Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...

dennisn

O.K. I will admit to not having read all the posts in this, or to having read all the articles
that have been referenced, or to even following this whole affair very closely. More of an outsider trying to look at the big picture and overwhelmed by all the possible details.
One thing has sort of bugged me and it may have been gone over many times already, but I can't seem to wrap my mind around what sort of plus FL is thinking will come out of this for him? IF he even has a plus in mind. Is there much of a feel good thing to be gained? Do we believe his stated reasons? Are there other reasons? Must be??
If I assume that FL and the others were friends once(and why wouldn't they have been?) how does it work that one side or the other decides to turn their back on a friend? How do people deal with things like that? Where's the plus in that?? 10 years from now, what then? Any pluses(on a personal level) for anyone involved in this?? But I ramble on and all this is just getting started. H*ll, it could last 10 years. I honestly feel sorry for all involved. This can't end well, at least on a people basis.

dennisn

dave milne wrote:

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?

O.K. I'll take that as constructive and try to do better. Whatever that is? I think my wife has used the word tedious in reference to me. I do recall her saying a few times "ok, ok, ok, I understand, now get on with the rest of it". Must be old age. I was never this talkative as a kid.

No_Ta_Doctor

dennisn wrote:

O.K. I will admit to not having read all the posts in this, or to having read all the articles
that have been referenced, or to even following this whole affair very closely. More of an outsider trying to look at the big picture and overwhelmed by all the possible details.
One thing has sort of bugged me and it may have been gone over many times already, but I can't seem to wrap my mind around what sort of plus FL is thinking will come out of this for him? IF he even has a plus in mind. Is there much of a feel good thing to be gained? Do we believe his stated reasons? Are there other reasons? Must be??
If I assume that FL and the others were friends once(and why wouldn't they have been?) how does it work that one side or the other decides to turn their back on a friend? How do people deal with things like that? Where's the plus in that?? 10 years from now, what then? Any pluses(on a personal level) for anyone involved in this?? But I ramble on and all this is just getting started. H*ll, it could last 10 years. I honestly feel sorry for all involved. This can't end well, at least on a people basis.

What Landis stands to lose = nothing.
What Landis stands to gain = peace of mind and revenge.

All this stuff about him lying for four years, put that in perspective of someone who took the rap for something everyone was doing, kept quiet, but still got shafted by all around him. He kept the omerta but still paid the same price as someone breaking it. Now he's broken it, when it became obvious it was all over for him in cycling.

Richrd2205

dennisn wrote:

O.K. I will admit to not having read all the posts in this, or to having read all the articles
that have been referenced, or to even following this whole affair very closely. More of an outsider trying to look at the big picture and overwhelmed by all the possible details.
One thing has sort of bugged me and it may have been gone over many times already, but I can't seem to wrap my mind around what sort of plus FL is thinking will come out of this for him? IF he even has a plus in mind. Is there much of a feel good thing to be gained? Do we believe his stated reasons? Are there other reasons? Must be??
If I assume that FL and the others were friends once(and why wouldn't they have been?) how does it work that one side or the other decides to turn their back on a friend? How do people deal with things like that? Where's the plus in that?? 10 years from now, what then? Any pluses(on a personal level) for anyone involved in this?? But I ramble on and all this is just getting started. H*ll, it could last 10 years. I honestly feel sorry for all involved. This can't end well, at least on a people basis.

Dennis
Reading some of the links, or even all of the posts would really help!
I answered most of your points in a fairly long post a few pages back, but I'll try to summarise for you:
-What's in it for FL: not having to continue to live a lie. Not having to be punished for doping when others doing the same are making millions. Having been brought up in a religious household, this makes some sense.
-Feel good thing: honesty over a lie you feel bad about can be a really big feel good thing.
-Do "we" believe his stated reasons. I believe that he is being honest in his statements: that he is explicitly stating events as he recalls and experiences them. I can write about 2000 words on this point, so will just leave that one as a summary ;-) however, it makes sense; there's no reason to infer a lack of honesty. Whether his recall and the recall of others tally is another point entirely: recall is nowhere near as reliable as we think it is. Saying that, we're talking about the details, rather than the big picture, so I would believe the overall thrust, but not really trust the little details....

Seriously, some of the linked to articles explain all this. Many of the posts explain these points. Read & ask informed questions & you'll get far more respectful & intelligent responses. :roll:

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

More from Bonnie Ford

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

Think of Frei as you read it

looks like Floyd Landis is providing some very beneficial information. Perhaps Ashenden and co can do bio passports for normal folk, athletes and compare it with those trying to make their blood look regular as it could show up differences...then they get suspended for a time while their blood is tested 5 times a day , then put that against their managed blood profile?

dave_1

Think people should go easy on Dennis N. His points about this under oath and perjury stuff I found enlightening...people won't automatically tell the truth and the judge and jury will decide...we all hope they will tell the truth but it will be very easy for those who lance has contacted months ago about a possible Federal investigation (he's not as dumb as we'd like to think) to say "I don't remember that", "it's 8 years ago, I can't remember the details" or "no I didn't do that"....and who can prove them wrong? Who do you send to jail?

SpaceJunk

Dave_1 wrote:

Think people should go easy on Dennis N. His points about this under oath and perjury stuff I found enlightening...people won't automatically tell the truth and the judge and jury will decide...we all hope they will tell the truth but it will be very easy for those who lance has contacted months ago about a possible Federal investigation (he's not as dumb as we'd like to think) to say "I don't remember that", "it's 8 years ago, I can't remember the details" or "no I didn't do that"....and who can prove them wrong? Who do you send to jail?

I agree re: Dennis N.

I don't necessarily agree with all that he posts; but he has as much right to be on this forum as I or anyone else.

I suggest if people are annoy with his repetitive arguments, then just ignore them (no offense Dennis )

And Dennis does from time to time make some interesting observations.

dave_1

SpaceJunk wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Think people should go easy on Dennis N. His points about this under oath and perjury stuff I found enlightening...people won't automatically tell the truth and the judge and jury will decide...we all hope they will tell the truth but it will be very easy for those who lance has contacted months ago about a possible Federal investigation (he's not as dumb as we'd like to think) to say "I don't remember that", "it's 8 years ago, I can't remember the details" or "no I didn't do that"....and who can prove them wrong? Who do you send to jail?

I agree re: Dennis N.

I don't necessarily agree with all that he posts; but he has as much right to be on this forum as I or anyone else.

I suggest if people are annoy with his repetitive arguments, then just ignore them (no offense Dennis )

And Dennis does from time to time make some interesting observations.

I don't live in the USA nor do that many regulars on here I think so I am quite willing to accept Dennis's observations regarding the US judiciary and esp his views on how people there treat the under oath part of the process.

LAs legal team will put together a powerful case portraying Landis as blackmailer-they'll shred this guy and every aspect of how he's lived since 2006. LA will have had private investigators on Landis for years, as soon as those threats were made. Who would just let someone threaten your life like that?

moray_gub

SpaceJunk wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Think people should go easy on Dennis N. His points about this under oath and perjury stuff I found enlightening...people won't automatically tell the truth and the judge and jury will decide...we all hope they will tell the truth but it will be very easy for those who lance has contacted months ago about a possible Federal investigation (he's not as dumb as we'd like to think) to say "I don't remember that", "it's 8 years ago, I can't remember the details" or "no I didn't do that"....and who can prove them wrong? Who do you send to jail?

I agree re: Dennis N.

I don't necessarily agree with all that he posts; but he has as much right to be on this forum as I or anyone else.

I suggest if people are annoy with his repetitive arguments, then just ignore them (no offense Dennis )

And Dennis does from time to time make some interesting observations.

Also agree re : Dennis .

I have noticed this at times that when someone like Dennis or myself or Dave_1 or indeed anyone who has an alternative opinion to the majority and posts something which doesnt tend to go with the way of the forum in general our right to post in here is questioned .Not that it makes much difference but still it shows you what people think of opinions that they dont share.

dave_1

Moray Gub wrote:

SpaceJunk wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Think people should go easy on Dennis N. His points about this under oath and perjury stuff I found enlightening...people won't automatically tell the truth and the judge and jury will decide...we all hope they will tell the truth but it will be very easy for those who lance has contacted months ago about a possible Federal investigation (he's not as dumb as we'd like to think) to say "I don't remember that", "it's 8 years ago, I can't remember the details" or "no I didn't do that"....and who can prove them wrong? Who do you send to jail?

I agree re: Dennis N.

I don't necessarily agree with all that he posts; but he has as much right to be on this forum as I or anyone else.

I suggest if people are annoy with his repetitive arguments, then just ignore them (no offense Dennis )

And Dennis does from time to time make some interesting observations.

Also agree re : Dennis .

I have noticed this at times that when someone like Dennis or myself or Dave_1 or indeed anyone who has an alternative opinion to the majority and posts something which doesnt tend to go with the way of the forum in general our right to post in here is questioned .Not that it makes much difference but still it shows you what people think of opinions that they dont share.

definitely people of a neutral or pro Lance Armstrong persuasion are very thin on the ground here in Pro Race and no wonder. Look at the abuse of Dennis N cause he won't join the majority..gets told to shut up etc.

.

rapid_uphill

This thread is about Landis not dennisn. get back on subject or stfu. I dont have time to read drivel.

No_Ta_Doctor

As an outsider/new poster I largely agree with the above re Dennis, everyone should be allowed to have a voice. If you don't agree with him then argue your case, if you get bogged down in a petty flame-war then ignore him.

That said, I disagree with almost everything he's written.

I think at the heart of the matter is that the reason there are few pro-Armstrong or neutrals on the thread is that many of us have been certain Armstrong was juiced for many years now. Whether Landis is telling the entire and unadorned truth we don't know (I'm certainly not a Landis fan, he was one of the bad guys) but it confirms what we've always thgouht, so we believe him - at least in the broad picture. More to the point, we find it difficult to see how anyone could think Armstrong raced clean, it just doesn't seem possible. Anyone that thinks he was clean looks wilfully blind to us. There is so much circumstantial evidence, so many allegations, so much that we know about doping in cycling that it just doesn't fit. I'm not about to call anyone here a fanboy, but I've seen enough fanboy posts and comments elsewhere to know they're out there, and will refuse to believe that Armstrong was doped, just as some refused to believe Landis was.

I think where we'd like to see proper impartiality is from the cycling authorities (UCI have already made it blatantly clear where their sympathies lie) and from those who have a responsibility to the sport (are you reading Mr Ligget, your commentaries were my introduction to cycling as a boy, what are you telling the kids today?). The allegations deserve to at least be taken seriously and investigated properly - I think we're all agreed on that.

For the record, I don't believe that being under oath makes a hell of a lot of difference, guilty people lie in court every time they contest their guilt. The threat of a jail term is different though. What we will see (or not see, but guess at) is a huge game of prisoner's dilemma playing out. It will only take one rider to come forward for the flood gates to open. If they hold their silence then they get away with it, probably without even a court case.

Lastly, Dennis - do yourself a favour, put aside a couple of hours and go right through this thread, read the links, there is a phenomenal amount of useful and interesting stuff already written.

dave_1

when or if LA is convicted, who gets his TDF wins...Big Jan? what a farce it could turn into

micron

They'd be better to simply mark them *Doped and declare no winner than go through that rigmarole

dave_1

micron wrote:

They'd be better to simply mark them *Doped and declare no winner than go through that rigmarole

do we leave Indurain on the record books?

disgruntledgoat

Dave_1 wrote:

micron wrote:

They'd be better to simply mark them *Doped and declare no winner than go through that rigmarole

do we leave Indurain on the record books?

I want that Pelissier removed.

iainf72

No tA Doctor wrote:

Lastly, Dennis - do yourself a favour, put aside a couple of hours and go right through this thread, read the links, there is a phenomenal amount of useful and interesting stuff already written.

This is the crux of the matter with Dennis. I have no problem with people who look at the evidence and decide to look at it a different way. But Dennis does not appear to be a fan of pro cycling, seems to know very little about it and just posts really random things.

I disagree with a few pro-Lance people and I disagree with a few of the anti-Lance brigade. As a matter of fact some of the ALB make me reach for a Livestrong band...

le_patron

Agree.

Anyway, the Lionel B article is good, was even getting some plaudits on VR. I'm hoping he'll return to twitter, not entirely sure what happened there.

blazing_saddles

What are the chances that old Pierre Bordry and the AFLD come out with a press statement along the lines of:

"Due to the apparent conflict of interests, effecting the UCI and a rider taking part in the Tour de France, plus recent allegations concerning the validity of the UCI's Bio Passport system, the AFLD renews it's demand to be allowed to carry out it's own testing regime, at the 2010 TDF".

Would Pat be able to close the door, now?

Kléber

The UCI could say "the rules are the rules" and tell Bordry to take a hike, the only trouble is that the UCI appears very selective when it comes to the rules, some are applied, some are not.

SunWuKong

Just read some of the comments on this on cyclingnews from the guys who've been riding ToC. It's the same old we need to move on, this is negative, I work hard, etc. They just need a few of them to lift up the edge of the carpet while the UCI sweep it all under.

Edit: And yes there is no need to be rude and offensive to people who disagree, it's a forum. Dennis, do read this stuff if you're going to comment though hey.

jimmythecuckoo

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Still sticking with my original post

Kléber

The usual reaction is to sweep it under the carpet but the US Federal agencies have special tools to lift the carpet up.

chriskempton

Does anyone know what the likely timescales are for the federal investigations?

le_patron

Hopefully a little quicker than the Spanish federal authorities....

le_patron

Not suggesting this is a motivation for him, but I for one am looking forward to Floyd's next book. I gave 'Positvely False' a miss (for some reason), but I am looking forward to the next one :P. No ones knows the ending yet either.

He could become a rich man, if he didn't have a zillion people he has already said he would pay money back to if he could.

mididoctors

Dave_1 wrote:

when or if LA is convicted, who gets his TDF wins...Big Jan? what a farce it could turn into

already is a farce

Bronzie

Kléber wrote:

The usual reaction is to sweep it under the carpet but the US Federal agencies have special tools to lift the carpet up.

Carpet "Anne" Gripper?

RichN95.

Kléber wrote:

The usual reaction is to sweep it under the carpet but the US Federal agencies have special tools to lift the carpet up.

Are they the tools that Jack Bauer* uses?


*The CTU agent, not the Kiwi cyclist

jimmythecuckoo

This thread is on target to be the longest ever... bigger than girls in lycra.

Keep going