Landis "retires", done with cycle racing

[Semper Fidelis]

If Floyd truly wanted to clean up Cycling he would have never pointed fingers. He lost his credibility and he stole money from supporters to his defense. How are you going to pay them back now Floyd?? You have no job and no skill set aside from being a decent rider who lied and cheated before and after your prime. Even if you were telling the truth you should have detailed how you cheated at Postal and Phonak and discussed the doping lifestyle and how the factors turned you into a liar and a cheat. If you did not point fingers and you expressed regret as to the circumstances that led you down the negative spiral you would have gotten more support and the people would come to their own conclusion as to the others without vilifying yourself. SO thus far if you had never been caught cheating you would never have confessed and would be enjoying the fruits of your lies... So now you have nothing... you damaged cycling and you are left with nothing but a tainted legacy. Even if you all you now say is true I will have no better opinion of you than what I have now. Do yourself a favor and stay retired and quiet. Maybe then can you truly forgive yourself and truly regain some credence

How do you know that? He is probably good at something besides riding a bike.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Let's see how many times the term "disgraced cyclist" turns up in the ensuing reports of this story. The ignorant vitriol should start streaming over on VN in 4...3...2...(oh wait, first give them time to catch up on this news).

LOL!

Seriously, hope Floyd glides well into the next phase of his life.

 

[skidmark]

Er...don't you mean July 2006? Pretty sure testing postive then creating an extremely elaborate scientific defence and leaching off fans to pay for it before saying it was all nonsense is a better reason, not that he suddenly changed his story and said, suprise suprise, he'd been on the juice.

Well, in my experience following professional cycling, riders get rides for denying, serving time, and returning. Or for a trite admission and silence for 2 years.

So no, I didn't expect him to not get a ride in July (or more accurately, after August) 2006. And from everything I've read, he expected that was his best way to get a ride, even if banned.

I think the problem was that the Tour was too high-profile to just deny and try to work it out through the courts, the details of his defense were too well-publicized for cycling to be eager about having him back. Get caught doping in the off-season or at Romandie, that's one thing, get disqualified from the Maillot Jaune, it's quite another, stigma-wise. But nobody really knew that until it played out after 2008. I think he probably expected to get a ride all the way up until last year. His admission might earn him respect years down the road if it changes cycling, but it's too controversial for anyone to feel comfortable hiring him now, it seems.

That's what I meant by 'May'.

 

[flicker]

Good idea, lets ask Landis what really happened.
After that im going to give Armstrong a call and ask him to tell the truth too.

These two upstanding citizens should be very forthcoming....

Or we could just let Floyd and Lance fight it out in "Celebrity Death Match 2000" with LeMond as referee and Walshe and Kimmage up in the box reporting on the action in the ring.

 

[Benotti69]

Well, in my experience following professional cycling, riders get rides for denying, serving time, and returning. Or for a trite admission and silence for 2 years.

So no, I didn't expect him to not get a ride in July (or more accurately, after August) 2006. And from everything I've read, he expected that was his best way to get a ride, even if banned.

I think the problem was that the Tour was too high-profile to just deny and try to work it out through the courts, the details of his defense were too well-publicized for cycling to be eager about having him back. Get caught doping in the off-season or at Romandie, that's one thing, get disqualified from the Maillot Jaune, it's quite another, stigma-wise. But nobody really knew that until it played out after 2008. I think he probably expected to get a ride all the way up until last year. His admission might earn him respect years down the road if it changes cycling, but it's too controversial for anyone to feel comfortable hiring him now, it seems.

That's what I meant by 'May'.

so you expect Contador to be out of cycling for denial and denial and more denial....just like Landis?

i dont imagine Contador's brother is gonna take it lying down knowing what they do about the corruption in pro cycling as they probably benefitted from it at some stage themselves.

I imagine Landis expected better(or worse from a clean perspective) from UCI like they did with Armstrong and that is what angered him most.

 

[Maxiton]

While I have little love for Armstrong and am okay with seeing him go down... I have little love for Landis either.

Similarly, I have little love for Joe Papp.

