The official CBS 60 minutes thread

Page 24 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
this is one more piece of evidence on a mountain of evidence that Armstrong was the dirtiest, filthiest and most corrupt rider in a dirty sport......;)

i wonder will Armstrong go the way of Elvis.......
all cyclists are dirty but some are more dirty than others.

i would agree with this premisse.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
MarkvW said:
This is becoming ecstasy for 60 Minutes. Their story is now spawning other stories-all mentioning 60 Minutes.

Saugy apparently tells different stories at different times to different people.

This is just one more piece of evidence supporting the premise that Lance is just one more filthy rider in a sport that is filthy to its core.
To follow in Benotti's footsteps:

Lance is not "just" one more doped rider. He has oh so much more going for him. Cunning, calculating, careful, cynical, conniving, colluding... and that's just (some of) the "c"s.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
JA.Tri said:
To follow in Benotti's footsteps:

Lance is not "just" one more doped rider. He has oh so much more going for him. Cunning, calculating, careful, cynical, conniving, colluding... and that's just (some of) the "c"s.
Lance is dirt without his "family friend" and his loving helpers at the UCI.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Oldman said:
Oprah retired. Nowhere to cry.
Eddy cried and denied when he was caught doping at a GT. But that was a different time, different era- and Eddy is Eddy thank you sir may I have another.

Do not see Lance shedding any tears over his cycle doping.
Maybe Lance will tear up at his daughter's wedding.
Maybe Lance's eyes will moisten when nike and nissan extend contracts.
But cry over cycle doping? Doubt it.

MarkvW said:
This is becoming ecstasy for 60 Minutes. Their story is now spawning other stories-all mentioning 60 Minutes.

Saugy apparently tells different stories at different times to different people.

This is just one more piece of evidence supporting the premise that Lance is just one more filthy rider in a sport that is filthy to its core.
Yes, there are no secrets.
Cycling Sport has been filthy from the get go.
Riders Dope. Riders deny. No secrets. The way of Pro Cyling.
Casual fans are aghast when they learn the truth.
HTFU casual fans. Welcome to Pro Cycling

But saying that Lance is "just one more filthy" rider is silly.
Lance is up there with the All Time Top Filthy Riders.
Eddy/Fausto/Jacque/BigMig/Sean/Lance/Bernard/Alberto/Gimondi
 
MarkvW said:
Saugy apparently tells different stories at different times to different people.
Saugy is clearly the central figure and key in all of this. He says one thing to the FBI, which I’m quite sure was the truth, and another to the press. Then there is this:
The AP has learned that on three occasions, Saugy told authorities about the Armstrong tests and had agreed to turn over the results to anti-doping officials. But he never produced them, which prompted the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency to send him a letter in April asking for the evidence.
This statement seems to assume that Saugy knew the samples were LA’s. If not back in 2001/2002, at least now. But why would he tell authorities about them, then refuse to turn them over? Even if he actually were covering up, why tell anyone about these tests in the first place? On the one hand, he is portrayed as someone who spotted a problem, on the other, as someone who tried to hide that problem.

There is also this:

David Howman, director general of the Montreal-based World Anti-Doping Agency, confirmed to the AP that Saugy had talked to him about suspicious results from the 2001 Tour de Suisse and an ensuing meeting set up by UCI that included people Saugy "didn't anticipate" would be there.
I assume Howman means Saugy talked to him about these results last year. Howman would not have been director or AFAIK someone to be notified back in 2001/2002. So Howman goes on 60m and says a meeting with UCI would be “inappropriate”, but never mentions that he knew about these suspicious results and had discussed them with Saugy and the UCI. He seems to have had first hand knowledge about the situation that he never let on about to 60m. Nothing at all illegal about that, of course, but I find it strange. Maybe Howman testified to the FBI, too, or the GJ, and was advised to keep quiet, but surely he could have at least confirmed that he knew about these samples.

And who were the “unanticipated” people? I’m guessing they were officials connected with the Novitzky investigation. Saugy didn’t expect this? Why not? Why would he suddenly, in 2010, start telling people about suspicious samples from back in 2001/2002, if not prompted by the investigation? Why dredge all this up now?

We can assume he started getting worried about the legal implications of these samples, but his behavior is still strange. Maybe he was advised by a lawyer to come clean with these samples, but then held off for some other reason? Strange, strange, strange.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
zigmeister said:
Great another:


"A person with familiarity of the case told the AP.....blah."
I laughed when CBS says their story is the "Best Ever Cycle Dope Story".

Guess they have not been paying attention to Floyd's e-mails and Grey Manrod twitter acounts.
Floyd is the Man!

http://twitter.com/GreyManrod

Become a follower - you could be his 1000'th!
If you miss it today, wait a few days for a second chance lol.

 
Jun 25, 2009
3,233
0
0
Merckx index said:
There is also this:

David Howman, director general of the Montreal-based World Anti-Doping Agency, confirmed to the AP that Saugy had talked to him about suspicious results from the 2001 Tour de Suisse and an ensuing meeting set up by UCI that included people Saugy "didn't anticipate" would be there.


I assume Howman means Saugy talked to him about these results last year. Howman would not have been director or AFAIK someone to be notified back in 2001/2002. So Howman goes on 60m and says a meeting with UCI would be “inappropriate”, but never mentions that he knew about these suspicious results and had discussed them with Saugy and the UCI. He seems to have had first hand knowledge about the situation that he never let on about to 60m. Nothing at all illegal about that, of course, but I find it strange. Maybe Howman testified to the FBI, too, or the GJ, and was advised to keep quiet, but surely he could have at least confirmed that he knew about these samples.

And who were the “unanticipated” people? I’m guessing they were officials connected with the Novitzky investigation. Saugy didn’t expect this? Why not? Why would he suddenly, in 2010, start telling people about suspicious samples from back in 2001/2002, if not prompted by the investigation? Why dredge all this up now?

We can assume he started getting worried about the legal implications of these samples, but his behavior is still strange. Maybe he was advised by a lawyer to come clean with these samples, but then held off for some other reason? Strange, strange, strange.
I took this to mean that Saugy told Howman about suspicious results from 2001 and an ensuing meeting, ie a meeting later in 2001. The unanticipated people could then be those mentioned elsewhere.


Cant wait for all the information to come out properly rather than in dribs and drabs which might or might not mean something/a lot.
 
Merckx index said:
For a guy warning LA not to pay attention to "yellow journalism", you seem to have fallen under its spell, too.



This is serious stuff. Everything 60m reported about the letter to the FBI was correct. Peters' letter demanding an apology, boiled down to its essence, was complaining that to these facts they added Tyler's claim that LA told him that he made a positive go away. The terms "positive", "secret meeting" and "made go away" were Tyler's words, not those of 60m, and they did seem to conflict with what Saugy said. In large part, because Saugy said he didn't know the identity of the samples.

Now it turns out Saugy did know, and apparently lied about that in his post-60m statements. So one key point that Tyler made, which conflicted with what Saugy said, has been shown to be correct. This alone should increase Tyler's credibility, and Floyd's too, since he made the same claim.

Saugy loves the science. He's not really after catching athletes. He's sympathetic to the anti-doping process and what the athletes go through to provide samples. He was easily leaned on. He went too far. He knows it and in some ways in trying to cover tracks and at the same time trying to appease Armstrong, the UCI and keep his pay masters happy. Most of all he just loves science. He often was caught providing information to athletes. He was also long time supporter of Floyd. Thought he got a bung deal. He’s now officially digging himself a hole.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
thehog said:
Saugy loves the science. He's not really after catching athletes. He's sympathetic to the anti-doping process and what the athletes go through to provide samples. He was easily leaned on. He went too far. He knows it and in some ways in trying to cover tracks and at the same time trying to appease Armstrong, the UCI and keep his pay masters happy. Most of all he just loves science. He often was caught providing information to athletes. He was also long time supporter of Floyd. Thought he got a bung deal. He’s now officially digging himself a hole.
that's interesting. depending on how much credibility you give Saugy, it might suggest that Floyd got screwed afterall.
Why would Saugy support Floyd if he wasn't sure that Floyd's sample was actually screwed with or badly handled or infact negative?
 
Frosty said:
I took this to mean that Saugy told Howman about suspicious results from 2001 and an ensuing meeting, ie a meeting later in 2001. The unanticipated people could then be those mentioned elsewhere.
I think you're right, I didn't read that correctly. In that case, Saugy may well have also lied to the press when he said the meeting with JB/LA had nothing to do with suspicious samples. Another score for Tyler. And another indication that Howman knew far more than he let on to 60m.

Cant wait for all the information to come out properly rather than in dribs and drabs which might or might not mean something/a lot
A lot of info may never come out. Even if we do learn that UCI covered up a result--and it still looks like it was not a positive, in which case it's not clear that discussing it was inappropriate--Saugy's exact involvement may always be a mystery.

Why would Saugy support Floyd if he wasn't sure that Floyd's sample was actually screwed with or badly handled or infact negative?
Saugy may have been one of those scientists who questioned the sloppiness in some of the analysis, or the fact that not all of Floyd's metabolites showed clear-cut evidence of an IRMS shift. But it remains interesting that both Floyd and Tyler, despite all their confessions, insist that they weren't really positive for the test that got them nailed. If that could ever be proven (it can't), it would make their credibility even greater. It would turn out they weren't lying at the time, and it would also make their request for public donations look somewhat less dishonest.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
thehog said:
How about:

"A person on the cyclingnews forum familiar with the case told AP....."
Would not suprise me lol.
60 Min story is a joke.
"Lance flushed Floyd's blood in the toilet"
How did 60 Min miss that one?

