Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
Well said. Short-term pain but potentially long-term gain...No tA Doctor wrote:Hold on a minute Dave, Plenty of cycling fans are highly suspicious of Indurain's success and I for one would be hapy to see the whistle blown on him. As for the impending death of cycling should LA go down, that's far from certain, I for one think it could do a lot for cleaning up cycling, it could well signal the death of omerta. The alternative is that everyone knows cycling is full of cheats - and that the biggest don't get caught. That's where viewing figures can decline and sponsors pull out. I understand your worry, but I think there's a very strong positive side to this for cycling which you don't seem to see. The cat is well and truly out of the bag now, there's no way of putting it back in. Even from the perspective of damage limitation the best outcome is a proper case being made. Cycling needs to do the equivalent of going on Oprah and pleading forgiveness.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:andyp wrote:No single rider has ever been bigger than the sport. This includes Lance Armstrong.
perfectly defendable position you have Andyp, you're probably right but I'd still prefer not to know if you're wrong ... they should have taken LA down much earlier in his career to stop this situation....
The problem is Dave_1, is you keep trying to make it a LA problem. But it's not, it's much much bigger than that.
The new cyclingnews podcast is very interesting when they discuss how the news leaked. If I was understanding it right, cyclingnews got the Landis email from someone at US Cycling.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
An excellent link Iain - the best piece I've read on the affair.
Love the intro before he lists his thoughts - perfectly illustrated by individuals in this thread......0 -
I don't know if Indurain is guilty of doping any more than I think LA is but you obviously think Indurain was guilty (I can only suspect both were at it). Like LA, he passed all those doping controlsDave_1 wrote:Top_Bhoy wrote:Dave_1, your argument holds no water in the sense that people in everyday life have been shafted and affected by the shennanigans and criminal activities of the company they legally worked for. There is no reason in this instance that LA should escape justice, if he is guilty.
I say this recognising I am unaffected by any redundancy in the sport of cycling - but I also don't want young athletes to damage their health through drug use because the authorities failed to act on the guilty. I haven't done any analysis but accepting that a few hundred would be out of a job, I'd say that is worth it to try and protect others from drug use in the future.
top bhoy, top expat maybe even...apart when you say erroneously I have been banned...there is no way Miguel Indurain should escape justice if he's guilty, so we agree. 6ft 2 and 75 kg were MIs stats
... your concern for young athletes health is still not worth mass unemployment in cycling ,....the riders have their health heaviliy monitored at team and UCI/ testing levels...the number of investigations in the sport..
0 -
there were rumours Indurain had to wake up at 02:00 every morning and walk about to stop his blood clotting on in the early days of EPO use. Seems lots of other pros had to do the same thing at the time0
-
Good opportunity here to pick up a signed copy of Landis’ book. No bids so far...
http://cgi.ebay.com/Positively-False-Bo ... 05420604750 -
And of course, a lot never did wake up, never mind the long-term adverse effects of doping that might arise in the future. No wonder those seeking to maximise the benefits to be had from Epo use and blood doping, whilst at the same time ensuring they don't die as a consequence, are willing to pay the like of Ferrari 10% of their income to manage their doping program for them.sherer wrote:there were rumours Indurain had to wake up at 02:00 every morning and walk about to stop his blood clotting on in the early days of EPO use. Seems lots of other pros had to do the same thing at the time
Then there are the potential consequences of using blood that hasn't been stored properly, perhaps due to a temporary power cut. Hence the attraction of those 'blood banks' and the expensive necessity of having someone fly from the store to the race each time a 'refill' is needed.0 -
sherer wrote:there were rumours Indurain had to wake up at 02:00 every morning and walk about to stop his blood clotting on in the early days of EPO use. Seems lots of other pros had to do the same thing at the time
"SEEMS like......", "there were RUMORS......". "...2:00 every morning..."
Glad to see someone has ALL the FACTS.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:[
we don't know that Nolf died of anything related to doping so that makes the last cycling related doping deaths 7 years ago. I think things at the top level have improved a lot as the mortality rate has dropped off so much since the EPO/doping era of the 90s
The biggest sporting frauds of the 1990s and 2000s need investigated...not a selective pick. Some of the pelotons biggest names who've retired share the blame ...not only livestrong. How can we seriously go on calling for feds to investigate one while we look the other way from another famous grand tour winner who is just as suspect with no official +s in controls but unbelievable feats that are impssoible at given weight-height0 -
When you say 'improved a lot' what do you mean? If you are trying to argue that there is less blood doping and Epo abuse going on, I think you are sadly deluded. If you simply mean fewer riders are dying, you are probably right - but that only reflects the more professional 'management' of doping programs that appears to be the norm nowadays, be this by team doctors and / or 'specialists' like Ferrari.Dave_1 wrote:we don't know that Nolf died of anything related to doping so that makes the last cycling related doping deaths 7 years ago. I think things at the top level have improved a lot as the mortality rate has dropped off so much since the EPO/doping era of the 90s
Even so, there may well be plenty of long-term consequences of doping. Also, there will always be some who, not been able to afford the big doping budgets of teams like USP / Discovery but still needing to dope in order to stay competitive, will try to 'economise', with possibly serious consequences. Remember Manzano?0 -
Dave 1
If your inuendo is suggesting a large man with very large chest expansion that I read about long before he made his name and was just a domestic.
He didn't suddenly appear at the top of the board but had to graft his way up the peloton as a workhorse on the front.
I wonder why he retired in his prime ?
Well he suddenly found a lot of sh*t riders could leave him on the mountains and he was not going to apply the juice so he retired. IMO.
With all your research can you find where Willy Voet was travelling "from" when he got stopped at the motorway Belgian/French border. (with the thousands of Belgians that cross daily at that point)
I've now lost my copy of "Cycling" that stated where, when I read it that week I said that was stupid unless somebody tipped the French he was on his way. (Pantani my saviour that year)
Drugs are not my subject and I read some of it with interest until the the old churn wheel starts, so another question that never seems to get asked is that these guys (and I mentioned Pantani) did apply the juice from the time they started racing or WHEN.
The way it goes on these forums then a mention of a riders name brings the response that he's a drugie but have you established the when, (for say a Museeuw or Stephen Roche) or were they at it from the beginning.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
dennisn wrote:petejuk wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:
The evidence will have to be pretty damning to take on the likes of the LA legal machine.
So fill us all in on this "LA legal machine" that you obviously know so much about.
dennis, LA's legal machine is his lawyers and other legal personnel. I'm sure you realise what a big name Lance Armstrong is around the world- not only within the sport, but with his charity work. He has a team of legal representatives which is sizable- in keeping with his public stature. Thats what I described as his legal machine. Nothing else. There is no other agenda or scandal I'm trying to allude to. Really, Dennis, you should be less suspicious..
0 -
But only one of them is still actively competing. What posible benefit would there be in outing someone who retired in 1996?Dave_1 wrote:How can we seriously go on calling for feds to investigate one while we look the other way from another famous grand tour winner who is just as suspect with no official +s in controls0 -
Assuming you are talking about Indurain, it is worth noting that until the 'Epo era' it was practically unknown for winners of the Tour to grovel round for years as domestiques. Instead their potential was apparent the very first time they rode the Tour.deejay wrote:Dave 1
If your inuendo is suggesting a large man with very large chest expansion that I read about long before he made his name and was just a domestic. He didn't suddenly appear at the top of the board but had to graft his way up the peloton as a workhorse on the front. I wonder why he retired in his prime ? Well he suddenly found a lot of sh*t riders could leave him on the mountains and he was not going to apply the juice so he retired. IMO.
