Tyler's Book

[Mr.38%]

"...then he gently rubbed the c...ream on my arm. At first it felt a bit cold, but I learned to love that sweet sensation in the morning."

 

[soverylarry]

David Walsh made $55,000 on Lance to Landis

I don't doubt that's true, i can only show U.S. sales. But if he got $55,000 as an advance for the U.S. publishing rights, then his publisher took a bath as you can see. But that's not unusual, most books don't earn back their publishers advance. The 20% - 40% that do each season have to make up for the 'dogs' that don't just like the movie business.

 

[thehog]

"...then he gently rubbed the c...ream on my arm. At first it felt a bit cold, but I learned to love that sweet sensation in the morning."

“Lance asked me to open my mouth and close my eyes. Slowly he dipped what tasted like murky fluid under my tongue. He said swallow. And that was that. I doped for the first time – Lance said it was only doping and not anything else. Each and every time I had to keep my eyes closed”

 

[mewmewmew13]

Morals? really? so his trying to ,make money at someone elses expense is your idea of morals? well this is America. Seems to me that someone trying to "get something off their chest" takes personal responsibility for their actions and doesnt indulge in finger pointing. His self serving agenda has been obvious from the start.When i saw 60 minutes i didnt say wheres the beef I thought,"wheres the book?" Now, here it is. Such a surprise! Landis beat him to the punch by filing in federal court for whatever "reward" there is for blowing the whistle on Armstrong. Landis was "helped:" in hsi court filing by the two lawyers thta re[presented Lemond....just a coincidence folks... Once again that was an action by an idividual who said he "Just wanted to come clean" yet pointed the finger just coincidentally of course before the start of the tour of california and the tour de france. Jeez noithign self serving about that eh? He aslo tol Armstrong and Bruyneel if they could get hsi team into tour of califiro he would keep quiet..now theres some morals for you!
It surprises me that so many look at these two self serving weasels and hold them as as some moral arbiters bu tin fact being washed up they are not so much interested in coming clean as cleaning up at the expense of others. Hardly a moral stance. at least they make their accusation in the light of day and dont hide behind psuedonymes.

wow.
Hvae a nice dy....



btw sorry about your accident

 

[mewmewmew13]

“Lance asked me to open my mouth and close my eyes. Slowly he dipped what tasted like murky fluid under my tongue. He said swallow. And that was that. I doped for the first time – Lance said it was only doping and not anything else. Each and every time I had to keep my eyes closed”

There it is....proof
Lance was in charge of the charge

 

[Elagabalus]

My take: struggling desperately to be funny, and failing. There is such a thing as sophomoric humor well executed, and this is not it.

Well said. Who needs content when you can just tell a couple of d!ck jokes!

 

[Speedzero]

Oh, he wouldn't have to spend a dime defending himself against this much less $2 M.

Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," was about to languish in obscurity until that jackas$ bill o'reilly persuaded faux to sue Franken.

The book, (very funny btw) shot right up to number 1. Armstrong or anyone else would have to be insane to sue Hamilton. I'm sure right now, as I write this, Hamilton is praying for a lawsuit from some imbecile.

Some First Amendment lawyer would no doubt take this on a contingency and the case would be summarily dismissed and literally laughed out of court as was o'reilly's idiocy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/n...hter-at-fox-and-a-victory-for-al-franken.html

In short, you've got to be effing kidding me.

Nope, not kidding.

We're talking about whether Tyler's book will really name names and air the dirty laundry or whether the fear of litigation will inhibit him.

If the book does say "I saw so-and-so doping" there might well be a lawsuit. The plaintiff would say Tyler had no proof and that the accusation had destroyed his livelihood or some such. And there would be no reason to laugh it out of court. A doping accusation can destroy someone's livelihood. Tyler's accusations would be very serious ones. This is completely different from Fox suing Franken because he made them look bad or silly.

And, BTW: "some First Amendment lawyer would no doubt take this on a contingency"? That makes no sense. A contingency means that when you sue somebody, and win money damages, you share them with your lawyer. Tyler and his publisher wouldn't be suing anyone -- they would be getting sued. If they won, that would merely mean they didn't have to pay the plaintiff money. Not that they would be getting money.

 

[DominicDecoco]

"...then he gently rubbed the c...ream on my arm. At first it felt a bit cold, but I learned to love that sweet sensation in the morning."

“Lance asked me to open my mouth and close my eyes. Slowly he dipped what tasted like murky fluid under my tongue. He said swallow. And that was that. I doped for the first time – Lance said it was only doping and not anything else. Each and every time I had to keep my eyes closed”

Cracked me up.

