Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
dennisn wrote:Top_Bhoy wrote:
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.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.
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?)
If you want to pursue a defamation action, don't you have to prove that what has been said about you is false? In which case, the onus would be on Lance to disprove these allegations (on the balance of probabilities). I think that is the case over here in UK anyway. Getting people to speak out against Lance is one thing, but would people be waiting in line to speak out for him?!
Of course that only applies if Lance goes down the legal route - I'm guessing he won't.0 -
No, it's not. The defendant in a libel case has to prove that what they said is true, or else was a statement of opinion rather than fact.MatHammond wrote:If you want to pursue a defamation action, don't you have to prove that what has been said about you is false? In which case, the onus would be on Lance to disprove these allegations (on the balance of probabilities). I think that is the case over here in UK anyway.0 -
I still think LA, JB and their legal team will have been looking carefully at how Floyd's confessions could play out legally well well in advance of Floyd's emails last week. Wouldn't you if threatened?...LA and his lot will have been speaking to everyone months ago, getting stories straight, getting them all on message, looking at what threshold of evidence the feds, FDA, USADA need and so on need.... LAs planned ahead for this or else Landis would be in the shack0
-
-
Dave_1 wrote:I still think LA, JB and their legal team will have been looking carefully at how Floyd's confessions could play out legally well well in advance of Floyd's emails last week. Wouldn't you if threatened?...LA and his lot will have been speaking to everyone months ago, getting stories straight, getting them all on message, looking at what threshold of evidence the feds, FDA, USADA need and so on need.... LAs planned ahead for this or else Landis would be in the shack
I think Dave is right about this. The UCI, Barry, Lim, and others seem to be on board.
But the wildcard is what sort of pressure can the feds bring to bear. They are going to compel people to be truthful through some threats of their own.
The arrogance of the LA camp may be their downfall. An agreed upon story may not be enough if the feds are really involved.0 -
-
Bakunin wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I still think LA, JB and their legal team will have been looking carefully at how Floyd's confessions could play out legally well well in advance of Floyd's emails last week. Wouldn't you if threatened?...LA and his lot will have been speaking to everyone months ago, getting stories straight, getting them all on message, looking at what threshold of evidence the feds, FDA, USADA need and so on need.... LAs planned ahead for this or else Landis would be in the shack
I think Dave is right about this. The UCI, Barry, Lim, and others seem to be on board.
But the wildcard is what sort of pressure can the feds bring to bear. They are going to compel people to be truthful through some threats of their own.
The arrogance of the LA camp may be their downfall. An agreed upon story may not be enough if the feds are really involved.
A bus has many rooms, a bus driver needn't know what was going on...and as we see, LAs ex-wife is on message "I don't remember" she says re Landis' allegations. Nobody will remember much I am sure and who can prove they do?
Look at the way Mussuew got EPO/WASPs...in disguise with glasses on , went into a pharmacy in Germany and paid cash...if LA and JB did things this way...no money trail to find. Again, I think they're too clever to leave money trails..
Tyler H under oath could be interesting though.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:A bus has many rooms, a bus driver needn't know what was going on...and as we see, LAs ex-wife is on message "I don't remember" she says re Landis' allegations. Nobody will remember much I am sure and who can prove they do?
Look at the way Mussuew got EPO/WASPs...in disguise with glasses on , went into a pharmacy in Germany and paid cash...if LA and JB did things this way...no money trail to find. Again, I think they're too clever to leave money trails..
Tyler H under oath could be interesting though.
While I agree that LA and the Hog are very clever, I don't think LA would ever wear a disguise to get his dope. I always thought that it was more organized and serious than running into a pharmacy, but maybe not. I just don't see Lance being in the world that way. Who knows?
But there are money trails -- the good doctor was paid, the UCI was paid, and I would expect others as well. We will see.
The problem with what Dave put forward is that how can this be the easier path than just giving Floyd a job? The feds, another media firestorm, and real details -- why would he be willing to take all this on. Apart from a serious distraction, it is difficult to control when put in motion.0 -
Bakunin wrote:Dave_1 wrote:A bus has many rooms, a bus driver needn't know what was going on...and as we see, LAs ex-wife is on message "I don't remember" she says re Landis' allegations. Nobody will remember much I am sure and who can prove they do?
