The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[hrotha]

I'm puzzled by the vitriol posted here about Lance's work in the cancer world.
I have unfortunately been very effected by cancer in my lifetime and all the people I've met like me would rate Livestrong and Lance as having positive effects on cancer and I believe they would all continue to believe so even if we showed them irrefutable proof that he was blood doped for his entire career.

I suspect he really does care at least a little, but even if he didn't give a **** about cancer patients and was in it all for himself, I think most people in that world would still feel the spotlight he's put on it and the increased funding and the change in attitude has been beneficial.

So I think it'd be best if we just separate that stuff from the cycling stuff and stick to the case against him as a doper.

Actually, I agree.

I also don't see how all the stuff about blow and hookers is relevant, I think less of Landis for bringing that up and on the whole it weakens his own case. I'm not sure why the WSJ covers that part, either. It's trash. Let's focus on the real stuff here: doping, organized doping, fraud, whatever.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

The Wall Street Journal--even under Murdoch's stewardship--does NOT pay its sources. Ever.

What I find interesting, though, is the timing of both WSJ Landis stories. Murdoch, as the indirect owner of a professional cycling team, has way more interest in professional cycling than probably any other major newspaper publisher. I suspect he is driving the paper's coverage himself, to gin up U.S. interest in the sport (among the WSJ's rather upscale readership), and perhaps incidentally to portray his own team as being clean, by contrast.

Thank you. The other bit about Murdoch I didn't quite know. A few months ago, there were reports that the WSJ was heading towards downward newspaper circulation but they are still the biggest. I'm glad they upheld the First Amendment in the public's right to be informed. The tactic by Radioshack to try and "make it go away" is nothing but sinister.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I'm puzzled by the vitriol posted here about Lance's work in the cancer world.
I have unfortunately been very effected by cancer in my lifetime and all the people I've met like me would rate Livestrong and Lance as having positive effects on cancer and I believe they would all continue to believe so even if we showed them irrefutable proof that he was blood doped for his entire career.

I suspect he really does care at least a little, but even if he didn't give a **** about cancer patients and was in it all for himself, I think most people in that world would still feel the spotlight he's put on it and the increased funding and the change in attitude has been beneficial.

So I think it'd be best if we just separate that stuff from the cycling stuff and stick to the case against him as a doper.

Texarse changed our attitude towards cancer? You're right, actually: most people I know were cancer-lovers before he brushed the scales from our eyes.

There's a number of un-sung universities around the world doing real work fighting the disease and, guess what, it has zero to do with riding a bike, being a bully and painting oneself as a messiah.

 

[Oldman]

The Wall Street Journal--even under Murdoch's stewardship--does NOT pay its sources. Ever.

What I find interesting, though, is the timing of both WSJ Landis stories. Murdoch, as the indirect owner of a professional cycling team, has way more interest in professional cycling than probably any other major newspaper publisher. I suspect he is driving the paper's coverage himself, to gin up U.S. interest in the sport (among the WSJ's rather upscale readership), and perhaps incidentally to portray his own team as being clean, by contrast.

I can't imagine that the esteemed Mr. Murdoch would pursue a line of journalism that would represent a conflict of interest. Oh...I mean the opposite.
He still has alot of contenders to taint to make a payday for Sky.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm puzzled by the vitriol posted here about Lance's work in the cancer world.
I have unfortunately been very effected by cancer in my lifetime and all the people I've met like me would rate Livestrong and Lance as having positive effects on cancer and I believe they would all continue to believe so even if we showed them irrefutable proof that he was blood doped for his entire career.

I suspect he really does care at least a little, but even if he didn't give a **** about cancer patients and was in it all for himself, I think most people in that world would still feel the spotlight he's put on it and the increased funding and the change in attitude has been beneficial.

So I think it'd be best if we just separate that stuff from the cycling stuff and stick to the case against him as a doper.

it's the fact that he is using his cancer to proclaim his body changed and therefore he became a 'tour rider', which is not true and his continual use of 'livestrong' where he puhes the .com, which makes him millions and not the .org, which is for the charity. so he talks about doing for it the charity but the reality is he is doing for himself first and the charity, well maybe third....

 

[BroDeal]

I'm puzzled by the vitriol posted here about Lance's work in the cancer world.
I have unfortunately been very effected by cancer in my lifetime and all the people I've met like me would rate Livestrong and Lance as having positive effects on cancer and I believe they would all continue to believe so even if we showed them irrefutable proof that he was blood doped for his entire career.

I suspect he really does care at least a little, but even if he didn't give a **** about cancer patients and was in it all for himself, I think most people in that world would still feel the spotlight he's put on it and the increased funding and the change in attitude has been beneficial.

So I think it'd be best if we just separate that stuff from the cycling stuff and stick to the case against him as a doper.

Why? His fraud against people with cancer is far worse than doping to win a bike race.

You should not be puzzled that there are people, unlike yourself, who do not believe that the ends justify the means.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

I suspect he really does care at least a little, but even if he didn't give a **** about cancer patients and was in it all for himself, I think most people in that world would still feel the spotlight he's put on it and the increased funding and the change in attitude has been beneficial.

So I think it'd be best if we just separate that stuff from the cycling stuff and stick to the case against him as a doper.

I support that. Yes, please separate cancer/charity talk from the doping allegations, atleast here in the clinic. For people who want to sort through the details of his charity fund, I had started a thread not too long ago. Here : http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=5425&highlight=cancer+foundation

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

I'm puzzled by the vitriol posted here about Lance's work in the cancer world.
I have unfortunately been very effected by cancer in my lifetime and all the people I've met like me would rate Livestrong and Lance as having positive effects on cancer and I believe they would all continue to believe so even if we showed them irrefutable proof that he was blood doped for his entire career.

I suspect he really does care at least a little, but even if he didn't give a **** about cancer patients and was in it all for himself, I think most people in that world would still feel the spotlight he's put on it and the increased funding and the change in attitude has been beneficial.

So I think it'd be best if we just separate that stuff from the cycling stuff and stick to the case against him as a doper.

well............you are dealing with a group of people who hate someone so much that common sense and reality are not adhered to...........

I agree with you on many points

 

[Desperate Moments]

Today's WSJ story looked to me to have been heavily "lawyered," as it was very carefully framed and sourced. No doubt the reporters had more and that the story was held while their lawyers went over it with a fine-toothed comb--likely resulting in some cuts. I would love to have been sitting in on the story meetings on this one!

 

[Cobblestones]

Actually, I agree.

I also don't see how all the stuff about blow and hookers is relevant, I think less of Landis for bringing that up and on the whole it weakens his own case. I'm not sure why the WSJ covers that part, either. It's trash. Let's focus on the real stuff here: doping, organized doping, fraud, whatever.

What people don't get is that it's a story primarily about Landis, not Lance. It makes perfect sense to put it in there as it's one step on the route of total disillusionment.

 

[hektoren]

This is wrong. FLandis failed the T:E ratio test with an 11:1 ratio. His actual testosterone levels were low. His epitestosterone levels were really low. The T:E test was later thrown out because of errors, but it triggered the CIR test, which sealed his fate.

Of course he was high on synth-testosterone, as evidenced by the Carbon-Isotope test. I have no beef with the verdict whatsoever, he was doped to his gills. But how was it administered? Knowingly, during the TdF as patches, or unknowingly as a result of blood-transfusion? You say that his actual epi-testosterone levels were really low. Does that mean that his sample was compared to previous tests, and deviated from those levels, or was it "an all-time-high" as samples go.
I'm a fairly scientific-minded doc myself, with an open mind, and nothing I've read yet can make me conclude that Floyd is lying about this.

 

[stephens]

Why? His fraud against people with cancer is far worse than doping to win a bike race.

You should not be puzzled that there are people, unlike yourself, who do not believe that the ends justify the means.

Well, in the end, all there is is the end.

This is not to say that one should always ignore the harms caused along the way, since each one of those is an "end" itself. But overall value judgements should always be based on actual harm or benefit done and not hurt feelings or violations of abstract "principles".

 

[Cobblestones]

Of course he was high on synth-testosterone, as evidenced by the Carbon-Isotope test. I have no beef with the verdict whatsoever, he was doped to his gills. But how was it administered? Knowingly, during the TdF as patches, or unknowingly as a result of blood-transfusion? You say that his actual epi-testosterone levels were really low. Does that mean that his sample was compared to previous tests, and deviated from those levels, or was it "an all-time-high" as samples go.
I'm a fairly scientific-minded doc myself, with an open mind, and nothing I've read yet can make me conclude that Floyd is lying about this.

Actually his T/E ratio wasn't all that high. Others have been caught with 10 or 20 times higher ratio. Anyway, go back to last night where we discussed this issue in this very thread. Joe Papp gave a good possible explanation.

ETA I just read your original post, and I think you have it mostly wrong. Check out a few sources.

 

[hrotha]

What people don't get is that it's a story primarily about Landis, not Lance. It makes perfect sense to put it in there as it's one step on the route of total disillusionment.

I get that, that's why I said I don't know why Landis brings it up. It makes the whole thing sound a lot more personal than would be good for Landis. Together with the dubious "I didn't use testosterone in that Tour"/"I didn't dope in Mercury"/"There wasn't systematic doping in Phonak" shenanigans, it only weakens his cause. I believe most if not all of what he says is true, but I'm not interested in the soap opera and the petty stuff about Lance's personal life; that's none of my concern. I don't care for any disillusionment. I don't care about the fanboys. I just want the truth that has to do with cycling exposed, so that we can work towards having a cleaner sport.

Busting LA shouldn't be about payback (which is the way this is coming across after the WSJ article). It should be about making sure you can't cheat without being exposed eventually. And above all, about breaking the omerta.

 

[Cobblestones]

I get that, that's why I said I don't know why Landis brings it up. It makes the whole thing sound a lot more personal than would be good for Landis. Together with the dubious "I didn't use testosterone in that Tour"/"I didn't dope in Mercury"/"There wasn't systematic doping in Phonak" shenanigans, it only weakens his cause. I believe most if not all of what he says is true, but I'm not interested in the soap opera and the petty stuff about Lance's personal life; that's none of my concern. I don't care for any disillusionment. I don't care about the fanboys. I just want the truth that has to do with cycling exposed, so that we can work towards having a cleaner sport.

Busting LA shouldn't be about payback (which is the way this is coming across after the WSJ article). It should be about making sure you can't cheat without being exposed eventually. And above all, about breaking the omerta.

Dude, one more time. The WSJ piece is mostly about Landis, not Lance. It's not about Lance and hookers and blow, it's about Landis getting the wrong image in his mind of cycling in general (and Lance in particular) set straight. It's not about payback and busting Lance, it's about Landis coming clean. Lance is collateral damage so to say. That's the story the WSJ journalist wants to tell in this piece.

Actually, you should watch the interview with the actual journalist. It's linked in the sticky thread. He explains it better than I can.

 

[hrotha]

Dude, one more time. The WSJ piece is mostly about Landis, not Lance. It's not about Lance and hookers and blow, it's about Landis getting the wrong image in his mind of cycling in general (and Lance in particular) set straight. It's not about payback and busting Lance, it's about Landis coming clean. Lance is collateral damage so to say. That's the story the WSJ journalist wants to tell in this piece.

Actually, you should watch the interview with the actual journalist. It's linked in the sticky thread. He explains it better than I can.

I understood you just fine. That doesn't mean it's smart of Landis to bring it up, or, more importantly, that it has any relevance in a cycling forum. Too many people here are way too excited with that side of the story (the whole "proving LA is evil" thing). I know that seeing karma at work is very satisfying, but all that part of the scandal is and should be secondary.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Well, in the end, all there is is the end.

This is not to say that one should always ignore the harms caused along the way, since each one of those is an "end" itself. But overall value judgements should always be based on actual harm or benefit done and not hurt feelings or violations of abstract "principles".

we have a nihilist in our midst

 

[Siriuscat]

Hang on a sec, it is impossible to seperate what ever he has done for cancer from the cycling because without cycling there would be no LAF, no livestrong, one goes hand in hand with the other.

The man is a con merchant of the worst kind, he has conned the sick as well as the rest of the world with his squeaky clean bike racer nonsense, Kimmage was right, the man is the cancer at the centre of cycling. For that there is a cure just a big slice of undeniable truth and it's up to those in the know to help the sport progress!

 

[roadfreak44]

handjob

Dude, one more time. The WSJ piece is mostly about Landis, not Lance. It's not about Lance and hookers and blow, it's about Landis getting the wrong image in his mind of cycling in general (and Lance in particular) set straight. It's not about payback and busting Lance, it's about Landis coming clean. Lance is collateral damage so to say. That's the story the WSJ journalist wants to tell in this piece.

Actually, you should watch the interview with the actual journalist. It's linked in the sticky thread. He explains it better than I can.

