Landis speaks on German television...

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Altitude said:
Yes, really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntwELfJnq9Y&feature=channel

^^^At about the 1:20 mark Rasmussen is asked to respond to McQuaid's statements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/6916698.stm

"The team decided to pull him out - that's their prerogative. I can only applaud that. It's a zero-tolerance policy and it's a lesson for the future."
Not true. Prior to being pulled out McQuaid was defending that Rasmussen should stay in the race. In fact he was sued by a German UCI delegate over the matter. Nice try. It was not until after Rassmussen's TEAM pulled him from the race aft ASO pressure that McQuaid made the linked comments. Sorry to make you look stupid.
 
One has to remember what Fat Pat McQuaid is all about.

Remember he and Sean Kelly were banned from riding in the 1976 Olympic Games for disregarding the athletic boycott of South Africa and racing in that country under assumed names. They were caught out when pictures of them surfaced.

So what does it say about this guy's ethics?
 
May 17, 2010
43
0
0
MadonePro said:
I'll enjoy them, and when the outcome is published, i'll accept the decision and move on, will you all?

And yes, I believe this is a waste of money and time, and fuels all the negative cycling stories out there, instead of moving on, we're constantly dragged into the doping scandals.
What all the great things happening out there, nope, let's report the negative stuff.

And no I don't support wasting money on Landis, yet it will only be fair, if his allegations are proven to be mere fantasies in his otherwise boring Mennonite life.
Surely deceiving people out of money to contribute to his cause, when by his own admission, he lied, is something throwing the book at him for.
If it was you or I, we'd feel the impact of the law.
Every Armstrong fluffer who drops the "Floyd deceived people claim" should apply that same rationale to the object of their desire. If they do it is not a big stretch to conclude that the Armstrong-Livestrong fraud is similar in that money was contributed based on a perception that looks to significantly differ from the truth (a lie)

The real differences are that Floyd is coming clean (er) and that the Armstrong-Livestrong fraud is millions bigger than the Floyd fairness fraud was.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Berzin said:
One has to remember what Fat Pat McQuaid is all about.

Remember he and Sean Kelly were banned from riding in the 1976 Olympic Games for disregarding the athletic boycott of South Africa and racing in that country under assumed names. They were caught out when pictures of them surfaced.

So what does it say about this guy's ethics?
Maybe they wanted to race? Of course maybe your trying to say or imply something else? I would not put Mcnugget on blast for that. I think his ethics NOW all we need to know. In my opinion it is better to let personal animosity (built up since the 70’s and 80's) go. Makes us live longer and less bitter.
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
Maybe they wanted to race? Of course maybe your trying to say or imply something else? I would not put Mcnugget on blast for that. I think his ethics NOW all we need to know. In my opinion it is better to let personal animosity (built up since the 70’s and 80's) go. Makes us live stronger and less bitter.
You are only a few letters from being a card carrying fanboy.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
thehog said:
Not true. Prior to being pulled out McQuaid was defending that Rasmussen should stay in the race. In fact he was sued by a German UCI delegate over the matter. Nice try. It was not until after Rassmussen's TEAM pulled him from the race aft ASO pressure that McQuaid made the linked comments. Sorry to make you look stupid.
---edited by mod---. Did you watch the clip? It was from stage 15 (Rasmussen was still in the race at that point in case you weren't aware-- hence the yellow jersey and hence still taking questions at a press conference). ---edited by mod---.
 
Altitude said:
--- Did you watch the clip? It was from stage 15 (Rasmussen was still in the race at that point in case you weren't aware-- hence the yellow jersey and hence still taking questions at a press conference). ---.
I did. But I couldn't find McQuaid stating what you wrote. All I saw and heard was an interview with Rasmussen. Did McQuaid actually make these comments or were they 2nd hand from a secondary source?

I got the bit about Lance facing the same pressures but not much else.

Perhaps you could link to the actual quote so I could read it in its full context. That’s actually indeed if McQuaid said it... which I doubt.

I think you're lying again trying to impress people. Just be yourself.
 
"I'm angry with the International Cycling Union," Prudhomme said after Thursday's 17th stage of the Tour.

