Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
iainf72 wrote:
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.
It's potentially the single most damning part of the whole email, but also the bit that seems hardest to prove. I also find it eminently believable, based on nothing but the UCI's handling of the case so far. At best they've been utterly incompetent, they've been clearly biased and there it's certainly possible to read corruption into their stance, rightly or wrongly the interpretation would fit with the way they've dealt with it.
How I'd love to be a fly on the wall at various meetings about this, at the UCI, between Landis and the investigators, between LA and Bruyneel....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
magicrhodes wrote: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.
I can't help thinking you haven't really thought this one through. Firstly it makes "Draconian" look too small a word, but right off the bat it's just clearly unworkable, unfair, and illegal. Why not just execute anyone who knows the name of a rider caught doping?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:magicrhodes wrote: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.
I can't help thinking you haven't really thought this one through. Firstly it makes "Draconian" look too small a word, but right off the bat it's just clearly unworkable, unfair, and illegal. Why not just execute anyone who knows the name of a rider caught doping?
Heads on railings, like it, glad to see you are with me on this, I'll bring my gibbet we can hang it with decapitated corpse over the start line of every race.
Yeah maybe the team bit is unfair I'll go back to banning purely riders, but do you really think clean riders just sit there oblivious to the actions of their doping comrades?0 -
I can't remember who said it but "all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
*NB note that I am not comparing doping in sport to true acts of evil but you get my drift0 -
magicrhodes wrote:I can't remember who said it but "all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
*NB note that I am not comparing doping in sport to true acts of evil but you get my drift
It's risk vs reward. The risks are low (chances of being caught = very low), reward = high.
Punishment is really quite irrelevant. But when it's difficult to get away with it, then it becomes different.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
That seems to be purely hearsay and rumour, (you know childrens playground stuff) but in the case of armstrong the evidence is there to behold. 1992-1996 an above average rider that cannot time trial and then 1999 the Magician waves a magic wand to produce another Bjarne Riis.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...
I witnessed this as a FACT that no one can dispute. (perhaps a level field is the whole peloton get cancer :roll:) (steady children that is as far fetched as other rubbish to be found around here)
Silly Boy, any Idea what you are talking about or your not very long in the sport but good at reading books. A statement like that is only worthy of the 21st century as even Eddy Merckx with his immense talent had to start somewhere and do his bit for the great Rik Van Looy.BikingBernie wrote:Assuming you are talking about Indurain, it is worth noting that until the 'Epo era' it was pratically unknown for winners of the Tour to grovel round for years as domestiques. Instead their potential was apparent the first time they rode the Tour.
I did not say "to grovel about for years" but that he (they) came through the system to prove themselves.
Are you telling me that in 1988 I did not see the man working on the front of the peloton as a domestic (you can critique that English) for team leader Delgado and that in 1991 the team started the TDF not knowing the team leader.
His big fear that year (after Delgado folded) was Giani Bugno who only had to say boo to him and when he and Claudio attacked and they lost Giani then his confidence improved but he never took his eyes off Bugno.
Mind you, that the final TT to Blois and my position about 5/600 meters from the finish and a view across a valley to see 3 sets of blue lights which meant he had won with style.
He won Clean, no problem and got out when he couldn't match all the cheats that arrived. (nothing to else to prove and not a greedy man)
Armstrong however arrived in Europe as a Prima Donna and we enjoyed his interviews after his many failures and then with his few wins he would acknowlege someone up in the sky about how good he was.
That is before he learned the tricks of the Magician or something else that did not show before as a potential TDF winner. (just like Riis)
The other childrens playground rumours that sicken me is about Tony Rominger.
His early career (with hay fever or something) he could win early or late season events but had problems competing in the summer. His 3 Vuelta Espana wins were done when it started 2 days after Liege in April and then in October he would win Lombardy.
This was common knowlege at the time and then came the magic spray (or whatever) which allowed him to compete in the summer. (ie TDF)Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
So let me get this straight, Armstrong worked with Ferrari and showed massive improvements in his mid to late 20s and was dirty, yet both Rominger and Indurain did exactly the same, including working with Ferrari, and yet both were clean?
Right. :roll:0 -
andyp wrote:So let me get this straight, Armstrong worked with Ferrari and showed massive improvements in his mid to late 20s and was dirty, yet both Rominger and Indurain did exactly the same, including working with Ferrari, and yet both were clean?
Right. :roll:
+1Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
andyp wrote:So let me get this straight, Armstrong worked with Ferrari and showed massive improvements in his mid to late 20s and was dirty, yet both Rominger and Indurain did exactly the same, including working with Ferrari, and yet both were clean?
Right. :roll:
Does seem kind of unlikely....0 -
Can somebody explain why the UCI or Armstrong and his cameraman Bruyneel have not threatened to take Landis to court for his comments ??
I think they are crapping their pants that the thought of anything coming out in the wash.
After all Armstrong has all the Power and Money to ruin anybody just ask Simeoni.0 -
Gazzetta67 wrote:Can somebody explain why the UCI or Armstrong and his cameraman Bruyneel have not threatened to take Landis to court for his comments ?? .
Some people feel that the more you defend yourself the more guilty you are. If you say nothing (or very little) eventually it goes away. There are numerous cases of people dealing with allegations of extra-martial relationships in this way.
A part from spending a load of money if LA can't provide catagoric evidence he did not dope then the case turns into a discussion on hearsay and conjectury which achieves nothing but a new car/house for the lawyers!0 -
magicrhodes wrote:I can't remember who said it but "all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
*NB note that I am not comparing doping in sport to true acts of evil but you get my drift
Edmunde Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Gazzetta67 wrote:After all Armstrong has all the Power and Money to ruin anybody just ask Simeoni.
Poor Simeoni, he didn't deserve to be treated like that0 -
Timoid. wrote:magicrhodes wrote:I can't remember who said it but "all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
*NB note that I am not comparing doping in sport to true acts of evil but you get my drift
Edmunde Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Hardly an impartial point of view - wasn't Edmund Burke the coach who introduced Lance to his all conquering high cadence cycling technique?
http://www.amazon.com/Serious-Cycling-E ... 073604129X
:-)0 -
deejay wrote:He won Clean, no problem and got out when he couldn't match all the cheats that arrived. (nothing to else to prove and not a greedy man)
Hmmm... sorry to say that a basque country friend has had info passed to him that Big Mig now has heart problems that would point to EPO use.
I would like it not to be true as he was a fantastic cyclist, but doping has basically been endemic throughout cycling for decades.
Not picking on Big Mig, but he was one of many. Hope that long term he will be OK, as he was one of my favourites.0 -
-
iainf72 wrote:
His last statement should read "A few others and myself are left to........"
Sorry to inform the author, but not EVERYONE cares.0 -
No it wasn't. In fact this is is a made up 'quote' dating from a 1960's book of quotations.Timoid. wrote:
Edmunde Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"magicrhodes wrote:I can't remember who said it but "all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Burke did say' ‘When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.’ This particular quote by Burke comes from a book called Select Works of Edmund Burke: Vol. 1: Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents and the Two Speeches on America which was edited by E.J. Payne and first published in 1770.
Today the phrase ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ is taken to refer the sort of ‘evils’ that, for example, led to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. However, not only did Burke never actually say such a thing, when he wrote ‘When bad men combine, the good must associate’ he was actually talking about ‘Men of rank and ability’ acting together in order to protect their power and privileged positions by resisting the attempts of ‘radicals’ and 'cabals' of ordinary citizens to create a more equitable society.0 -
Back on topic, does anyone know more about what Julien DeVries, formerly a mechanic at USP, is claimed to have said in the past about doping by Armstrong and co? His name is a new one to me.
Although, like many who have faced the wrath of Armstrong and his legal Rottweilers, he later denied it, there are reports that he talked about doping at USP with Lemond. For example:
Three-time Tour winner Greg Lemond, now a bitter enemy of Armstrong's, testified that he had a 2000 conversation with former U.S. Postal mechanic Julian DeVries, who told him about a three-week training camp in the Pyrenees where "the moment the riders were off their bikes they were on IVs," experimenting with a drug that is undetectable and out of their system in 48 hours.
According to the deposition transcripts, Lemond says that there was a "panic" in the U.S. Postal camp as team officials scrambled to get a backdated prescription after Armstrong tested positive for cortisone in the '99 Tour.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/06/16/lance/
I have also seen it claimed that DeVries also spoke about the 'donation' Armstrong made to the UCI (according to McQuaid in July 2006, one month after the Vrijman report was released) confirming Schenk's belief that the actual sum involved was $500,000.
Anyone know more? It looks like he is another name to add to the long list of former USP / Disco employees who have let slip about what actually went on in the team.0 -
magicrhodes wrote:Gazzetta67 wrote:Can somebody explain why the UCI or Armstrong and his cameraman Bruyneel have not threatened to take Landis to court for his comments ?? .
Some people feel that the more you defend yourself the more guilty you are. If you say nothing (or very little) eventually it goes away. There are numerous cases of people dealing with allegations of extra-martial relationships in this way.
A part from spending a load of money if LA can't provide catagoric evidence he did not dope then the case turns into a discussion on hearsay and conjectury which achieves nothing but a new car/house for the lawyers!
I think you're wrong in that LA has to prove he DIDN"T dope. No, it's up to his accusers
to prove he did and if they can't, then I see LA suing them for slander or whatever. I know I would. You had better have your act together when YOU accuse someone of something like this, i.e. you had better be able to prove it.0 -
dennisn wrote:magicrhodes wrote:Gazzetta67 wrote:Can somebody explain why the UCI or Armstrong and his cameraman Bruyneel have not threatened to take Landis to court for his comments ?? .
Some people feel that the more you defend yourself the more guilty you are. If you say nothing (or very little) eventually it goes away. There are numerous cases of people dealing with allegations of extra-martial relationships in this way.
A part from spending a load of money if LA can't provide catagoric evidence he did not dope then the case turns into a discussion on hearsay and conjectury which achieves nothing but a new car/house for the lawyers!
I think you're wrong in that LA has to prove he DIDN"T dope. No, it's up to his accusers
to prove he did and if they can't, then I see LA suing them for slander or whatever. I know I would. You had better have your act together when YOU accuse someone of something like this, i.e. you had better be able to prove it.
Dennis you are absolutely correct about the burden of proof. What I meant was that if LA couldn't prove it all that would happen is that the lawyers would just make a load of money whilst the trial (if that is the correct term) decsends into farce. For some people this will never go away unless a timemachine is invented and LA is tested every minute of everyday since his post cancer return to cycling.
There is little point in LA paying for this because there are too many people who won't believe the result either way. IMHO He is better off doing nothing and waiting for Landis to go away.
I dont think this will ever reach a conclusion for anyone (unless timemachine invented), hence my belief in an amnesty.0 -
magicrhodes wrote:dennisn wrote:magicrhodes wrote:Gazzetta67 wrote:Can somebody explain why the UCI or Armstrong and his cameraman Bruyneel have not threatened to take Landis to court for his comments ?? .
Some people feel that the more you defend yourself the more guilty you are. If you say nothing (or very little) eventually it goes away. There are numerous cases of people dealing with allegations of extra-martial relationships in this way.
A part from spending a load of money if LA can't provide catagoric evidence he did not dope then the case turns into a discussion on hearsay and conjectury which achieves nothing but a new car/house for the lawyers!
