Levi Leipheimer

[Dr. Maserati]

interesting point, thanks.
that would indeed explain a few things.

Like what?

 

[Benotti69]

Quite frankly, you and a couple of others are the main people who have a problem with some people saying they stopped doping.

Ball not man Doc

You only do so because it goes against your own bias - it has nothing at all to do with actually establishing what actually did happen. So far, there is nothing at all to contradict what people have said to USADA, which would also b what the were required to say under oath as part of the Fed investigation.

attack the post not the poster!

I know as much as you. I posted my opinion. You like to try and take it apart for your own personal bias.

USADA/Feds could've accepted the up to 2006/7 admissions to get their target. Doesn't mean riders stopped doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ball not man Doc



attack the post not the poster!

I know as much as you. I posted my opinion. You like to try and take it apart for your own personal bias.

USADA/Feds could've accepted the up to 2006/7 admissions to get their target. Doesn't mean riders stopped doping.

Yes - my personal bias is to attempt as much as possible to establish the facts or the correct events.

From Levi's affidavit:

6. I understand that a requirement of my cooperation with USADA is that I provide USADA truthful and complete information concerning my involvement in doping and the involvement in anti-doping rule violations of all others that I am aware.

7. I am aware that should I fail to provide truthful information to USADA that I may lose any and all benefits of my cooperation with USADA.

 

[Benotti69]

Yes - my personal bias is to attempt as much as possible to establish the facts or the correct events.

then be a journalist or lawyer.

From Levi's affidavit:

So. Doesn't prove he didn't tell lies. All it proves if he is found to have lied he could face a longer ban, which is really scary to Levi!

 

[sniper]

Yes - my personal bias is to attempt as much as possible to establish the facts or the correct events.

ah, so that's why you thought interviewing rasmussen would be a waste of time.
walsh had covered it all, hadn't he.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

then be a journalist or lawyer.

Didn't you just whinge "ball, not man"?

If you wish to have an opinion you are entitled to it, I am entitled to query it and if/when wrong correct it.
If you have a problem with that - then you have a problem.

So. Doesn't prove he didn't tell lies. All it proves if he is found to have lied he could face a longer ban, which is really scary to Levi!

Your (latest) point was that USADA and the Feds might only be interested in up to 2006/2007 to "get their target".

 

[Benotti69]

Didn't you just whinge "ball, not man"?

Whinge? nope, just correcting you.

If you wish to have an opinion you are entitled to it, I am entitled to query it and if/when wrong correct it.
If you have a problem with that - then you have a problem.

It would appear you have the problem chasing me around the forum nit picking at every little imagined pedantic opportunity .

Your (latest) point was that USADA and the Feds might only be interested in up to 2006/2007 to "get their target".

Yes it was.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

ah, so that's why you thought interviewing rasmussen would be a waste of time.
walsh had covered it all, hadn't he.

No - it was because Walsh used the relevant info regardless.
Why ask Rasmussen something when he already had it?

 

[Netserk]

No - it was because Walsh used the relevant info regardless.
Why ask Rasmussen something when he already had it?

I really doubt he already had all info on Lienders that Ras had.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Whinge? nope, just correcting you.



It would appear you have the problem chasing me around the forum nit picking at every little imagined pedantic opportunity .



Yes it was.

I don't know you, don't care about you- this isn't Facebook and I am not looking for friends are interested in your cats.

I do nit pick your posts - because they are usually void of facts or correct info. I do so on posts that qualify for clarification or attribution regardless who they are, if you feel that you are being chased then its because your posts qualify more than most.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I really doubt he already had all info on Lienders that Ras had.

He didn't need "all info" - he just needed the main and most damning part, which was that Leinders was the one to suggest getting a relative for blood transfusions.

 

[Bronstein]

So far, there is nothing at all to contradict what people have said to USADA, which would also b what the were required to say under oath as part of the Fed investigation.

If Leipheimer stopped doping in 2007, what caused him to stop? At the time, he hadn't been implicated in any doping investigation or recently tested positive. So why would he suddenly start riding clean after doping had proved effective for him in the past?

 

[Benotti69]

I don't know you, don't care about you- this isn't Facebook and I am not looking for friends are interested in your cats.

I do nit pick your posts - because they are usually void of facts or correct info. I do so on posts that qualify for clarification or attribution regardless who they are, if you feel that you are being chased then its because your posts qualify more than most.

nit picker extraordanaire...congrats.

My posts are mostly opinion. Been posting opinion here 'a long long time', longer than RH doped, allegedly. You decided not so long ago to nit pick on a core group who have not swallowed the clean cycling myth. It appears to be your sole raison d'etre here.

Enjoy.

 

[Benotti69]

If Leipheimer stopped doping in 2007, what caused him to stop? At the time, he hadn't been implicated in any doping investigation or recently tested positive. So why would he suddenly start riding clean after doping had proved effective for him in the past?

Apparently the fact that in 2012 he told USADA that he did. Amazing isn't it!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If Leipheimer stopped doping in 2007, what caused him to stop? At the time, he hadn't been implicated in any doping investigation or recently tested positive. So why would he suddenly start riding clean after doping had proved effective for him in the past?

From Levi's affidavit:

78:
In April 2007 at the Tour of Georgia I asked John Bruyneel whether the team was going to organise a blood doping program for the 2007 Tour de France. Johan responded, "you're a Pro, you should do it on your own". I told Johan however, that it was too stressful and without team assistance I would not be using blood at the 2007 Tour. Johan seemed upset by my response.

He was already reluctant in 2007, JB eventually ran a program but it may have been left to the riders once they jumped over to Astana.

 

[Benotti69]

From Levi's affidavit:

He was already reluctant in 2007, JB eventually ran a program but it may have been left to the riders once they jumped over to Astana.

He was reluctant to do it on his own, not reluctant to dope!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

nit picker extraordanaire...congrats.

My posts are mostly opinion. Been posting opinion here 'a long long time', longer than RH doped, allegedly. You decided not so long ago to nit pick on a core group who have not swallowed the clean cycling myth. It appears to be your sole raison d'etre here.

Enjoy.

The highlighted is a straw man - part of what the "core group" use to insist that its a myth.

Your opinion, is just that and you are entitled to it - but obviously, you will have come to an opinion based on some information or belief, I am entitled to query that also.
Now that we have established how I will be responding to your posts, you will no doubt be backing up and linking your opinions and facts, if you have any.
If not - I do not expect you to complain when they are queried and corrected.

 

[Benotti69]

The highlighted is a straw man - part of what the "core group" use to insist that its a myth.

Your opinion, is just that and you are entitled to it - but obviously, you will have come to an opinion based on some information or belief, I am entitled to query that also.
Now that we have established how I will be responding to your posts, you will no doubt be backing up and linking your opinions and facts, if you have any.
If not - I do not expect you to complain when they are queried and corrected.

We have established you are a nit picker that grinds threads to a halt.

I post what i want. I dont need to back up or link my opinion.

 

[Bronstein]

From Levi's affidavit:

He was already reluctant in 2007, JB eventually ran a program but it may have been left to the riders once they jumped over to Astana.

The above quote only indicates that Leipheimer was reluctant to manage a blood doping program by himself. It doesn't indicate why Leipheimer would suddenly start riding clean altogether. I still haven't seen any clear reason/s why Leipheimer would stop doping in 2007.

His 2008 results (as pointed out by hrotha) also make it seem implausible that he stopped doping in 2007. 2nd in the 2008 Vuelta (his best GT result) ahead of the likes of Mosquera, Valverde, Bruseghin, etc and just 46 seconds behind an almost certainly doped Contador? Very unlikely this was done on bread and water in my opinion.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

We have established you are a nit picker that grinds threads to a halt.

I post what i want. I dont need to back up or link my opinion.

Come on Benno, sometimes you do need it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We have established you are a nit picker that grinds threads to a halt.

I post what i want. I dont need to back up or link my opinion.

Grinds thread to a halt? Funny, I thought I was the Vortex.
Stop getting stuff wrong - I will stop nit picking and correcting you.

Yes, you can post what you want (within the forum rules). I am not stopping you, but I can query it. Always.

The above quote only indicates that Leipheimer was reluctant to manage a blood doping program by himself. It doesn't indicate why Leipheimer would suddenly start riding clean altogether. I still haven't seen any clear reason/s why Leipheimer would stop doping in 2007.

His 2008 results (as pointed out by hrotha) also make it seem implausible that he stopped doping in 2007. 2nd in the 2008 Vuelta (his best GT result) ahead of the likes of Mosquera, Valverde, Bruseghin, etc and just 46 seconds behind an almost certainly doped Contador? Very unlikely this was done on bread and water in my opinion.

You're entitled to it - and I was surprised at LLs Vuelta result.

But for consideration, in 2008 the tests for the Bio Passport were starting, that may have restricted using BBs. As well as the introduction of a surprise test for CERA may have meant even hardcore dopers restricted their use.

 

[86TDFWinner]

The above quote only indicates that Leipheimer was reluctant to manage a blood doping program by himself. It doesn't indicate why Leipheimer would suddenly start riding clean altogether. I still haven't seen any clear reason/s why Leipheimer would stop doping in 2007.

I don't know myself, but if I were to guess, I'd say it could've been a number of reasons: fear of getting caught, fear of dying, fear he couldn't stop, maybe he got tired of it? who knows?

 

[roundabout]

There is no evidence that the team was not willing to take care of things post 2007.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-officials-warn-uci-testers-to-be-impartial

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-agency-targets-astana-for-illegal-transfusion-kit

 

[webvan]

And lo and behold he almost wins the Vuelta in 2008...must have seemed lika waste of money and health to dope for all these years! Not normal...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Resurecting this thread for a bit of Internet activism.

Ted has Levi's talk posted with a handy link to rate the talk.

It seems to me the TED organization needs to be reminded he's a fraud who stole from clean athletes and therefore should take the video down.

Link to the "talk."
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Dreams-vs-Success-Levi-Leipheim;search:tag:"tedxsonomacounty"

Link to rate the video
https://docs.google.com/a/ted.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHU2a1NSRnlwaDNhM3BlUkt2OVh2cXc6MQ