Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...

Richrd2205

Out all day & missed all the exciting links! (& some great racing, obviously!)
The Bonnie Ford interview is fascinating (thanks for posting the link, Iain). For the first time Landis is verbally congruent: his explanation for his action matches his style of talking about it and he talks about what he is claiming to talk about. He either has the best, most radical PR advisor in the world, has spent a lot on training and has it all nailed down perfectly, or he's telling the truth... As he recalls it. His recall could obviously differ from objective reality, but if his diary provides a concrete testimony, it'll be difficult to refute.
Contrast this with the responses. Michael Barry has clearly denied, no bother with that one.
The others are not remotely believable. Radioshack's in particular is very, very strange if it's meant as a denial. It tries to say, we are more credible than him, who would you believe, but fails to do that very well and undermines their credibility whilst doing that. The email release asks more questions than it answers too. I presume they have a different PR agency now; I'd go back to the last one, it was better...

Doobz wrote:

Fat Mquaid being grilled on Rai

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

This was fantastic. I actually started taking notes watching it since there were so many things to note. Lots of these are very dull observations of body language (although the director kept showing other things when it got really interesting), but a couple of things really stood out. Firstly, McQuaid's talk about what happened to the change from the $100,000. He's clearly been tutored on this one since his radio appearance last week & did (re physical presentation & tone) quite well, however, I was intrigued that in the same answer, he gave three different places the money was:

is still in the accounts

developing young athletes

developing the sport or something

It can't surely be all three... My best guess: he forgot the agreed explanation & tried to improvise, improving it each time.
How many times does he get interviewed on TV? I ask 'cos he was really uncomfortable & want to know how much of that might have been about the novelty of the situation....
Convincing transparency? LOL


(I might spend quite a lot of my working life deconstructing what people say & how they say it & coming to an explanation as to why. I so hope that a congruent explanation of this all comes to light since this would make such stunning training for folk. Sorry if the post is long & over detailed)

ratsbeyfus

dennisn wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Has there been any talk of what happens if none of these accusations pan out into anything? A distinct possibility. Poor Landis could get hung out to dry for, at the very least, slander.

Nah, read the article... Lance doesn't sue anymore, so you can say anything you like about him. For example - "Lance Armstrong doped through much of his career, may well have got cancer due to abusing doping products in the 90's and has got skiddy pants!"

All of the above is true you see because the leather-skinned old weasal hasn't sued me yet.

That's basically because you don't count. FL does and that's why he may be in for some unpleasant times.

Your right, I don't count. TBH I get the impression from the ESPN interview that Floyd is willing to bet his virgin bottom that it'll be LA who'll be in the clink before him.

paulcuthbert

Cycling Weekly tweeted thatno positives from 2001 Tour of Switzerland

dennisn

Top_Bhoy wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Has there been any talk of what happens if none of these accusations pan out into anything? A distinct possibility. Poor Landis could get hung out to dry for, at the very least, slander.

Financially they surely can't do much to Landis and his reputation is low anyway what more can they do to him - is jail a possibility for malicious rumour spreading, I'd hardly think so? Legal action of any kind will mean for sure a full and proper investigation - I'd have thought that was the last thing LA would want. LA will want this to blow over asap.

No, I disagree. If LA(and everyone else) decides to sue, FL MUST prove his accusations. LA(and the rest) don't have to prove anything except that reputations were damaged and, well yes they have been if FL can't prove these things. To me this whole thing is one big Hail Mary pass for FL. All or nothing. Get back, somehow, to respectability by being the hero who caught ALL the cheats or be less than zero if it doesn't go his way. Zero has my money so far.

andyp

Have you actually read any of the Landis interviews Dennis? He makes it very clear what is motivating him to do this.

Here's a clue, it isn't money.

paulcuthbert

andyp wrote:

Have you actually read any of the Landis interviews Dennis? He makes it very clear what is motivating him to do this.

Here's a clue, it isn't money.

If he lied about his guilt, surely deceive about his motive

ratsbeyfus

dennisn wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Has there been any talk of what happens if none of these accusations pan out into anything? A distinct possibility. Poor Landis could get hung out to dry for, at the very least, slander.

Financially they surely can't do much to Landis and his reputation is low anyway what more can they do to him - is jail a possibility for malicious rumour spreading, I'd hardly think so? Legal action of any kind will mean for sure a full and proper investigation - I'd have thought that was the last thing LA would want. LA will want this to blow over asap.

No, I disagree. If LA(and everyone else) decides to sue, FL MUST prove his accusations. LA(and the rest) don't have to prove anything except that reputations were damaged and, well yes they have been if FL can't prove these things. To me this whole thing is one big Hail Mary pass for FL. All or nothing. Get back, somehow, to respectability by being the hero who caught ALL the cheats or be less than zero if it doesn't go his way. Zero has my money so far.

The problem with LA suing FL is that under oath, in the past, several of LA's associates and even friends have said less than complementary things about him. The following is from David Walsh's recent article in the Times:

QUOTE: A July afternoon in 2003 spent at the Liverpool home of the former head soigneur of the US Postal team Emma O’Reilly. She told of her five years with the team, especially the two when only she was allowed to give Armstrong his daily massages. Once she travelled from France to the team’s headquarters in Spain to pick up what she believed was a doping product that she later handed to Armstrong in the car park of a McDonald’s outside Nice.

She told, too, of the time she disposed of Armstrong’s used syringes, and of the time before the 1999 Tour de France when Armstrong asked her to get some make-up to hide the syringe marks on his arm. And in some detail, she described the evening on that 1999 Tour when Armstrong learnt he had tested positive for a corticoid and how with the help of two team officials, they came up with a plan to backdate a medical exemption for the offending substance. O’Reilly would later repeat all of these accusations under oath. Armstrong dismissed her as a disgruntled former employee.

I thought, too, of an evening in October 2003 spent at the Auckland home of Stephen Swart, who rode with Armstrong for the Motorola team in 1993 and 1994. According to the New Zealander the Motorola team, frustrated by a lack of results, decided to dope to catch up with their superiors.

Armstrong, he said, was the leading pro-doping voice in the team. Swart would later repeat these allegations under oath.

Armstrong said Swart was a bitter former teammate.

Then there was the afternoon in December 2003 at a hotel in Detroit when another former Motorola and US Postal teammate, Frankie Andreu, told of the seven years he had ridden with Armstrong. Once, in the early years, Armstrong had laid out on the bed of a hotel room all the pills he was taking. “Man,” Andreu said to him at the time, “you’re nuts.” Andreu also told of being in a room at Indiana University Hospital in October 1996 when he heard Armstrong tell doctors he used banned substances prior to being diagnosed with testicular cancer. Andreu’s wife, Betsy, who was also in the room, said she heard the same admission from Armstrong.

Before the Andreus repeated these allegations under oath, Armstrong emailed Frankie and asked him to remember that his [Armstrong’s] success in cycling benefited everybody. END OF QUOTE

(Thumps fist in hand, turns to jury) – I rest my case your honour.

rapid_uphill

lollywood

andyp wrote:

Here's a clue, it isn't money.

dennisn

ratsbeyfus wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Has there been any talk of what happens if none of these accusations pan out into anything? A distinct possibility. Poor Landis could get hung out to dry for, at the very least, slander.

Financially they surely can't do much to Landis and his reputation is low anyway what more can they do to him - is jail a possibility for malicious rumour spreading, I'd hardly think so? Legal action of any kind will mean for sure a full and proper investigation - I'd have thought that was the last thing LA would want. LA will want this to blow over asap.

No, I disagree. If LA(and everyone else) decides to sue, FL MUST prove his accusations. LA(and the rest) don't have to prove anything except that reputations were damaged and, well yes they have been if FL can't prove these things. To me this whole thing is one big Hail Mary pass for FL. All or nothing. Get back, somehow, to respectability by being the hero who caught ALL the cheats or be less than zero if it doesn't go his way. Zero has my money so far.

The problem with LA suing FL is that under oath, in the past, several of LA's associates and even friends have said less than complementary things about him. The following is from David Walsh's recent article in the Times:

QUOTE: A July afternoon in 2003 spent at the Liverpool home of the former head soigneur of the US Postal team Emma O’Reilly. She told of her five years with the team, especially the two when only she was allowed to give Armstrong his daily massages. Once she travelled from France to the team’s headquarters in Spain to pick up what she believed was a doping product that she later handed to Armstrong in the car park of a McDonald’s outside Nice.

She told, too, of the time she disposed of Armstrong’s used syringes, and of the time before the 1999 Tour de France when Armstrong asked her to get some make-up to hide the syringe marks on his arm. And in some detail, she described the evening on that 1999 Tour when Armstrong learnt he had tested positive for a corticoid and how with the help of two team officials, they came up with a plan to backdate a medical exemption for the offending substance. O’Reilly would later repeat all of these accusations under oath. Armstrong dismissed her as a disgruntled former employee.

I thought, too, of an evening in October 2003 spent at the Auckland home of Stephen Swart, who rode with Armstrong for the Motorola team in 1993 and 1994. According to the New Zealander the Motorola team, frustrated by a lack of results, decided to dope to catch up with their superiors.

Armstrong, he said, was the leading pro-doping voice in the team. Swart would later repeat these allegations under oath.

Armstrong said Swart was a bitter former teammate.

Then there was the afternoon in December 2003 at a hotel in Detroit when another former Motorola and US Postal teammate, Frankie Andreu, told of the seven years he had ridden with Armstrong. Once, in the early years, Armstrong had laid out on the bed of a hotel room all the pills he was taking. “Man,” Andreu said to him at the time, “you’re nuts.” Andreu also told of being in a room at Indiana University Hospital in October 1996 when he heard Armstrong tell doctors he used banned substances prior to being diagnosed with testicular cancer. Andreu’s wife, Betsy, who was also in the room, said she heard the same admission from Armstrong.

Before the Andreus repeated these allegations under oath, Armstrong emailed Frankie and asked him to remember that his [Armstrong’s] success in cycling benefited everybody. END OF QUOTE

(Thumps fist in hand, turns to jury) – I rest my case your honour.

It's not what you or I think or know or what someone said. It's all about who can convince the decision makers(jury / judge).

top_bhoy

dennisn wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Has there been any talk of what happens if none of these accusations pan out into anything? A distinct possibility. Poor Landis could get hung out to dry for, at the very least, slander.

Financially they surely can't do much to Landis and his reputation is low anyway what more can they do to him - is jail a possibility for malicious rumour spreading, I'd hardly think so? Legal action of any kind will mean for sure a full and proper investigation - I'd have thought that was the last thing LA would want. LA will want this to blow over asap.

No, I disagree. If LA(and everyone else) decides to sue, FL MUST prove his accusations. LA(and the rest) don't have to prove anything except that reputations were damaged and, well yes they have been if FL can't prove these things. To me this whole thing is one big Hail Mary pass for FL. All or nothing. Get back, somehow, to respectability by being the hero who caught ALL the cheats or be less than zero if it doesn't go his way. Zero has my money so far.

Yes they can sue but my point is - what more can LA do to Landis which will enhance his position? Landis has got nothing to offer LA and if he is lying on the allegations he doesn't need to retract them to save cash in any lawsuit - that was spent in his last one. Rightly or wrongly on this one, I think its down to LA to somehow disprove the allegations.

ratsbeyfus

dennisn wrote:

It's not what you or I think or know or what someone said. It's all about who can convince the decision makers(jury / judge).

I'd happily take an OJ type decision in which a jury acquits LA but every sane and reasonable person just knows that Lance was the biggest doper in sporting history.

That and a deathbed confession... assuming I outlive the drug-addled cheat to hear it.

BikingBernie

paulcuthbert wrote:

Cycling Weekly tweeted that no positives from 2001 Tour of Switzerland

Clearly, Armstrong's money was well spent.

Bakunin

I thought McQuaid's press conference and the UCI's press release were very interesting.

In conceding some ground, McQuaid tried to bury Landis in paper and dates. The UCI said there was no EPO sample from TdsSwiss -- well, of course, what would we expect them to say?

The Armstrong money is key here -- why is he the only cyclist to make a donation to the UCI?

Is it $100,000 or $500,000?

The Sports Illustrated article lays out the parameters of the investigation vis-a-vis LA -- but who is going to investigate the UCI?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/09/ ... -case_8889

micron

The contested donation - how much and when - is key. There's an audio clip of McQuaid in October 2007 saying they received the money 15 months earlier - July 2006 was when the Vrijman report came out...

Then we have Stapleton (under oath) stating there was at least 1 donation, maybe more; Armstrong under oath saying it was about 25,000 and Sylvia Schenk naming a figure of 500,000.

Then today McQuaid says it was $100,000 promised in 2002 and actually recieved in 2005? Why tie the donation into the disputed Landis timeline?

As for the absence of positive tests at the TdS in 2001 (a race that featured Camenzind, Zabel and Hamilton amongst others ) - Rebellin was caught doping on camera at the Giro 2001, yet was clean a few weeks later at TdS? A lack of positive tests says far more about the testing procedures and the inefficiency of the testing organisation (could that be the UCI??) than whether riders were actually doping

Bakunin

There may be some truth to that old saying -- "Follow the money."

RichN95.

Bakunin wrote:

There may be some truth to that old saying -- "Follow the money."

As a wise Baltimore cop once said "“Follow the drugs, and you’ll find dealers and users. Follow the money, and you have no idea where the case will take you.”

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Bakunin wrote:

There may be some truth to that old saying -- "Follow the money."

As a wise Baltimore cop once said "“Follow the drugs, and you’ll find dealers and users. Follow the money, and you have no idea where the case will take you.”

You could say this whole thing is just people giving a sh!t when it wasn't their turn....

afx237vi

Damn, Rich beat me to it.

Floyd is basically Bodie at the end of season 4. Used, shunned and discarded by the people he once stood alongside.

"They want me to stand with them, right? But where the f*** they at when they supposed to stand with us? I mean, when s*** goes bad, and there's hell to pay, where they at? This game is rigged, man."

DaveyL

Game dun change. Got more fierce.

RichN95.

"It ain't like that. See, the king (Armstrong) stay the king, a'ight? Everything stay who he is. Except for the pawns. Now, if the pawn (Landis) make it all the way down to the other dude's side, he get to be queen. And like I said, the queen ain't no b1tch. She got all the moves."

dennisn

Top_Bhoy wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Has there been any talk of what happens if none of these accusations pan out into anything? A distinct possibility. Poor Landis could get hung out to dry for, at the very least, slander.

Financially they surely can't do much to Landis and his reputation is low anyway what more can they do to him - is jail a possibility for malicious rumour spreading, I'd hardly think so? Legal action of any kind will mean for sure a full and proper investigation - I'd have thought that was the last thing LA would want. LA will want this to blow over asap.

No, I disagree. If LA(and everyone else) decides to sue, FL MUST prove his accusations. LA(and the rest) don't have to prove anything except that reputations were damaged and, well yes they have been if FL can't prove these things. To me this whole thing is one big Hail Mary pass for FL. All or nothing. Get back, somehow, to respectability by being the hero who caught ALL the cheats or be less than zero if it doesn't go his way. Zero has my money so far.

Yes they can sue but my point is - what more can LA do to Landis which will enhance his position? Landis has got nothing to offer LA and if he is lying on the allegations he doesn't need to retract them to save cash in any lawsuit - that was spent in his last one. Rightly or wrongly on this one, I think its down to LA to somehow disprove the allegations.

You ask what more can LA do to Landis? That sort of assumes that he wanted to do something TO him in the first place. I don't know that LA is "out to get" Landis. He might be NOW though. I also don't think that LA has to prove that every allegation against him is untrue, just like you and I don't have to answer things like that. It's up to the accuser to prove he's right. Always has been. Well, maybe not during the Spanish Inqusition(sp?)

iainf72

More from NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sport ... nytimes%20

Richman added: “The government normally leaves it up to sports leagues to discipline those athletes who may have used performance-enhancing drugs. Fraud is something the government takes quite seriously, particularly where a lot of money is involved and conduct is flagrant.”

dave_1

one assumes Lance, Stapleton and Bruyneel have very carefully thought through the legal scenarios and ramifications of not giving Floyd a job or money for his defence. Maybe they should have given him that stuff and we would be none the wiser?

My guess is LA's lawyers have gone through every scenario months ago, FDA, Novitsky, discussed what LA knows really happened, spoken to Ferrari etc and also who seriously thinks LA has not spoken months ago to all of the riders LA will have guessed Landis could name to check what they would say when Landis points the finger...won't LA have carefully considered all this before turning Landis down???...but then again..maybe I am wrong and LA and his legal team are not as a bright as I or others credit them as being

No_Ta_Doctor

Well given that it appears that Armstrong and the UCI thought this would all just go away, or at least be containable, if they simply called Landis a liar, madman, alcoholic, extortionist and cheat it looks a bit like there are some scenarios that the Armstrong legal team might not have looked at... They look to me like they overplayed their hand and underestimated Landis' position.

disgruntledgoat

afx237vi wrote:

Damn, Rich beat me to it.

Floyd is basically Bodie at the end of season 4. Used, shunned and discarded by the people he once stood alongside.

"They want me to stand with them, right? But where the f*** they at when they supposed to stand with us? I mean, when s*** goes bad, and there's hell to pay, where they at? This game is rigged, man."

Making Armstrong Avon Barksdale? Making Verbruggen Clay Davies? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

iainf72

Anyone else becoming increasingly interested in Andrew Messick's part in this whole thing. He's running the biggest race in the US but encouraged Landis to come clean knowing it would have a huge impact on American cycling.

Long shadow of ASO?

le_patron

No tA Doctor wrote:

Well given that it appears that Armstrong and the UCI thought this would all just go away, or at least be containable, if they simply called Landis a liar, madman, alcoholic, extortionist and cheat it looks a bit like there are some scenarios that the Armstrong legal team might not have looked at... They look to me like they overplayed their hand and underestimated Landis' position.

Agree.

You also can’t pay off everyone or have a plan for every scenario. There come a point where you just have to accept the risk, and as Flandis had so little credibility then I guess the view was the risk was worth taking. If the stories are to be believed he always sat uncomfortably in the Armstrong/Bruyneel set-up, with animosity bubbling a little, so LA might have been loath to offer anything. You also get a sense of omnipotence over time, that can lead to bad decision making.

That’s the thing about these cover-ups, there are many people involved and the longer it goes on the more the risk something would come out. I never really understood comeback 2.0 in this sense, there was always a chance it would stir up some stuff that would have otherwise receded into history. Maybe this is one disgruntled former employee too many.

Kléber

iainf72 wrote:

More from NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sport ... nytimes%20

Richman added: “The government normally leaves it up to sports leagues to discipline those athletes who may have used performance-enhancing drugs. Fraud is something the government takes quite seriously, particularly where a lot of money is involved and conduct is flagrant.”

This is a big deal. It's one thing to have some chumps at USA cycling ask a few questions but another to have federal investigators on your tail, complete with subpoenas and surveillance.

Given Ferrari was being paid a % of a rider's salary, it could be hard to escape this one. Remember, Marion Jones went to prison here.

I wonder if Nike sell soap on a rope for post-workout showering. Could be handy...

AidanR

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Making Armstrong Avon Barksdale? Making Verbruggen Clay Davies? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

And Bruyneel Stringer Bell?

---

NY Times wrote:

The authorities will also closely examine the contract between Armstrong and S.C.A. Promotions, a company that refused to pay a $5 million bonus in 2004 after a book that alleged Armstrong engaged in doping, one of the people said. Armstrong sued S.C.A. Promotions, and the case — which resulted in hours of testimony by Armstrong and others under oath — was later settled out of court. S.C.A. was forced to pay $5 million and about $2.5 million in penalties.

“Federal fraud charges are fairly straightforward; they apply to any scheme to acquire money or property through deceit or misrepresentation,” said Daniel C. Richman, a professor of law at Columbia University and former federal prosecutor. “In this case, the authorities would have to prove that Armstrong was misrepresenting himself to sponsors by saying that he was clean but was actually using performance-enhancing drugs and profiting from it.”

So one avenue they're pursuing is $5m fraud and perjury? Ouch.

Kléber

AidanR wrote:

So one avenue they're pursuing is $5m fraud and perjury? Ouch.

Instant prison sentence in the US.

A TUE for cortisone cream for "saddle sores" could be needed again.