Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
BikingBernie wrote:
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? ................
I agree. IF the key word is "healthy"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.
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting this actually happened? I thought you didn't believe in reality?
Just because YOU believe Chapman shot John Lennon doesn't mean it happened. Just because YOU believe someone is obsessed doesn't mean they are. It's just YOUR opinion.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Just because YOU believe Chapman shot John Lennon doesn't mean it happened
Don't understand your argument. There were witnesses, Chapman didn't flea the scene and confessed to shooting Lennon. Does this mean it didn't happen? UnlikelyThe most painful climb in Northern Ireland http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6776_124247198694_548863694_2335754_8016178_n.jpg0 -
Now I'm really confused... how about you Dennisn?
0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:Now I'm really confused... how about you Dennisn?
It's not Vietnam, it's cycling.0 -
dennisn wrote:BikingBernie wrote: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.
So let's lay this out there. You have no interest in pro cycling, you post regularly in a pro cycling discussion forum. You admit that you've read very few (if any) of the articles posted in this thread, yet you still post regularly in this thread.
And we're the demented ones.0 -
-
afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:BikingBernie wrote: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.
So let's lay this out there. You have no interest in pro cycling, you post regularly in a pro cycling discussion forum. You admit that you've read very few (if any) of the articles posted in this thread, yet you still post regularly in this thread.
And we're the demented ones.
Was that last line a statement or question???
Either way, kind of scary. 0 -
If Landis' allegations are true, then "with regret" , this would also be my take on it:-
"So burn down Babylon. Burn pro cycling down. There will still be racing, there will still be races. Burn it down, so we can build it up again new. I condemn Landis' original decision to participate in a corrupt, immoral system. But I'll stand in front of the flames with him and watch it burn.
I'll shake his smokey hand the next time I see him."
http://www.cycle-smart.com/blog/2010/05 ... -boy-floyd
If the allegations are true, it is in the long term interest of the sport for it to be faced up to now, rather than later, whatever the consequences of the fall-out. Why? Because history shows that the truth often, eventually, wins out anyway, and the longer the truth is suppressed, then the worse are the consequences come the eventual denouement, and the greater the accumulation of damage to be repaired.0 -
dennisn wrote: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?
2+2 = ...5? :?paulcuthbert wrote:iainf72 wrote:Just because YOU believe Chapman shot John Lennon doesn't mean it happened
Don't understand your argument. There were witnesses, Chapman didn't flea the scene and confessed to shooting Lennon. Does this mean it didn't happen? Unlikely
I think Iain was being slightly sarcastic with his original post...0 -
I've been thinking about what Landis said for a while and now I am considering what I would consider a revalatory idea...
What if we drew a line under everything today, issue a complete amnesty to those not currently found guilty. No more retrospective reviews, no more what if arguments. It stops... today. Then we issue lifetime bans to all people (or even whole teams) found to cheat from this point on. Get seriously draconian. Give the sport a clean break in 10 years it could be considered a true watershed!
What I am thinking is this whole Landis situation has done absolutely nothing for the world of cycling. Continual reviewing will do nothing for the future of cycling.
It is time for solution thinking... what is yours???0 -
Verbruggen's at it again: http://www.google.com/hostednews/...4Yz ... gD9G76REG0
"In the meantime, Verbruggen said, the UCI had checked all EPO cases from 2001 through 2003 and found there were no positives from Armstrong." So the UCI did the retests after all??!!
"Verbruggen said the machine could be priced up to $85,000, but ended up costing between $51,000-$60,000." Fitting the story to the facts - note how the machine now costs the same as the donation Armstrong said he gave under oath, NOT the $100,000 McQuaid said they received
I guess the reason we haven't seen the paperwork yet is that they actually got it off a geezer in a pub...0 -
conceptual_primate wrote:dennisn wrote:petejuk wrote:dennisn wrote:petejuk wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:
2+2 = ...5? :?paulcuthbert wrote:iainf72 wrote:Just because YOU believe Chapman shot John Lennon doesn't mean it happened
Don't understand your argument. There were witnesses, Chapman didn't flea the scene and confessed to shooting Lennon. Does this mean it didn't happen? Unlikely
I think Iain was being slightly sarcastic with his original post...
+10 -
magicrhodes wrote:I've been thinking about what Landis said for a while and now I am considering what I would consider a revalatory idea...
What if we drew a line under everything today, issue a complete amnesty to those not currently found guilty. No more retrospective reviews, no more what if arguments. It stops... today. Then we issue lifetime bans to all people (or even whole teams) found to cheat from this point on. Get seriously draconian. Give the sport a clean break in 10 years it could be considered a true watershed!