The TdS suspicious positive bribe was a hack job story.
Can't get the facts even close.
Shoddy.
Entertainment Tonite could have done a better job.
Maybe Geraldo.
Oprah could have gotten closer to the truth.
Season Finale Failure.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Polish said:
Would not suprise me lol.
60 Min story is a joke.
"Lance flushed Floyd's blood in the toilet"
How did 60 Min miss that one?

The TdS suspicious positive bribe was a hack job story.
Can't get the facts even close.
Shoddy.
Entertainment Tonite could have done a better job.
Maybe Geraldo.
Oprah could have gotten closer to the truth.
Season Finale Failure.
if anything, it was entertaining. great television.
unless your name is lance, of course.
guess anyone unconnected to lance enjoyed those 60m.
no need for apologies.
 
Dec 18, 2009
43
0
0
Polish said:
Would not suprise me lol.
60 Min story is a joke.
"Lance flushed Floyd's blood in the toilet"
How did 60 Min miss that one?

The TdS suspicious positive bribe was a hack job story.
Can't get the facts even close.
Shoddy.
Entertainment Tonite could have done a better job.
Maybe Geraldo.
Oprah could have gotten closer to the truth.
Season Finale Failure.
You really aren't from Poland and if you are prove it!
 
Merckx index said:
But it remains interesting that both Floyd and Tyler, despite all their confessions, insist that they weren't really positive for the test that got them nailed. If that could ever be proven (it can't), it would make their credibility even greater. It would turn out they weren't lying at the time, and it would also make their request for public donations look somewhat less dishonest.
Exactly what I was thinking yesterday, are they still in denial or were they indeed "framed" for whatever reason? TH did say he possibly still had "traces" left in his body from past doping, unfortunately 60 minutes forgot to ask him when he had last doped before the olympics...or why he had decided to stop doping.

BTW Floyd just tweeted a link to an article saying that LA won the PR battle yesterday, odd -> http://twitter.com/#!/GreyManrod/status/76321576815042561
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Merckx index said:
But it remains interesting that both Floyd and Tyler, despite all their confessions, insist that they weren't really positive for the test that got them nailed.
That's not quite accurate - setting Landis aside, Hamilton wasn't saying that he wasn't really positive, just that he didn't know how he tested positive (ended up blaming it on residuals in his blood/urine iirc) - ie he wasn't denying the positive result itself. That he gave back the gold medal is, imo, pretty much an acknowledgment on his part that the test result was correct.
 

DISTRICT 9

BANNED
Apr 25, 2011
35
0
0
sniper said:
that's interesting. depending on how much credibility you give Saugy, it might suggest that Floyd got screwed afterall.
Why would Saugy support Floyd if he wasn't sure that Floyd's sample was actually screwed with or badly handled or infact negative?
Undeniably Mr. Landis urine sample was contaminated from an outside source. Floyd would not have fought the test if he had not known that he was free of the offending substance. I don't even know why Mr. Landis said that he cheated.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
thehog said:
Saugy loves the science. He's not really after catching athletes. He's sympathetic to the anti-doping process and what the athletes go through to provide samples.
We've heard this type of thing from Don Catlin and Rasmus Damsgaard. They are in the anti-doping field to help prove athletes clean more than to check compliance.
 
python said:
thegog, can you provide some examples or links for the statement ? same request as above
A lot is hearsay so no links but one below. But Saugy has been caught up in this *** before. He did the same on the ATP tennis Tour with someone's samples.

------

Martial Saugy's comments come a week after cyclist Floyd Landis, winner of the 2006 Tour de France with Swiss team Phonak, failed a doping test. The result of a second test is expected on Saturday.

Saugy's central argument is that testosterone levels encountered nowadays are no longer "massive" like they were in the 1980s when the tests were introduced.

"That is no longer the situation and I therefore believe the entire anti-doping strategy regarding testosterone must be changed," said Saugy, whose laboratory at Lausanne University's Institute for Forensic Medicine is regularly used by the International Olympic Committee and Uefa, European football's governing body.

Saugy says laboratories should be supported in their efforts to pursue new screening methods that are tailored to individual athletes and that look at a wider range of markers than at present.

Research by the Lausanne laboratory, which is accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), indicates that there is significant variation in how the body absorbs and reacts to additional doses of testosterone.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Expert_calls_for_doping_tests_to_be_updated.html?cid=648468
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY