The official CBS 60 minutes thread

Page 26 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
i am beginning to think the shoulders that bear most of the burden lies in Switzerland.

In the alps, money flows uphill.

some believe, all the way to the top :eek:
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I do however feel that it's possible Roberto Heras was set-up. Not that he was clean.

He wasn't. But there was an awful lot of heat on Liberty, Saiz, and himself at that time, and the way his tests were revealed, then the fact he was blacklisted from the sport, all just drew up a red flag to me looking back, where someone wanted to get rid of them from cycling.

Then again, it's also quite possible he just used "too much" EPO before that final ITT, and came up positive.
This is what happened during that particular Vuelta. They were taking samples the whole time Heras was in the leader's jersey, but did not send them to the lab for testing.

When they actually got around to sending a sample to the lab, it tested positive for the EPO that he had been taking the whole time.

They subsequently sent the other preceding samples to be tested and they too came back positive, meaning he would have been busted before that final time trial had they sent any of those previous samples for testing.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Berzin said:
So now the Landis and Hamilton positives were part of some conspiracy.

No. It didn't help that they were away from the US Postal safety net, but they were both doping and have not clearly stated exactly what they were doing to have gotten caught.

All Landis said was that he did not take testosterone, but he obviously took something to make that epic ride possible on stage 17 of the 2006 Tour.

Any excuses like the ones stated above are just a bit too implausible.
hrotha said:
Furthermore, hadn't Hamilton been warned beforehand because his values were all over the place? The conspiracy theory makes for an interesting story but overall, with the info we currently have, it doesn't add up.
what doesn't add up, imo, is that Landis admitted to everything, and I mean everything, except to using testosterone in that epic ride...

only to not disappoint those who had supported his legal fight?
not sure. because these were massively disappointed anyway once he came clean.
 
Merckx index said:
Yeah, and according to Howman, calling a rider in and telling him his test results are "suspicious" is “inappropriate”.
.
One correction. Tyler recieved notification from the UCI by letter. The governing body. That's how it should work.

Lance got a cheeky phone call then a meet with the lab Director! No letter, nothing on the record. That's inappropriate.
 
ansimi said:
Fabiani:

"In an investigation characterized by unlawful leaks, it is amazing how quickly the leaker responded to today's `60 Minutes' letter, by reaching out to the AP in Los Angeles, and leaking some more. It is time for the press to stop giving comfort to this lawless form of character assassination and name names. Who is leaking this information? Whoever is doing so is committing a crime and should be investigated for it."

This is the same guy who's been saying over and over that it's a waste of resources to investigate drug trafficking, fraud, and a host of other crimes...but media leaks on the other hand...:rolleyes:
Excellent observation.

One thing is clear, the Armstrong camp's press releases aren't meant to be picked apart they are meant to appease the fanboys.
 
Berzin said:
So now the Landis and Hamilton positives were part of some conspiracy.

No. It didn't help that they were away from the US Postal safety net, but they were both doping and have not clearly stated exactly what they were doing to have gotten caught.

All Landis said was that he did not take testosterone, but he obviously took something to make that epic ride possible on stage 17 of the 2006 Tour.

Any excuses like the ones stated above are just a bit too implausible.
This just ticks me off every time somebody regurgitates it out. I do not think that there exists a drug that one could take that would make Floyd's stage 17 ride possible by itself.
That ride was made possible by a number of things. Nobody dared chase him for the first 2 hours. What killed him the day before was dehydration and on that day he made sure that he was handed nearly 100 bottles. When they finally did try to chase a little (?) it was far too late.
Was he doped? Oh yes, absolutely. Was that the reason he won stage 17? No, it was not.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Hugh Januss said:
This just ticks me off every time somebody regurgitates it out. I do not think that there exists a drug that one could take that would make Floyd's stage 17 ride possible by itself.
That ride was made possible by a number of drugs.
Fixed that for you.

Nobody dared chase him for the first 2 hours. What killed him the day before was dehydration and on that day he made sure that he was handed nearly 100 bottles. When they finally did try to chase a little (?) it was far too late.
Was he doped? Oh yes, absolutely. Was that the reason he won stage 17? No, it was not.
How do you know that? To me, it looked like a classic example of roid rage on the part of Landis at the end of the stage. In fact it was so obvious it was kind of ridiculous. So I wasn't surprised when he was busted for T/E ratio being out of whack.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Maxiton said:
Fixed that for you.



How do you know that? To me, it looked like a classic example of roid rage on the part of Landis at the end of the stage. In fact it was so obvious it was kind of ridiculous. So I wasn't surprised when he was busted for T/E ratio being out of whack.
exactly, nobody was surprised.
too good to be true for the UCI.
 
Hugh Januss said:
This just ticks me off every time somebody regurgitates it out. I do not think that there exists a drug that one could take that would make Floyd's stage 17 ride possible by itself.
That ride was made possible by a number of things. Nobody dared chase him for the first 2 hours. What killed him the day before was dehydration and on that day he made sure that he was handed nearly 100 bottles. When they finally did try to chase a little (?) it was far too late.
Was he doped? Oh yes, absolutely. Was that the reason he won stage 17? No, it was not.
Thank-you. I'm not and I don't think anyone is saying was clean or that he didn't take testosterone. Floyd spanked the gear just like every other guy in the peloton.

What is strange is the way he tested positive. How did he get caught on the T when the night before he jammed with something a lot more potent?

How was he transfusing like a madman and micro-ing on the Edgar - why T and why at the strange ratios?

The further irony is that Floyd and USPS dodged tests for years as dodged them fairly easily.

Agree on your above. Doping aside the peloton that day was in disarray. No one wanted to chase. Even when doping its still hard. No one wanted to give up their position by chasing him down and they sat on their hands for 2 hours.

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHCRhzrSRA0 - watching the stage again you see the hesitation in the chasing group. It also appears and I've forgotten to conform this but Floyd did ride with the breakaway group for a period of time. He didn't solo it for 127km alone.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
thehog said:
A lot is hearsay <snip>
i am not aware that any hearsay is based on solid sources. armstrong’s case involving the swiss lab is rather special. we continue to be fed (no pun intended) patchy and incomplete information from the evolving investigation. i have full confidence the 60 minutes story was based on reputable, olid sources and is accurate. but we were given just a taste of the juiciest pieces. so far, as i posted earlier, saugy essentially confirmed high probability of armstrong doping in 2001 tds and the highly suspicious role the uci played in the affair. this is all novi needs to corroborate his other sources. when exactly saugy learned of the suspicious samples identity (he allegedly said in 2002) remains to be confirmed but 2002 sounds plausible to me. if he, or the lab director at the time, confirmed this in a sworn affidavit, i'm happy.


reading the article as saugy’s support for landis is incorrect.

he is simply using the opportunity to speak up in connection with another positive. He is criticising wada’s inflexible application of the screening t/e test by advocating new testing strategies and methods. he based the opinion on the individual differences in testosterone metabolism. You misinterpreted it as supporting one of landis’s ridiculous excuses.
 
Grrrrr!*

I said Saugy's sympathetic thoughts on Floyd's positive were hearsay. Not the 60 minutes report. I've heard from several sources that many in the industry thought it was "bogus". If you guys hold on a little longer we'll *find out more.*

You asked for a link and that's what you got. Its not so much what he said but the timing of it. He was already planting seeds that the P for the T was abstract. He made these comments a week after The Floyd leak.

You start to understand Floyd's anger when he was aware of certain labs, the UCI and athletes doing deals then he received the treatment he did. You can understand the reason behind his defence - "How can you apply the rules so rigidly now when for the past 10 years you haven't?" - unfortunately for Floyd he couldn't tell the full story back then and his defence just came out as angry.



python said:
i am not aware that any hearsay is based on solid sources. armstrong’s case involving the swiss lab is rather special. we continue to be fed (no pun intended) patchy and incomplete information from the evolving investigation. i have full confidence the 60 minutes story was based on reputable, olid sources and is accurate. but we were given just a taste of the juiciest pieces. so far, as i posted earlier, saugy essentially confirmed high probability of armstrong doping in 2001 tds and the highly suspicious role the uci played in the affair. this is all novi needs to corroborate his other sources. when exactly saugy learned of the suspicious samples identity (he allegedly said in 2002) remains to be confirmed but 2002 sounds plausible to me. if he, or the lab director at the time, confirmed this in a sworn affidavit, i'm happy.



reading the article as saugy’s support for landis is incorrect.

he is simply using the opportunity to speak up in connection with another positive. He is criticising wada’s inflexible application of the screening t/e test by advocating new testing strategies and methods. he based the opinion on the individual differences in testosterone metabolism. You misinterpreted it as supporting one of landis’s ridiculous excuses.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
rata de sentina said:
No one gets "pinned" on their T/E ratio. As a screening test it sucks but otherwise it's irrelevant. You should know that hog being around here for a while. If you have a theory of some sort about Landis and Hamilton then support it with some real evidence, otherwise you're just clouding the issue and giving oxygen to fruitloops.
i'm coming around to the same conclusion after giving it a try.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Maxiton said:
Fixed that for you.



How do you know that? To me, it looked like a classic example of roid rage on the part of Landis at the end of the stage. In fact it was so obvious it was kind of ridiculous. So I wasn't surprised when he was busted for T/E ratio being out of whack.
i'm kind of curious: have you seen a lot of roid rage?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
This just ticks me off every time somebody regurgitates it out. I do not think that there exists a drug that one could take that would make Floyd's stage 17 ride possible by itself.
That ride was made possible by a number of things. Nobody dared chase him for the first 2 hours. What killed him the day before was dehydration and on that day he made sure that he was handed nearly 100 bottles. When they finally did try to chase a little (?) it was far too late.
Was he doped? Oh yes, absolutely. Was that the reason he won stage 17? No, it was not.

+1

If you watch the stage Floyd won because other teams would not chase. They thought Floyd would blow up before the final climb and they made a huge tactical error.

Floyd won that day because the collective failure of several DS's. And dope, of course.
 
Scott SoCal said:
+1

If you watch the stage Floyd won because other teams would not chase. They thought Floyd would blow up before the final climb and they made a huge tactical error.

Floyd won that day because the collective failure of several DS's. And dope, of course.
I would also add that Landis had a lot in hand over the others prior to his bad day. A lot of commentators were criticising him for riding conservatively and not pressing home his obvious superiority (in case he had some sort of mishap). As it happens I think those days of saving his energy went a long way towards his eventual victory
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
+1

If you watch the stage Floyd won because other teams would not chase. They thought Floyd would blow up before the final climb and they made a huge tactical error.

Floyd won that day because the collective failure of several DS's. And dope, of course.
Well yes, but the fact that Floyd didn't blow up and was able to recover so quickly from the previous day was most likely due to the "treatments" he received after falling apart the day before. So from that perspective, one could argue that he did "win" the stage because of doping, as I doubt that he'd have been able to recover as quickly and as well as he did without it.
 
thehog said:
Grrrrr!*

...

You start to understand Floyd's anger when he was aware of certain labs, the UCI and athletes doing deals then he received the treatment he did. You can understand the reason behind his defence - "How can you apply the rules so rigidly now when for the past 10 years you haven't?" - unfortunately for Floyd he couldn't tell the full story back then and his defence just came out as angry.
I thought that it was pretty obvious at the time that Floyd was upset with the double standard. It came across as both anger and entitlement. He thought he deserved special treatment, was better than everyone else and could pull a fast one. This was reflected in the FFF plea, the wiki, and the write your Congressman campaign. Floyd didn't just want the positive rescinded, he decided he was going to change legal precedent.

There is more than a small dose of grandiosity in there.

His advisors (especially Will and Arnie) let him down by not only fueling this, but but taking it to the next level themselves which bordered on criminal behavior.

Dave.
 
Mar 26, 2010
92
0
0
frenchfry said:
Excellent observation.

One thing is clear, the Armstrong camp's press releases aren't meant to be picked apart they are meant to appease the fanboys.

Another point. Leaking GJ testimony may be a crime. ("May" because it's not always a crime, as a witness can certainly talk about his or her own federal GJ testimony.) But for there to be a crime, there has to be an actual leak. Making stuff up, lying about what went on in the GJ, isn't leaking anything. So is this challenge by the Armstrong camp an admission that the "so called" leaks are true?

Of course, I agree that this is just for fanboy consumption.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Well yes, but the fact that Floyd didn't blow up and was able to recover so quickly from the previous day was most likely due to the "treatments" he received after falling apart the day before. So from that perspective, one could argue that he did "win" the stage because of doping, as I doubt that he'd have been able to recover as quickly and as well as he did without it.
I don't disagree in terms of enhancements, but testosterone? I don't think so.

The day before was a bonk, plain and simple, which is pretty easy to recover from.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,811
0
0
Back when I still thought Floyd was innocent (still not sure about testosterone) I figured that the bonk in fact SAVED his legs for the next day. He didn't get to finish strong, he got to ride easy, by lack of more energy. Bonks don't make you tired, they just make you enjoy your next meal better. And, the next day you're fitter than the ones who didn't donk.
I'd like to note that although it was a magnicent ride (stage 17), Sastre was in fact climbing faster than Floyd. So, Floyd was tired from the soloing.
If a lab can negotiate a bad sample away for someone, they can also contaminate it.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Cloxxki said:
Back when I still thought Floyd was innocent (still not sure about testosterone) I figured that the bonk in fact SAVED his legs for the next day. He didn't get to finish strong, he got to ride easy, by lack of more energy. Bonks don't make you tired, they just make you enjoy your next meal better. And, the next day you're fitter than the ones who didn't donk.
I'd like to note that although it was a magnicent ride (stage 17), Sastre was in fact climbing faster than Floyd. So, Floyd was tired from the soloing.
If a lab can negotiate a bad sample away for someone, they can also contaminate it.
key stuff right there.

Not sure why some posters seem to believe that the anti-doping lab could have fixed LA's sample but could not have toyed with Floyd's.
 
Mar 26, 2010
92
0
0
sniper said:
key stuff right there.

Not sure why some posters seem to believe that the anti-doping lab could have fixed LA's sample but could not have toyed with Floyd's.
But still, the best explanations for T in Floyd's sample are:

1. Floyd took it along with all the other stuff he admits too, bur for some reason, didn't realize it. (Cross contamination, Lim didn't tell him, etc.)

2. Floyd took it knowlingly and hasn't come clean about that yet.

3. Aotologous transflusion from a time where there was T.

No need for any conspiracy to get there.
 
sniper said:
key stuff right there.

Not sure why some posters seem to believe that the anti-doping lab could have fixed LA's sample but could not have toyed with Floyd's.
Groan.

Even the hacking of the labs computer (known to be true) could not and did not change the measured result.

The only similarity between these two concepts is how dumb they are.

I suspect this is what you may have been trying to illuminate. Thus, please don't take this as directed at you personally.

alanshearer said:
But still, the best explanations for T in Floyd's sample are:

1. Floyd took it along with all the other stuff he admits too, bur for some reason, didn't realize it. (Cross contamination, Lim didn't tell him, etc.)

2. Floyd took it knowlingly and hasn't come clean about that yet.

3. Aotologous transflusion from a time where there was T.

No need for any conspiracy to get there.
Exactly.

Add

#4, the 'massage' oil was the 'T' version rather than the non-T version and got mixed up in the soigneur's bag.

#5, rather than a bandaid to recover from a booboo he put on a patch

#6 Homologous transfusion was from someone taking T

Dave.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
alanshearer said:
D-Queued said:
Groan.
...
of course, no need for a conspiracy.
If somebody screwed with FloyD's sample, is that a conspiracy? not in my dictionary.

I mean, Floyd still thinks he got screwed. Reread his interview with Kimmage.
Floyd spent a couple of years on his own case, he says he became fascinated by his own case, and that he became a specialist on the matter. Nonetheless, he stuck by the conclusion that he got screwed.

You might call him biassed for obvious reasons, but the fact remains: he sincerely thinks he got screwed.

I don't know about you guys, but I like Floyd's credibility.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY