Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
Lol, true!0
-
Just heard Fat McQuaid on this morning. Basically saying he's not too concerned with what these guys may have done in the past, he wants to get the future right0
-
You can't build on rotten foundations, and if the sport is to have a future all the rot needs to be exposed and cut out. If this were done McQuaid would be looking for another job, which is one reason why he is so keen on burying the past.dave milne wrote:Just heard Fat McQuaid on this morning. Basically saying he's not too concerned with what these guys may have done in the past, he wants to get the future right0 -
BikingBernie wrote:blah blah blah ...
SORRY BikingBernie - took a while to get my post up. the 'blah blah blah' was in reference to trying to decipher what to make of the emails, not what you posted!
The only thing I got out of all those emails is that its very hard to make much sense out of them.
It kinds of reads that there could have been phone calls as well as emails going back and forth. I think The Dr wanted to speak to LA on one specific day asked Lance to ring him. And two days later the Dr mentions that there had been correspondence. Was it by call or by email?
I guess its like when I listen in on my wife on the phone. You get to hear one side of the conversation, and also get the gist of what is being said.
However, unless we get to read the entire sequence of emails, there will be some strange comments that could or could not be explained.
In summary, the releasing of these emails has done nothing to change my opinion.
I've always thought Flandis to be slight de-hinged. But so what?
As has been mentioned several times before, the only way anyone will get to the bottom of these allegations is by a extremely thorough investigation.
For RadioShack I say nice try, but I give them a fail. If their defense is based on "Landis is crazy" well, they are only telling us something everyone already knows.
I don't see Landis as needing to be scrutinised. Instead it is his claims.
And if those claims, through whatever method get proven or otherwise, well then we'll worry about that then.
Armstrong might end up being found guilty, but that doesn't mean Landis isn't still a few snags short of a BBQ.0 -
SpaceJunk wrote:I don't see Landis as needing to be scrutinised. Instead it is his claims.
^^^this
And I suspect that's what the USADA / WADA / Feds will be interested in. Whether he's insane or has an agenda is of no concern to them. If what he says has truth and whether it can be proven is what matters.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
It's interesting that Floyd is saying he doped for years, but was clean when he tested positive. The usual defence when caught is to claim that you only tried it once because you had a cold that day etc......
The thing that absolutely stinks is LAs "donation" to the UCI, firstly is there not a massive conflict of interest there, (suppose Capello decided to donate 100k to FIFA to suport training for referees?), and secondly it seems very out of character for Armstrong to do that, he's not exactly the biggest anti-doping campaigner is he.0 -
iainf72 wrote:
Translates (literally!) as:
Countrywoman's wisdom: the flour of the devil becomes branBike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
andyxm wrote:It's interesting that Floyd is saying he doped for years, but was clean when he tested positive. The usual defence when caught is to claim that you only tried it once because you had a cold that day etc......
The thing that absolutely stinks is LAs "donation" to the UCI, firstly is there not a massive conflict of interest there, (suppose Capello decided to donate 100k to FIFA to suport training for referees?), and secondly it seems very out of character for Armstrong to do that, he's not exactly the biggest anti-doping campaigner is he.
I don't know if he's saying he was clean in 06. I read somewhere (?) that he said he used HGH for the Tour, not testosterone.
That could be because:
a. Legal ramifications for lying under oath, taking money for the Fight Floyd fund or
b. He didn't0 -
AidanR wrote:iainf72 wrote:
Translates (literally!) as:
Countrywoman's wisdom: the flour of the devil becomes bran
Its an old Italian proverb, from the Lombardy region that means no good comes from ill-gotten gains - or literally "The devil’s flour turns all into bran or crust"**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
iainf72 wrote:SpaceJunk wrote:I don't see Landis as needing to be scrutinised. Instead it is his claims.
^^^this
And I suspect that's what the USADA / WADA / Feds will be interested in. Whether he's insane or has an agenda is of no concern to them. If what he says has truth and whether it can be proven is what matters.
Yeah, I kind of likened it to Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton.
If memory serves me correctly, the media portrayed her as a loony, and for all intents and purposes she could be.
It wasn't Lewinsky that caught Clinton out, it was the stain on her blue dress. But her initial claims were serious enough to be investigated.
I also likened it to me as an employee not getting on well with my boss. I could even be the employee from hell and even be involved in illegal activities.
One day I get the sack by my boss. But my boss doesn't know that I have been keeping detailed logbooks of how he has avoided paying taxes.
I don't have evidence that can stand up in court, but if I took it to the Australian Taxation Office, there is still enough detail to get them to start an investigation.
It's what they find in the investigation that is more than likely to be the evidence that convicts my boss in a court of law, and my original records might not even been relevant anymore.
