Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
But who wanted to see the back of him? Both McQuaid and LeBlanc apparently thought that the 'comeback' performance of Landis was the greatest thing they had seen in decades.DaveyL wrote:If you can cover up an athlete's positive, why can't you manufacture one for an athlete you know has been doping and that you'd like to see the back of?
The only people anyone has claimed had an 'issue' with Landis were Armstrong and Bruyneel...0 -
I would assume the Shack still have the same bus driver. Maybe someone like Beltran, Hamilton might want to speak up. DIdn't Frei ride for the Hog at too ?0
-
I really love how the vast majority of people on this subject are the same ones who claim to "love OUR sport", as if it belonged to you. Yet you all write in with the most vile claims and acusations, along with name calling, etc., etc. So THIS is love of the sport, huh???0
-
dennisn wrote:I really love how the vast majority of people on this subject are the same ones who claim to "love OUR sport", as if it belonged to you. Yet you all write in with the most vile claims and acusations, along with name calling, etc., etc. So THIS is love of the sport, huh???
Care to give us your opinion on the whole story then, Dennis?
Oh, silly me, of course you don't.0 -
LA twitter:
"A statement from @TeamRadioShack's counsel re: recent allegations is forthcoming. Will b quite a few email exchanges that r very interesting"
Will be interesting to see if the emails are those from Landis attempting to blackmail LA0 -
frenchfighter wrote:A statement from @TeamRadioShack's counsel re: recent allegations is forthcoming. Will b quite a few email exchanges that r very interesting
Check www.teamradioshack.com within the hour. Thanks for all the support.
- From Lance's twitter about 10mins ago
sorry didnt see that0 -
jp1985 wrote:Will be interesting to see if the emails are those from Landis attempting to blackmail LA
Definitely.Contador is the Greatest0 -
dennisn wrote:I really love how the vast majority of people on this subject are the same ones who claim to "love OUR sport", as if it belonged to you. Yet you all write in with the most vile claims and acusations, along with name calling, etc., etc. So THIS is love of the sport, huh???
There are plenty of fair and balanced opinions on the subject. And the majority haven't made any "vile claims and accusations", merely expanded on those that we all want answers to.0 -
afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:I really love how the vast majority of people on this subject are the same ones who claim to "love OUR sport", as if it belonged to you. Yet you all write in with the most vile claims and acusations, along with name calling, etc., etc. So THIS is love of the sport, huh???
Care to give us your opinion on the whole story then, Dennis?
Oh, silly me, of course you don't.
If anything I always seem to hit a nerve when I say something like that. Care to enlighten us as to why that is afx?0 -
Luckao wrote:dennisn wrote:I really love how the vast majority of people on this subject are the same ones who claim to "love OUR sport", as if it belonged to you. Yet you all write in with the most vile claims and acusations, along with name calling, etc., etc. So THIS is love of the sport, huh???
There are plenty of fair and balanced opinions on the subject. And the majority haven't made any "vile claims and accusations", merely expanded on those that we all want answers to.
Good one. 0 -
Found this quite interesting - Tour of the RS bus - LA introduces 'Dr Duff' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAIULtog0YY
Is this the 'Duffy' who bought the blood in the Landis email? Who was 'Johan's assistant'?0 -
BikingBernie wrote:It is much more likely that he feels he has to continue to claim that he didn't take testosterone because admitting that he did will also require him to admit that he scammed all those who contributed to his 'defense fund', and he doesn't want to alienate all his hard-core supporters.
I would presume all his supporters supported him because they believed he was innocent and won the Tour fair and square. You are saying they will be happy with "I cheated to win the Tour by blood doping and HGH use but I really didn't take any testosterone" ???BikingBernie wrote:In any case not even Landis ever claimed he was 'fitted up' and all allegations to the effect that the definitive IRMS tests were in some way flawed were rejected by the Court Of Arbitration For Sport.
Oh, but he is claiming that, effectively.No need for the tests to be flawed. In fact, they would need to be pretty damn watertight to make the conviction stick - which they were.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id ... type=story
"As for his own positive test, Landis still maintains that result was inaccurate and that he had not used synthetic testosterone during the 2006 season -- although he now admits he used human growth hormone during that time. At this point, he said he does not want to dwell on any of the issues he and his lawyers hammered at during his case.
"There must be some other explanation, whether it was done wrong or I don't know what," he said. "You can try to write it however you want -- the problem I have with even bothering to argue it is [that] I have used testosterone in the past and I have used it in other Tours, and it's going to sound kind of foolish to say I didn't." "
If what he says is true the test was either carried out improperly (very unlikely, see above) or there has to be another explanation for how synthetic testosterone got into his urine sample.
I'm just saying.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
dennisn wrote:Luckao wrote:dennisn wrote:I really love how the vast majority of people on this subject are the same ones who claim to "love OUR sport", as if it belonged to you. Yet you all write in with the most vile claims and acusations, along with name calling, etc., etc. So THIS is love of the sport, huh???
There are plenty of fair and balanced opinions on the subject. And the majority haven't made any "vile claims and accusations", merely expanded on those that we all want answers to. Good one.
Yeah, just dismiss it with a couple of smileys. Good one.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
But who wanted to see the back of him? Both McQuaid and LeBlanc apparently thought that the 'comeback' performance of Landis was the greatest thing they had seen in decades.DaveyL wrote:If you can cover up an athlete's positive, why can't you manufacture one for an athlete you know has been doping and that you'd like to see the back of?
The only people anyone has claimed had an 'issue' with Landis were Armstrong and Bruyneel...
You mean Armstrong and Bruyneel, the guys who are supposedly able to bribe the UCI?
Well, there are plenty of fantastic claims bouncing around already. They may or may not be true - but you could come up with a whole bunch of reasons why someone might want him busted.
- Perhaps the UCI and/or ASO had got used to a little kick-back from their Tour winner, and the new boys, Floyd and Rihs, didn't want to play ball.
- Perhaps someone was out to do some good, it was clear by 2006 that Phonak stank to high heaven, and if they knew Landis had been doping, why not bust him for something they could do him for? You couldn't test for autologous transfusions or HGH in 2006. So why not get him for testosterone? It's a reliable test
- maybe in the light of Puerto, someone wanted to establish their credentials in the fight against doping, and what better way than to bust the Tour winner.
You can brainstorm all sorts of reasons, not all of them are as outrageous as some of the stuff we've heard already, that might conceivably be true.
I'm just saying.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I thought Landis was guilty anyway so his credibility is not tainted in any way for me - he's a doper who denied, denied, denied and then admitted - quelle surprise, how many, many others have done that? And how many, many others continue to do that? If truthfulness is the touchstone of credibility then there's few of those in the frame that haven't lied over all kinds of things. Let's just assume the old 'level playing field' shall we?
Still trying to get my head round McQuaid's f***ed up logic - caught by the UCI = no credibility, bribed the UCI = total credibility.
Yet again McQuaid is exposed as a corrupt incompetent unfit to lead the sport's governing body - he has no objectivity and no credibility.0 -
Of course they wouldn't be 'happy'. However he could still argue that he acted 'in good faith' as it was his right to challenge something he was 'innocent' of.DaveyL wrote:I would presume all his supporters supported him because they believed he was innocent and won the Tour fair and square. You are saying they will be happy with "I cheated to win the Tour by blood doping and HGH use but I really didn't take any testosterone" ???
As has already been pointed out on another thread, if he admits that he took testosterone then he would be open to a class action from those who he defrauded via his defence fund, and I don't think he is in a position to pay back the million dollars plus that he scammed from his gullible fans.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Of course they wouldn't be 'happy'. However he could still argue that he acted 'in good faith' as it was his right to challenge something he was 'innocent' of.DaveyL wrote:I would presume all his supporters supported him because they believed he was innocent and won the Tour fair and square. You are saying they will be happy with "I cheated to win the Tour by blood doping and HGH use but I really didn't take any testosterone" ???
As has already been pointed out on another thread, if he admits that he took testosterone then he would be open to a class action from those who he defrauded via his defence fund, and I don't think he is in a position to pay back the million dollars plus that he scammed from his gullible fans.
But he's quite happy to libel millionaires Armstrong and Rihs? Not to mention all the other names.
Riiiiiight....
Just out of interest then, which of his statements due you believe, and which not?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL - Sylivia Schenk says Armstrong 'donated' at least $500,000 to the UCI but it was kept quiet by Verbruggen. Armstrong said under oath that he'd given a 6 figure sum to the UCI, McQuaid says he's made one payment of $100,000 for equipment and then Armstrong, when asked if he's given money to the UCI, says 'absolutely not!
Seriously, which one is it? Whose lying? What's the agenda!!! 0 -
micron wrote:DaveyL - Sylivia Schenk says Armstrong 'donated' at least $500,000 to the UCI but it was kept quiet by Verbruggen. Armstrong said under oath that he'd given a 6 figure sum to the UCI, McQuaid says he's made one payment of $100,000 for equipment and then Armstrong, when asked if he's given money to the UCI, says 'absolutely not!
Seriously, which one is it? Whose lying? What's the agenda!!!
When did I say Lance was telling the truth?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I think that this is how McQuaid spells 'credibility' '£££££££££££' .micron wrote:Still trying to get my head round McQuaid's f***ed up logic - caught by the UCI = no credibility, bribed the UCI = total credibility. 0 -
To defend a libel case you need evidence. Perhaps Landis has that. Perhaps Armstrong knows he has, which is why he has already said he won't be suing Landis.DaveyL wrote:he's quite happy to libel millionaires Armstrong and Rihs?
Whatever, I would think that it was still important for Landis to give the 'faithful' something to cling on to...0 -
You do? What do you think the "faithful" (in Floyd terms) have to cling to at the moment?
That he had an extra pint of blood in his system during the 2006 Tour and a ton of HGH, but at least no testosterone?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
This does bring up a serious question. It wouldn't be that hard to engineer a testosterone positive.
You're an anti-doping player. You've seen Landis win the Tour. You know his team are rotten, you might even have the evidence he's been transfusing or using HGH, but there's no sanctioned test to nail him.
What can you do? Maybe you could morally make a case for busting the guy? Why not? They got Al Capone for tax evasion.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
The belief that Landis didn't lie to them when he said that he hadn't used synthetic testosterone....DaveyL wrote:You do? What do you think the "faithful" (in Floyd terms) have to cling to at the moment?0 -
Not much, is it?Le Blaireau (1)0
-
dennisn wrote:afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:I really love how the vast majority of people on this subject are the same ones who claim to "love OUR sport", as if it belonged to you. Yet you all write in with the most vile claims and acusations, along with name calling, etc., etc. So THIS is love of the sport, huh???
Care to give us your opinion on the whole story then, Dennis?
Oh, silly me, of course you don't.
If anything I always seem to hit a nerve when I say something like that. Care to enlighten us as to why that is afx?
No, I don't care to enlighten you, simply because we've had the same conversation on multiple previous occasions - mainly where I end up explaining my position, and you reply with a comment of no substance whatsoever.0 -
Nope. But it's all they have right now, and for a lot of people knowing that they had been lied to by someone they trusted would hurt a lot more than finding out that person had done something wrong which they previously knew nothing about.DaveyL wrote:Not much, is it?0 -
checked the RS website a few times and nothing seems to be on there yet0
-
BikingBernie wrote:
Nope. But it's all they have right now, and for a lot of people knowing that they had been lied to by someone they trusted would hurt a lot more than finding out that person had done something wrong which they previously knew nothing about.DaveyL wrote:Not much, is it?
Hang on a minute. When Landis's positive result broke, his claims of innocence were not "I did not take synthetic testosterone", they were "My Tour win was exclusively the product of hard work and dedication" etc.
These people supported him because they believed he was an honest, clean rider. The admission has removed that. The poll thread has one alleged supporter saying he feels let down.
Why don't you at least consider the alternative?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:I really love how the vast majority of people on this subject are the same ones who claim to "love OUR sport", as if it belonged to you. Yet you all write in with the most vile claims and acusations, along with name calling, etc., etc. So THIS is love of the sport, huh???
Care to give us your opinion on the whole story then, Dennis?
Oh, silly me, of course you don't.
If anything I always seem to hit a nerve when I say something like that. Care to enlighten us as to why that is afx?
No, I don't care to enlighten you, simply because we've had the same conversation on multiple previous occasions - mainly where I end up explaining my position, and you reply with a comment of no substance whatsoever.
Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Sorry Dennis, it had to be said...Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0