Article 220 of the UCI's anti-doping rules says: "In case of a recorded warning or a missed test in a period of 45 days before the start of a major Tour, the rider is not allowed to participate in that Tour." The major tours are of France, Italy and Spain.

"It would have been good if this rule had been applied," Prudhomme said. "If the rule had been applied, it would have avoided a lot of troubles for us."

UCI president Pat McQuaid said that even though Rasmussen missed tests, he was still eventually tested by UCI in June. The rider has said that the test was negative.

McQuaid said the rule was "unjust" because a rider could be excluded from a big race even for being a day late in communicating their whereabouts. The rule is expected to be scrapped at the UCI's next congress, he said.
"Since the start of the Tour de France, they have attacked the UCI," said McQuaid of the race organizers, calling them "paranoid" and "looking for scapegoats for their problems."
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
thehog said:
"Since the start of the Tour de France, they have attacked the UCI," said McQuaid of the race organizers, calling them "paranoid" and "looking for scapegoats for their problems."
What a silly little leprechaun... Isn't the governing body of cycling supposed to be looking after the doping, and the race organizers looking after the race?

Based on the history of Rass missing so many OOC tests in the lead up to that tour (UCI's perview), this is more historical evidence that PM is on a long-running binge of obfuscating doping and picking on the ASO.
 
JMBeaushrimp said:
What a silly little leprechaun... Isn't the governing body of cycling supposed to be looking after the doping, and the race organizers looking after the race?

Based on the history of Rass missing so many OOC tests in the lead up to that tour (UCI's perview), this is more historical evidence that PM is on a long-running binge of obfuscating doping and picking on the ASO.
Correct. McQuaid stopped defending Chicken once Rabo HQ called and said they're going to pull him. Then McQuaid went into "no one does more about doping than we do - he has to go - we don't tolerate doping".

Now don’t get me wrong. The chicken had a permanent IV feed going on but with McQuaid shielding him and everyone else he kept pumping the plasz. This is the problem with the UCI. All these doping cases like Greyhound keep bubbling to the surface and they have to deal with them. If they just nipped this stuff in the bud then they wouldn’t have to worry about the joke the sport is coming. I mean can we even trust the Top 5 at next years Tour?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
frenchfry said:
You are only a few letters from being a card carrying fanboy.
:D I did not notice that when I wrote it. Now that you have pointed it out I am sure to catch some heat. :eek:

Also when I first glanced at the thread title I thought it said ....Landis Speaks German on Television. Who knew that Floyd was using Roseta Stone......
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
thehog said:
I mean can we even trust the Top 5 at next years Tour?
I will go on record stating that the 2011 TdF will be entirely clean. Absolutely, positively, 100% the most honest tour in cycling history.

Well, maybe...
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
thehog said:
I did. But I couldn't find McQuaid stating what you wrote. All I saw and heard was an interview with Rasmussen. Did McQuaid actually make these comments or were they 2nd hand from a secondary source?

I got the bit about Lance facing the same pressures but not much else.

Perhaps you could link to the actual quote so I could read it in its full context. That’s actually indeed if McQuaid said it... which I doubt.

I think you're lying again trying to impress people. Just be yourself.
As you wish ---insult removed---.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348720/mcquaid-and-millar-attack-rasmussen-over-missed-tests.html

He said it alright. I'm not saying that McQuaid isn't corrupt, only that he did not support Rasmussen throughout the Tour-- which is true whether you like it or not.
 
Altitude said:
As you wish Swine.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348720/mcquaid-and-millar-attack-rasmussen-over-missed-tests.html

He said it alright. I'm not saying that McQuaid isn't corrupt, only that he did not support Rasmussen throughout the Tour-- which is true whether you like it or not.
You're reaching.

Great link..... On the same URL provided McQuaid goes on to say...

"Carefully trying to judge his words, McQuaid also said that the Danish rider has "broken no rules, so from that point of view… you have to give him the benefit of the doubt." "

Sounds to me McQuaid had an each way bet and when Rabo pulled him McQuaid was all over it.

Rabobank pulled the trigger not the UCI as you tried to present it.

