Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...

1…3738404243…64

Comments

  • le_patron
    le_patron Posts: 494
    That toto is v funny
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    frenchfighter wrote:
    KBWB investigating Bruyneel

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/belgian ... e-bruyneel

    Just who are these federation "investigators" and what are their powers? If any?
    Do they have "police" powers or are they more like "private investigators" in that they are simply information gatherers with no power to search anyone or anyplace? How many are there and who the h*lls paying for all this? Wait a minute, I know the answer to that last one. All I can say is that with all these "revelations" they are going to be pretty busy little boys. Might be a place to look for work. They(the federations) are going to need all the help they can get. AND a bigger payroll, that I'm paying for somehow, someway. :evil:
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    andyp wrote:
    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.

    As Landis has given LA so many warnings over the years, months, I would guess LA showed them to a lawyer and asked how far it could go, given what LA has to lose. I am sure a lawyer will have spelled out the possible legal consequences of Floyd going public. Perhaps LAs arrogance will bring him down...he may not have listened or believe the legal advice but surely any lawyer worth his salt will have warned LA about Balco style investigations, FDA, USADA...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Seems as though everyone is talking LA vs FL but remember, FL threw in a few other
    names into the hat and I would bet that those people "ain't happy campers" about the whole thing. FL has potentially slandered more than a few people and while George H.
    and the rest aren't the biggest fish out there they have lawyers too. Whom I'm sure are looking at this every which way, and not just defensively.
    Hard to believe that FL would come on like that without something up his sleeve but you never know what an angry and possibly irrational person will do or say.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    dennisn wrote:
    you never know what an angry and possibly irrational person will do or say.

    We're starting to get a good idea though...
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    You've not read much about this, have you dennis?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    You've not read much about this, have you dennis?


    I can barely keep up with the forum posts, let alone actually read all the "articles" on the subject.

    So, a few posts back I asked about the various "federation investigators". Anyone want to try and give me some info on who, what, why, how many?
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    dennisn wrote:

    So, a few posts back I asked about the various "federation investigators". Anyone want to try and give me some info on who, what, why, how many?

    Who? Belgians
    What? People working for the Belgian Cycling Federation's anti-doping branch
    Why? Because someone said that Johan Bruyneel has been a naughty boy
    How many? At least one
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Here's a thought. It's possible that if other authorities(besides cycling's)
    become involved they may only be interested in dealers, not users. So in the end there might not be anyone who is in the mood to prosecute riders. So it's back to square one,
    2 year ban. Everybody on this forum who is hoping that the cheaters will be sentenced to hang by the neck for life, might be really disappointed
  • AidanR
    AidanR Posts: 1,142
    I don't want to see the riders hang. I want to see an effective, incorruptible system in place.
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    RichN95 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    So, a few posts back I asked about the various "federation investigators". Anyone want to try and give me some info on who, what, why, how many?

    Who? Belgians
    What? People working for the Belgian Cycling Federation's anti-doping branch
    Why? Because someone said that Johan Bruyneel has been a naughty boy
    How many? At least one

    What sort of "powers" do these people (or person) have? Are they just information gatherers? Or do they have some sort of "police" type authority? i.e. search whom and where they want?? That sort of thing????
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    AidanR wrote:
    I don't want to see the riders hang. I want to see an effective, incorruptible system in place.

    incorruptible? Whoa. I can't wrap my mind around anything or anyone like that. :roll: :roll:

    Wait a minute, there was a guy, many, many, many, years ago like that but I guess he didn't last that long and kind of came to a "bad" end. For lack of a better description.
  • rapid_uphill
    rapid_uphill Posts: 841
    Hanging is not good enough for Lance. He would probably cheat death anyway.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:
    Here's a thought. It's possible that if other authorities(besides cycling's)
    become involved they may only be interested in dealers, not users. So in the end there might not be anyone who is in the mood to prosecute riders.

    Let's break this down - Anti-doping authorities are interested in riders who've doped. They might be able to cut a deal with the ADA's, or they may just deny. Depends how they feel but there is little evidence so far which would satisfy them.

    Then there are law enforcement agencies. They're investigating things like fraud and perjury. This is where Armstrong and Bruyneel are possible in some very hot water. These kind of agencies are likely to be interested in the smaller fish as witnesses, because a guy like Hincapie or Zabriskie probably didn't break any laws.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    edited May 2010
    More from Bonnie Ford

    http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/n ... YHeadlines

    Think of Frei as you read it
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • avoidingmyphd
    avoidingmyphd Posts: 1,154
    dennisn wrote:
    Here's a thought. It's possible that if other authorities(besides cycling's)
    become involved they may only be interested in dealers, not users. So in the end there might not be anyone who is in the mood to prosecute riders. So it's back to square one,
    2 year ban. Everybody on this forum who is hoping that the cheaters will be sentenced to hang by the neck for life, might be really disappointed

    except that (1) the extra authorities getting involved would be in addition to the cycling ones, not instead of them and (2) in Landis' emails, the dealers are the same riders as the dopers.[/i]
  • Bakunin
    Bakunin Posts: 868
    OK, I'm done.

    This quote says it all.

    A UCI statement stated that the requests are "aimed at establishing, in an objective manner, whether or not events potentially constituting a breach of the Anti-Doping Rules occurred. This does not in any way imply that the UCI considers the allegations made by Mr Landis to have any basis."

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-req ... dis-claims


    There is not much difference between Pro cycling and pro wrestling.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    iainf72 wrote:
    More from Bonnie Ford

    http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/n ... YHeadlines

    According to Landis, the coup de grace that made this methodology work was that he and his Postal Service teammates routinely had advance notice of supposedly unannounced anti-doping controls. "We always knew when the blood testers were going to be there the following morning, so we would know when to have the saline solution bags so we could dilute our blood the night before," he said. He said he did not know how the team staff got wind of the schedule. "It was just nice that they did," he said.

    This ties in with what Manzano said back in 2007.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Bakunin wrote:
    OK, I'm done.

    This quote says it all.

    A UCI statement stated that the requests are "aimed at establishing, in an objective manner, whether or not events potentially constituting a breach of the Anti-Doping Rules occurred. This does not in any way imply that the UCI considers the allegations made by Mr Landis to have any basis."

    He can't come out and say what YOU seem to want him to say. He said what he has to say, but you knew that, didn't you? Maybe you don't know that that's how it works? If he said "oh h*ll, their all guilty" that could derail any investigation that may or may not happen
    in that it shows bias and any lawyer worth his salt would jump on that in a minute. So, for your sake(in wanting to see them all hung out to dry) it's a d*mn good thing you're not running the show.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    avoidingmyphd wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Here's a thought. It's possible that if other authorities(besides cycling's)
    become involved they may only be interested in dealers, not users. So in the end there might not be anyone who is in the mood to prosecute riders. So it's back to square one,
    2 year ban. Everybody on this forum who is hoping that the cheaters will be sentenced to hang by the neck for life, might be really disappointed

    ...and (2) in Landis' emails, the dealers are the same riders as the dopers.[/i]

    So, if all the dopers were dealers who did they deal to???
    Sorry, that's a bit sarcastic but i couldn't resist.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,558
    dennisn wrote:
    Bakunin wrote:
    OK, I'm done.

    This quote says it all.

    A UCI statement stated that the requests are "aimed at establishing, in an objective manner, whether or not events potentially constituting a breach of the Anti-Doping Rules occurred. This does not in any way imply that the UCI considers the allegations made by Mr Landis to have any basis."

    He can't come out and say what YOU seem to want him to say. He said what he has to say, but you knew that, didn't you? Maybe you don't know that that's how it works? If he said "oh h*ll, their all guilty" that could derail any investigation that may or may not happen
    in that it shows bias and any lawyer worth his salt would jump on that in a minute. So, for your sake(in wanting to see them all hung out to dry) it's a d*mn good thing you're not running the show.

    Were you equally vociferous regarding Quaid's original statement, in which he called Landis a blackmailer, and said he was discredited?
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • avoidingmyphd
    avoidingmyphd Posts: 1,154
    dennisn wrote:
    avoidingmyphd wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Here's a thought. It's possible that if other authorities(besides cycling's)
    become involved they may only be interested in dealers, not users. So in the end there might not be anyone who is in the mood to prosecute riders. So it's back to square one,
    2 year ban. Everybody on this forum who is hoping that the cheaters will be sentenced to hang by the neck for life, might be really disappointed

    ...and (2) in Landis' emails, the dealers are the same riders as the dopers.[/i]

    So, if all the dopers were dealers who did they deal to???
    Sorry, that's a bit sarcastic but i couldn't resist.
    no worries dennis.
    According to floyd's email on p4 of this thread:
    Bruyneel supplied him with epo.
    Matthew White and Michael Barry shared their epo with him.

    Not as many as you took me to suggest, I realise (although I didn't say ALL!), but you get the gist. I've only seen one email. I expect the others include similar allegations that the riders clubbed together, shared, or passed around their drugs. Which would make them dealers.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,558
    iainf72 wrote:
    More from Bonnie Ford

    http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/n ... YHeadlines

    Think of Frei as you read it

    Excellent article, thanks.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Bakunin wrote:
    OK, I'm done.

    This quote says it all.

    A UCI statement stated that the requests are "aimed at establishing, in an objective manner, whether or not events potentially constituting a breach of the Anti-Doping Rules occurred. This does not in any way imply that the UCI considers the allegations made by Mr Landis to have any basis."

    He can't come out and say what YOU seem to want him to say. He said what he has to say, but you knew that, didn't you? Maybe you don't know that that's how it works? If he said "oh h*ll, their all guilty" that could derail any investigation that may or may not happen
    in that it shows bias and any lawyer worth his salt would jump on that in a minute. So, for your sake(in wanting to see them all hung out to dry) it's a d*mn good thing you're not running the show.

    Were you equally vociferous regarding Quaid's original statement, in which he called Landis a blackmailer, and said he was discredited?

    Pretty stupid of him to say things like that. Leaves you wide open. Plenty of people say things they shouldn't. Me included, but I doubt it's gonna stop. This whole affair has barely gotten started and it should be fun to watch for years to come. And the only people making any money will be the lawyers.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Other good reading

    Mr Birnie has written an excellent piece today

    http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... mment.html
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • skavanagh.bikeradar
    skavanagh.bikeradar Posts: 1,097
    Another good article on this subject. Thanks for posting these Iain. This thread, whilst long, has thrown up lots of interesting things to read.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,558
    dennisn wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Bakunin wrote:
    OK, I'm done.

    This quote says it all.

    A UCI statement stated that the requests are "aimed at establishing, in an objective manner, whether or not events potentially constituting a breach of the Anti-Doping Rules occurred. This does not in any way imply that the UCI considers the allegations made by Mr Landis to have any basis."

    He can't come out and say what YOU seem to want him to say. He said what he has to say, but you knew that, didn't you? Maybe you don't know that that's how it works? If he said "oh h*ll, their all guilty" that could derail any investigation that may or may not happen
    in that it shows bias and any lawyer worth his salt would jump on that in a minute. So, for your sake(in wanting to see them all hung out to dry) it's a d*mn good thing you're not running the show.

    Were you equally vociferous regarding Quaid's original statement, in which he called Landis a blackmailer, and said he was discredited?

    Pretty stupid of him to say things like that. Leaves you wide open. Plenty of people say things they shouldn't. Me included, but I doubt it's gonna stop. This whole affair has barely gotten started and it should be fun to watch for years to come. And the only people making any money will be the lawyers.

    Well we agree on something then!
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • IanLD
    IanLD Posts: 423
    Enjoyed that last article Iain.

    Looking forward to see how this continues to develop. The Cycling Weekly article puts across the change in views really well.

    Looks like a lot of cycling's dirty laundry is going to be on view, but hopefully this will result in real changes to all sport and not just ours. I can actually see some good coming from this once the dust settles.

    Wonder who will make up the final headcount in those that it takes down?
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Bakunin wrote:
    OK, I'm done.

    This quote says it all.

    A UCI statement stated that the requests are "aimed at establishing, in an objective manner, whether or not events potentially constituting a breach of the Anti-Doping Rules occurred. This does not in any way imply that the UCI considers the allegations made by Mr Landis to have any basis."

    He can't come out and say what YOU seem to want him to say. He said what he has to say, but you knew that, didn't you? Maybe you don't know that that's how it works? If he said "oh h*ll, their all guilty" that could derail any investigation that may or may not happen
    in that it shows bias and any lawyer worth his salt would jump on that in a minute. So, for your sake(in wanting to see them all hung out to dry) it's a d*mn good thing you're not running the show.

    Were you equally vociferous regarding Quaid's original statement, in which he called Landis a blackmailer, and said he was discredited?

    Pretty stupid of him to say things like that. Leaves you wide open. Plenty of people say things they shouldn't. Me included, but I doubt it's gonna stop. This whole affair has barely gotten started and it should be fun to watch for years to come. And the only people making any money will be the lawyers.

    Well we agree on something then!

    It's the little miracles that count. :wink:
  • dave milne
    dave milne Posts: 703
    dennisn

    can you please shut up, the amount of times I have to scroll through your illogical arguments and all the replies to them is really f******* tedious - can we give him his own forum?

Categories