The above case happened to one of my clients - the employee in question was questioned by the authorities but didn't even go to court as a witness. The damage had been done.
The million dollar question is are Landis' trainings records detailed coherent enough to start the investigation? Because if they are, these claims just might have legs.0 -
That bus in 2004.... It's tantalising, isn't it? I really hope that journal exists, and can pinpoint exactly when that happened and who was on it.... I'm not so well up on team membership, but does the fact that he says only three Americans were on it (him, Hincapie and LA) give any clues as to when and where it might have been?2004: Again the team performed two seperate blood transfusions on me, but
this time Bruyneel had become more paranoid and we did the draws by flying
to Belgium and meeting at an unknown persons appartment and the blood was
brought by "Duffy" who was at that time Johans assistant of sorts. The
second of which was performed on the team bus on the ride from the finish of
a stage to the hotel during which the driver pretended to have engine
trouble and stopped on a remote mountain road for an hour or so so the
entire team could have half a liter of blood added. This was the only time
that I ever saw the entire team being transfused in plain view of all the
other riders and bus driver. That team included Lance Armstrong, George
Hincapie and I as the only Americans.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Er, the 2004 Tour day France. If you have any internet skillz you ought to be able to find out the team.
Probably something like: Armstrong, Landis, Hincapie, Azevedo, Beltran, Rubiera, Ekimov, Padrnos and one other.
Edit: Benjamin Noval was the 9th rider.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:Er, the 2004 Tour day France. If you have any internet skillz you ought to be able to find out the team.
Probably something like: Armstrong, Landis, Hincapie, Azevedo, Beltran, Rubiera, Ekimov, Padrnos and one other.
Edit: Benjamin Noval was the 9th rider.
Is that definitive, that it was the TdF? I have reasonable internet skillz but a noticeable lack of arsedness.
From that list:
Azevedo: now team leader for Benfica
Beltran: serving a suspension for EPO
Rubiera: rides for RadioShack
Ekimov: works for RadioShack
Padrnos: ? Discovery up to 07
Noval: rides for Astana
Of the cyclists it looks like Beltran would be first choice for an interview by a journalist of any quality...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:DaveyL wrote:Er, the 2004 Tour day France. If you have any internet skillz you ought to be able to find out the team.
Probably something like: Armstrong, Landis, Hincapie, Azevedo, Beltran, Rubiera, Ekimov, Padrnos and one other.
Edit: Benjamin Noval was the 9th rider.
Is that definitive, that it was the TdF? I have reasonable internet skillz but a noticeable lack of arsedness.
From that list:
Azevedo: now team leader for Benfica
Beltran: serving a suspension for EPO
Rubiera: rides for RadioShack
Ekimov: works for RadioShack
Padrnos: ? Discovery up to 07
Noval: rides for Astana
Of the cyclists it looks like Beltran would be first choice for an interview by a journalist of any quality...
Azevedo now works for RadioShack as a DS.0 -
Ekimov must have seen a heck of a lot in his tours. Not that he will ever talk !0
-
Perhaps some will soon have to guts to confirm what Landis has said. Or maybe not...
Two people Landis has accused of doping said on Friday that they had been contacted by antidoping officials who had asked them to cooperate with an investigation in exchange for leniency. Those people did not want their names published because they are still deciding if they want to come forward.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/sport ... cling.html
Whatever, surely them saying that they are deciding whether they will 'come forward' 'in exchange for leniency' is itself confirmation that Landis is telling the truth.0 -
Yup, an irrelevance based upon an ad hominem argument. You have to remember these guys are bike racers and not intellectuals.SpaceJunk wrote:I don't see Landis as needing to be scrutinised. Instead it is his claims.
On the other hand, Landis needs evidence, otherwise his allegations will be dismissed exactly because his credibility is in doubt.--
Obsessed is just a word elephants use to describe the dedicated. http://markliversedge.blogspot.com0 -
If you were breaking the rules why would you keep a journal about it?
If you cut a deal with the UCI, why would you broadcast it to the rest of the team?
I believe they all doped but some of the allegations just don't make sense.0 -
liversedge wrote:
Yup, an irrelevance based upon an ad hominem argument. You have to remember these guys are bike racers and not intellectuals.SpaceJunk wrote:I don't see Landis as needing to be scrutinised. Instead it is his claims.
On the other hand, Landis needs evidence, otherwise his allegations will be dismissed exactly because his credibility is in doubt.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, to both protect the innocent and/or catch the guilty, its essential that the UCI proceeds with an immediate investigation asap and to apply for court orders enforced before any of the people mentioned start trying to dispose and cover-up of any email and paper trail.
If no UCI investigation happens until everything blows over (if at all) will be no surprise and I won't be holding my breath.
There is something rotten in the State of Denmark (and its not B.Riis this time)
0 -
Roscobob wrote:If you were breaking the rules why would you keep a journal about it?
If you cut a deal with the UCI, why would you broadcast it to the rest of the team?
I believe they all doped but some of the allegations just don't make sense.
1. Why not, you've become untouchable as you see it.
2. See 1.
3. Too right.
Flandis is scumbag cheat I want to hate, although I have this sense that's he's really been shafted by the standards of cycling/doping that others have used and abused, and hence have some sympathy for his situation. I'm sure that some of the allegations are enhanced or maybe just plain invented, we can't escape the fact Flandis a bang to rights liar. But I also believe that the allegations contain a huge amount of truth. No one is all good or all bad, no one tells the truth all the time, and no one lies all the time, not even a doper or worse yet a politician 0 -
RichN95 wrote:Bakunin wrote:
While the denials have been fast and furious, none of them have really engaged with the allegations.
Michael Barry has. In fact he seemed quite believable.
Really.
He denied it.
Questioned where Floyd was mentally.
And then said, he saw no evidence of doping at Postal.
I guess I'm convinced.
But in a DailyTelegraph story -- Matt White said he didn't want to comment at this time. White better back up what Barry says.0 -
Roscobob wrote:If you were breaking the rules why would you keep a journal about it?
If you cut a deal with the UCI, why would you broadcast it to the rest of the team?
I believe they all doped but some of the allegations just don't make sense.
Re the journal: To have some leverage should things go pear shaped? To have a kiss and tell book ready for retirement? Because he was on the ride of his life and really didn't see anything wrong with what he was doing?
These were the glory days of LA and US Postal. They were the best. They had a system, implemented all the way through the team. They believed everyone else was doing it, but that they were BETTER at it than all the rest. I can imagine there was quite a team spirit about the whole thing. They were beating everyone within what they saw as the rules of the game at the time. They trusted each other because they were a team, and it was no big thing.
Lots of objections to Landis' accusations seem to be based around the fact that these were shameful dark secrets that each rider hid from everyone else - a presumption based on the fact that they obviously had to hide them from the outside world, as most of us consider them pretty dark and shameful. But many accounts of cycling at the time suggest that doping was pretty much brazen and open, at least within a team. Doping procedures were probably more like trade secrets, not to be shared with other teams, than sinister and guilty shadows in the closet. We know for a fact that there were cases of institutionalised doping (start with Festina for e.g.), and the very existence of omerta tells us that the attitude to drugs wasn't the same within the peloton as it was projected outside of it, to us, the fans. There seems to be a recurring theme that's a little like a Vietnam vet doing the thousand yard stare "you weren't there, you don't know, man". See for e.g. Landis saying he doesn't feel guilty.
If that summary of the atmosphere is in any way accurate (it's conjecture, obviously) then I can easily imagine a scenario where disclosing a deal with the UCI was not just revealed, but openly boasted about. "Don't worry, it's all under control lads, I've sorted it, we need to be a bit more careful in the future, but we shouldn't have any bother from the UCI". The rules of the game within cycling weren't the rules of the game we were told they were.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
there used to be stories in the late 80s \ early 90s that rider would go through the peleton and pat everyone on the back to see if they had anything in their pockets.
It was all done as part of cameraderie though and if they patted someone and found something it was all just a joke.0 -
The helicopter flight from Grenoble to St Moritz - I wonder if any journalists are looking into that as all flights have to be logged with air traffic control.0
-
SpaceJunk wrote:dennisn wrote:SpaceJunk 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?
Classic Dennisn.
Just revisited this thread to catch up. How did I know you'd you the old "If anything I always seem to hit a nerve when I say something like that" line?, and try and divert attention from the question?
How predictable. :roll: :roll:
To be honest I think that most of the people that are demanding that everyone "come clean", "be banned for life", and that kind of thing have one thing in common. You are all OCP types who try to strut your stuff / showoff to the people around you that you are some sort of hard man cyclist. Only problem is that with every rider from A to Z under a cloud of doping, well, you just don't look quite as good as you used to. Can't blame you for being mad. These guys whom you've tried so hard to emulate are giving you a bad image. You probably don't ride bikes for the enjoyment of riding. It's strictly a cool / showoff thing with you.
When you say YOU, are you trying to include me?
Because unfortunately you are wrong. I don't ride my bike to show off, I don't want to emulate a pro rider's life.
I ride my bike for the sheer enjoyment of it. I ride it everywhere between 8,000 - 12,000 kms a year. I don't give a damn what other people think of me when I ride my bike. I ride simply to keep fit, and because of the sheer thrill of it.
I haven't tried at all to emulate a pro's life. I am nowhere committed enough to cycling to live in such a way.
I own a cheap bike, I don't care that it's not the latest and greatest. I wear plain knicks and bib shorts; no team replica stuff.
So try again Dennis.
But I think your post reveals a little about you. I (as well as many others) have often wondered why you seem reluctant to give your opinion.
To paraphrase yourself:
You probably do give a damn what other people think, and you're too scared to speak up.
Anyway, it's 10.30 am the sun is shining and I'm off on a ride because I enjoy it!
Is no one ever going to get my point? Guess not. People chime in with all sorts of hang 'em and hang 'em high ideas about what should happen to these guys and yet when I question anyone's "purity", for lack of a better word, I get told that I can't say that about you. You don't like what I say? Gee, no kidding. I hit a little to close to home on occasion, maybe? How about this? You sort of hint that I don't know you and therefore
can't say these things about you. Ya got that right. But just how much do you KNOW the PRO'S that you complain about? Any more than I know about you? Or you me? Once again I'll repeat myself. You can't know anyone simply because you've read a book that they wrote or a book about them. Just like you can't know me and I can't know you based on what we blog.0 -
What the hell are you on about?
Why don't you answer the question someone asked you ages ago? What do you think about the whole thing?
You've avoided it totally.
Do you perceive all this discussion as some kind of anti-Americanism?
Seems that a lot of folk are glad that the writing is potentially on the wall for some of the biggest cheats of recent years in cycling yet you're having a go at their character for feeling this way.
So do we take from this that you don't care that people cheat?
If so then that's your opinion and your entitled to it. A lot of folks probably share it. At least be man enough to come out and say what you think rather than waffle and try to demean people who are glad the truth may at last be coming out - or are they the sort that 'don't love the sport' in McQuaid's eyes?.
Me, I don't care about guys who might lose their careers even if they are clean now. If they cheated before then fu*k them. It's guys like Bassons that I feel for - and all the guys no-one's heard about that never had a proper career to lose in the first place because they wouldn't get into bed with the cheaters.0 -
Good post, pretty much how I see it.No tA Doctor wrote:Roscobob wrote:If you were breaking the rules why would you keep a journal about it?
If you cut a deal with the UCI, why would you broadcast it to the rest of the team?
I believe they all doped but some of the allegations just don't make sense.
Re the journal: To have some leverage should things go pear shaped? To have a kiss and tell book ready for retirement? Because he was on the ride of his life and really didn't see anything wrong with what he was doing?
These were the glory days of LA and US Postal. They were the best. They had a system, implemented all the way through the team. They believed everyone else was doing it, but that they were BETTER at it than all the rest. I can imagine there was quite a team spirit about the whole thing. They were beating everyone within what they saw as the rules of the game at the time. They trusted each other because they were a team, and it was no big thing.
Lots of objections to Landis' accusations seem to be based around the fact that these were shameful dark secrets that each rider hid from everyone else - a presumption based on the fact that they obviously had to hide them from the outside world, as most of us consider them pretty dark and shameful. But many accounts of cycling at the time suggest that doping was pretty much brazen and open, at least within a team. Doping procedures were probably more like trade secrets, not to be shared with other teams, than sinister and guilty shadows in the closet. We know for a fact that there were cases of institutionalised doping (start with Festina for e.g.), and the very existence of omerta tells us that the attitude to drugs wasn't the same within the peloton as it was projected outside of it, to us, the fans. There seems to be a recurring theme that's a little like a Vietnam vet doing the thousand yard stare "you weren't there, you don't know, man". See for e.g. Landis saying he doesn't feel guilty.
If that summary of the atmosphere is in any way accurate (it's conjecture, obviously) then I can easily imagine a scenario where disclosing a deal with the UCI was not just revealed, but openly boasted about. "Don't worry, it's all under control lads, I've sorted it, we need to be a bit more careful in the future, but we shouldn't have any bother from the UCI". The rules of the game within cycling weren't the rules of the game we were told they were.
And as much as I would like to see doping stamped out, I know full well that had I been a pro cyclist I would have done it too. Why not, if everyone else is at it and the doctors say it is nescessary to look after yourself and you'll never get caught then it wouldn't seem any worse than going over the speed limit in a car, no big deal.0 -
Dennis,
As a matter of interest, what will your views on Lance be should Floyd's allegations be proven true?
My racing days are well past, so I'm no "hard man" now, just a leisure cyclist, so I don't fit in to your standard category for those posting in this thread.0