Maybe the article wasnt about LA but Floyds allegations are too perfectly timed to be about anything but nailing Lance..As an somewhat impartial observer I dont know if Lance doped or not but Landis has been completely broke for quite awhile ,sleeping on peoples couches and USADA offered him amnesty awhile back if he would say something that implicated LA (isnt that coercion and bribery?) a wonderful thing coming from one of the governing bodies I suppose. Now Landis who is utterly broke has retained lawyers .This si an important piece fo the puzzle folks so pay attention... The lawyers he has retained you can be certain do not work for a $5000 retainer these are extremely high powered guys so maybe add a zero or two to that 5K. So landis is broke where is the money coming from? Who have these lawyers been associated with?
Oh yeah....Greg Lemond the ever jealous LA hater.....just a coincidence of course...just like Landis releasing his tale on the eve of the tour of California was "just a coincidence" and waiting months to release more on the eve of the Tour was "just a coincidence" . thats a lot of coincidences especially given the nature and severity of the allegations and the perfect timing...but evidently there are sharper minds than mine here so perhaps they can explain all these coincidences away?...as for myself I believe there are no coincidences especially wheres theres money and payoffs involved and it is funny what people who are desperate for a little green will say or do.....wonder where Floyd is sleeping now?

ps -did anyone look at photos of Floyd at the TOC? he kinda looked like Jack Nicholson in "The Shining" but I mean that in a good way

 

[hrotha]

As an somewhat impartial observer I dont know if Lance doped or not

As an impartial observer it's impossible to conclude Lance didn't dope. Landis wanting money (if it's true) and Lemond being jealous (yeah right) have nothing to do with that fact.

But so far this is a PR battle (hopefully the feds will take it further in time), and I'm not sure Landis is playing his cards right.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Maybe the article wasnt about LA but Floyds allegations are too perfectly timed to be about anything but nailing Lance..As an somewhat impartial observer I dont know if Lance doped or not but Landis has been completely broke for quite awhile ,sleeping on peoples couches and USADA offered him amnesty awhile back if he would say something that implicated LA (isnt that coercion and bribery?) a wonderful thing coming from one of the governing bodies I suppose. Now Landis who is utterly broke has retained lawyers .This si an important piece fo the puzzle folks so pay attention... The lawyers he has retained you can be certain do not work for a $5000 retainer these are extremely high powered guys so maybe add a zero or two to that 5K. So landis is broke where is the money coming from? Who have these lawyers been associated with?
Oh yeah....Greg Lemond the ever jealous LA hater.....just a coincidence of course...just like Landis releasing his tale on the eve of the tour of California was "just a coincidence" and waiting months to release more on the eve of the Tour was "just a coincidence" . thats a lot of coincidences especially given the nature and severity of the allegations and the perfect timing...but evidently there are sharper minds than mine here so perhaps they can explain all these coincidences away?...as for myself I believe there are no coincidences especially wheres theres money and payoffs involved and it is funny what people who are desperate for a little green will say or do.....wonder where Floyd is sleeping now?

ps -did anyone look at photos of Floyd at the TOC? he kinda looked like Jack Nicholson in "The Shining" but I mean that in a good way

Matlock nails the case for the defense yet again

 

[soulor]

Okay, thanks for that.

It's what I was thinking puts people like Macur of the NYT in a double bind. Very tricky being a journalist with Lance: gaining access vs. selling out. Must be a constant dance they have to play/weigh.

Very uncomfortable moment when she questions Armstrong post prologue (short excerpt on UK ITV coverage).

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Very uncomfortable moment when she questions Armstrong post prologue (short excerpt on UK ITV coverage).

Uncomfortable for whom?

 

[hektoren]

Actually his T/E ratio wasn't all that high. Others have been caught with 10 or 20 times higher ratio. Anyway, go back to last night where we discussed this issue in this very thread. Joe Papp gave a good possible explanation.

ETA I just read your original post, and I think you have it mostly wrong. Check out a few sources.

Found the post from Joe Papp on page 85 in this thread. Thank you!
Nothing in it, however, convinces me that Flandis is lying about the testosterone. Au contraire, Joe even gives us a couple of other scenarios that might be possible. ("Floyd swears that he did not KNOWINGLY use testosterone during the 2006 Tour. That leaves open the possibility that he consumed another doping product that was mistaken for something else but was actually an anabolic; that the blood he transfused contained metabolites of testosterone from previous doping; or he's lying about this point.")

 

[Cobblestones]

...
Public Strategies talking points
...

What didn't you get of 'That's the story the WSJ journalist wants to tell in this piece'. FYI Landis didn't write this piece. He's not a WSJ journalist. It's up to the writer to chose what to put in, what to leave out, and how to angle the story.

Get off your Texarse fixation.