Landis letter re drug use in cycling

[Anonymous]

Great, now we are into personal attacks - but we cannot figure out why someof us have a problem with rabid accssations without proof.

Looking at things with an eye toward how they WILL play in court is possible. An accussation with evidence, and this is a no brainer, will get absolutely no where in court.

And if your ego is so fragile that you cannot take someone disagreeing with you, then trust me - that is a personal problem.

Another fanboy with no sense of irony, who knew?

 

[Jonathan]

Proof please.

He tested positive at least eight times, of which six times by multiple tests.

 

[Anonymous]

Proof please.

We may as well say Lance Armstrong faked the moon landing because that would have as much credibility and accussing the entire IOC, UCI, and the European legal system of systemic fraud simply to protect Lance - who we are all sure will be convicted anyway.

And please bear in mind it was WADA and **** Pound who refused to cooperate and kept the issue from going any further. So apparently Lance's accussers are doing him favors now?

Again, suspicion without proof is .... nothing. It sure as hell is not proof of doping.

The same thing applies to Floyd - the subject of the thread. It is an accussation - against a hell of a lot more than Lance.

And, as I have been saying, the rabid desire to 'get' Lance has overshadowed everything that came out of Floyd's mouth.

You don't even know the ACTUAL facts of the case and you are asking for proof? Go do more homework because it is obvious to anyone who knows what they are talking about that all you have ever read are Armstrong press releases. Hint: Press releases are always slanted, but rarely actually factual.

 

[Archibald]

just read that RS statement - no denial, just rubbishing Floyd...
I do love this bit though...

Lance never has and never will give anyone money, or anything else, to keep them from airing falsehoods.

 

[Barrus]

Update at TeamRS has gone up:

http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/news/

My god this speaks even more to Flandis his advantage: This is Floyds e-mail posted on the site

Andrew,
Thank you for clarifying the position of the Tour of California on these subjects. I just wanted to be sure that I gave you the opportunity to be involved in cleaning up cycling as I have with so many in positions of power such as Steve Johnson and Jim Ochowitz but as I expected the Tour of California is interested in the status quo as were they and I wish you all luck with that. I certainly understand that my revealing that Lance Armstrong has relied on blood doping, EPO, and anabolics to win the three Tours de France in which I helped him will jeopardize your substantial investment in facilitating his appearance so from a business point of view I understand fully. However from a moral and ethical standpoint we stand in stark contrast. Thanks again for connecting me with Travis Tygart.

Floyd

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

You don't even know the ACTUAL facts of the case and you are asking for proof. Go do more homework because it is obvious to anyone who knows what they are talking about that all you have ever read are Armstrong press releases. Hint: Press releases are always slanted, but rarely actually factual.

You're trying to get water from an empty well, here. You've had this discussion with these muppets many times.

 

[gree0232]

Ofcourse you can try to judge how well the evidence can hold up in a court of law, but I would advise to also look at exactly what laws Armstrong may have broken.

Otherwise, do you want evidence or proof? It is very difficult to prove anything - there is always an alternative explanation for any observation. If you're looking for evidence against Armstrong, however, well, many on this forum will be happy to provide it. You don't have to be convinced, ofcourse, that's always a personal matter. But there really is a bagload of evidence against Armstrong.

I am obviously aware of the laws that Armstrong has BEEN ACCUSSED of breaking.

You then have to line up the available evidence with those alleged crimes.

Trust me, I have looked, just as I am looking now with Floyd and saying, "Troubling accussations, but where is the proof?"

And for the record, the first posts I made here were about the same standard. Always the same thing. Always the accussations fro the bashers, and complete ignorance of the rebuttal, or the witnesses that lined up and directly contradicted the statements made.

It comes down to what Floyd is doing, and AGAIN, he may be right. This may be an attempt to shake loose something from the system, and if so it is a hell of a broadside (albiet a VERY risky one).

It is equally possible right now that Floyd just may be looking to lash out based on his treatement to this point.

To be fair, I also defended Floyd in his doping case. I think much of what he pointed out in his case was troubling. However, he WAS convicted and I called him a doper.