Pat reminds me of you..... You've gone from "McQuaid wanted Rassmassun out of the Tour" to "well McQuaid wanted him out of the Tour just a little bit"

Sorry again for making you looking completely stupid but really you're doing it to yourself with your selective quote grabs.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
have people seen the Landis interview?
Here it is, unfortunately with German voice over:

http://www.sportschau.de/sp/layout/jsp/komponente/mediaseite/index.jsp?id=110766#mbContent

You don't need to be much of a psychologist to see, hear and feel that this guy is speaking the truth, and probably nothing but the truth.
Chapeau to the ARD for covering this stuff, for being critical, for asking questions we're all asking, and for trying to get to the bottom of it.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
thehog said:
You're reaching.

Great link..... On the same URL provided McQuaid goes on to say...

"Carefully trying to judge his words, McQuaid also said that the Danish rider has "broken no rules, so from that point of view… you have to give him the benefit of the doubt." "

Sounds to me McQuaid had an each way bet and when Rabo pulled him McQuaid was all over it.

Rabobank pulled the trigger not the UCI as you tried to present it.

Pat reminds me of you..... You've gone from "McQuaid wanted Rassmassun out of the Tour" to "well McQuaid wanted him out of the Tour just a little bit"

Sorry again for making you looking completely stupid but really you're doing it to yourself with your selective quote grabs.
Never said he wanted him out of the Tour. I simply gave an example of Mcquaid stating that a Chicken win would be bad for the sport (which doesn't sound very supportive to me). Read into it whatever you like ---edited by mod---.
 
Altitude said:
Never said he wanted him out of the Tour. I simply gave an example of Mcquaid stating that a Chicken win would be bad for the sport (which doesn't sound very supportive to me). Read into it whatever you like ----.
No you were responding to another poster who stated that Rasmussen should never have started to which you retorted with “its bad for the sport” comment and "Well he was publicly criticizing Rasmussen throughout the Tour". You were implying that McQuaid was making these statements all through the Tour until he was ejected. Like it or not the time for McQuaid to act was in June. Rasmussen never should have started the Tour. If the UCI was serious there would be no embarrassment at the Tour because Michael Rasmussen wouldn’t have been there. None the less the UCI allowed many riders to dodge tests and change their whereabouts at the last minute. The UCI only had itself to blame for the incident. So Pat McQuaid’s huffing and puffing was to keep baying mob the media at bay. Pat was still trying to defend Rasmussen knowing full well there were several other riders in the Tour who had the same leave pass with missed tests. He was protecting himself and the UCI not Rasmussen, not the Tour and he certainly wasn’t protecting the sport.

As for you. A little less bravado. Little less name calling (----) and you’ll get more respect. You’re showing off but you should choose your arguments more carefully and get by a little better here. Above all don’t lie. Don’t make things up. Makes you look stupid.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
thehog said:
No you were responding to another poster who stated that Rasmussen should never have started to which you retorted with “its bad for the sport” comment and "Well he was publicly criticizing Rasmussen throughout the Tour". You were implying that McQuaid was making these statements all through the Tour until he was ejected. Like it or not the time for McQuaid to act was in June. Rasmussen never should have started the Tour. If the UCI was serious there would be no embarrassment at the Tour because Michael Rasmussen wouldn’t have been there. None the less the UCI allowed many riders to dodge tests and change their whereabouts at the last minute. The UCI only had itself to blame for the incident. So Pat McQuaid’s huffing and puffing was to keep baying mob the media at bay. Pat was still trying to defend Rasmussen knowing full well there were several other riders in the Tour who had the same leave pass with missed tests. He was protecting himself and the UCI not Rasmussen, not the Tour and he certainly wasn’t protecting the sport.

As for you. A little less bravado. Little less name calling (----) and you’ll get more respect. You’re showing off but you should choose your arguments more carefully and get by a little better here. Above all don’t lie. Don’t make things up. Makes you look stupid.
Oh, but didn't you say multiple times that he was protecting and "shielding" Rasmussen? Now he wasn't protecting him? I'm glad you finally agree with me on that. Looks like there's no need to argue any further (although I suspect you will still make an effort to).

Side note: Advice from someone (you), who is known for not providing sources or only providing portions that are conducive to his argument is difficult to take seriously. Keep that in mind, as I wouldn't want you to make yourself look stupid. ;)

Swine.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS