The official CBS 60 minutes thread

Page 27 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 1, 2009
329
0
0
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.
I incline towards one and two, but do not rule out possibility four, that the IRMS really was institutionally messed up at LNDD. I havent heard of any subsequent positives from them, so maybe they've cleaned up the lab act Reasons to discount three have been discussed before, and it just doesn't seem consistent with the blood schedules and the Results reported on the Kherson samples.
 
dbrower said:
I incline towards one and two, but do not rule out possibility four, that the IRMS really was institutionally messed up at LNDD. I havent heard of any subsequent positives from them, so maybe they've cleaned up the lab act Reasons to discount three have been discussed before, and it just doesn't seem consistent with the blood schedules and the Results reported on the Kherson samples.
1. Thank you for confirming that you believe Floyd doped

2. Way back when, you had suggested that your best guess was a messed up/contaminated transfusion. Interesting to see your change of opinion. Can you provide any insight into why you have changed?

3. A messed up test is still grasping at straws. The possibility can never be discounted, but the probability is so remote that the argument is futile. Especially with Floyd admitting he doped, and the prevalence of Testosterone usage, it is foolish.

4. When it comes to the results documentation at the lab, it would still be beneficial to have the investiation of hacking at a conclusive stage. Do you have any update there?

5. Finally, consider the 'Truth' campaign doesn't it make sense to finally post the Epilog result on TBV? You know, "The Confession"?

You are obviously still paying the registration/maintenance fee for the site. Thus, until it is updated to show the subject's final statement it is perpetuating the opposite of truth.

Dave.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
D-Queued said:
1. Thank you for confirming that you believe Floyd doped

2. Way back when, you had suggested that your best guess was a messed up/contaminated transfusion. Interesting to see your change of opinion. Can you provide any insight into why you have changed?

3. A messed up test is still grasping at straws. The possibility can never be discounted, but the probability is so remote that the argument is futile. Especially with Floyd admitting he doped, and the prevalence of Testosterone usage, it is foolish.

4. When it comes to the results documentation at the lab, it would still be beneficial to have the investiation of hacking at a conclusive stage. Do you have any update there?

5. Finally, consider the 'Truth' campaign doesn't it make sense to finally post the Epilog result on TBV? You know, "The Confession"?

You are obviously still paying the registration/maintenance fee for the site. Thus, until it is updated to show the subject's final statement it is perpetuating the opposite of truth.

Dave.
the isotope test from Floyd on the other stages, the one which discriminates the plant and animal forms, to demonstrate exogenous usage, these tests on the other stages demonstrated a pattern of testo use.

FL had to keep a little bit of truth back, he never came completely clean, ego has obfuscated a full and unfettered truth from the public. To me, it defies credulity that he goes to Bruyneel's team, is willing to do anything, Armstrong shows him the ropes, and that explains it.

No, I cannot believe he never started earlier, perhaps much earlier. Mercury Viatel at the very least, Van Bon, Van Pete, Cooke, the team was not pure of soul, I'm sorry. I don't think FL was a clean guy on an impure team there
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
D-Queued said:
1. Thank you for confirming that you believe Floyd doped

2. Way back when, you had suggested that your best guess was a messed up/contaminated transfusion. Interesting to see your change of opinion. Can you provide any insight into why you have changed?

3. A messed up test is still grasping at straws. The possibility can never be discounted, but the probability is so remote that the argument is futile. Especially with Floyd admitting he doped, and the prevalence of Testosterone usage, it is foolish.

4. When it comes to the results documentation at the lab, it would still be beneficial to have the investiation of hacking at a conclusive stage. Do you have any update there?

5. Finally, consider the 'Truth' campaign doesn't it make sense to finally post the Epilog result on TBV? You know, "The Confession"?

You are obviously still paying the registration/maintenance fee for the site. Thus, until it is updated to show the subject's final statement it is perpetuating the opposite of truth.

Dave.
C'mon Dave, please stop. If he does as you suggest then all the fun will be gone.
 
ChrisE said:
C'mon Dave, please stop. If he does as you suggest then all the fun will be gone.
If only that were true.

But, as we have seen, the UCI alone is good for decades of this shyte.

I keep hoping he is a rational guy, and will put that particular episode to bed.

Dave.
 
Aug 1, 2009
329
0
0
D-Queued said:
1. Thank you for confirming that you believe Floyd doped
Putting words in my mouth, something of a habit you have, DQ, misrepresenting a position and then knocking it down as a straw-man. It's a bully's debate strategy. Enjoy yourself.

Here I'm considering theories about the testosterone test reports that were being discussed. (1) Is that he didn't know he was getting T when he was, encompassing several theories including the 'helpful' masseuse; (2) Is that he's still lying, I hope not to spare my feelings; (3) is the blood theory that I've historically discounted as being inconsistent with alternate B samples.

The main issue for me was the testosterone charge, and how that was determined and adjudicated. I'm not going to argue about other stuff that was not part of the charges at the time -- and there were no actual charges of EPO, transfusion, HGH etc. made, and there was no Passport system in place.

2. Way back when, you had suggested that your best guess was a messed up/contaminated transfusion. Interesting to see your change of opinion. Can you provide any insight into why you have changed?
Nope, I've argued against that every time it's come up. If you'd go back and actually read the "what we think" article that wrapped it up, you might find a lot of common ground, but you seem more interested in grinding your axe with me.

3. A messed up test is still grasping at straws. The possibility can never be discounted, but the probability is so remote that the argument is futile. Especially with Floyd admitting he doped, and the prevalence of Testosterone usage, it is foolish.]
OK, I'm a fool. I've stared at the IRMS stuff enough not to be convinced there wasn't something odd going on. We'll just have to differ on this.

4. When it comes to the results documentation at the lab, it would still be beneficial to have the investigation of hacking at a conclusive stage. Do you have any update there?
As far as I know, there's a domestic-France investigation, and no evidence of pursuit past boundaries. That says it's only being pursued to a point, and not very urgently. Haven't heard lately whether it is still open, or has lapsed for time.

5. Finally, consider the 'Truth' campaign doesn't it make sense to finally post the Epilog result on TBV? You know, "The Confession"?
That's been pretty accurately and widelyl covered don'tcha think?

You are obviously still paying the registration/maintenance fee for the site. Thus, until it is updated to show the subject's final statement it is perpetuating the opposite of truth.

Dave.
You consistently present your opinion, and I consistently ignore what I consider baiting. That's unlikely to change.

I said TBV was done when I closed it, and leave it as a reference for anyone interested. It's history. The site costs nothing (thanks Google!) to keep alive, and the domain registration is $9 a year which isn't even lunch money, so don't cry for me on that account.

-dB
 
dbrower said:
Putting words in my mouth, something of a habit you have, DQ, misrepresenting a position and then knocking it down as a straw-man. It's a bully's debate strategy. Enjoy yourself.

Here I'm considering theories about the testosterone test reports that were being discussed. (1) Is that he didn't know he was getting T when he was, encompassing several theories including the 'helpful' masseuse; (2) Is that he's still lying, I hope not to spare my feelings; (3) is the blood theory that I've historically discounted as being inconsistent with alternate B samples.

The main issue for me was the testosterone charge, and how that was determined and adjudicated. I'm not going to argue about other stuff that was not part of the charges at the time -- and there were no actual charges of EPO, transfusion, HGH etc. made, and there was no Passport system in place.

Nope, I've argued against that every time it's come up. If you'd go back and actually read the "what we think" article that wrapped it up, you might find a lot of common ground, but you seem more interested in grinding your axe with me.

OK, I'm a fool. I've stared at the IRMS stuff enough not to be convinced there wasn't something odd going on. We'll just have to differ on this.

As far as I know, there's a domestic-France investigation, and no evidence of pursuit past boundaries. That says it's only being pursued to a point, and not very urgently. Haven't heard lately whether it is still open, or has lapsed for time.

That's been pretty accurately and widelyl covered don'tcha think?

You consistently present your opinion, and I consistently ignore what I consider baiting. That's unlikely to change.

I said TBV was done when I closed it, and leave it as a reference for anyone interested. It's history. The site costs nothing (thanks Google!) to keep alive, and the domain registration is $9 a year which isn't even lunch money, so don't cry for me on that account.

-dB
Thanks for responding.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted, misstated, or overstated your beliefs with respect to whether or not Floyd doped.

I am sure I could quote your DPF post, however, on the transfusion. You are right, though, I did not re-read the "what we think" article. But I do remember that one post because you could have knocked me over with a feather.

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong. And, I gave you big marks for that concession.

Yet, you, the person behind the number one Floyd information site, are leaving out the biggest single event in the entire story.

You covered EVERYTHING (well, not everything, but a lot of stuff), but are now proposing that "That's been pretty accurately and widelyl covered don'tcha think?" and not covering this most important Epilog event yourself?

All of the information you included, and you omit the single most important piece?

Here is one of the reviews of your site: "Incredible, informative and heroically thorough site on everything..."

Ok, well everything but the most important thing.

As for bullying and baiting, are you serious?

You (!) ran a very public site. You (!) campaigned stridently in support of Floyd.

The phrase, "For more in-depth daily coverage, go to trustbut.blogspot.com" has 30,000 hits on Google. You have the top-ranked item on Ask.com for "gotten off on a technicality"

I trust that you do not regard that as an overstatement or misstatement. You were widely lauded for your efforts, and your site reached far and wide.

If you cannot take criticism of that campaign, and ownership for your role, then what were you thinking when you started?

Dave.
 
Aug 1, 2009
329
0
0
D-Queued said:
Thanks for responding.


If you cannot take criticism of that campaign, and ownership for your role, then what were you thinking when you started?

Dave.
I can, and do take the criticism, or I wouldn't be here at all. I was thinking, "this is interesting, what can I find out?" and got a lot more than I imagined possible, and no regrets given the information available at the time.

Having said to the man's face, "if you did it, you're effing stupid to defend yourself like this", I'm not going to be made to feel guilty by the likes of you. I don't take it personally that he lied to so many people, because I get lied to a lot by lots of people. It's not about me.

-dB
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
dbrower said:
I can, and do take the criticism, or I wouldn't be here at all. I was thinking, "this is interesting, what can I find out?" and got a lot more than I imagined possible, and no regrets given the information available at the time.

Having said to the man's face, "if you did it, you're effing stupid to defend yourself like this", I'm not going to be made to feel guilty by the likes of you. I don't take it personally that he lied to so many people, because I get lied to a lot by lots of people. It's not about me.

-dB
So what if you said that to him? What does that have to do with you defending the undefendable up until the admission, and now refusing to post a mea culpa on your website?

"If you did it, you're stupid to defend yourself like this" yet he took it almost the whole way, while people like you gamefully followed along with hooks in their mouths.

And you still quibble over technicalities. As I posted in the confusing thead started today by the hog, he still holds out with the "I doped but didn't do that" to give people like you cover and reationalize in his head the ride he took the rubes on.

Have you gotten back the money you donated yet as he has promised? If he wins the whistle blower case or writes a book, I am sure he will spend weeks writing checks. :rolleyes:
 
dbrower said:
I can, and do take the criticism, or I wouldn't be here at all. I was thinking, "this is interesting, what can I find out?" and got a lot more than I imagined possible, and no regrets given the information available at the time.

Having said to the man's face, "if you did it, you're effing stupid to defend yourself like this", I'm not going to be made to feel guilty by the likes of you. I don't take it personally that he lied to so many people, because I get lied to a lot by lots of people. It's not about me.

-dB
Hi db,

Then I am not giving you enough credit.

Please consider that, intended or not, you became an important part of the story.

That is not a strawman with which to try and bring you down. It is an observation based upon the facts. Your site did far more than Arnie's powerpoint could have ever hoped.

Here is the twist, and here is why this conversation belongs in this thread:

You were right. Floyd was "effing stupid". He turned out to be a false hero.

But, whether driven by anger, revenge, a need to put his soul at rest, or all of the above, he is now potentially more a hero than he could ever be.

If my own posting record is any guide, he turned me around 180 degrees.

I strongly believe that what he started a year ago, and has now been furthered by Tyler on 60 minutes, is the first real opportunity to do anything about the doping mess. Festina was a failure from the onset; quickly swept under the rug and the next dope-fueled, great white hope annointed as a sleight of hand ruse.

Should your site be re-opened ONLY to add the words from Floyd itself, it would:

1. Remain consistent with the spirit that it was started with
- Support of Floyd
- Trust, but verify, even when it comes to Floyd

2. Finish the story. Provide a true full-circle picture of the insidious nature of doping, and the nature of how the high performance athlete must balance their own morals with the drive necessary to succeed against all odds and all costs in a tainted environment

3. Put the focus where it ought to be, which is the larger picture

4. Reward all those contributors who had invested so much emotionally with a positive outcome

And, of course, it would get big praise from me. But, I imagine that isn't worth the price of a coffee.

Alternately, you can leave it as is. If so, it will continue to be a lightning rod on the duping that goes with doping. Same message, just from the negative rather than the positive.

Dave.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
dbrower said:
I can, and do take the criticism, or I wouldn't be here at all. I was thinking, "this is interesting, what can I find out?" and got a lot more than I imagined possible, and no regrets given the information available at the time.

Having said to the man's face, "if you did it, you're effing stupid to defend yourself like this", I'm not going to be made to feel guilty by the likes of you. I don't take it personally that he lied to so many people, because I get lied to a lot by lots of people. It's not about me.

-dB
Don't mind the nonsense. Your information is useful.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
shouldn't there have been some additional 60m material on LA airing yesterday?
I just woke up with good hopes of some new details, but no.
 
Nov 26, 2010
123
0
0
sniper said:
shouldn't there have been some additional 60m material on LA airing yesterday?
I just woke up with good hopes of some new details, but no.
They said no follow up. They are very pleased with the story and stand by the reporting. Gravy would have been nice.
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,486
0
0
sniper said:
shouldn't there have been some additional 60m material on LA airing yesterday?
I just woke up with good hopes of some new details, but no.
I found this a few days ago. But nothing seems to be coming forth:eek:

kmc Wed Jun 01, 2011 03:42 pm EDT

Folks, the story isn't over yet. Just wait for the next round of accusations and evidence that will probably come on June 6. Rumor has it that Scott Pelley has been given documents from the personal file of a former WADA official. The courier, Lucy Ramirez, personally gave them to Tyler Hamilton and has vouched for their authenticity.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
krebs303 said:
I found this a few days ago. But nothing seems to be coming forth:eek:
There is nothing to this. Lucy Ramirez was who supposedly gave the Bush National Guard papers to 60 Minutes.

as usual they smear the messenger so people will ignore the message
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,486
0
0
Race Radio said:
There is nothing to this. Lucy Ramirez was who supposedly gave the Bush National Guard papers to 60 Minutes.

as usual they smear the messenger so people will ignore the message
Thanks RR. I went looking around but never got the Lucy Ramirez connection.
 
Topangarider said:
Why was there no letter to SI asking for apology?
Didn't need one.

SI apologized profusely as soon as the story hit the newstands. And, they felt so bad that they donated all proceeds from all print sales for a month to Livestrong with a note to please apply it to jet fuel to speed the campaign.

Errr... Lance, Fabiani et al can't read. Didn't realize SI had run a story.

Dave.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY