what evidence can landis rely on ?

[palmerq]

i dont understand all of this so well... is there certainly a federal investigation going on? and if there is this is the americans? do they have any power to do anything if all the doping(if there was any) was done in europe... doping or whatever the illegal part is....... or do theyt work with the europeans..

 

[Love the Scenery]

i dont understand all of this so well... is there certainly a federal investigation going on? and if there is this is the americans? do they have any power to do anything if all the doping(if there was any) was done in europe... doping or whatever the illegal part is....... or do theyt work with the europeans..

I don't think there is a formal federal investigation occurring. Yes, it's the U.S. And yes, they can do something about it. American cyclists certainly doped in the U.S., and the feds can ask pro cyclists about who sold the drugs, who gave them the drugs, who advised them to dope, etc. But the most important thing is that they can force American riders to tell the truth.

 

[palmerq]

so they only have powers over the americans.... most of these incidents happened in europe so how can they find out if they lie? like this incident on the bus... if the bus driver is not american they cant really do so much there if the american cyclist deny everything? although it would be very risky to lie to these fellows i guess.

 

[scribe]

wow, what an astonishingly loaded quote! If Ms Schenk's testimony is sought, one and one will start adding up to two. My eyes are spinning round in my head.

Where do you find this stuff RR? You're a veritable database on who said what.

The quote of the amount of money has never been substantiated. I think it comes out of some book that was printed exclusively in French.

 

[Love the Scenery]

Truth hurts, lies hurt worse

although it would be very risky to lie to these fellows i guess.

That's the main point. If they lie now, and later on evidence came up, then they can be accused formally of lying and go to prison. That's why they won't lie.

 

[Green Tea]

A lot of fantasy thinking going on here.

LA will come out of this smelling of roses.

 

[Epicycle]

The quote of the amount of money has never been substantiated. I think it comes out of some book that was printed exclusively in French.

Schenk has given at least one interview to a German language news outlet where she stated the claim.

 

[Cloxxki]

Of the millions of fans Lance has in that formally god-fearing republic, most would probably prefer Lance's words over the bible's. I am not kidding.
People need a 21st century hero. Someone who is like them, but at the same time far above. Who wins races, more than others. Who authors books with great personal dram and understated heroism. Many women, many children. Someone leading the way in the media (oh, Tweet me one more time).
It's called religion. It's the country of OMG. The country where nothing is real, and the truth is seoldom spoken.
I am European, but until a year, maybe 2 ago, I wanted to believe in Lance. Until less than a year ago, I believed in man-caused global warming through CO2.
I wanted to believe in Landis even more. His story, or bonking the one day, and soloing the next totally makes sense physiologically to me. What a way to lose, and then win the Tour. Turns out he was sucked in. Probably did it to be allowed to stay on the scene. It turned against him.

If I were Landis, I'd probably come up with memories of which dope certain riders were on, and which of their urine/blood samples would be worth investigating, for a narrow selection of PED's. Get one out of three right, and you are clearly not making things up.

Lance is making millions off people needing a hero, while beaing a liar. He deserves to go down. Wow, 2 years ago I would not expect to ever say that.

I'll repeat another statement I made today, Lance probably IS the most talented rider of the past 2 decades, but I don't think he won so easily, so often, cleanly. Heroism and evil meet at a knife's edge.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I thought in an interview ages ago that lance said he had paid money to the uci but then told that it was not the interviewer's business.

 

[LargusMeans]

Is there any chance of doing retroactive tests on B-samples from his early tour victories? I know that it was claimed to have happened, but if the doubts are there, why not just say, "We are going to test LAs B-samples from 98/99/00 and see if we find EPO?." That would answer alot of questions very fast.

 

[Epicycle]

I thought in an interview ages ago that lance said he had paid money to the uci but then told that it was not the interviewer's business.

In the sworn testimony Lance gave in the SCA court case he said he thought it was $25,000. Yesterday in the radio interview linked in the post stickied at the top of this forum Pat McQuaid said Lance gave $100,000. Sylvia Schenk was an administrator at the UCI and she says it was $500,000. I know who I believe, Schenk has shown a lot of credibility throughout her career, a lot more than Armstrong or McQuaid.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

Actually, Landis does not need to have evidence - his testimony can be the basis for an investigation that uncovers evidence. This is what happened with Manzano, and it resulted in operacion Puerto.

The only problem is Landis in not a credible person in court. The man wrote a book about his innocence and how unfair his situation was. He could have perjury charges brought against him if a lawyer is willing to bring the case up, which may happen.

 

[Cerberus]

Is there any chance of doing retroactive tests on B-samples from his early tour victories? I know that it was claimed to have happened, but if the doubts are there, why not just say, "We are going to test LAs B-samples from 98/99/00 and see if we find EPO?." That would answer alot of questions very fast.

They could probably do that, but I believe the stature of limitation is 8 years. Also LA didn't ride the 1998 Tour, he made his comeback to the Tour in 1999.

 

[Publicus]

They could probably do that, but I believe the stature of limitation is 8 years. Also LA didn't ride the 1998 Tour, he made his comeback to the Tour in 1999.

The statute of limitations is not relevant. If any of those retroactively tested samples came up positive, it would instantly impeach Armstrong's credibility.

 

[Cerberus]

The statute of limitations is not relevant. If any of those retroactively tested samples came up positive, it would instantly impeach Armstrong's credibility.

Obviously, I didn't mean to suggest it had no relevance at all, simply that it couldn't form the basis for a suspension. The fact that the charge has expired might also make it harder to justify doing the test, or easier to justify not doing it. If the charges of corruption in the UCI are true, though those are the parts of the allegations I'm most sceptical about, then obviously they would want to find reasons to not let the scandal roll.

 

[stephens]

There needs to be actual evidence - not just testimony. Even to get people on perjury, they're going to have to come up with actual evidence to prove the lies, right? I mean, at some point they have to prove who is telling the truth and who isn't: they shouldn't be able to use testimony from one guy saying, "I saw him dope," to prove the other guy was lying when he said he didn't dope. He said, she said.

But overall, what the general public, and even the sports fan, wants is actual rule violations proven by the testing authorities. Failed tests. Without that, the whole thing is just a lot of talk and the defense of, "How come he never failed a test," trumps all.

That's why the only claim in Landis' statements that really counts is the one of the coverup regarding the positive test at Tour de Suisse. Landis says 2002 when Lance didn't even ride it though, which wipes out trust in the diaries Landis claims he kept at the time because if they were truly diaries from that time, he'd have the date right and only could have gotten wrong because he's writing stuff down now many years later. But regardless, if actual proof of this test result and a payoff can be shown, it would mean something.

Here's the deal: most people believe some version of, "It's not cheating if you don't get caught." It's because of the way the West has set up their religions and governments and thus the overall culture. Rules have been created and then penalties for violating those rules. People don't spend any time talking about the fact that the rule should be followed because it leads to a better personal or societal outcome. They just say that one should follow the rule because if he doesn't the penalty is severe (he's going to hell, he's going to jail, or he's paying a fine). It's just a contract.

And thus all we agree to as citizens is not so much that we'll follow the rule, but that we agree that if we break the rule, and are caught in such a way that seems fair and square and doesn't violate our human rights, then we must suffer the penalty.

So we all go around living our lives breaking the "rules" of business or relationships or law every single day: and as long as we are prepared to pay the penalties if caught, we consider ourselves to still be righteous and living by the overall concept of the rules.

Accusations from neighbors or coworkers and the like don't count. Even self confessions are less than satisfying. People just don't see it as a true rule violation until the body responsible for enforcing those rules actually catches the violator. That's when the rule was actually broken and the penalty must be paid.

But if one was legitimately caught and then tried to bribe their way out of it or used their influence to get out of paying the penalty that we'd have to pay if we were caught, then we get upset. So that "cover up" allegation is the one and only allegation that the public is likely to give a **** about.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

There needs to be actual evidence - not just testimony..... Failed tests. Without that, the whole thing is just a lot of talk and the defense of, "How come he never failed a test," trumps all.

There does need to be a high standard of evidence for sanctions or criminal convictions to happen. But it's really too soon to know if anything will come out. The only thing we can look at is whether Landis claims have any credibility, because obviously Landis' personal credibility is low.

IMO, the number of people implicated who have not made any outright denials, and the response of LA, JB and radioshack, add a lot of credibility to Landis' allegations. All the historical stuff about cycling in general and LA/JB/USPS also adds a lot of credibility, but I'm absolutely sure you don't need me to explain that too you. (I also doubt you need me to tell you that it's debatable whether Landis is describing a race which happened in 2002, or a conversation which happened in 2002, about a race in 2001.)

.... most people believe some version of, "It's not cheating if you don't get caught." .... People don't spend any time talking about the fact that the rule should be followed because it leads to a better personal or societal outcome. They just say that one should follow the rule because if he doesn't the penalty is severe.... It's just a contract.

This is a digression but: Most people have a conscience and will follow rules that they believe have a moral justification, because of the personal or societal outcome, not because of the possible penalty. It's only the rules that they think are stupid BS that they treat as a contract. The problem is that most people think the anti doping rules have good moral justification, and most cyclists don't agree. That's why when someone gets busted and pushed out of cycling, back into the wider community, it's like dropping them into a meat grinder. It's ugly, and it wont end unless doping in cycling ceases to be the norm, or wider society decides that drugs are not a problem.

I think you are trying to bring Mohammad to the mountain

But if one was legitimately caught and then tried to bribe their way out of it or used their influence to get out of paying the penalty that we'd have to pay if we were caught, then we get upset. So that "cover up" allegation is the one and only allegation that the public is likely to give a **** about.

If one was thoroughly exposed and then used their influence to get out of paying the penalty, then people would get upset too. I think people would be pretty upset if they understood the difference between what LA publicly claimed about the SCA trial, and what the outcome actually depended on. It wouldn't take any sanctions or convictions either. All it would take is for the public to understand the credibility of Landis' claims, and they really are credible.

Getting Lance out of cycling and out of his public hero role, sends a clear message that it doesn't matter how big you are or who you can bribe, doping can still bite you on the @rse. I truly believe that message could help with a gradual process of change in the cycling culture.

 

[turtlesoup]

How many years later is it and valverde is still riding? lance will have retired for the 5th time with needles tattooed on his forearms before a ban/titles are striped.

 

[BroDeal]

One piece of evidence that I don't think has been mentioned is the Vaughters-Andreu Internet chat. Vaughters must have talked to either Flandis or to a a friend of Flandis, probably Zabriskie, to have known about the transfusions. That conversation must have taken place long before FLandis was busted at the 2006 Tour.

 

[stephens]

I think when most of us say "evidence," we are talking about physical evidence and not just human testimony about what they claim to have seen or read about or heard about. We want some sort of test result or at least paper/financial trail that can overcome the "he said, she said," nature of typical allegations.

 

[BroDeal]

I think when most of us say "evidence," we are talking about physical evidence and not just human testimony about what they claim to have seen or read about or heard about. We want some sort of test result or at least paper/financial trail that can overcome the "he said, she said," nature of typical allegations.

It is really easy for me to win arguments when I get to define the types of evidence that I will accept.

 

[stephens]

This thread started by asking what kind of evidence other than allegations can be brought in, so that's what we should discuss here if we want to stay on topic. I figure there are plenty of threads that focus on "testimony", where we can discuss that kind of thing.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Fair enough. So far AFAIK there is no evidence that Flandis can rely on.

Only time will tell what evidence may come up in future, and if anyone will provide a testimony - which is legal evidence, as opposed to a public statement.

One can only assume that, if the anti doping authorities or feds continue to peruse Flandis' allegation, they must have reason to believe that the evidence to make a case will come out in time.

Edit: I wonder if the moto foto shows the registration plate....that might be quite useful evidence.

 

[theswordsman]

But if one was legitimately caught and then tried to bribe their way out of it or used their influence to get out of paying the penalty that we'd have to pay if we were caught, then we get upset. So that "cover up" allegation is the one and only allegation that the public is likely to give a **** about.

It's well documented that Lance himself said he gave the UCI money - he put the figure at $25,000 - others said it was more. In the interview before the crash, a guy asked him point blank if he ever gave the UCI money. He said no. The huy is an experienced liar, but he contradicts himself all the time. He can't get away with it this time.

Once this thing gets going, I wouldn't be surprised if some long-time cycling journos get involved. There are people who've been around riders on a daily basis, in the hotels and on the elevators. But their publications can't afford to lose advertisers. They tend to hold their tongues until someone is busted, and then they step forward. I'm guessing a couple or three of them might answer some questions.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

The quote of the amount of money has never been substantiated. I think it comes out of some book that was printed exclusively in French.

Book can be read here.