Coming clean after you've been busted for riding dirty and can't find another dirty ride isn't all that great in my book. I suppose it's slightly more moral then a Tyler Hamilton who stays silent even when his career is over... but it's a very slight thing.

I understand it... but I don't think it's worthy of celebration. Someone like Lemond is much more of a worthy figure... he (apparently) didn't engage in the doping culture and is brave enough to speak out about it. I'll never forgive Landis for how he went after Lemond... even if Lemond did.

Amen to that, brother. Same here.

Landis was a reprehensible character who prided himself on winning and his ability to be unrestrained in combat. Hence his frequent threats to "go nuclear" and take everyone down; and hence his blackmail of Lemond, wherein he threatened to expose Lemond's "shameful secret" to the world; or hence, rather, his sitting at the table, listening as his manager made the threat for him. Lemond said, "Oh, I forgive and forget," apparently following the rubric "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." But that fact only makes Lemond cagey, it doesn't make Landis less reprehensible.

Landis: Unfortunately, the facts that he divulged to me in the hour which he spoke and gave no opportunity for me to do the same, would damage his character severely and I would rather not do what has been done to me. However, if he ever opens his mouth again and the word Floyd comes out, I will tell you all some things that you will wish you didn't know and unfortunately I will have entered the race to the bottom which is now in progress. For the record, I don't know Greg, and have no more respect for Greg than I have for people who go through life blaming others for all of their problems. You are not a victim of others Greg, you are a pathetic human who believes that if others didn't cheat (not sure about you) you would be the President and all the peasants would bow to your command. Join reality with the rest of us who win some and lose some and keep on smiling. ...

 

[Granville57]

I think the problem was that the Tour was too high-profile to just deny and try to work it out through the courts, the details of his defense were too well-publicized for cycling to be eager about having him back. Get caught doping in the off-season or at Romandie, that's one thing, get disqualified from the Maillot Jaune, it's quite another, stigma-wise. But nobody really knew that until it played out after 2008. I think he probably expected to get a ride all the way up until last year.

Agreed. The contentious nature of the battle between Floyd and the governing bodies is what really put up the roadblocks. However, if Floyd had won the ToC upon his return it would've made for an entirely different landscape. His story would've drawn enormous attention in the "there's no such thing as bad press" kind of way. He would've been considered a legitimate contender, ala Vino, in any race after that. His market value would've soared and who knows where that may have led.

But what really incensed the powers-that-be was that they could no longer make any easy money off Floyd. Stand atop a podium, and much is forgiven. Recent history has proven that.

 

[Granville57]

Landis was a reprehensible character who prided himself on winning and his ability to be unrestrained in combat. Hence his frequent threats to "go nuclear" and take everyone down; and hence his blackmail of Lemond, wherein he threatened to expose Lemond's "shameful secret" to the world; or hence, rather, his sitting at the table, listening as his manager made the threat for him. Lemond said, "Oh, I forgive and forget," apparently following the rubric "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." But that fact only makes Lemond cagey, it doesn't make Landis less reprehensible.

The entire affair between Lemond and Landis was incredibly distasteful, but there is always more going on behind the scenes than most of us could ever know.

If Floyd Landis and Greg Lemond have come to terms with their differences and made amends, then I have no problem moving beyond that dark and confusing period in the interest of seeking the light of truth.

 

[fatandfast]

Time will tell if Landis is vindicated or not. Armstrong may be able to point to a multitude of negative tests, but there are also the 1999 EPO positives coupled with the payment to the UCI and its clumsy cover-up with the Vrijman report. In addition to this is the evidence gleaned as a result of the Federal investigation that we have yet to truly hear about, as opposed to the innuendo & rumour we've had so far.

