Massive Landis interview

iainf72

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/13939.0.html

There are a few ROFL's in it for me. But he does have a point.

From my point of view, the problem that is taking cycling backwards and not forwards is that it's becoming polarized. You have teams like Team High Horse, or whatever they're called these days, and Jonathan Vaughters' team, and they are saying we don't care about winning, we just want to be clean and so it's okay with us to get whatever place we get because we're not doping. You know what? That's one of the most offensive things you could ever say. That immediately accuses everyone who finishes ahead you of doping. That's hypocrisy. That's asinine. They have to stop saying that. It's all fine and good that they are against doping, but for them to say we're not interested in winning, we're just interested in being clean is an accusation of anyone that is better than them.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Well, I don't agree with Landis there. He's putting his own spin on what could and ought to be construed as an attempt to take pressure off riders to win at all costs, especially the younger ones. It's not an insult to anyone. Weird. Anyway, coming from a man who had his minions intimidate a witness in a doping hearing you've got to take anything he says about dishing out insults with a pinch of salt I'd say he's the pot calling the kettle black.

iainf72

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Well, I don't agree with Landis there. He's putting his own spin on what could and ought to be construed as an attempt to take pressure off riders to win at all costs, especially the younger ones. It's not an insult to anyone. Weird.

Ahhh, but it's professional sport - Winning is what counts, not being a nice person or "playing fair"

But that's my mindset - I'd never race because I couldn't win so why bother.

drenkrom

I'm totally with iain on this one. You don't get to the pro level without a win-win-win mentality. And once you're there, winning is the main point of this whole racing thing. The "we don't care about winning" talk is 100% complete bull, as High Road demonstrated in the Down Under Classic.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Yes, of course they are interested in winning. But I'd prefer them to be saying it's not at all costs! The world really is going mad.

Ste_S

iainf72 wrote:

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Well, I don't agree with Landis there. He's putting his own spin on what could and ought to be construed as an attempt to take pressure off riders to win at all costs, especially the younger ones. It's not an insult to anyone. Weird.

Ahhh, but it's professional sport - Winning is what counts, not being a nice person or "playing fair"

But that's my mindset - I'd never race because I couldn't win so why bother.

Because you might enjoy it ?

iainf72

Ste_S wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

But that's my mindset - I'd never race because I couldn't win so why bother.

Because you might enjoy it ?

If I can't win, I wouldn't enjoy it. I'm a bit like that.

leguape

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Well, I don't agree with Landis there. He's putting his own spin on what could and ought to be construed as an attempt to take pressure off riders to win at all costs, especially the younger ones. It's not an insult to anyone. Weird. Anyway, coming from a man who had his minions intimidate a witness in a doping hearing you've got to take anything he says about dishing out insults with a pinch of salt I'd say he's the pot calling the kettle black.

See, that's the problem. Landis was as surprised as anyone to discover his manager had been crank calling Lemond and sacked him. Nowhere is it evidenced that Landis was involved in attempting to intimidate witnesses to the hearing. But you feel free to keep on libelling the man.

I agree with Iain, Landis is spot on about the attitude that says that efffectively anyone who beats us must be held under suspicion of doping. It's a handy rod they've made for their own backs though.

Richrd2205

Is it not just spin, selective quoting and dodgy inferences?
"it is an outstanding opportunity for our team to showcase our talented roster and capable staff" (from here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... jan21news2 ) from JV is hardly saying anything like what Mr Landis is accusing him of, is it? If any of us read of a professional continental team talking of winning everything, we might all be a bit suspicious (Rock Racing, anyone?). IMO, Slipstream are being realistic in their projected goals for the season, which is different from saying we're the best non-doping team. Whether the individuals in the team have a desire to win is a separate question again. Mr Landis is rather mangling this:
"so it's okay with us to get whatever place we get because we're not doping" (isn't really what's being said, it's rather that success is being downplayed, which I'd do if I was the DS of a team with that roster racing in Grand Tours against CSC, Astana, Caisse D'Epargne (sp?) No-one gets upset with Agritubel not claiming they're going to win everything, do they?)
"That immediately accuses everyone who finishes ahead you of doping" is quite clearly a selective and flawed inference based on a dodgy premise
"but for them to say we're not interested in winning, we're just interested in being clean" is an dodgy extrapolation of a dodgy inference at best, pure fantasy at worst, not something I'd want to base an argument on... I certainly can't remember anyone saying that they were not interested in winning: that they might not be able to, certainly, but this is different.
I can't see any team holding onto sponsorship for very long if they're not getting a decent showing & High Road have shown how they're not interested in winning in the Australian Crit at the weekend, haven't they?
Whether winning is everything is another argument again, Iain & I suspect the answer is down to personal preference. It certainly isn't the only view that can bring success...

iainf72

Richrd2205 wrote:

I can't see any team holding onto sponsorship for very long if they're not getting a decent showing & High Road have shown how they're not interested in winning in the Australian Crit at the weekend, haven't they?
Whether winning is everything is another argument again, Iain & I suspect the answer is down to personal preference. It certainly isn't the only view that can bring success...

They did say last year that winning wasn't important and racing clean was - That was under the T-Mobile guise. To be fair, I don't believe JV has every said anything like that.

You're right though, it's a personal thing. If I was a pro cyclist I probably would've done whatever it took to win.

socrates

Dont see why anyone should listen to landis let alone give him space in any newspaper/magazine.

top_bhoy

leguape wrote:

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Well, I don't agree with Landis there. He's putting his own spin on what could and ought to be construed as an attempt to take pressure off riders to win at all costs, especially the younger ones. It's not an insult to anyone. Weird. Anyway, coming from a man who had his minions intimidate a witness in a doping hearing you've got to take anything he says about dishing out insults with a pinch of salt I'd say he's the pot calling the kettle black.

See, that's the problem. Landis was as surprised as anyone to discover his manager had been crank calling Lemond and sacked him.

I take it that the word of a liar and cheat and the man who has single-handedly tainted the sport of cycling more than any other individual before him, is to be believed. That conversation was a very private matter between 2 people - why did he even have to mention it to his manager? If he didn't set his manager onto Lemond, he has shown he lacks integrity as well as all the other attributes I've mentioned. A loathsome individual in my opinion.

Salsiccia

socrates wrote:

Dont see why anyone should listen to landis let alone give him space in any newspaper/magazine.

Why not? There are two sides to every story. You might not agree with one side of it, but he has a right to put his side. At least then everyone can make their own mind up instead of having it made up for us.

redddraggon

I can't see how you can't say you want to win. Even at the amateur level in most sports, winning means very little (who cares if a 3rd XV beats another 3rd XV?), but winning is still important to the players/athletes.

If you're not there to win and compete, what's the point?

I think the point should be to show you can win without doping

andy_wrx

I guess there's winning and winning.

I can sort of see what Iain means in that, at an 'ordinary person' amateur level,winning a head-to-head event, a direct race against your opponents, is going to be difficult unless you're genetically endowed, have age on your side, have the time to train rather than have to work for a living/have a family, etc.

So why bother to compete if all you're going to do is trail-in midfield or back-of-pack ?

Well don't : instead you can 'win' in an against-the-clock event like a TT or sportive or a running race by setting a good time, by beating your PB, etc.

You can then bring-in your own ethics of no drugs, good sportsmanship to your opponents, abiding to the spirit of the rules, etc.


But at the professional level, it's not 'sport' in the way it is for us amateur level 'ordinary people' - it's big business, big money, sponsorship, fame, etc.

At this level, winning is everything and those who come out on top will have a win-at-all-costs mentality : the Lance Armstrongs, Michael Schumachers, etc of this world, and they'll do whatever it takes...

dbg

The guy is a thoroughly nasty piece of work if you ask me - not that anyone is, just thought I'd throw my opinion in.

Richrd2205

iainf72 wrote:

They did say last year that winning wasn't important and racing clean was - That was under the T-Mobile guise. To be fair, I don't believe JV has every said anything like that.

You're right though, it's a personal thing. If I was a pro cyclist I probably would've done whatever it took to win.

To say that being clean is a higher priority than winning is utterly different from not being interested in winning but. Furthermore, it sounds like an excuse for not winning, of which there are many in sports and many are infinitely more laughable than this one. As you ably pointed out last year, PR/spin etc often differs from the reality on the ground in that team. My objection was more to Landis' terrible argument and the way he had twisted it to suit his own position than with your take on winning, which doesn't really affect me (unless I start doing well in PTP this year )

LangerDan

I think that Landis is ticked off because while he's been hung out to dry, several of his former teammates and compatriots (who in the past were lined up alongside Floyd gobbing in the minestrone) have been busy re-inventing themselves as keepers of the moral high roa... sorry, ground.

This "winning isn't everything" philosophy works as long as there is some Daddy Warbucks to bankroll the squad in lean times. If Doug Ellis was to sell his stake in Slipstream to some bog-standard commercial entity who wouldn't be as happy to support non-winners, Vaughters would have to do a very rapid reappraisal.

nick hanson

Top_Bhoy wrote:

leguape wrote:

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Well, I don't agree with Landis there. He's putting his own spin on what could and ought to be construed as an attempt to take pressure off riders to win at all costs, especially the younger ones. It's not an insult to anyone. Weird. Anyway, coming from a man who had his minions intimidate a witness in a doping hearing you've got to take anything he says about dishing out insults with a pinch of salt I'd say he's the pot calling the kettle black.

See, that's the problem. Landis was as surprised as anyone to discover his manager had been crank calling Lemond and sacked him.

I take it that the word of a liar and cheat and the man who has single-handedly tainted the sport of cycling more than any other individual before him, is to be believed. That conversation was a very private matter between 2 people - why did he even have to mention it to his manager? If he didn't set his manager onto Lemond, he has shown he lacks integrity as well as all the other attributes I've mentioned. A loathsome individual in my opinion.

Actually, Pedro Delgado was in front of FL on this one.Lets not forget he FAILED a Drugs test whilst wearing the yelow jersey (1988 if my memory serves me correctly).It turned out that the drug he tested positive for (a masking agent,I think) was on the banned list of the olympic committee,but not the UCI.This was rectified at the end of that year.
On this reasoning,Delgado has NO right to be remembered as a yellow jersey winner.At least Bjarne Riis offered to give his jersey back.....Oh,there's another rider who has single handedly tainted the sport more than any other before him.........................
Just where do you stop?
If FL upsets you so much,best pack it in before it sends you over the edge

skavanagh.bikeradar

Despite all the to-ing and fro-ing above I'm still quite happy in my own mind that I'd rather have the slipstream interpretation of things that of Landis.

Richrd2205

LangerDan wrote:

I think that Landis is ticked off because while he's been hung out to dry, several of his former teammates and compatriots (who in the past were lined up alongside Floyd gobbing in the minestrone) have been busy re-inventing themselves as keepers of the moral high roa... sorry, ground.

This "winning isn't everything" philosophy works as long as there is some Daddy Warbucks to bankroll the squad in lean times. If Doug Ellis was to sell his stake in Slipstream to some bog-standard commercial entity who wouldn't be as happy to support non-winners, Vaughters would have to do a very rapid reappraisal.

I'd agree with your first point, but I'm still unsure of the point of giving him large amounts of space to vent his spleen. I guess it sells magazines & generates hits on websites, which is far more important than a balanced view & a challenging interview...

Your second point I don't buy at all. I've seen lots & lots of really positive coverage of Slipstream & next to none of AG2R, despite the former only just having acquired professional continental status & the latter being pro tour & actually having won things. There are more ways to get coverage than simply winning. I'm sure Michael Ball is doing well in getting his brand associated with rebelliousness, again despite a pretty lowly status. Sponsorship is commercial not sporting, thus coverage in the right light is everything. Often that involves winning, sometimes it doesn't.

iainf72

Richrd2205 wrote:

Your second point I don't buy at all. I've seen lots & lots of really positive coverage of Slipstream & next to none of AG2R, despite the former only just having acquired professional continental status & the latter being pro tour & actually having won things. There are more ways to get coverage than simply winning.

You're of course using the english language press to form your opinion there and Slipstream have a lot of interest for the American / UK markets.

Richrd2205

Iain, yes, I'm distorting things slightly. Maybe T-Mob getting lots of negative coverage in their target markets would have been a fairer comparison?

iainf72

Richrd2205 wrote:

Iain, yes, I'm distorting things slightly. Maybe T-Mob getting lots of negative coverage in their target markets would have been a fairer comparison?

They got very good press early last year until the wheels came off and everyone realised their "program" was marketing nonsense.

It's such a hard thing to quantify.

top_bhoy

nick hanson wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

leguape wrote:

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Well, I don't agree with Landis there. He's putting his own spin on what could and ought to be construed as an attempt to take pressure off riders to win at all costs, especially the younger ones. It's not an insult to anyone. Weird. Anyway, coming from a man who had his minions intimidate a witness in a doping hearing you've got to take anything he says about dishing out insults with a pinch of salt I'd say he's the pot calling the kettle black.

See, that's the problem. Landis was as surprised as anyone to discover his manager had been crank calling Lemond and sacked him.

I take it that the word of a liar and cheat and the man who has single-handedly tainted the sport of cycling more than any other individual before him, is to be believed. That conversation was a very private matter between 2 people - why did he even have to mention it to his manager? If he didn't set his manager onto Lemond, he has shown he lacks integrity as well as all the other attributes I've mentioned. A loathsome individual in my opinion.

Actually, Pedro Delgado was in front of FL on this one.Lets not forget he FAILED a Drugs test whilst wearing the yelow jersey (1988 if my memory serves me correctly).It turned out that the drug he tested positive for (a masking agent,I think) was on the banned list of the olympic committee,but not the UCI.This was rectified at the end of that year.
On this reasoning,Delgado has NO right to be remembered as a yellow jersey winner.At least Bjarne Riis offered to give his jersey back.....Oh,there's another rider who has single handedly tainted the sport more than any other before him.........................
Just where do you stop?
If FL upsets you so much,best pack it in before it sends you over the edge

Maybe semantics but as you say yourself, Delgado, whilst I don't agree with his actions in any shape or form, still played within the UCI rules so he cannot be castigated in the same way and Bjarne Riis only came to light almost a year after the Landis disqualification, so whats your point? Landis, although not solely responsible, has played a huge part in bringing cycling to where it is today - a sport struggling for sponsors. If you're all too ready to defend such cheating and untrustworthy characters such as Landis, if you aren't already, a job as a lawyer beckons you!! :twisted:

andyp

leguape wrote:

See, that's the problem. Landis was as surprised as anyone to discover his manager had been crank calling Lemond and sacked him. Nowhere is it evidenced that Landis was involved in attempting to intimidate witnesses to the hearing. But you feel free to keep on libelling the man.

Landis admitted in his own testimony, i.e. under oath, that he'd been with Geogahan when he'd made the call. I think he'd struggle to get a charge of libel to stick on that one somehow.

Richrd2205

iainf72 wrote:

coverage in their target markets would have been a fairer comparison?

They got very good press early last year until the wheels came off and everyone realised their "program" was marketing nonsense.

It's such a hard thing to quantify.

Again, I agree. I was trying to make the broad point that it's not just winning that creates publicity & brand awareness that the sponsors are paying for and, by extension, that sponsors are not solely, if at all, interested in simply winning. Decent examples are hard to come by which is why I was using a broad brush approach.
I feel the basic point stands, even if my attempts to demonstrate it don't, but please feel free to shoot it down if I've missed something...

iainf72

Richrd2205 wrote:

Again, I agree. I was trying to make the broad point that it's not just winning that creates publicity & brand awareness that the sponsors are paying for and, by extension, that sponsors are not solely, if at all, interested in simply winning.

What are Slipstream and High Horse selling? They're largely free of commercial pressures. If you make "racing clean" a selling point to a sponsor, the damage that can be done when you get a positive is enormous (see T-Mobile)

If a team is just a plaything for a rich guardian of morals then it's a different story.

Richrd2205

Iain,
Am I right in my understanding that you're saying that the two teams that Landis gave as being anti-doping & not interested in winning are free from commercial pressure just now, so don't need to win?
And possibly, by extension, can only operate the "winning isn't everything" philosophy in this environment?

If so, I suggest that Team High Horse have been fairly competitive thus far, which would suggest that they're not using this philosophy at all (albeit in the first pro-tour race which has something just a tiny bit below the quality that one would normally expect to see in a pro tour race). Furthermore, they are in fairly imminent need of a new sponsor (by the end of next year IIRC), so are subject to commercial pressure, that of seeking a new sponsor.
Slipstream, if I understand things correctly (which is questionable), are to some degree dependant on the hot-dog selling co-sponsor & consequently subject to the same commercial pressure, albeit to a lower degree.

Furthermore, it strikes me that outrageous & newsworthy quotes from High Road are about trying to make them attractive to sponsors rather than being any reflection on their philosophy on racing. Getting PR & philosophy mixed up last year with this team made a lot of folk look foolish & I would suggest that the same may apply this year. Especially, if you take what they've said, extrapolate it badly & then draw skewed inferences from this, as Landis did... Which I think was my original point...

nick hanson

Top_Bhoy wrote:

nick hanson wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

leguape wrote:

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Well, I don't agree with Landis there. He's putting his own spin on what could and ought to be construed as an attempt to take pressure off riders to win at all costs, especially the younger ones. It's not an insult to anyone. Weird. Anyway, coming from a man who had his minions intimidate a witness in a doping hearing you've got to take anything he says about dishing out insults with a pinch of salt I'd say he's the pot calling the kettle black.

See, that's the problem. Landis was as surprised as anyone to discover his manager had been crank calling Lemond and sacked him.

I take it that the word of a liar and cheat and the man who has single-handedly tainted the sport of cycling more than any other individual before him, is to be believed. That conversation was a very private matter between 2 people - why did he even have to mention it to his manager? If he didn't set his manager onto Lemond, he has shown he lacks integrity as well as all the other attributes I've mentioned. A loathsome individual in my opinion.

Actually, Pedro Delgado was in front of FL on this one.Lets not forget he FAILED a Drugs test whilst wearing the yelow jersey (1988 if my memory serves me correctly).It turned out that the drug he tested positive for (a masking agent,I think) was on the banned list of the olympic committee,but not the UCI.This was rectified at the end of that year.
On this reasoning,Delgado has NO right to be remembered as a yellow jersey winner.At least Bjarne Riis offered to give his jersey back.....Oh,there's another rider who has single handedly tainted the sport more than any other before him.........................
Just where do you stop?
If FL upsets you so much,best pack it in before it sends you over the edge

Maybe semantics but as you say yourself, Delgado, whilst I don't agree with his actions in any shape or form, still played within the UCI rules so he cannot be castigated in the same way and Bjarne Riis only came to light almost a year after the Landis disqualification, so whats your point? Landis, although not solely responsible, has played a huge part in bringing cycling to where it is today - a sport struggling for sponsors. If you're all too ready to defend such cheating and untrustworthy characters such as Landis, if you aren't already, a job as a lawyer beckons you!! :twisted:

Delgado was hardly playing by the rules of the UCI,was he?.The masking agent wasn't banned,due to oversight,not because the UCI advocates taking a masking agent.Think about it,a masking agent is /was used to cover the tracks of a far more serious drug.The UCI then banned this masking agent at the first chance.Bit like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted
My point,as you asked,is that Delgado cheated his way to victory,& he got away with it.
Don't tell me that's any better than Floyd Landis.
No,I'm not a Lawyer,but it does rankle me that people who cheered on the victors of the last umpteen TDF see fit to go for the jugular of one individual,when the vast majority of recent victors,looking at their power outputs,appear to be 'super human'.

deejay

Nick - my wife (who is away this week) has said that very thing from the time it happened and said then that the organisers of that time had no Guts and found a scapegoat with "Geronimo" - Gert Theunisse it seemed.
She will be pleased that someone agrees with her.