption angle.
 
If Landis has no real proof other than his word then this whole story is going to get everyone worked up with no result because Landis' word is worthless. He has lied under oath, written false books, and stolen money from people to support his lies. Landis has absolutely zero credibility. Lets not pretend otherwise.

Nevertheless, this will do incredible damage to cycling world wide, but especially in the US. Sponsors will disappear, money will dry up, and events will go away for a long time to come. We are going to lose tv coverage of major events and the support of american sponsors for young american riders.

And all to what end? So we can put astericks next to riders names and palmares years ago? Great, yipeee. Sorry, but I just don't see what all the cheer is about on this forum. There should be no question in anyone's mind here that Landis did this out of vengeance and I guarantee nothing good will come of it.

Doping was ingrained into the culture of cycling for a long time. There is a high probability that almost every active pro rider active in the last decade doped at least some point in the their career. Does that include Lance? Well, of course, it probably does. Does that include contador? Probably. Does it include vino, well yes we actually know that for a fact. So what , are you going to take Lance's TdF wins and hand them off to the next guy even though the fact is that there is just as good of a chance that the next guy was doping too. They all doped, deal with it.

In every sport athletes are always seeking an advantage, an edge. They always will. Whether it is dope, special clothing, special food or a fancy bike part. Luckily, now the culture of cycling is shifting so cyclists are focusing on these other things and less on doping. That is good. We are making progress. Testing and tests are getting better. All good.

So I just don't see the advantage to dragging the skeletons out of the closet. Now, if Landis had accusations where he could implicate current doping cases in 2010 that would be quite another thing. But frankly, I don't give a crap about 2004 or 96 for that matter.

To put it more plainly, the amount of damage Landis is doing to 2010 and beyond is just not worth it to prosecute historical cases with no actual evidence.