Landis letter re drug use in cycling

[Alpe d'Huez]

Some funny posts there Cal, Parrot, Moose.

 

[Publicus]

And if teh investiogator looks at the fact that everyone Landis has accussed without a shred of evidence is denying his claims and concludes that this was an angry vendetta or an attempt at blackmail????

Then what?

What evidence do you have that his allegations are not true? That he does not have supporting or corroborating information?

 

[auscyclefan94]

What evidence do you have that his allegations are not true? That he does not have supporting or corroborating information?

Because it is innocent until proven guilty. you would know that being a lawyer?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Ligget and Sherwen stopped being real commentators a long time ago. Now they are Armstrong spokesman. Their commentating act is a parody of what it used to be. Everything they say is a set up for one of their old metaphors or catch phrases.

Exactly. Look, let's be honest. Sherwen's commentary in the ToC consists of basic comments on the race, some Armstrong boot-licking, then a thorough overview of the CA tourism talking points. I understand the first and third, but the Lance love is really detrimental to the sport.

No single rider is above the sport. The sport itself is what brings us all here. In the end, all of us get on that saddle and pedal. It's the love of the sport that is supreme. Those who confuse cycling with Armstrong are just fans of the man, not fans of the sport.

I love this sport. I love the range of emotions you can experience on a ride or a race. Desperation, hope, fear, joy. Everything. It's a sport that really tears through your defenses and exposes your weaknesses. I remember one 24 hour mountain bike race and how I was riding at dusk thinking I've just gone through a whole spectrum of emotions on this one lap. I want this sport to live and prosper. Cycling is to life what Picasso was to painting.

 

[Oldman]

Because it is innocent until proven guilty. you would know that being a lawyer?

The point is Landis isn't prosecuting anyone. He's making information available for investigation by others. Whether it's credible or not remains to be seen. What is obvious is LA, RS and it's affiliates are spinning like tops trying to figure what's coming.

 

[auscyclefan94]

The point is Landis isn't prosecuting anyone. He's making information available for investigation by others. Whether it's credible or not remains to be seen. What is obvious is LA, RS and it's affiliates are spinning like tops trying to figure what's coming.

Anything he says in court is not credible. It could be true but he has lied under oath so anything he says is not credible.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I think there's this false dilemma going on here regarding "evidence".

First, in the court of public opinion, evidence isn't needed the way it is in a legal courtroom. We the public hear stories, and draw conclusions depending on their logic - how much sense they make when all added up. This is where hard "evidence" isn't the same. Floyd's letters are merely another stack on a growing mountain of other bits of information that point towards Lance' guilt for doping. Not that he should be charged legally or sanctioned for this, but it portrays him as a liar and (fellow) doper who deluded more people than Landis ever could.

As far as evidence enough to either sanction him, or charge him (or JB or anyone else) with a crime, that remains to be seen, and we have not reached the point in time where this needs to be determined. Investigators, be they just USADA, or the FDA or DOJ, will look into what they can find, try to find other sources, corroborate information, and then take needed action, or not if they feel it is not worth their effort.

 

[Oldman]

Anything he says in court is not credible. It could be true but he has lied under oath so anything he says is not credible.

Repeat it as many times as you want. If he has credible evidence it doesn't even end up as Floyd's word. You understand how that works...a pathological liar can pick up a smoking gun with someone's prints on it. The cops don't let the murderer off because the liar found the weapon. That's what these RS guys need to fear. The unfortunate victims will be those that have tried to move on like George and co. Their upside is slipping away.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am a bit behind on this issue but kimmage said that he knew about this for ages.

Ages! Noooooo a few weeks, thats all - which of course we know from the timeline of the emails.

Here is the exact Kimmage quote (@ 5:38 in the audio):

He [Armstrong] has known about this for some weeks now, because I've known about it for some weeks, am...this has been coming down the tracks, it has been whispered that Landis was about to go public.

 

[Aerodynamics]

That right there is why you, and Liggett are sorely mistaken. Floyd didn't "come out" with anything. Over the last several weeks he wrote private letters to USA Cycling and USADA confessing to what he did and what he saw. He never said a word to the press, or anyone in public. It was someone along the way who leaked the information. The first thing Floyd said when tracked down was that he needed to clear his conscience, and wanted to help clean up the sport and was frustrated that doping controls were so easy to defeat. It's a shame that people like Liggett, and yourself, give no credence to this.

For Liggett to make the statements he did, not saying it should be looked into because Floyd showed no indication for it to go public, nor saying it should be investigated because it seemed detailed and had a ring of truth, not to comment and admit that time and time again the sport has been shown to have a serious doping problem, even when leaders such as Pat McQuaid claim it is being cleaned up. He did none of that. Not one word. Instead he said it was bad for cycling that Floyd spoke up the way he did.

It isn't speaking up about doping that's killing the sport, by Floyd, Millar, Papp, Kohl or anyone else, it's doping itself. How this isn't painfully obvious to you is maddening.

Firstly you didn't explain why you needed to make an ad hominen attack to make that point. But I'm absolutely gobsmacked that you're claiming Floyd came forward because he wants to improve doping controls. He could have done that at any time in the last four years - it's maddening that you would claim such a thing.

I know it's useful to see good motives in people that are helping a cause we want to fight, but there is a very good reason why the vast majority of people don't agree with you about Floyd's motives. He's not even ashamed of doping, he wrote book claiming he did not dope, he took millions of dollars in donations and casually lied all over the media to suit his own ends. If he could ride the ToC he probably wouldn't be saying anything. The only reason he is coming out now is because he no longer has any more legal avenues to pursue. C'mon, you can do better than this.

The sport is cleaning up already with the blood passport system, and what Floyd has said about avoiding controls is long known about - there is nothing new in the detail about any of it. It contributes nothing to fighting doping.

Please could you answer me why you want to rake back over a previous era and go on a witch hunt mainly against one rider? It serves no purpose in the first against doping and is extremely bad for cycling. You are intelligent enough to know this. So why?

 

[richwagmn]

I love this sport. I love the range of emotions you can experience on a ride or a race. Desperation, hope, fear, joy. Everything. It's a sport that really tears through your defenses and exposes your weaknesses. I remember one 24 hour mountain bike race and how I was riding at dusk thinking I've just gone through a whole spectrum of emotions on this one lap. I want this sport to live and prosper. Cycling is to life what Picasso was to painting.

Very well said.

 

[Publicus]

Because it is innocent until proven guilty. you would know that being a lawyer?

That wasn't the question asked. Simply declaring something false doesn't, in and of itself, make it false. Typically one would have to provide facts or other information that establishes the allegation is untrue.

He's demanded evidence that Floyd is telling the truth. Meanwhile, he's suggesting that Armstrong and other's denial/non-denials are implicitly proof that Floyd's allegations are false. You can't have it both ways. Prudence suggests that we all exercise some patience. Floyd hasn't offered any corroborating evidence yet. None of those he's made allegations against have offered exculpating evidence. That doesn't mean that Floyd doesn't have corroborating evidence. Or that the others don't have exculpating evidence. It just hasn't been revealed.

And please note, Floyd didn't go public with this. Someone leaked this prematurely. I'll leave it to you to figure out why someone would do that, I have my own thoughts but it's just a hunch at this point.

 

[Aerodynamics]

its been made clear countless times. the statute of limitations is 8 years so for prosecutions to be made for 2002 it has to be done now.

He could have done that at any time in the last four years. There is no other reason than to get Lance Armstrong.

You support that, of course, but don't pretend it's got anything to do with cleaning up the sport in the modern era.

 

[Aerodynamics]

A bit of honesty would be appreciated. You're not pretending to go after the other riders most of the time. BroDeal was cheering on Hincappie in the ToC thread.

This is about a witch hunt against one rider.

 

[Aerodynamics]

And please note, Floyd didn't go public with this. Someone leaked this prematurely. I'll leave it to you to figure out why someone would do that, I have my own thoughts but it's just a hunch at this point.

You believe that, do you? When in the history of leaks has the person who leaked it claimed that they did it?

Strong circumstantial evidence and reason goes out the window in the name of getting Lance. We have a moderator here even telling us with a straight face that Landis came forward because he was so upset about doping controls not being good enough.

 

[Publicus]

Anything he says in court is not credible. It could be true but he has lied under oath so anything he says is not credible.

That's not true at all. He's prior testimony would be admissible to impeach his testimony, but that is just one aspect of how the trier of fact would view any such testimony. Frankly, the kicker here is that he purportedly has training journals and diaries that he's kept since he's a teenager. If that's true and the diaries corroborating his current statements, they would come into the record and would be pretty damning (contemporaneous record made at a time when he had no motive to lie). Armstrong and others could of course try to discredit the diaries (prove that his contemporaneous memory/record are faulty), but it stops being a credibility issue.

But that's all speculation and premature. Just wanted to let you know your original supposition was not accurate.

 

[richwagmn]

A bit of honesty would be appreciated. You're not pretending to go after the other riders most of the time. BroDeal was cheering on Hincappie in the ToC thread.

This is about a witch hunt against one rider.

Really? Why name all the other riders then too?

 

[Oldman]

A bit of honesty would be appreciated. You're not pretending to go after the other riders most of the time. BroDeal was cheering on Hincappie in the ToC thread.

This is about a witch hunt against one rider.

Many have known about LA's background for many, many years. The omerta that's been spoken of in many threads has protected him as well as all of the other riders. That code is starting to unravel, if just a little. If there is a witch hunt it's because LA has built himself into the demon. Only a naive individual would ignore his collective behavior and business manuverings and consider him a solid citizen. Floyd's got nothing to do with that.

 

[Cal_Joe]

What evidence do you have that his allegations are not true?

Ahh, the old conundrum of proving a negative. Kind of along the same lines as the classic - "When did you stop beating your wife?"

That he does not have supporting or corroborating information?

Based on what has appeared online and from print sources, Flandis has said he has none.

As has been noted this is the classic "she said - he said (actually, they said)" situation. Personally, I place no credence in anything that has been said by anyone over the last two days. No one. This is a skirmish in some weird kind of battle that appears to have been brewing for some time, and the speculation about the roots, reasons, or outcome at this time is, IMO, somewhat futile.

This is the kind of event that will play out over many months, or longer. There will be no instantaneous resolution. But this thread has been fascinating, reading the different reactions, speculations, rumors, interpretations of emails (all unconfirmed at this time), and the ability of posters in either camp to project their biases in forecasting future events.

 

[Ferminal]

Guys, leave Gree alone - he genuinely believes Lance has never doped.

You can't help someone who believes in wacko conspiracy theories so there's no point.

 

[Oldman]

Ahh, the old conundrum of proving a negative. Kind of along the same lines as the classic - "When did you stop beating your wife?"


Based on what has appeared online and from print sources, Flandis has said he has none.

As has been noted this is the classic "she said - he said (actually, they said)" situation. Personally, I place no credence in anything that has been said by anyone over the last two days. No one. This is a skirmish in some weird kind of battle that appears to have been brewing for some time, and the speculation about the roots, reasons, or outcome at this time is, IMO, somewhat futile.

This is the kind of event that will play out over many months, or longer. There will be no instantaneous resolution. But this thread has been fascinating, reading the different reactions, speculations, rumors, interpretations of emails (all unconfirmed at this time), and the ability of posters in either camp to project their biases in forecasting future events.

Well put. It's hard to believe anything said by those involved on face value as they've all used the press and the sport for their own benefit. If any of this is true it's the colon-cleansing the sport needs.

 

[Publicus]

You believe that, do you? When in the history of leaks has the person who leaked it claimed that they did it?

Strong circumstantial evidence and reason goes out the window in the name of getting Lance. We have a moderator here even telling us with a straight face that Landis came forward because he was so upset about doping controls not being good enough.

I do actually. The emails released by Armstrong today back up my belief. Floyd apparently has been in discussion with USADA/USA Cycling for a few weeks and had plan to come forward tomorrow. Someone decided to preemptively release the information. Why that person did that is up for speculation, but I have my personal hunches.

 

[Aerodynamics]

Many have known about LA's background for many, many years. The omerta that's been spoken of in many threads has protected him as well as all of the other riders. That code is starting to unravel, if just a little. If there is a witch hunt it's because LA has built himself into the demon. Only a naive individual would ignore his collective behavior and business manuverings and consider him a solid citizen. Floyd's got nothing to do with that.

So you don't like him as a person's character so you want to tear down cycling by pretending he is responsible for all doping. It's so spiteful to me.

Read the blog by Adam Myerson posted below. He explains the situation very well, and it applied to Armstrong just as much as Landis. Though he comes to the wrong conclusion - the blood passport is cleaning up cycling already. No need to burn anything down.

 

[Aerodynamics]

I do actually. The emails released by Armstrong today back up my belief. Floyd apparently has been in discussion with USADA/USA Cycling for a few weeks and had plan to come forward tomorrow. Someone decided to preemptive release the information. Why that person did that is up for speculation, but I have my personal hunches.

Are you angry at Floyd for trying to hijack the ToC for his own ends? Was it you that was terribly upset that Armstrong dared to defend himself while the tour was still on?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Are you angry at Floyd for trying to hijack the ToC for his own ends? Was it you that was terribly upset that Armstrong dared to defend himself while the tour was still on?

A continued stream of idiotic posts and lies. Floyd hijacking the ToC?
LMAO. You fanboys really are a disgusting bunch of hacks.