All in all Armstrong is far from home free. Landis, the press & other organisations have to tread carefully as they risk being sued if they overstep the mark. The federal authorities are much tougher and have much bigger guns to train on him, not to mention far deeper pockets.

time has run out for Landis to be vidicated. That part is done. He said he didn't dope and then said he lied. No vidication possible. As with the Bonds case lots of things are going on behind the scenes...as printed in the NYT.The Bonds case has seen several prosecuters and one major reason the case has not been dropped is that it chops your cred w your coworkers. each new boss doesn't mutiny.. It's like finishing contruction on a macarana dance studio,,you just have to finsih even when the orig intent of the building is part of an ugly history.The thing or 2 that Landis may have said that had great promise may now be egg on the federal face and going slow maybe to the feds benifit as well.To quickly dismiss the thing would be right out of the UCI playbook. If Novitsky hard sold his boss and told him this was a sure thing both will probably ponder what the fall out will be for chasing a bum lead against an icon...and the millions they spent coming up w some accounting errors. The UCI will have much more explaining to do about 1999 tests than Armstrong ever will. On the depth of pocket chart..yes the feds have more than king Armstrong but Landis better hope that a French. summons doesn't come the same week as Lance's shows up..Landis made a statement that every guy on that team doped..one of those guys will sink him if Lance doesn't. My hope was that Landis would keep racing and saying gems like while w Bahati..that the reason he was loooosing was the races were not hard enough. I hope the hardest part of Landis's nightmare has just started

 

[skidmark]

so you expect Contador to be out of cycling for denial and denial and more denial....just like Landis?

i dont imagine Contador's brother is gonna take it lying down knowing what they do about the corruption in pro cycling as they probably benefitted from it at some stage themselves.

I imagine Landis expected better(or worse from a clean perspective) from UCI like they did with Armstrong and that is what angered him most.

To the bolded: yes, that's my point.

As for Contador, it's interesting to compare different people getting 'blacklisted' or not. Let's go through a few:

2006 Tour: Landis - was the first TdF champion to be caught doping and not covered up or dismissed or TUEd or whatever in the era of media scrutiny about such things. Whereas most riders caught in a leading/winning position of a more minor race (read: any other race) would serve their time and come back, it's the TOUR that is being sullied. It doesn't matter to anyone in the high levels of pro cycling that he doped, but the PR fallout from the fact that everyone KNOWS that he doped is poisonous for rehiring him. And this was just after Puerto, which was supposed to give the perception that the suspected dopers were out of the Tour. Bad time to test positive, and a bad thing to be perceived as the first Tour winner to test positive.

2007 Tour: Vino - 33 years old, wasn't in the lead, tested positive, was kicked out, denied, kept quiet, retired, unretired, had a team that had been built around him, got a ride with said team.

2007 Tour: Rasmussen - 33 years old, was in the lead, didn't test positive, was kicked out, denied, didn't keep quiet, didn't retire, didn't have a team that was built around him, didn't get a ride with a team, and finally built a (much lower level than vino's) team around him.

The difference between these cases is interesting, I think one key difference is that Rasmussen was going to win. Having that cloud of suspicion a year after Landis would have been more crippling from a PR perspective than the embarrassing way it proceeded anyway. And because he didn't have a tailor-made team (and because he's a bit of a loose cannon and eccentric personality), he didn't get a ride and Vino did.

2008 Tour: Kohl - 26 years old, tested positive, didn't deny, didn't keep quiet, retired because he knew that he wouldn't get a ride after speaking out. This was based on the experiences of Jaschke, Sinkiewitz, etc.

Now, 2010 Tour: Contador - 27 years old, won the Tour, tested positive (a little bit), denied... and what?

A few things in his favour for returning:
- his obviously huge talent (beyond Floyd who had won very little before 2006, and Ras in 2007 and Kohl in 2008)
- the fact that cycling could handle his DQ better than it did in 2006 (I mean, I think the Armstrong story is bigger news, making this seem like less of a big deal than it would have in 2006)
- his age, he's got plenty of good years left even after a ban
- the fact that he'll not squeal on anyone else
- the fact that his positive did not come on the day where he did one of the most memorable rides in Tour history

In summary, the only similarity between Contador and Landis is that they won the Tour and tested positive. I think blacklistings happen for much more PR-related reasons, and that Contador's positive, although obviously not great (I'd wager the UCI kept it quiet for a month because they were trying to figure out a way to keep it permanently under wraps), was not as big a deal as Floyd's, or even Ras' DQ in 2007, due to a number of contextual factors. So yes, I expect him to ride again.