Look at the way Mussuew got EPO/WASPs...in disguise with glasses on , went into a pharmacy in Germany and paid cash...if LA and JB did things this way...no money trail to find. Again, I think they're too clever to leave money trails..
Tyler H under oath could be interesting though.
While I agree that LA and the Hog are very clever, I don't think LA would ever wear a disguise to get his dope. I always thought that it was more organized and serious than running into a pharmacy, but maybe not. I just don't see Lance being in the world that way. Who knows?
But there are money trails -- the good doctor was paid, the UCI was paid, and I would expect others as well. We will see.
The problem with what Dave put forward is that how can this be the easier path than just giving Floyd a job? The feds, another media firestorm, and real details -- why would he be willing to take all this on. Apart from a serious distraction, it is difficult to control when put in motion.
Saiz with 50,000 Euros in cash in his bag would be the way LA and JB did business if what Floyd said is true-it's only an allegation at the moment. Someone out there in Spain might know they sourced the EPO but more likely it would be some soigneur or friend of the team in a wig and beard going around pharamcies buying up stuff legally or meeting dealers using false names, paying cash, in which case LA is safe..no connection anyone is aware of. No Balco. How else does one get EPO and the like? I cant think of other ways... If it was bought online..money trail...no way he would have done that...he's too careful.0 -
-
Dave_1 wrote:Saiz with 50,000 Euros in cash in his bag would be the way LA and JB did business if what Floyd said is true-it's only an allegation at the moment. Someone out there in Spain might know they sourced the EPO but more likely it would be some soigneur or friend of the team in a wig and beard going around pharamcies buying up stuff legally or meeting dealers using false names, paying cash, in which case LA is safe..no connection anyone is aware of. No Balco. How else does one get EPO and the like? I cant think of other ways... If it was bought online..money trail...no way he would have done that...he's too careful.
I'm sure he has been careful but I doubt he's been expecting a federal investigation. Pulling the wool over the eyes of the UCI is one thing, and relatively easy for Armstrong to do if the Vrijman report shows his influence.
However, doing the same for WADA is another, especially as they would love to get Armstrong.
But what really takes this into a different league is the involvement of the Federal Authorities. These guys have far more resources and legal powers than the UCI and WADA and can put together a much, much stronger case.
I'm sure Armstrong and his legal team have considered what to do if Landis goes public but there worst case scenario would have been this. Whatever influence Armstrong has, it pales into insignificance when the likes of Zabriskie, Vaughters, Hincapie et al are looking at possible custodial sentences.0 -
This paragraph makes me feel physically sick:
Landis also described an afternoon in 2004 when the USPS team bus "stopped on a remote mountain road for an hour or so," ostensibly with engine trouble, "so the entire team could have half a liter of blood added."
I cant imagine anyone in the team with any morals would partake in this.
Its just sick, really sick.0 -
Returning to the 'donation' Armstrong made to the UCI, I feel there is ample evidence it was far more than the $100,000 that McQuaid is admitting. For example Sylvia Schenk, the former president of the German Cycling Federation, said the following
“The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong – to my knowledge 500,000 dollars – and now there is speculation that there are financial connections to Armstrong, as well as the American market. I do not know what sort of connections Verbruggen has.”
http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/09/ ... -case_8889
RULES BENT FOR TEXAN
Lance Armstrong has not sat on
Sunday Herald, The, Oct 12, 2008 by Jeremy Whittle
The feeling that Armstrong, whose success in road cycling opened the door to the hugely lucrative American market, has always been accorded special treatment by the UCI, dates back a decade. During his first Tour victory in 1999, when traces of corticoids were reported to have been found in his samples, the UCI unearthed a medical certificate after the event, showing he was permitted to use the substance.
Towards the end of his career, Armstrong made a donation to the UCI coffers, believed to be in the region of $500,000, claiming that it was to "combat doping". But former UCI committee member Sylvia Schenk said that it was "not clear what it was used for. It seemed to be a secret". A UCI spokesperson was yesterday unavailable for comment.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... n30900387/
"Since 1998 the UCI has done a lot to combat doping but everything is different where Armstrong is concerned," said Schenk. Schenk is also concerned that Armstrong made a personal donation to the UCI to help fight doping. The gift coincided with the publication of the controversial book LA Confidential by the Sunday Times journalist David Walsh that linked Armstrong with using performance enhancing drugs without uncovering conclusive evidence. "There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong," Schenk said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/se ... ng.cycling
UCI president Hein Verbruggen spoke to ‘Eurosport’ and divulged that the American “gave money for the research against doping, to discover new anti-doping methods," “He gave money from his private funds, cash. He didn't want this to be known but he did it". Armstrong did not make this knowledge public and when questioned about the contribution said that “If I've donated money to the UCI to combat doping, step up controls and to fund research, it is not my job to issue a press release. That's a secret thing, because it's the right thing to do.” Eurosport.com also reports that when questioned about the amounts of money involved there followed “(Laughter) It was a fair amount. It wasn't... It wasn't a small amount of money".
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3088
This last one from Hein Verbruggen are Armstrong themselves is particularly interesting. How far would $100,000 'combat doping, step up controls and fund research'?0 -
frenchfighter wrote:
That really makes me fancy a small tot of easy drinking Chivas, or maybe Highland Park.
Can we have a Pro-Whisk(e)y forum please?___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
UCI president Hein Verbruggen spoke to ‘Eurosport’ and divulged that the American “gave money for the research against doping, to discover new anti-doping methods," “He gave money from his private funds, cash.
when i hear stories of large wads of cash being handed over in secret my instinct tells me that something underhand is going on. Given his position in cycling and his stance on doping, there is no reason an electronic transfer of a large amount of money could not have been carried out if the intentions were honourable and reasons genuine.An electronic transfer could even have been done through a third party or holding company to make it anonymous and harder to track.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Bakunin wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I still think LA, JB and their legal team will have been looking carefully at how Floyd's confessions could play out legally well well in advance of Floyd's emails last week. Wouldn't you if threatened?...LA and his lot will have been speaking to everyone months ago, getting stories straight, getting them all on message, looking at what threshold of evidence the feds, FDA, USADA need and so on need.... LAs planned ahead for this or else Landis would be in the shack
I think Dave is right about this. The UCI, Barry, Lim, and others seem to be on board.
But the wildcard is what sort of pressure can the feds bring to bear. They are going to compel people to be truthful through some threats of their own.
The arrogance of the LA camp may be their downfall. An agreed upon story may not be enough if the feds are really involved.
A bus has many rooms, a bus driver needn't know what was going on...and as we see, LAs ex-wife is on message "I don't remember" she says re Landis' allegations. Nobody will remember much I am sure and who can prove they do?
Look at the way Mussuew got EPO/WASPs...in disguise with glasses on , went into a pharmacy in Germany and paid cash...if LA and JB did things this way...no money trail to find. Again, I think they're too clever to leave money trails..
Tyler H under oath could be interesting though.
I'm not sure how much "under oath" means these days. People say things under oath all the time. In the end it doesn't matter what he says. It's all about IF the RIGHT people believe him. And you and I aren't those RIGHT people.0 -
That is an odd thing for his ex-wife to say 'I don't remember'
Not exactly ...
'I have never seen my husband using or heard him discussing doping methods'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
dennisn wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Bakunin wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I still think LA, JB and their legal team will have been looking carefully at how Floyd's confessions could play out legally well well in advance of Floyd's emails last week. Wouldn't you if threatened?...LA and his lot will have been speaking to everyone months ago, getting stories straight, getting them all on message, looking at what threshold of evidence the feds, FDA, USADA need and so on need.... LAs planned ahead for this or else Landis would be in the shack
I think Dave is right about this. The UCI, Barry, Lim, and others seem to be on board.
But the wildcard is what sort of pressure can the feds bring to bear. They are going to compel people to be truthful through some threats of their own.
The arrogance of the LA camp may be their downfall. An agreed upon story may not be enough if the feds are really involved.
A bus has many rooms, a bus driver needn't know what was going on...and as we see, LAs ex-wife is on message "I don't remember" she says re Landis' allegations. Nobody will remember much I am sure and who can prove they do?
Look at the way Mussuew got EPO/WASPs...in disguise with glasses on , went into a pharmacy in Germany and paid cash...if LA and JB did things this way...no money trail to find. Again, I think they're too clever to leave money trails..
Tyler H under oath could be interesting though.
I'm not sure how much "under oath" means these days. People say things under oath all the time. In the end it doesn't matter what he says. It's all about IF the RIGHT people believe him. And you and I aren't those RIGHT people.
Nonsense -- ask Marion Jones about being under oath.0 -
Then again, we already have it on record from no less than Hein Verbruggen that the 'donation' Armstrong made to the UCI was a 'cash' deal'...Dave_1 wrote:Saiz with 50,000 Euros in cash in his bag would be the way LA and JB did business if what Floyd said is true-it's only an allegation at the moment.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Then again, we already have it on record from no less than Hein Verbruggen that the 'donation' Armstrong made to the UCI was a 'cash' deal'...Dave_1 wrote:Saiz with 50,000 Euros in cash in his bag would be the way LA and JB did business if what Floyd said is true-it's only an allegation at the moment.
Indeed - and interestingly that directly contradicts McQuaid's assertion that it was a cheque.0 -
Bakunin wrote:dennisn wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Bakunin wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I still think LA, JB and their legal team will have been looking carefully at how Floyd's confessions could play out legally well well in advance of Floyd's emails last week. Wouldn't you if threatened?...LA and his lot will have been speaking to everyone months ago, getting stories straight, getting them all on message, looking at what threshold of evidence the feds, FDA, USADA need and so on need.... LAs planned ahead for this or else Landis would be in the shack
I think Dave is right about this. The UCI, Barry, Lim, and others seem to be on board.
But the wildcard is what sort of pressure can the feds bring to bear. They are going to compel people to be truthful through some threats of their own.
The arrogance of the LA camp may be their downfall. An agreed upon story may not be enough if the feds are really involved.
A bus has many rooms, a bus driver needn't know what was going on...and as we see, LAs ex-wife is on message "I don't remember" she says re Landis' allegations. Nobody will remember much I am sure and who can prove they do?
Look at the way Mussuew got EPO/WASPs...in disguise with glasses on , went into a pharmacy in Germany and paid cash...if LA and JB did things this way...no money trail to find. Again, I think they're too clever to leave money trails..
Tyler H under oath could be interesting though.
I'm not sure how much "under oath" means these days. People say things under oath all the time. In the end it doesn't matter what he says. It's all about IF the RIGHT people believe him. And you and I aren't those RIGHT people.
Nonsense -- ask Marion Jones about being under oath.
Nonsense -- It's always been about having the right people believe the right thing(whether it's right or wrong, legal or illegal). It's all about what the judge / jury believes, not what someone swore to under oath.0 -
Jones was jailed for lying under oath.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0
-
Good grief.0
-
dennisn wrote:AidanR wrote:Jones was jailed for lying under oath.
I know. It's still about what a judge / jury believes, oath or no oath..
It's about what the jury determines to be the truth, based on all the evidence presented to them which may well go beyond what is said under oath. If what you've said in to a journalist contradicts what a court determines to be the truth, you're a liar. If what you've said under oath contradicts what a court determines to be the truth then you can end up in jail. That's the power of the oath, and it makes it more likely that people will tell the truth.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
I think I know what's coming next.........0
-
0
-
calvjones wrote:frenchfighter wrote:
That really makes me fancy a small tot of easy drinking Chivas, or maybe Highland Park.
Can we have a Pro-Whisk(e)y forum please?
Oh yes, a drop of Highland Park goes down very nicely. But can I recommend you the Scapa? Lush honey and heather notes. Oh yes.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:calvjones wrote:frenchfighter wrote:
That really makes me fancy a small tot of easy drinking Chivas, or maybe Highland Park.
Can we have a Pro-Whisk(e)y forum please?
Oh yes, a drop of Highland Park goes down very nicely. But can I recommend you the Scapa? Lush honey and heather notes. Oh yes.
That would be the 14YO? Yup, a very nice change from the peat monsters.
Anyhow,Toto.
Bruyneel: "We Might as Well Abandon Ship."
Going down..........."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Contador is the Greatest0