My suspicions have now been proven entirely incorrect. :shrug:

 

[Anonymous]

You're trying to get water from an empty well, here. You've had this discussion with these muppets many times.

Thanks for returning me to sanity. You are right. No point in arguing with someone who says they are open but has already made up their mind. Me, I'm not open. I know he is a doping cheat.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hey ....its 'Gee0232'.

Welcome back - haven't seen much of you since the "LA is a doper" thread.


And yes you HAVE been doing your homework.......
Lets have a look at your timeline today, shall we:

You wrote the below post in TWO MINUTES!! Incredible!

@14:06

Agh, great evidence, please see post above. I have tried to keep an open mind with Lance, and have looked at both sides using the standard to form my conclusion.

The proof must be 50.1%.

And trust me, despite your, "Anyone who disagree with my opinion of Lance is simply uniformed or stupid," attitude, I assure you I have done my homework. And, why is this attitide acceptable? I have always said that Lance may very well be doped, and for some reason the possibility of the opposite is apostatsy? Why? If that is the case, than this is not about evidence - and th system simply cannot, will not, and should not adjust to accomodate emotive accussations.

The systems that looked into Lance's activity and concluded there was not enough information or evidence available to convict Lance - even with 6 apparent positive tests. That standard shuold have sunk him, it didn't. That says something - just maybe no what you want it to.

@ 14:04

Yeah, and there was also an independant Dutch investigation that pretty much evisercated that entire process.

Here it is for you.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/dutch-report-clears-armstrong/2006/06/01/1148956427078.html

http://www.tdfblog.com/2006/06/thoughts_on_the.html

62.50.72.82/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf

Now, why would I take one side and simply ignore the other side if the issue is about EVIDENCE?

Why is it OK for Lance Bashers to universally condem Lance, but then take issue when someone says, "Stop the pointless bashing!"

If you only want to look at one side of an issue? Your choice.

If you want to focus only on Landis accussations against Lance and ignore everything else and its implication? Your choice.

If you want to put a finger in my chest and demand I simply take you position? Expect a finger right back.

The system MUST use evidence, ALL of it, in reaching conclusions.

@13:58

Look, to be clear, you can think whatever you want.

IF you want the WORLD to conclude LA, or anyone else, is a doper you have to prove it.

Everything I have ever seen thrown at Armstrong has fallen apart on cros examination. All of it.

So when I see Lance bashers say - "Face the truth kiddo!" - or, "The system is broken because Lance still rides!" Then you miss the point.

Lance is special case, like burr in the britiches of many fans, but if we took those same salacious accussations and apply them to Cadel Evans, Fabian Cancellera, the Shleck Borthers, ANYONE who is successful - how is that helpful?

Well, you think he's doped. Great.

He is STILL not a doper until you can prove it. However much that gets someone panties in a bunch, THAT is how the system works and MUST work.

Want me to continue????

 

[Barrus]

Am I the only one when I want to see the entire series of e-mails, the site just shows the adresses and no longer the texts?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I missed what is "threatening" in those emails. Actually those emails work in Floyd's favor.

Hey, why aren't they suing Floyd for defamation? Oh, that's right, DISCOVERY.

 

[gree0232]

You don't even know the ACTUAL facts of the case and you are asking for proof? Go do more homework because it is obvious to anyone who knows what they are talking about that all you have ever read are Armstrong press releases. Hint: Press releases are always slanted, but rarely actually factual.

Yeah, I provide links, you provide ... insults and attack yet another system - the Press (and you apparently have some inside source of information that all us normal folk cannot gain access to)?

And the last one, which for whatever reason did not hyperlink, it THE ACTUAL REPORT, which I read. Just as I read the initial WADA accussations.

But thank you for acussing me of not doing so and insulting me based on my obvious stupitidy .... without proof.

 

[thehog]

I missed what is "threatening" in those emails. Actually those emails work in Floyd's favor.

Hey, why aren't they suing Floyd for defamation? Oh, that's right, DISCOVERY.

Here's Lance's emails I posted on the other thread.

Lance has got this one won...