 

[la.margna]

Floyd, since Morzine you have been my cycling hero. I have always been convinced of the truth (that you were full like all other top riders) and since you've come clean I also have big respect for you as a human being.

Real heros are often left lonely.

May you always stay with the truth and the path for good. It took some time until you turned around, but now stay on it!

And to all those throwing stones at you now: I don't want to judge, but I strongly doubt whether anybody of you has the guts to do what Floyd did. Firstly in stage 17 going out 100k before the finish alone against the rest, secondly last year, going out alone against the cancer of cycling and his evil, corrupt and powerful empire.

Floyd Landis, a real cycling hero. A real man. Thank you Floyd and all the best for your future!

 

[Maxiton]

To the bolded: yes, that's my point.

As for Contador, it's interesting to compare different people getting 'blacklisted' or not. Let's go through a few:

2006 Tour: Landis - was the first TdF champion to be caught doping and not covered up or dismissed or TUEd or whatever in the era of media scrutiny about such things. Whereas most riders caught in a leading/winning position of a more minor race (read: any other race) would serve their time and come back, it's the TOUR that is being sullied. It doesn't matter to anyone in the high levels of pro cycling that he doped, but the PR fallout from the fact that everyone KNOWS that he doped is poisonous for rehiring him. And this was just after Puerto, which was supposed to give the perception that the suspected dopers were out of the Tour. Bad time to test positive, and a bad thing to be perceived as the first Tour winner to test positive.

2007 Tour: Vino - 33 years old, wasn't in the lead, tested positive, was kicked out, denied, kept quiet, retired, unretired, had a team that had been built around him, got a ride with said team.

2007 Tour: Rasmussen - 33 years old, was in the lead, didn't test positive, was kicked out, denied, didn't keep quiet, didn't retire, didn't have a team that was built around him, didn't get a ride with a team, and finally built a (much lower level than vino's) team around him.

The difference between these cases is interesting, I think one key difference is that Rasmussen was going to win. Having that cloud of suspicion a year after Landis would have been more crippling from a PR perspective than the embarrassing way it proceeded anyway. And because he didn't have a tailor-made team (and because he's a bit of a loose cannon and eccentric personality), he didn't get a ride and Vino did.

2008 Tour: Kohl - 26 years old, tested positive, didn't deny, didn't keep quiet, retired because he knew that he wouldn't get a ride after speaking out. This was based on the experiences of Jaschke, Sinkiewitz, etc.

Now, 2010 Tour: Contador - 27 years old, won the Tour, tested positive (a little bit), denied... and what?

A few things in his favour for returning:
- his obviously huge talent (beyond Floyd who had won very little before 2006, and Ras in 2007 and Kohl in 2008)
- the fact that cycling could handle his DQ better than it did in 2006 (I mean, I think the Armstrong story is bigger news, making this seem like less of a big deal than it would have in 2006)
- his age, he's got plenty of good years left even after a ban
- the fact that he'll not squeal on anyone else
- the fact that his positive did not come on the day where he did one of the most memorable rides in Tour history

In summary, the only similarity between Contador and Landis is that they won the Tour and tested positive. I think blacklistings happen for much more PR-related reasons, and that Contador's positive, although obviously not great (I'd wager the UCI kept it quiet for a month because they were trying to figure out a way to keep it permanently under wraps), was not as big a deal as Floyd's, or even Ras' DQ in 2007, due to a number of contextual factors. So yes, I expect him to ride again.

An excellent overview and summation. And I agree with all of it, including the part about Contador riding again.

 

[D-Queued]

time has run out for Landis to be vidicated. That part is done. He said he didn't dope and then said he lied. No vidication possible. .... I hope the hardest part of Landis's nightmare has just started

Nice.

Having been one of Floyd's most strident and vocal critical observers, I completely disagree with you.

He can be vindicated, and my guess is that he will be.