Secondly, Indurain's 'winning streak' coincided with the excesses of the early part of the Epo era. If he won clean, he did do beating many riders who were using Epo to take their haemocrit up to 60%
Thirdly, although Indurain 'slipped under the radar', there is evidence that there was organised doping at Benesto. For example:
Riders habitually boosted themselves to the mid-50s, and Bjarne Riis, winner of the 1996 Tour became known in the peloton as 'Mr Sixty-percent'. In October 1995 Marco Pantani recorded a haematocrit of 60.1%, about twenty percent higher than his natural level. On one occasion the entire Banesto team tested at 48.5 to 49.5, a situation impossible in nature.
http://www.abcc.co.uk/Articles/DrgsTdeF.html
Former Banesto rider confesses to taking EPO
Last Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2000 | 4:02 PM ET
CBC Sports
A former rider for the Banesto team, whose leader won the Tour de France five consecutive times, told a court on Thursday that there was medically supervised doping of team cyclists that included the banned drug EPO.
The testimony came on the fourth day of a doping trial that grew out of the drug scandal that nearly wrecked the 1998 Tour de France.
A former Festina cyclist, French star Richard Virenque, and nine former team officials are on trial on a range of charges.
The trial, which opened Monday, has led to stunning testimony about systematic doping of top Festina riders, and, Thursday, allegations that the Spanish Banesto team also used banned products to enhance cyclists' performance.
"In Banesto, there was a system of doping with medical supervision," Thomas Davy, who rode with Banesto from 1995 to 1996, told the court.
Banesto's champion rider, Miguel Indurain, rode the team to five Tour de France victories, from 1991 to 1995.
"Everyone did it?" Presiding Judge Daniel Delegove asked the rider.
"Yes. I think so," Davy replied.
Calls placed to Banesto team headquarters were unanswered.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2000/10/ ... 01026.html
One of Indurain's team mates was also busted by the police transporting huge quantities of doping products.0 -
deejay wrote:Dave 1
If your inuendo is suggesting a large man with very large chest expansion that I read about long before he made his name and was just a domestic.
He didn't suddenly appear at the top of the board but had to graft his way up the peloton as a workhorse on the front.
I wonder why he retired in his prime ?
ing.
Deejay... beside where your avatar space is, "no blue in the England flag"-what is the meaning or political point in there? Indurain deserves the benefit of innocent until proven guilty and so does Armstrong...but that's not quite the legal principle used on the forum0 -
On the other hand one could do the rational thing and base one's conclusions on the available evidence...Dave_1 wrote:Indurain deserves the benefit of innocent until proven guilty and so does Armstrong...0 -
Is that rational and unbiased 0
-
BikingBernie wrote:
On the other hand one could do the rational thing and base one's conclusions on the available evidence...Dave_1 wrote:Indurain deserves the benefit of innocent until proven guilty and so does Armstrong...
Good point, but remember it's YOUR CONCLUSION, key word conclusion, and by no means is it proof of guilt. Nor does it prove that YOU are rational in your thinking.
You could be, in my conclusion, irrational. Yet that doesn't PROVE that you are.0 -
Giggle.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 5775_x.htm?
Verbruggen says the UCI then sent Landis a letter saying "we might sue you if you tell lies."Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
The problem with a lot of this is that there is a fine line between evidence and hearsay. Working out where that fine line is will be key.Mens agitat molem0
-
No line is clear cut. If someone says 'I also heard what Landis says he heard', that is evidence. For it to be 'hearsay' someone would have to be reporting on what a third party told them about what they heard. There are plenty of people who could give testimony that would be treated as eye-witness testimony, not 'hearsay',bazbadger wrote:The problem with a lot of this is that there is a fine line between evidence and hearsay. Working out where that fine line is will be key.0 -
petejuk wrote:dennisn wrote:petejuk wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:
The evidence will have to be pretty damning to take on the likes of the LA legal machine.
So fill us all in on this "LA legal machine" that you obviously know so much about.
dennis, LA's legal machine is his lawyers and other legal personnel. I'm sure you realise what a big name Lance Armstrong is around the world- not only within the sport, but with his charity work. He has a team of legal representatives which is sizable- in keeping with his public stature. Thats what I described as his legal machine. Nothing else. There is no other agenda or scandal I'm trying to allude to. Really, Dennis, you should be less suspicious..
