...still deciding if they would cooperate...

[scribe]

That is a field day for anyone who has training in statement analysis. Lim would be better served by not talking at all.

"his (landis) statement speaks for itself."

lol!

 

[pedaling squares]

I hope he does. He is dragging Clara Hughes into the mud with him, and if there is one superstar athlete in the world I want to believe in, she's the one.
(yep, first post )

“I have known Michael since he was 15 years old and he has been a teammate, a friend, and a person I have looked to for hope as an athlete,” said Hughes. “Hope that it is possible to play fair and clean and that hard, disciplined work pays off. He is an individual of great integrity and there is simply no way in my mind that there is any basis to any allegations.” -- Clara Hughes

Clara is smart enough to know that unless she lived with and rode the bus with him, she knows nothing. What is the fixation on personality and character? Nice guys dope too. Some evil men do not. I have Clara pegged as a future Senator so she should start learning to restrict her public statements to topics she can confidently speak on.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Bottle isn't going to rat out his boss. No way.
I'd rather see him go down with Lance anyway. Clean this house up.

 

[mikkemus23]

[quote

I believe in the 2004 section.

Susan[/QUOTE]

why 2004 only, Susan?

 

[Willy_Voet]

I'm thinking CVV could be one. He's 7 years removed from USPS... (though Liberty Seguros is in some ways a worse association).

Hincapie I'm not so sure about. Hamilton, maybe. He's already done time, he'd only be pulling a Landis if he flipped now.

 

[wattage]

But Landis didn't accuse CVV for doping.

 

[BroDeal]

A little cat told me that it was Zabriskie and McCarty.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

A little cat told me that it was Zabriskie and McCarty.

Interesting.

 

[Wallace]

Although I wouldn't be surprised to hear Hamilton sing--I get the impression that mentally, he isn't the toughest guy & the feds could probably crack him easily--for the sake of the case I hope it's anyone but him. What with the whole "Believe Tyler" campaign, the two convictions and life-time ban, the missing twin defense, the denial that the missing twin defense ever happened, the missing college degree ("I'm a college graduate"--he isn't), and on and on, Tyler has serious credibility issues. If he does talk, Lance can and will probably claim that it's just another disgraced loser with no credibility and mental health issues, trying to drag him down to their level. But if someone in good standing in the sport, with no convictions--Vaughters, VdV, Zabriskie, McCarthy, etc--corroborates Landis, then it's all over for Armstrong.

 

[stephens]

Does the idea that two guys are deciding whether to cooperate come from actual independent sources or just from what Landis said in his emails? 'Cause when I read his stuff I just dismissed that part as a way to put (fake) pressure on and get someone to crack, the way the cops do ("your friend is starting to talk, so you'd better tell us everything first because the first guy gets the deal...," even when the friend hasn't given any intention he's going to talk).

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Zabriskie should sing and save his reputation. I wonder what implications this will have for CSC as well. It could be the nail in the Saxo coffin if Zabriskie admits to a doping program under Riis.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Does the idea that two guys are deciding whether to cooperate come from actual independent sources or just from what Landis said in his emails? 'Cause when I read his stuff I just dismissed that part as a way to put (fake) pressure on and get someone to crack, the way the cops do ("your friend is starting to talk, so you'd better tell us everything first because the first guy gets the deal...," even when the friend hasn't given any intention he's going to talk).

Prisoner's dilemma works best when the two prisoners are separated. In this case, not only are they not separated, but they're in the same peloton.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Does the idea that two guys are deciding whether to cooperate come from actual independent sources or just from what Landis said in his emails?.

The "idea" comes from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/sports/cycling/22cycling.html

Susan

 

[Kennf1]

Still not convinced Z is going to be one to turn. He just seems to be awfully tight with Armstrong (more so that CVV), and has a vested interest in protecting his Nutz. But then again I doubted the whole Landis rumor on Tuesday night.

So Landis is in LA today (according to twitter). Are we going to see a press conference at the ToC as has been rumored?

 

[Cobblestones]

That is a field day for anyone who has training in statement analysis. Lim would be better served by not talking at all.

I looked at it and it's hilarious. This guy is like an open book. A pity he had his shades on. Someone should catch him indoors. The body language and facial expression is really telling. Even someone with only rudimentary interrogation skills could crack this nut in 10 minutes max.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Much as I'd love to think that the dam is about to break I am just not sure. I am sure that some are wavering but still I wonder how much of this is wishful thinking on our part that the whole Armstrong edifice is going to come down.

Don't get me wrong, if one card falls then you'll see everyone scrambling.

DZ is interesting - and how that relates to JV as well. The Dwarf won't cough - he will be the last one in the bunker with the Hog and Uniballer. (All we need now is someone to do one of those 'Downfall' videos for this )

One person not mentioned here at all is Livingston. Didn't the IM conversation say that he quit because he didn't like all the drugs?

The threat of prison is a major thing. Millar said that spending the night in the cell was what 'flipped him'.

Also, one other thing - other than the leaked emails Landis has been very very silent - this suggests that perhaps the Feds etc have learnt from the Balco affair - leaking info is very bad and causes problems. That nothing has been said is quite telling.

The NYT is one article - the majority is still firmly in the Armstrong camp.

 

[Kennf1]

One person not mentioned here at all is Livingston. Didn't the IM conversation say that he quit because he didn't like all the drugs?