The hardest part of his nightmare is over.

Even Lance could redeem himself still. My guess, however, is that Lance will take the ship down with him, fully engulfed in flames. Lance was always the master of this game.

Dave.

 

[SC1990]

so you think it's fair the UCI dissed Landis after one positive but let LA win 7 in a row? No it's not fair, and Landis didn't think it was fair either. So he acted accordingly, and did some dissing back himself. What's inhumane about that?

As usual it seems that the fact Landis said nasty things about Armstrong makes him much loved, and everyone is willing to forgive him for that and believe what he says about being reformed etc, which seems a little odd given the guy swore in court that he never took any substances etc, only now to tell us that he actually did. Remove the desperation to leap on anything that could help remove Armstrong and he'd just be another lying denying doper.

 

[Granville57]

As difficult as it was to even decipher your post, I have to ask a couple of things.

On the depth of pocket chart..yes the feds have more than king Armstrong but Landis better hope that a French. summons doesn't come the same week as Lance's shows up...

I would imagine that even if one did, it would quickly find its way into the trash. Do you really think they would able to extradite him? Please.

Landis made a statement that every guy on that team doped..one of those guys will sink him if Lance doesn't.

Who, and in what manner? Have you noticed how quiet most of those riders have been lately? Do you think for a second that they all don't know which of them has already given Grand Jury testimony? Don't hold your breath for too much public siding, from any of those riders, with LA's version of events.

I hope the hardest part of Landis's nightmare has just started

Why would you even think that? Has he not suffered enough loss already? It's just cycling. A little humanity is in order. When I go out for a ride, none of this has any effect on me.

OK, that's not entirely true. When I think about Stage 17 to Morzine...I still get pretty psyched.

 

[Granville57]

Remove the desperation to leap on anything that could help remove Armstrong and he'd just be another lying denying doper.

But then there's this:

only now to tell us that he actually did

So that puts him in quite a different league than LA altogether.

 

[sniper]

As usual it seems that the fact Landis said nasty things about Armstrong makes him much loved, and everyone is willing to forgive him for that and believe what he says about being reformed etc, which seems a little odd given the guy swore in court that he never took any substances etc, only now to tell us that he actually did. Remove the desperation to leap on anything that could help remove Armstrong and he'd just be another lying denying doper.

of course, its all a matter of taste.

myself, I can only say I understand and feel for the guy emotionally and am completely convinced of his integrity, as are Paul Kimmage and Greg Lemond (to name just two), even though both didn't like Floyd too much initially (and that's an understatement in Lemond's case).

 

[flicker]

Not exactly. Landis went onto the DP forum and posted comments saying he could reveal embarrasing info about Lemond. Landis wore his black tie on the day Lemond was testifying (a change from his yellow one). The night before, when Lemond was prank-called, it was Landis and Geoghegan at the table (Geoghegan making the call). When Lemond testified about the phone call, it was Landis's lawyer Suh who turned to Geoghegan and said "you're fired."

One thing I am curious about. Floyd and Greg were tight buddies. Tight enough that Greg would share a secret of his tragic childhood.
I know Greg testified that Floyd shared with Greg that he had doped.
What other secrets those two share we will never know.

 

[SC1990]

But then there's this:

So that puts him in quite a different league than LA altogether.

Genius, just remove the context and it looks like I'm contradicting myself somehow.

 

[Benotti69]

To the bolded: yes, that's my point.

As for Contador, it's interesting to compare different people getting 'blacklisted' or not. Let's go through a few:

2006 Tour: Landis - was the first TdF champion to be caught doping and not covered up or dismissed or TUEd or whatever in the era of media scrutiny about such things. Whereas most riders caught in a leading/winning position of a more minor race (read: any other race) would serve their time and come back, it's the TOUR that is being sullied. It doesn't matter to anyone in the high levels of pro cycling that he doped, but the PR fallout from the fact that everyone KNOWS that he doped is poisonous for rehiring him. And this was just after Puerto, which was supposed to give the perception that the suspected dopers were out of the Tour. Bad time to test positive, and a bad thing to be perceived as the first Tour winner to test positive.

this really needs a thread on it own to be answered, but the big question is why was it allowed to be outed? De Clerc is the answer i guess and uci did not control the testing? but if Landis turned up this year with a team backed by a swiss bank do you think the uci would say no pro licence. nah not a chance.
if he got some big bank to back him and build him a team he'd be back.

2007 Tour: Vino - 33 years old, wasn't in the lead, tested positive, was kicked out, denied, kept quiet, retired, unretired, had a team that had been built around him, got a ride with said team.

Vino was not liked and it was looking like he was gonna test positive from day 1 on that TdF. I remember thinking that he was not gonna finish it and he tested positive.

Vino did not win the Tour. why was Vino allowed to come back? because of the money he had behind him. If Vino tested positive after winning the yella jersey do you think he would have quietly returned it? then sat out in the canaries training waiting to come back. Not a chance. probably demanding ex kgbs go after uci officials.

2007 Tour: Rasmussen - 33 years old, was in the lead, didn't test positive, was kicked out, denied, didn't keep quiet, didn't retire, didn't have a team that was built around him, didn't get a ride with a team, and finally built a (much lower level than vino's) team around him.

again a different case Floyd and Vino's. he was gonna win, had the yellow jersey on his back then bang pulled for what everyone else was doing, he didnt test positive, his team knew where he was and denied it to cover themselves and their sponsor. so sit down and shut up while everyone else around you is doing the same stuff. not too easy. he is back with a team. his personal network is small but if some big danish sponsor put big money a la Vino behind him he'd be getting a pro tour licence. money talks to uci and if rasmussen had it then he'd be back

The difference between these cases is interesting, I think one key difference is that Rasmussen was going to win. Having that cloud of suspicion a year after Landis would have been more crippling from a PR perspective than the embarrassing way it proceeded anyway. And because he didn't have a tailor-made team (and because he's a bit of a loose cannon and eccentric personality), he didn't get a ride and Vino did.

the difference is winning and having the rug pulled under you when all you are doing is what everyone else is doing. you look to the omerta to defend you but it goes quiet and at 33 you think this is not fair. that was my chance. hard to stay quiet. money is the big difference in all this. vino had backing from a corrupt oil rich nation. you think mcquaid and verbruggen are gonna have the balls to mess with a country like that?

2008 Tour: Kohl - 26 years old, tested positive, didn't deny, didn't keep quiet, retired because he knew that he wouldn't get a ride after speaking out. This was based on the experiences of Jaschke, Sinkiewitz, etc.

I think Kohl saw it for what it was, a dirty game and no longer a sport and inside he couldn't care for it.

but yes if you dont have any clout, keep quiet. if you have clout use the clout to speak to the uci. i imagine mcquaid was very uncomfortable sitting down with kazak people and them telling him what Vino was gonna get from the uci.

Now, 2010 Tour: Contador - 27 years old, won the Tour, tested positive (a little bit), denied... and what?

A few things in his favour for returning:
- his obviously huge talent (beyond Floyd who had won very little before 2006, and Ras in 2007 and Kohl in 2008)
- the fact that cycling could handle his DQ better than it did in 2006 (I mean, I think the Armstrong story is bigger news, making this seem like less of a big deal than it would have in 2006)
- his age, he's got plenty of good years left even after a ban
- the fact that he'll not squeal on anyone else
- the fact that his positive did not come on the day where he did one of the most memorable rides in Tour history

i dont think Contador is not gonna take this lying down. if he has any clout in Spain they are gonna use them to lean on the uci, but the uci are gonna try and distance themselves even more than they are already from it big time which is a dangerous game. you dont take a yellow jersey off a tour winner and expect them to keep quiet about it. so this could be the straw that breaks the uci's back and let's hope so.

In summary, the only similarity between Contador and Landis is that they won the Tour and tested positive. I think blacklistings happen for much more PR-related reasons, and that Contador's positive, although obviously not great (I'd wager the UCI kept it quiet for a month because they were trying to figure out a way to keep it permanently under wraps), was not as big a deal as Floyd's, or even Ras' DQ in 2007, due to a number of contextual factors. So yes, I expect him to ride again.

I dont expect Contador to ride again unless he gets off on a technicality and keeps his win, but if gets shamed as a TDF winner who cheated then expect fireworks from his bro and Spain.

i think it all comes down to money. those who can afford to stay quiet do and those who cant shout. those that cant afford to stay quiet for what ever reasons, age and opportunity to win a TdF again go for it as they have nothing to lose. i think Floyd would rather keep his win than any money. I think Rasmussen the same.

 

[sniper]

Genius, just remove the context and it looks like I'm contradicting myself somehow.

..as you yourself are very willing to do when judging Floyd..

Remove the desperation to leap on anything that could help remove Armstrong and he'd just be another lying denying doper.

 

[ultimobici]

time has run out for Landis to be vidicated. That part is done. He said he didn't dope and then said he lied. No vidication possible. As with the Bonds case lots of things are going on behind the scenes...as printed in the NYT.The Bonds case has seen several prosecuters and one major reason the case has not been dropped is that it chops your cred w your coworkers. each new boss doesn't mutiny.. It's like finishing contruction on a macarana dance studio,,you just have to finsih even when the orig intent of the building is part of an ugly history.The thing or 2 that Landis may have said that had great promise may now be egg on the federal face and going slow maybe to the feds benifit as well.To quickly dismiss the thing would be right out of the UCI playbook. If Novitsky hard sold his boss and told him this was a sure thing both will probably ponder what the fall out will be for chasing a bum lead against an icon...and the millions they spent coming up w some accounting errors. The UCI will have much more explaining to do about 1999 tests than Armstrong ever will. On the depth of pocket chart..yes the feds have more than king Armstrong but Landis better hope that a French. summons doesn't come the same week as Lance's shows up..Landis made a statement that every guy on that team doped..one of those guys will sink him if Lance doesn't. My hope was that Landis would keep racing and saying gems like while w Bahati..that the reason he was loooosing was the races were not hard enough. I hope the hardest part of Landis's nightmare has just started

So in your opinion the Feds have nothing bar Landis's testimony and all the other GJ witnesses merely answered "I have no knowledge"?

Vindication, IMO, has nothing to do with the 2006 positive & his subsequent denials/recantation. It's whether the allegations about Armstrong, Bruyneel & Postal's actions are confirmed.

Far too many people have separately claimed that Armstrong doped & was pivotal in the running/direction of the team. Either a lot of people have had the same delusional episode or they did witness his transgressions.

While I don't like what Landis did in 2006 & in the aftermath, I can appreciate that someone can turn back from the road to oblivion and make amends. If it was just him claiming Armstrong doped it would be hard to take seriously, but it's not. The Andreus, Emma O'Reilly, Landis, L'Equipe, Ashenden to name a few have all spoken up. Have any been successfully sued? Did Armstrong sue over the L'Equipe headline "Le Mesonage Armstrong"? Despite the invitation to sue, he did not. To be called a liar in such a public manner and not defend one's honour invites one conclusion alone.

 

[Granville57]

Genius, just remove the context and it looks like I'm contradicting myself somehow.

Wel, the point of providing links in both quotes was to provide context. But in fairness I'll repost with my points in bold.

As usual it seems that the fact Landis said nasty things about Armstrong makes him much loved, and everyone is willing to forgive him for that and believe what he says about being reformed etc, which seems a little odd given the guy swore in court that he never took any substances etc, only now to tell us that he actually did. Remove the desperation to leap on anything that could help remove Armstrong and he'd just be another lying denying doper.

So Floyd either lied about doping or lied about not doping. Not both.
If he lied about doping, and is now telling the truth, then his current admission puts him in a place that we have yet to see Armstrong even approach.

 

[Nederick]

Shouldn't the thread title be changed to, "cycle racing done with Landis"?

 

[Benotti69]

Shouldn't the thread title be changed to, "cycle racing done with Landis"?

yep, a more correct analogy of it.