 

[Neworld]

sorry to one and all for my abusnmal typing i am leaglleally blind after head injuuries casued by a motoriust who ran me over when eh came thru a stop soign at 60mph...noenhtesll .

That sounds a lot like Stainlessguy...are you the same person? Sorry if you're not.

 

[tofino]

Truth is the defence

Truth is an absolute defence. If the publisher's lawyer reviewed everything and double/triple checked the sources someone can lawyer up all they want but if (multiple) people/sources are brave enough to go on the record and appear in court (if needed) the gig is up.

We'll see what happens once the book hits the stores.

Nope, not kidding.

We're talking about whether Tyler's book will really name names and air the dirty laundry or whether the fear of litigation will inhibit him.

If the book does say "I saw so-and-so doping" there might well be a lawsuit. The plaintiff would say Tyler had no proof and that the accusation had destroyed his livelihood or some such. And there would be no reason to laugh it out of court. A doping accusation can destroy someone's livelihood. Tyler's accusations would be very serious ones. This is completely different from Fox suing Franken because he made them look bad or silly.

And, BTW: "some First Amendment lawyer would no doubt take this on a contingency"? That makes no sense. A contingency means that when you sue somebody, and win money damages, you share them with your lawyer. Tyler and his publisher wouldn't be suing anyone -- they would be getting sued. If they won, that would merely mean they didn't have to pay the plaintiff money. Not that they would be getting money.

 

[thehog]

Cracked me up.

The Domestique
Updated:**20/07/2012
Status:**In Development
Category:**Feature

Teaser: The Domestique is set in the world of pro-cycling and centers around the Tour de France, which is the most-watched annual sporting event in the world, and the third most-watched overall after the quadrennial Olympics and FIFA World Cup.

Synopsis: An original story, the film follows the trials of a veteran pro cyclist, banned for blood doping, who's trying to pick up the pieces after devoting his life to the sport at a huge personal cost. He fights his way back onto a struggling team and gets one last chance to finish the Tour, one of sport's most gruelling challenges, trying to win back his estranged wife and son in the process.

http://if.com.au/2012/07/20/inprod/The-Domestique/GSYPNBMFSN.html

 

[Blakeslee]

I certainly would have loved to see riders like Hamilton and Landis come forward with the truth when they initially tested positive instead of waiting so long to come clean. The unfortunate reality is these riders ended up faced with another decision similar to the one Jonathan Vaughters talked about in his op-ed piece. Do they continue to lie about their drug use and maybe get another opportunity to ride with a division one team or do they come clean and essentially be black balled, throwing away a lifetime of work put in to get to the top level? Although these riders share in the guilt for the collective doping culture that led to these kind of situations, I still have some sympathy for riders who were faced with these kinds of decisions.

 

[BroDeal]

I certainly would have loved to see riders like Hamilton and Landis come forward with the truth when they initially tested positive instead of waiting so long to come clean. The unfortunate reality is these riders ended up faced with another decision similar to the one Jonathan Vaughters talked about in his op-ed piece. Do they continue to lie about their drug use and maybe get another opportunity to ride with a division one team or do they come clean and essentially be black balled, throwing away a lifetime of work put in to get to the top level? Although these riders share in the guilt for the collective doping culture that led to these kind of situations, I still have some sympathy for riders who were faced with these kinds of decisions.

It is more complicated than that because both riders were probably being counseled that they could beat the rap. Landis was in a particularily bad situation in that he had to have hip surgery and did not know if he would ever be able to race at the top level again. Hamilton was in a different situation because up until him, riders were able to come back after a suspension and no one really cared.

You have hit on an issue that makes what Millar and Wiggins have said about this a distortion of what it was like when Landis fought the charges.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It is more complicated than that because both riders were probably being counseled that they could beat the rap. Landis was in a particularily bad situation in that he had to have hip surgery and did not know if he would ever be able to race at the top level again. Hamilton was in a different situation because up until him, riders were able to come back after a suspension and no one really cared.

You have hit on an issue that makes what Millar and Wiggins have said about this a distortion of what it was like when Landis fought the charges.

Both riders most likely had Lance and his cohorts counselling them that they could beat the rap. If they had we might not be having this discussion now. Who knows what really went wrong?

 

[BroDeal]

Both riders most likely had Lance and his cohorts counselling them that they could beat the rap. If they had we might not be having this discussion now. Who knows what really went wrong?

I keep thinking of the corrupt Congressman Dan Rostenkowski. He was not anymore corrupt than his fellow politicians. He stayed in office a long time, and during that time what a pol could get away with changed. One of his colleagues described his downfall as "the road turned but he kept going straight." Hamilton and Landis had it worse in that their actions made the road turn. They could not look ahead to see whether they should turn or not.

 

[Jeremiah]

Nope, not kidding.

We're talking about whether Tyler's book will really name names and air the dirty laundry or whether the fear of litigation will inhibit him.

If the book does say "I saw so-and-so doping" there might well be a lawsuit. The plaintiff would say Tyler had no proof and that the accusation had destroyed his livelihood or some such. And there would be no reason to laugh it out of court. A doping accusation can destroy someone's livelihood. Tyler's accusations would be very serious ones. This is completely different from Fox suing Franken because he made them look bad or silly.

And, BTW: "some First Amendment lawyer would no doubt take this on a contingency"? That makes no sense. A contingency means that when you sue somebody, and win money damages, you share them with your lawyer. Tyler and his publisher wouldn't be suing anyone -- they would be getting sued. If they won, that would merely mean they didn't have to pay the plaintiff money. Not that they would be getting money.

Tyler doesn't need proof. The plaintiff must prove Hamilton knowingly made false statements. Being the truth is an absolute defense and there would be a parade of witnesses affirming Hamilton's statements, AND that USADA is going to ban Armstrong, please tell me where he faces ANY risk at all by naming names????

You don't think there would be a counter claim by Hamilton? Are you kidding? First off, nobody is stupid enough to sue Hamilton.

Secondly he's praying it happens as it would be disasterous for anyone to go after him for libel. But you go on ahead!

 

[GJB123]

sorry to one and all for my abusnmal typing i am leaglleally blind ....

Well at least that explains why you think the cover photo shows Lemond when actually it shows Tyler Hamilton (and I have 20/20 sight so trust me on this one, )

Regards
GJ

 

[rickshaw]

Here's an Idea

Wait for the book to come out.
READ the book
Then discuss it.

pretty radical I know but....

 

[Benotti69]

Miller have a lot more credability imo. Hamilton and his story about unborn twin doesnt exactly boost his credability. In addition he is bitter and to boost earning he would be tempted to make things a little more dramatic. That said, there should be alot of interesting stuff in there.

Millar, lot more credibility? Where did you get that idea? Millar was caught with empty EPO vials. What was he gonna say? He had to hold his hands up and admit. If he didn't he was gonna do time in a French Jail.

The amount of BS that Millar speaks, it would've been fun to hear his excuse if he was caught like Landis or Hamilton.

 

[noddy69]

Wait for the book to come out.
READ the book
Then discuss it.

pretty radical I know but....

Now that would just spoil all the fun. Why let facts like what is actually in the book get in the way of some good stories about what might be in the book.

As for that pic of lemonde on the cover.....who says he didnt dope,he has taken so much testosterone in that pic he looks just like Lance !!!!

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Guardian fanboy Matt Seaton writes about replica jerseys tainted by doping, and neglects to mention USPS, but does have multiple digs at Tyler.

Pathetic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/aug/14/top-six-cycling-team-jerseys-not-to-wear

 

[thehog]

I certainly would have loved to see riders like Hamilton and Landis come forward with the truth when they initially tested positive instead of waiting so long to come clean. The unfortunate reality is these riders ended up faced with another decision similar to the one Jonathan Vaughters talked about in his op-ed piece. Do they continue to lie about their drug use and maybe get another opportunity to ride with a division one team or do they come clean and essentially be black balled, throwing away a lifetime of work put in to get to the top level? Although these riders share in the guilt for the collective doping culture that led to these kind of situations, I still have some sympathy for riders who were faced with these kinds of decisions.

Coming forward when they tested positive stating “I only doped this one time” is still lying. Most riders could get away with that type of lie.

Former USPS riders didn’t really have a choice. By saying they doped only once would have opened another Pandora’s box. Do you think anyone would have believed it?

There was the other dichotomy that when they looked around the entire peloton all they saw was doping.

When they looked at the governing body all they saw was enablement.

It was never as clean cut as truth and lying. Never.

The biggest mistake Landis and Hamilton made was listening to Armstrong.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Wait for the book to come out.
READ the book
Then discuss it.

pretty radical I know but....

Yea, this is what I am waiting for. It is going to be hell trying to read that along with my reading load for school, but I don't think I will want to wait.

 

[Benotti69]

Guardian fanboy Matt Seaton writes about replica jerseys tainted by doping, and neglects to mention USPS, but does have multiple digs at Tyler.

Pathetic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/aug/14/top-six-cycling-team-jerseys-not-to-wear

Guy's a pathetic joke.

 

[sniper]

Guy's a pathetic joke.

I love how you always call a duck a duck.