Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...

le_patron

People tend to think much harder about what they can remember or not when law enforcement gets properly involved.

But agree, if they don't, then it's easier to not remember anything.

DaveyL

Dave_1 wrote:

if there is no material evidence to prove guilt why would people just spontaneously confess when they can easily just say they can't remember or just deny. Who can prove they lied?

I suppose some of them might do it for the same reasons Landis has - they're fed up living a lie.

andyp

I bet LA is glad he has the ear of the 43rd President of the United States of America, as he's going to need every ounce of political influence he can get the way this is going.

flattythehurdler

If people were really serious about removing temptation to dope, they wouldn't be running riders up the zoncolan after 6 hours in the saddle, however compelling the spectacle.

dave_1

DaveyL wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

if there is no material evidence to prove guilt why would people just spontaneously confess when they can easily just say they can't remember or just deny. Who can prove they lied?

I suppose some of them might do it for the same reasons Landis has - they're fed up living a lie.

Landis did it cause he couldn't get a Pro Tour level team, a run at the big time, admits as much I think...I think he'd have lived a lie if he'd had the compensation. The others will likely not confess as they are doing fine out of living a lie. And if one says I didn't dope and two say they saw him dope...do es the one get thrown in the can based on the word of two others?

calvjones

Dave_1 wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

if there is no material evidence to prove guilt why would people just spontaneously confess when they can easily just say they can't remember or just deny. Who can prove they lied?

I suppose some of them might do it for the same reasons Landis has - they're fed up living a lie.

Landis did it cause he couldn't get a Pro Tour level team, a run at the big time, admits as much I think...I think he'd have lived a lie if he'd had the compensation. The others will likely not confess as they are doing fine out of living a lie. And if one says I didn't dope and two say they saw him dope...do es the one get thrown in the can based on the word of two others?

I can think of at least one other slightly flaky ex postal rider who might decide to beanspill.

ju5t1n

flattythehurdler wrote:

If people were really serious about removing temptation to dope, they wouldn't be running riders up the zoncolan after 6 hours in the saddle, however compelling the spectacle.

Nonsense – they just can’t ride it as quickly

DaveyL

Dave_1 wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

if there is no material evidence to prove guilt why would people just spontaneously confess when they can easily just say they can't remember or just deny. Who can prove they lied?

I suppose some of them might do it for the same reasons Landis has - they're fed up living a lie.

Landis did it cause he couldn't get a Pro Tour level team, a run at the big time, admits as much I think...I think he'd have lived a lie if he'd had the compensation. The others will likely not confess as they are doing fine out of living a lie. And if one says I didn't dope and two say they saw him dope...do es the one get thrown in the can based on the word of two others?

Do read the full interview iain posted, then see what you think.

mididoctors

DaveyL wrote:

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

It could sound desperate couldn't it "But I've got a picture of a motorbike with panniers!!" erm, right and so have 1,000 other people that watched the tour that day mate. So that photo if it existed or not is probably irrelevant anyway. It reminds me of the old Mission Impossible series when the warehouse making the baddies chemical weapons would be empty or producing wolly hats when the police showed up........

Yes, my point is more to do with the veracity of the IM conversation - Vaughters claiming that Floyd has a photo - well, Floyd just said he never took any photos.

The IM also says that Ullrich never raced with a HCt over 42% from 2000 onwards. Right.

A lot of what they say in the IM may be correct but we ought to be objective and critical of it, rather than just accept everything because it's there.

agree with you there

I suspect the IM message is real but its between 2 geezers exaggerating and BSing about stuff they don't really know the details of...

this incorrect hearsay stuff (and the bulk of the IM message is hearsay) is out as far as evidence is concerned

mididoctors

flattythehurdler wrote:

If people were really serious about removing temptation to dope, they wouldn't be running riders up the zoncolan after 6 hours in the saddle, however compelling the spectacle.

if they are riding a chain gang for 4000m on a track they still dope...

I dont think shortening the course in of it self will reduce temptation

frenchfighter

iainf72 wrote:

Bonnie Ford interview

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/c ... id=5215959

I'm sure it'll be deleted from the internetz before long so get in there

Thanks. Good read.

mididoctors

just one other witness corroborating any part of the story will do it...

especially if that witness has something to lose...going to be very very hard explaining it away

flattythehurdler

mididoctors wrote:

flattythehurdler wrote:

If people were really serious about removing temptation to dope, they wouldn't be running riders up the zoncolan after 6 hours in the saddle, however compelling the spectacle.

if they are riding a chain gang for 4000m on a track they still dope...

I dont think shortening the course in of it self will reduce temptation

I agree entirely, but it can't help. Whilst the cycling yesterdat was absolutely riveting, it was slightly uneasy viewing, like watching boxing or something.

mididoctors

put it the other way round the suspicion will destroy credibility and business sponsorship

if nobody comes forward and says on specific date X I was there and what landis says happened concerning specific allegation X is categorically false?

mididoctors

flattythehurdler wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

flattythehurdler wrote:

If people were really serious about removing temptation to dope, they wouldn't be running riders up the zoncolan after 6 hours in the saddle, however compelling the spectacle.

if they are riding a chain gang for 4000m on a track they still dope...

I dont think shortening the course in of it self will reduce temptation

I agree entirely, but it can't help. Whilst the cycling yesterdat was absolutely riveting, it was slightly uneasy viewing, like watching boxing or something.

the werd on the Netz is 5.8watts/kg

not extra terrestrial... or so I'm told

samb01

flattythehurdler wrote:

I agree entirely, but it can't help. Whilst the cycling yesterdat was absolutely riveting, it was slightly uneasy viewing, like watching boxing or something.

Quite the opposite for me. For the first time in ages I actually felt 'good' about what I saw.

Bakunin

mididoctors wrote:

put it the other way round the suspicion will destroy credibility and business sponsorship

if nobody comes forward and says on specific date X I was there and what landis says happened concerning specific allegation X is categorically false?

Barry has done this, White has not.

Where this goes, I think, will depend on the people/riders we haven't heard about.

Landis has started something, but it is very difficult to predict where it will go.

mididoctors

samb01 wrote:

flattythehurdler wrote:

I agree entirely, but it can't help. Whilst the cycling yesterdat was absolutely riveting, it was slightly uneasy viewing, like watching boxing or something.

Quite the opposite for me. For the first time in ages I actually felt 'good' about what I saw.

mind you I remember 10 years ago all the articles and commentary on how the new high cadence pedaling fashion was an indication of a move away from blood vector doping as only mr 60% could hammer the big gears on the hautacam..

mididoctors

Bakunin wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

put it the other way round the suspicion will destroy credibility and business sponsorship

if nobody comes forward and says on specific date X I was there and what landis says happened concerning specific allegation X is categorically false?

Barry has done this, White has not.

Where this goes, I think, will depend on the people/riders we haven't heard about.

Landis has started something, but it is very difficult to predict where it will go.

your quite right that is a specific denial..

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

Storing blood in a fridge and then getting your manager to bring it into the room in his backpack isn't a massive logistical challenge I'd say.

As Landis makes clear there is rather more to it than that. For example, someone needs to keep a constant check on the blood in case of temporary power cuts that would affect the safety of the blood. The need to keep the blood properly stored at all times also explains why Kohl's manager made 3 separate flights just to provide Kohl with his blood bags.

Landis may be right that as USP / Discovery style blood doping program, with the emphasis on ensuring the safety of the riders costs big money. However, that isn't to say other teams could cut costs by just doping one or two riders rather than the whole team. Others teams might try to cut costs by not keeping a such strict control over the storage, transportation and so on. Remember what happened to Manzano.

samb01

mididoctors wrote:

samb01 wrote:

Quite the opposite for me. For the first time in ages I actually felt 'good' about what I saw.

mind you I remember 10 years ago all the articles and commentary on how the new high cadence pedaling fashion was an indication of a move away from blood vector doping as only mr 60% could hammer the big gears on the hautacam..

...and? Are you suggesting there is a parallel here? If so, in what regard?

Btw, my 'feeling good' about what I saw was an in-the-moment gut analysis of what I was seeing and not in any way influenced by the watt/VAM/time comparisons that have been brought up afterwards.

mididoctors

samb01 wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

samb01 wrote:

Quite the opposite for me. For the first time in ages I actually felt 'good' about what I saw.

mind you I remember 10 years ago all the articles and commentary on how the new high cadence pedaling fashion was an indication of a move away from blood vector doping as only mr 60% could hammer the big gears on the hautacam..

...and? Are you suggesting there is a parallel here? If so, in what regard?

Btw, my 'feeling good' about what I saw was an in-the-moment gut analysis of what I was seeing and not in any way influenced by the watt/VAM/time comparisons that have been brought up afterwards.

what I am saying is I don't feel overly qualified to really judge or be100% confident in others analysis

I suspect many guys in the sport aren't sure

Doobz

Fat Mquaid being grilled on Rai

http://www.mediafire.com/?uywyjykygfm

BikingBernie

Even McQuaid appears to be shifting his stance, including accepting that Landis' claim that Armstrong paid a bribe to Verbruggen in order to cover up an Epo positive relates to 2001.

The UCI, cycling's governing body, has asked the individual national federations to begin investigating the allegations made by Floyd Landis.

After suggesting that Landis, the 2006 Tour de France winner who was stripped of his title after failing a dope test, was someone who bore a grudge, the UCI's president Pat McQuaid changed his stance at a press conference at the Giro d'Italia today.

..."We take his accusations very seriously. I received a copy of the email, I think at the beginning of May. It is the responsibility of the national federation to conduct an investigation and I asked the US federation to begin an inquiry. They requested US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to make an inquiry and that is ongoing.

"We have asked Canadian Cycling in the case of Michael Barry, the Australians in the case of Matt White, the Belgians in the case of Johan Bruyneel and the French for John Lelangue.

..."One thing we take very seriously is the accusation that the UCI took a bribe to hide a positive by Lance Armstrong in 2001...

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ously.html

paulcuthbert

BikingBernie wrote:

The need to keep the blood properly stored at all times also explains why Kohl's manager made 3 separate flights just to provide Kohl with his blood bags.

He wouldn't be able to do that now with the restrictions on carrying liquids on flights.

The sport must be clean these days...

calvjones

BikingBernie wrote:

Even McQuaid appears to be shifting his stance, including accepting that Landis' claim that Armstrong paid a bribe to Verbruggen in order to cover up an Epo positive relates to 2001.

The UCI, cycling's governing body, has asked the individual national federations to begin investigating the allegations made by Floyd Landis.

After suggesting that Landis, the 2006 Tour de France winner who was stripped of his title after failing a dope test, was someone who bore a grudge, the UCI's president Pat McQuaid changed his stance at a press conference at the Giro d'Italia today.

..."We take his accusations very seriously. I received a copy of the email, I think at the beginning of May. It is the responsibility of the national federation to conduct an investigation and I asked the US federation to begin an inquiry. They requested US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to make an inquiry and that is ongoing.

"We have asked Canadian Cycling in the case of Michael Barry, the Australians in the case of Matt White, the Belgians in the case of Johan Bruyneel and the French for John Lelangue.

..."One thing we take very seriously is the accusation that the UCI took a bribe to hide a positive by Lance Armstrong in 2001...

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ously.html

But already knows the outcome:

All this information supports the information from the UCI and there is no way the UCI could have accepted a bribe

micron

I'm dizzy with all the spin - UCI media centre have obviously slapped Pat about a bit and told him that all that uncritical Lance love doesn't always play 100% well

I'm interested why he's now tying the $100,000 donation into Landis' timeline though - the money was promised in 2002 then actually given in 2005? And they have got the receipt honest! Methinks he doth protest too much...clearly something is amiss somewhere and Pat is having to cover his tracks quick as

DaveyL

Except it doesn't tie into the Landis timeline as the positive test was alleged to be during the 2001 Tour de Suisse.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

Except it doesn't tie into the Landis timeline as the positive test was alleged to be during the 2001 Tour de Suisse.

But previously the UCI has put out a press release arguing that Landis' claims relate to 2002, when Armstrong didn't ride the Tour of Switzerland. Now they agree the claim relates to 2001, when he did.

Landis wrote under his 2002 heading:

"He also divulged to me at that time that in the first year that the EPO test was used he had been told by Mr Ferrari, who had access to the new test, that he should not use EPO anymore but he did not believe Mr Farrari and continued to use it. "

Take note of the phrases "He also divulged to me at that time" (i.e. in 2002) "that in the first year that the EPO test was used" (i.e. in 2001).

Unfortunately, it seems that many, including McQuaid were incapable of understanding such a simple statement.

DaveyL

Well, whatever McQuaid's lack of understanding, the two timelines don't tie up, do they?

Doesn't mean there wasn't another payment, does it?