I'm not suspicious at all. You called it "LA legal machine" as if you knew something about it. i.e. how many full time lawyers? How many of those full timers working on what? Is there some office somewhere that says "Lances Lawyers" on the door? If I say that he has, oh say, 10 full time lawyers(10 sounds like a good, if somewhat low, number for a legal machine) making, oh say, 100 dollars an hour(they're cheap lawyers), this would mean that his legal payroll is around $400,000 a year, does that sound right to you? 0 -
You really haven't a clue, have you Dennis? Meanwhile, an insight into the real world of 'reputation management'. Keith Schilling, one of the Lawyers Armstrong uses (as discussed below) actually charges over $1000 an hour, not $100....dennisn wrote:You called it "LA legal machine" as if you knew something about it. i.e. how many full time lawyers? How many of those full timers working on what? Is there some office somewhere that says "Lances Lawyers" on the door? If I say that he has, oh say, 10 full time lawyers(10 sounds like a good, if somewhat low, number for a legal machine) making, oh say, 100 dollars an hour(they're cheap lawyers), this would mean that his legal payroll is around $400,000 a year, does that sound right to you?
By the way, did you know that one of the largest expenditures of the Lance Armstrong Foundation is for legal fees? The last time I looked these were costing the LAF over $6 million per year. Seems a lot of legal costs for a 'charity' to run up. I wonder what all that money is spent on? I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it used to protect the name of Armstrong, using legal muscle if need be, on the basis that doing so is in the interests of the LAF itself...
From The Sunday Times
March 22, 2009
Publish and be slammed
The rich and famous are employing expensive new muscle to protect them: strong-arm lawyers who take no prisoners
Stephen Robinson
It might come as a shock to fans of Jonathan Ross that once the studio lights are dimmed, one of the BBC’s highest-paid performers is an extremely sensitive and private person. Three years ago, Mr Ross’s solicitors wrote to Fleet Street editors, passing on their client’s dismay at having been snapped by photographers while playing tennis with David Baddiel at a private members’ club. The legal letters said that publication of these pictures would constitute a breach of Mr Ross’s “right of privacy” under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights.
…The legal warnings cited above have one thing in common: they were all generated by Keith Schilling’s London offices. Every year, dozens and dozens of such legal letters are sent out from Schillings — policing newspapers, magazines, TV, radio stations and websites — and by a handful of other firms that have cornered the market in celebrity “reputation management” on behalf of actors, pop singers and people simply famous for being famous. He acts for such household names as Nicole Kidman, Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne, Naomi Campbell, Hugh Grant, Keira Knightley, Cameron Diaz, Lance Armstrong, JK Rowling and others.
… So why should lawyers flag up obviously defamatory stories about their clients by demanding that they are not repeated. The answer to this question points to the symbiotic relationship between celebrities, their lawyers and the celebrities’ PR firms. These well-remunerated figures are engaged in what is increasingly a relatively new, booming industry that might be termed “reputation management” with legal dimensions.
Until recently, Britain did not have a privacy law, but over the last 5 to 10 years it has been acquiring one incrementally — not so much from Westminster, but from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and from a small number of High Court judges trying to implement the Human Rights Act of 1998. This incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into our own statute book, and it has proved a godsend to celebrity lawyers — or, more accurately, lawyers who do work for celebrities. The air had been going out of the libel balloon for several years since the law was changed to reduce the capricious level of damages set by juries.
The two sentences that comprise Article 8 of the ECHR have created a multi-million-pound bonanza for a small group of London solicitors and the barristers they instruct. And, as the House of Commons select committee for culture, media and sport was warned last month, regional and local newspapers are now effectively unable to contest any actions, no matter how spurious or false, brought by the opportunistic litigant who has the financial muscle to bully them into submission, because of prohibitive legal costs.
…The CFA [conditional-fee agreement] initiative was designed, in new-Labour parlance, to widen access to justice, but in the libel and privacy fields it has in fact proved a further bonanza for lawyers, because it allows famous people who are already rich to sue and to avoid paying their own lawyers if they lose.
…Schillings is indeed known as an extremely aggressive biller, often racking up substantial billable hours early in a case. When The Sunday Times challenged the costs in a libel action brought by Kojo Annan, the son of the former UN secretary-general, the bill was eventually reduced by £130,000, from over £280,000 to £150,000, just days before a costs judge would have looked at the firm’s files to make sure it was not “trying it on”.
...The US Congress is so exercised by how the High Court in London is infringing American First Amendment rights that it is framing a Free Speech Protection Act, expressly designed to defend Americans from judgments in British courts.
...Yet there is something dispiriting about the world in which his firm functions. The Schillings website, which tantalisingly offers celebrities a 24-hour emergency number for instant advice, sets the tone for “a range of reputation management legal services”.... Ian Hislop still likes him, but regrets the fork in the road his old comrade has taken into the PR-dominated world of reputation management. “This privacy notion is supposed to defend the ordinary person,” says Hislop, “but it is just being used by the rich and powerful as a means of censorship.”0 -
More crap 'journalism'...iainf72 wrote:Giggle.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 5775_x.htm?
Verbruggen says the UCI then sent Landis a letter saying "we might sue you if you tell lies."
Landis, who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for doping, claimed in e-mails to cycling officials and sponsors that Armstrong tested positive for EPO at the Tour de Suisse in 2002 and paid off Verbruggen to keep it quiet. Armstrong won the 2001 Swiss race, but did not compete there in 2002.
Landis never said that 'Armstrong tested positive for EPO at the Tour de Suisse in 2002'. What he did say was:
2002: ... Mr Armstrong was not witness to the extraction but he and I had lengthy discussions about it on our training rides during which time he also explained to me the evolution of EPO testing and how transfusions were now necessary due to the inconvenience of the new test. 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] 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.0 -
This bit is interesting...iainf72 wrote:Giggle.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 5775_x.htm?
Verbruggen says the UCI then sent Landis a letter saying "we might sue you if you tell lies."
A Sysmex is a machine used for analyzing blood. Verbruggen said the machine could be priced up to $85,000, but ended up costing between $51,000-$60,000.
This doesn't tally with what McQuaid said, with $40- 49,000 being unaccounted for according to Verbruggen's figures, rather than the $12,000 McQuaid claimed.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
No line is clear cut. If someone says 'I also heard what Landis says he heard', that is evidence. For it to be 'hearsay' someone would have to be reporting on what a third party told them about what they heard. There are plenty of people who could give testimony that would be treated as eye-witness testimony, not 'hearsay',bazbadger wrote:The problem with a lot of this is that there is a fine line between evidence and hearsay. Working out where that fine line is will be key.
I wasn't asking for an explanation of the terms :roll:
Rather observing that what people mention on this thread as evidence might actually be heresay.
So, will the 'plenty of people' come forward then? hmmmm.Mens agitat molem0 -
BikingBernie wrote:dennisn wrote:You called it "LA legal machine" as if you knew something about it. i.e. how many full time lawyers? How many of those full timers working on what? Is there some office somewhere that says "Lances Lawyers" on the door? If I say that he has, oh say, 10 full time lawyers(10 sounds like a good, if somewhat low, number for a legal machine) making, oh say, 100 dollars an hour(they're cheap lawyers), this would mean that his legal payroll is around $400,000 a year, does that sound right to you?
You really haven't a clue, have you Dennis? ................
No, not really. It's people that do that worry me. They're the obsessed ones. They worry me like the people who stalk movie stars and the people who shoot the John Lennons of the world. Definitely demented.0 -
dennisn wrote:
No, not really. It's people that do that worry me. They're the obsessed ones. They worry me like the people who stalk movie stars and the people who shoot the John Lennons of the world. Definitely demented.
Do you have any interesting in anything Dennis?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Actually, one can keep well-informed on a wide range of issues simply by making a mental note of interesting news stories as they come by. No need to be 'obsessed', just show a healthy interest in the world around you...dennisn wrote:
No, not really. It's people that do that worry me. They're the obsessed ones. They worry me like the people who stalk movie stars and the people who shoot the John Lennons of the world. Definitely demented.BikingBernie wrote:You really haven't a clue, have you Dennis? ................0