Livingston works in the basement of Mellow Johnny's. Can't see him stepping up.

 

[Desperate Moments]

The Grey Lady

I know how the New York Times sources its stories. This graf says that Juliet Macur or another reporter for the NYT has spoken directly with the two accusees:

"Two people Landis has accused of doping said on Friday that they had been contacted by antidoping officials who had asked them to cooperate with an investigation in exchange for leniency. Those people did not want their names published because they are still deciding if they want to come forward."

The "paper of record" is all over this story!

 

[Cobblestones]

I know how the New York Times sources its stories. This graf says that Juliet Macur or another reporter for the NYT has spoken directly with the two accusees:

"Two people Landis has accused of doping said on Friday that they had been contacted by antidoping officials who had asked them to cooperate with an investigation in exchange for leniency. Those people did not want their names published because they are still deciding if they want to come forward."

The "paper of record" is all over this story!

And as always, it's not the sports papers who're driving the story. It's journalists from the NYT and WSJ. I remember when TMobile came crashing down, it wasn't a sports paper which broke the story. I think it was 'Der Spiegel'. We have a thread somewhere asking for integrity in journalism. You won't get that from people who're too close to their subject. Case in point: Phil the Shill.

 

[pedaling squares]

Zabriskie should sing and save his reputation. I wonder what implications this will have for CSC as well. It could be the nail in the Saxo coffin if Zabriskie admits to a doping program under Riis.

That's something I've been pondering these past few days. Whether the boys on the Saxo bus are looking at each other right now and wondering, is the guy beside me going to talk? Without getting too wrapped up in hyperbole, it is possible that a rider who provides full disclosure could generate spin-off investigations into other teams that he worked with. And certainly not just Saxo Bank.

 

[Berzin]

That's something I've been pondering these past few days. Whether the boys on the Saxo bus are looking at each other right now and wondering, is the guy beside me going to talk? Without getting too wrapped up in hyperbole, it is possible that a rider who provides full disclosure could generate spin-off investigations into other teams that he worked with. And certainly not just Saxo Bank.

I understand where you're coming from, but you're getting too far ahead of the game right now.

If people won't cooperate, or choose to lie and dare anyone to contradict them, then all of this will go nowhere.

Vaughters, who is clearly more interested in consolidating his position in the pro cycling world then with getting involved in this investigation will have to be coerced by the Feds. No way around it.

 

[stephens]

The "idea" comes from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/sports/cycling/22cycling.html

Susan

Yes, but the article said this: "Two people Landis has accused of doping said on Friday that they had been contacted by antidoping officials who had asked them to cooperate with an investigation in exchange for leniency. Those people did not want their names published because they are still deciding if they want to come forward."

My question is, said on Friday to whom? To the reporter? It doesn't read that way. Or is the reporter just repeating claims from Landis himself about how all this is supposedly going down?

 

[hektoren]

Does the idea that two guys are deciding whether to cooperate come from actual independent sources or just from what Landis said in his emails? 'Cause when I read his stuff I just dismissed that part as a way to put (fake) pressure on and get someone to crack, the way the cops do ("your friend is starting to talk, so you'd better tell us everything first because the first guy gets the deal...," even when the friend hasn't given any intention he's going to talk).

Landis' e-mails are an interesting teaser, but if there really is substance behind his accusations, there's bound to be a further tidal wave of details forthcoming from Landis to those in charge of the investigation. The who's, where's, when's, details from conversations, moods, settings, facts, interpretations, speculations. On-the-record statements in a federal investigation is serious stuff, and Landis has faced the realities of the judicial processes before. He's burned his bridges, and is obviously prepared to spill the beans. If he's not for real, I'm quite positive the investigating bodies would've wised up to that fact already. A simple lie is easy enough to construct, but once a proficient interrogator start prodding a liar on the details, and on the minute details of the details, their game is up, real quick. Just the fact that the FDA hasn't washed their hands of him by now is an indication that this is the real deal. If I were one of the two persons mentioned in the NYT-piece, I'd do a quick calculation and side with truth. You'd look a real azz in the clinker, having lied when all the world has learned the truth.
Behind the cyclists doing dope is quite an apparatus. The logistics of it, the details, the providers, the financing, is too big to not leave a trail of evidence somewhere. Follow the money. Do audits. If there's reality behind Landis' claims, the evidence will be found. This is no simple blood-test you'll have to fool, and it won't go away.

 

[Cerberus]

Yes, but the article said this: "Two people Landis has accused of doping said on Friday that they had been contacted by antidoping officials who had asked them to cooperate with an investigation in exchange for leniency. Those people did not want their names published because they are still deciding if they want to come forward."

My question is, said on Friday to whom? To the reporter? It doesn't read that way. Or is the reporter just repeating claims from Landis himself about how all this is supposedly going down?

Obviously the story depends on the Times credibility, but the way it's phrased I would say they talked to them directly or got it from teh anti-doping authorities, or another credible source. It's repported as a fact, not as "according to Landis" or anyone else.

 

[filipo]

We are talking about JAIL - PRISON - THE CLINK - LOCKDOWN - CELLMATES - THE EXERCISE YARD - GROUP SHOWERS with other criminals.

You mean like the GROUP SHOWER held after Paris-Roubaix? The one with all the PHOTOGRAPHERS hanging about?

Why does every mention of prison come with the prison-rape fantasy? It's bizarre.