----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Messick
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:13 PM
To: Floyd Landis
Cc: Brent Kay; S. Johnson; Steven Hess
Subject: Re: Opportunities

You have misunderstood our position. We are partners with usada and have a strong anti-doping program for our race that enhances the uci's efforts in this area. We are committed to doing everything in our power to have a clean race. If you have something to say about doping in cycling, tell usada. They have been empowered to investigate possible doping cases and we trust them to do it.

-----Original Message-----
From: floyd landis
To: Andrew Messick
CC: Brent Kay; S. Johnson; Steven Hess
Sent: Sat Apr 24 19:06:12 2010
Subject: Re: Opportunities

Andrew,
Thank you for clarifying the position of the Tour of California on these subjects. I just wanted to be sure that I gave you the opportunity to be involved in cleaning up cycling as I have with so many in positions of power such as Steve Johnson and Jim Ochowitz but as I expected the Tour of California is interested in the status quo as were they and I wish you all luck with that. I certainly understand that my revealing that Lance Armstrong has relied on blood doping, EPO, and anabolics to win the three Tours de France in which I helped him will jeopardize your substantial investment in facilitating his appearance so from a business point of view I understand fully.

 

[gree0232]

Hey ....its 'Gee0232'.

Welcome back - haven't seen much of you since the "LA is a doper" thread.


And yes you HAVE been doing your homework.......
Lets have a look at your timeline today, shall we:

You wrote the below post in TWO MINUTES!! Incredible!

@14:06


@ 14:04


@13:58


Want me to continue????

Will it lead to a point or an actual rebuttal?

And actually that would be 8 minutes.

I do like th einsinuation that anyone who disagree with the bashers must be flawed ... because they write a lot? What? Am I doper now too?

 

[Red Lobster]

Proof please.

The problem is what do you accept as "proof"? I and many others have all the proof we reasonably need. This happens often in life. When I hear the sound of breaking glass in the next room, walk in, see the lamp on the floor and my kid standing there looking sheepish while her soccer ball spins around in the corner, do you really think I will entertain her demands for "proof" that she did it? Certainly I cannot prove exactly what happened but I have all the proof I need to reach the conclusion that she was responsible for the lamp breaking.

 

[fuggles]

I missed what is "threatening" in those emails. Actually those emails work in Floyd's favor.

Hey, why aren't they suing Floyd for defamation? Oh, that's right, DISCOVERY.

That's exactly what I'm sitting here thinking about. They made it seem like they had many threatening emails from FLandis. But what they actually have (or at least posted) means nothing.

Also, and maybe its just the email client(s) that they copied/pasted from, but the email headers are inconsistent (e.g. time/date formatting different).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Will it lead to a point or an actual rebuttal?

And actually that would be 8 minutes.

I do like th einsinuation that anyone who disagree with the bashers must be flawed ... because they write a lot? What? Am I doper now too?

Its kindof hard to rebutt when you have prepared like you do and throw out a series of talking points and then move on to something else.

What would you like to talk about?

Lets see how if you have been doing your homework?

Remember I asked before..........how many people were in the Hospital room when Lance admitted he took EPO and other PED's....

So, can you name them?

 

[Jonathan]

I am obviously aware of the laws that Armstrong has BEEN ACCUSSED of breaking.

You then have to line up the available evidence with those alleged crimes.

I have to do no such thing, because I am not the judge in a court of law. You've been making this same mistake over and over, which is rather odd when later you complain about others not recognizing what has been said.

It has been repeated that this is a forum, not a court of law. We can talk and have opinions about what did or did not happen. If you disagree, then talk about your arguments, but you can't deny others to say what they think is true.

 

[gree0232]

The problem is what do you accept as "proof"? I and many others have all the proof we reasonably need. This happens often in life. When I hear the sound of breaking glass in the next room, walk in, see the lamp on the floor and my kid standing there looking sheepish while her soccer ball spins around in the corner, do you really think I will entertain her demands for "proof" that she did it? Certainly I cannot prove exactly what happened but I have all the proof I need to reach the conclusion that she was responsible for the lamp breaking.

Yep, you just don't have enough proof for a conviction - so apparently you need some more?

Once again, thank you for referring to the accusssation, and, again, ignoring the rebuttals.

Floyd, whom was once in the cross hairs as a deviant, is not the most honest man in the world because he agrees with you ... but has not provided any evidence to back your claim.

So, are ALL the rider he accussed of doping actually doping?

Levi?

Dave Z?

George?

Contador?

Boonen?

Cadel Evan at the systemic doping BMC Team?

I am sorry, but I will not sign up for all that just to get Lance.

 

[VeloCity]

Proof please.

We may as well say Lance Armstrong faked the moon landing because that would have as much credibility and accussing the entire IOC, UCI, and the European legal system of systemic fraud simply to protect Lance - who we are all sure will be convicted anyway.

And please bear in mind it was WADA and **** Pound who refused to cooperate and kept the issue from going any further. So apparently Lance's accussers are doing him favors now?

Again, suspicion without proof is .... nothing. It sure as hell is not proof of doping.

The same thing applies to Floyd - the subject of the thread. It is an accussation - against a hell of a lot more than Lance.

And, as I have been saying, the rabid desire to 'get' Lance has overshadowed everything that came out of Floyd's mouth.

Considering that Vrijman sent an advance copy of the "report" to the UCI weeks before it was publicly released for them to review (but not to WADA) and that Vrijman is a "close and personal friend" of then UCI-President Hein Verbrguggen kind of suggests that "independence" wasn't exactly what the UCI was looking for.

And no, it wasn't the WADA who "refused to cooperate" - read p6-8, sections i-k:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

It was and was always intended to be a UCI whitewash, dude.

 

[Anonymous]

I sincerely hope there are more evil emails than that. WEAK sauce Lance, weak sauce.

 

[The Science of Sport]

Update at TeamRS has gone up:

http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/news/

At the bottom of their release they mention emails. . .not sure if these are the ones leaked to the media or the ones they say Landis has sent over the past four years.

But this brings up a point---Armstrong as mentioned the harassing texts and messages, so why not produce them? I am not saying they do not exist, and in fact I am sure Landis contacted JB and the rest of them many times in the past four years, but surely it would give Armstrong's argument a resounding win if he shows Landis was in fact blackmailing and making demands. . .?

 

[gree0232]

I have to do no such thing, because I am not the judge in a court of law. You've been making this same mistake over and over, which is rather odd when later you complain about others not recognizing what has been said.

It has been repeated that this is a forum, not a court of law. We can talk and have opinions about what did or did not happen. If you disagree, then talk about your arguments, but you can't deny others to say what they think is true.

I am not denyoing what others say am I?

And I am not making a mistake in saying the evidence is not high enough to secure a conviction. It hasn't.

So, prove what Landis is saying is true?

What evidence do you have the Landis is telling the truth?

Are you beginning to see the point?

Are you beginning to see the problem is assuming Floyd is right, but ignoring the possibility that he is wrong?

And if we put all our hopes on Floyd and nothing happens - because he came forward with NO evidence - do we have to listen to the wailing about how broke the system is?

You can have your opinion, but your opinion can be challenged. And if the rebuttal is always - the person disagreeing with me is a flawed human being - well, take a look in the mirror.

YOU have all the evidence you need. THE SYSTEM does not. Claro?

 

[gree0232]

Considering that Vrijman sent an advance copy of the "report" to the UCI weeks before it was publicly released for them to review (but not to WADA) and that Vrijman is a "close and personal friend" of then UCI-President Hein Verbrguggen kind of suggests that "independence" wasn't exactly what the UCI was looking for.

And no, it wasn't the WADA who "refused to cooperate" - read p6-8, sections i-k:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

It was and was always intended to be a UCI whitewash, dude.

http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=168

Then why was Pound censured and Lance not convicted?

Please take this to the appropriate thread. THis one is about Landis's accussations.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=168

Then why was Pound censured and Lance not convicted?

Please take this to the appropriate thread. THis one is about Landis's accussations.

Wow..... you have been posting all the Lance talking points with documents that are not relevant to Landis and also do not back up many of your claims..........in record time.

So, are you going to answer my question?