What I am thinking is this whole Landis situation has done absolutely nothing for the world of cycling. Continual reviewing will do nothing for the future of cycling.
It is time for solution thinking... what is yours???
Who will step forward - certainly not LA and the doping, cheating and corruption will continue. An amnesty will do nothing. Getting draconian may,0 -
dennisn wrote:afx237vi wrote:So let's lay this out there. You have no interest in pro cycling, you post regularly in a pro cycling discussion forum. You admit that you've read very few (if any) of the articles posted in this thread, yet you still post regularly in this thread.
And we're the demented ones.
Was that last line a statement or question??? Either way, kind of scary.
You've driven me to it. I have no other option, but to bring out the...
0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:
Gather round children0 -
Not sure where to put this, but spotted it on the CN forum
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/consumer/a/uspslance.htm
2nd paragraph.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
dennisn wrote:
It's not Vietnam, it's cycling.
off topic (sorry), the above would make a great sign off don't you think?
Seriously though, I believe the outcome of this will all boil down to cost. That is, financial and the long term effect of the sport. Just looking at what has happened in recent years with the measly 2 year bans and the reduced sentences for assisting the authorities by wistleblowing shows that a) the UCI, WADA etc are in the dark about the most modern methods of doping and how widespread it is and b) how they wouldn't be able to afford a full legal challenge from a rider facing a lifetime ban.
From looking at the legal challenges that have been mounted in recent cases, it appears they attack procedural flaws or the integrity of the lab as opposed to a mistake with the tested samples. Because the bans are only 2 years, once the athlete finds no mileage in the intial challenge, they are more likely to fall on the sword and see out the ban, returning after a short break. If the bans were a lifetime, or even twice the length they are now, the legal challenges would be long, lengthy and expensive for both sides.
LA has masses to lose if this goes to court. I should imagine he'll do anything to avoid it. I can't help feeling this will all disappear in a cloud of libel threats and out of court settlements. I would prefer it to go to court and have the full weight of the judicial system decide the innocence or guilt. This would help to move the sport on either way.0 -
Lance getting booed.
Wow (being sarcastic). Couple of beers and I would have no problem doing that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dna9ynWMhv8
I read the Bernie/Dave exchanges above -- the only interesting thing in Landis allegations is what impact will it have on the UCI and the administration of the sport.
If you can reform the sport by getting to the UCI through Lance so be it. If Lance has defrauded the government ok, but the key is the UCI.
Dennis is a little sad.0 -
Bakunin wrote:Lance getting booed.
Wow (being sarcastic). Couple of beers and I would have no problem doing that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dna9ynWMhv8
I read the Bernie/Dave exchanges above -- the only interesting thing in Landis allegations is what impact will it have on the UCI and the administration of the sport.
If you can reform the sport by getting to the UCI through Lance so be it. If Lance has defrauded the government ok, but the key is the UCI.
Dennis is a little sad.
think Lemond could end up paying hefty legal fees for Landis re the claim of buying off the UCI over a + test. the other stuff, definitely Landis is on much stronger ground. Wonder if the feds probe will lead them to conclude a win is unlikely?0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
think Lemond could end up paying hefty legal fees for Landis re the claim of buying off the UCI over a + test. the other stuff, definitely Landis is on much stronger ground. Wonder if the feds probe will lead them to conclude a win is unlikely?
It's unlikely Landis is paying for any legal assistance. The legal firm he's being represented by are a) very very good and b) big providers of pro bono legal services. Lets remember Floyd is merely a witness. No one has started any legal action against him and Wilson Sonsini are merely probably just helping with his chats with the feds.
Let the investigation happen but I don't think there's any point expending energy trying to wish it away.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
think Lemond could end up paying hefty legal fees for Landis re the claim of buying off the UCI over a + test. the other stuff, definitely Landis is on much stronger ground. Wonder if the feds probe will lead them to conclude a win is unlikely?
It's unlikely Landis is paying for any legal assistance. The legal firm he's being represented by are a) very very good and b) big providers of pro bono legal services. Lets remember Floyd is merely a witness. No one has started any legal action against him and Wilson Sonsini are merely probably just helping with his chats with the feds.
Let the investigation happen but I don't think there's any point expending energy trying to wish it away.
probably right Iain. if Landis says it to the media again..we'll have litigation. So, let's see.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
probably right Iain. if Landis says it to the media again..we'll have litigation. So, let's see.
Landis has only spoken to ESPN once I think? The emails were kept private for a month until someone from US Cycling decided to send them to various media outlets.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Top_Bhoy wrote:magicrhodes wrote:I've been thinking about what Landis said for a while and now I am considering what I would consider a revalatory idea...
What if we drew a line under everything today, issue a complete amnesty to those not currently found guilty. No more retrospective reviews, no more what if arguments. It stops... today. Then we issue lifetime bans to all people (or even whole teams) found to cheat from this point on. Get seriously draconian. Give the sport a clean break in 10 years it could be considered a true watershed!
What I am thinking is this whole Landis situation has done absolutely nothing for the world of cycling. Continual reviewing will do nothing for the future of cycling.
It is time for solution thinking... what is yours???
Who will step forward - certainly not LA and the doping, cheating and corruption will continue. An amnesty will do nothing. Getting draconian may,
I agree that people will not step forwards, the point of the amnesty is to stop retrospective actions and focus on the future not to clear people's guilt. To put a line in the sand and say this is what is expected from now.
All this talk is doing nothing for our sport. Lets say for example that 3 people in the top 10 of each race are found not to have doped and is awarded the podium for each race for the last 10 years. Will that really do anything good for cycling.
Forget the past and move on to a clean future!0 -
iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
probably right Iain. if Landis says it to the media again..we'll have litigation. So, let's see.
Landis has only spoken to ESPN once I think? The emails were kept private for a month until someone from US Cycling decided to send them to various media outlets.
This is actually one of the most interesting bits about this entire thing, though has gone largely uncommented. The emails were supposedly circulating for ages before being published. How did they get out? Who leaked them, and why? It's not something we're likely to ever know, but the fact that Landis doesn't appear to have intended them for publication is interesting in itself.
I wonder also about email exchanges that would have taken place between those circulating them...
On a different note, spooling back to the Indurain debate my own belief is that he was doped to the eyeballs. Unlike LA though, he doesn't have anywhere near the amount of witness testimony and circumstantial evidence pointing at him directly. He hasn't got Delgado explaining how they stopped the team bus in the Pyrenees, or an assistant telling how she disposed a bloody needle, or a positive A sample with an untested B sample in the background.... If he did then I'd be sharpening the pitchfork as we speak.
Dave's point that it seems unfair on LA to be singled out when Indurain gets off scot free (if that's the correct reading of his position) strikes me as a little ironic, given that one of the widely postulated motives for Landis spilling the beans is that he believes it was inherently unfair that he had to carry the can.... Personally I hope all the dopers get caught, starting with the most successful, those that have gained most by cheating. The fact that some seem to have got away with it strikes me as a poor reason not to press ahead with catching the ones we can catch.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Magic, moving on to a clean future is a great ambition but I just wonder how you would square a 'clean' future with support staff like Riis and Zabel and doctors like Ferrari remaining in the sport?0
-
No tA Doctor wrote:This is actually one of the most interesting bits about this entire thing, though has gone largely uncommented. The emails were supposedly circulating for ages before being published. How did they get out? Who leaked them, and why? It's not something we're likely to ever know, but the fact that Landis doesn't appear to have intended them for publication is interesting in itself.
The latest cyclingnews podcast has some discussion around how they got them. The short of it was journalists knew they existed and were doing the rounds, but didn't know the content. I think the guys said they got it in their inbox from someone at USA Cycling. But I might have misunderstood that as I was on a train at the time.
It's like the whole "Don't say we were bribed" thing - All Landis said in his emails is what he was told. Maybe it never happened, but perhaps he was told by JB / LA to convince him there would be no problems with doping controls.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
The amnesty idea isn't exactly new, and is fairly problematic, especially given that various governments have criminalised doping. While the cycling authorities, and the teams (such as Garmin have already done) could come out and say "fess up now and you'll be OK" they can't protect riders from legal sanction. There's also the question about prize money and sponsorship - would they have to hand it back? If they didn't that could pave the way to lengthy litigation to recoup lost earnings etc... If I'd lost out on a TdF podium place to a doped rider I think I'd be consulting my lawyers to find out if he owed me a tidy wedge of cash.... I'm not saying it's impossible, but there's a legal minefield out there to try and implement it.[/quote]Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
micron wrote:Magic, moving on to a clean future is a great ambition but I just wonder how you would square a 'clean' future with support staff like Riis and Zabel and doctors like Ferrari remaining in the sport?
I'd ban teams with any riders that dope for life. No second chances, no "I'm sorry I was misguided". Straight out ban for life and it would be written into the UCI rules 1.1 No doping: penalty is the that the whole team is banned for life. An additional penalty would be that anyone who associates with or employs a individual found guilty of doping is also banned for life. Get trainers/doctors/whoever to be UCI accredited or you can't work in cycling, any doping guess what.... banned for life as is the team, rider.
My idea is just one way but is arguing over whether LA or others doped in 2003 going to bring about changes? I think some people prefer the argument than to find a solution.0