I think you're wrong in that LA has to prove he DIDN"T dope. No, it's up to his accusers
to prove he did and if they can't, then I see LA suing them for slander or whatever. I know I would. You had better have your act together when YOU accuse someone of something like this, i.e. you had better be able to prove it.
IMHO He is better off doing nothing and waiting for Landis to go away.
I sometimes think that it would behove LA to "take these people down" IF they can't prove anything. I know I would if someone made accusations against me that they couldn't prove and it damaged my reputation and / or cost me money.0 -
dennisn wrote:magicrhodes wrote:Gazzetta67 wrote:Can somebody explain why the UCI or Armstrong and his cameraman Bruyneel have not threatened to take Landis to court for his comments ?? .
Some people feel that the more you defend yourself the more guilty you are. If you say nothing (or very little) eventually it goes away. There are numerous cases of people dealing with allegations of extra-martial relationships in this way.
A part from spending a load of money if LA can't provide catagoric evidence he did not dope then the case turns into a discussion on hearsay and conjectury which achieves nothing but a new car/house for the lawyers!
I think you're wrong in that LA has to prove he DIDN"T dope. No, it's up to his accusers
to prove he did and if they can't, then I see LA suing them for slander or whatever. I know I would. You had better have your act together when YOU accuse someone of something like this, i.e. you had better be able to prove it.
Dennis,
I don't think magicrhodes was accusing anybody of anything in his post, he was just offering an opinion on perhaps why Armstrong hasn't sued. And, yes it's an opinion he probably came to without receiving this verbatim from Armstrong himself, on bended knee and one hand on the bible... but that doesn't mean he can't have that opinion, or put that forward on a forum for disccussing maters relating to cycling...
The fact is though is that Landis has accused Lance and hasn't been able to 'prove' this and Lance hasn't filed suit which is why the original poster asked the question. So i 'm not sure i see what your point is or where you're coming from??0 -
conceptual_primate wrote:dennisn wrote:magicrhodes wrote:Gazzetta67 wrote:Can somebody explain why the UCI or Armstrong and his cameraman Bruyneel have not threatened to take Landis to court for his comments ?? .
Some people feel that the more you defend yourself the more guilty you are. If you say nothing (or very little) eventually it goes away. There are numerous cases of people dealing with allegations of extra-martial relationships in this way.
A part from spending a load of money if LA can't provide catagoric evidence he did not dope then the case turns into a discussion on hearsay and conjectury which achieves nothing but a new car/house for the lawyers!
I think you're wrong in that LA has to prove he DIDN"T dope. No, it's up to his accusers
to prove he did and if they can't, then I see LA suing them for slander or whatever. I know I would. You had better have your act together when YOU accuse someone of something like this, i.e. you had better be able to prove it.
Dennis,
I don't think magicrhodes was accusing anybody of anything in his post, he was just offering an opinion on perhaps why Armstrong hasn't sued. And, yes it's an opinion he probably came to without receiving this verbatim from Armstrong himself, on bended knee and one hand on the bible... but that doesn't mean he can't have that opinion, or put that forward on a forum for disccussing maters relating to cycling...
The fact is though is that Landis has accused Lance and hasn't been able to 'prove' this and Lance hasn't filed suit which is why the original poster asked the question. So i 'm not sure i see what your point is or where you're coming from??
Here again you're sort of assuming that because LA hasn't responded, or hasn't responded yet, that he has something to hide. It's sort of like me calling you an idiot and because you don't respond I assume that you are an idiot. Not calling you anything, by the way, just an example.. It's also a case in which, once again, he doesn't have to respond or do anything. The burden of proof is on the accusers. If I call you an idiot, it's not up to you to disprove it. It's up to me to make a case for it. At least in the legal sense.
Now if I keep telling anyone who will listen, over and over, something about you that I can't prove and you feel damages your reputation, you may well be able to sue me for slander or something along those lines and you might not even have to say a single word.0 -
dennisn wrote:Here again you're sort of assuming that because LA hasn't responded, or hasn't responded yet, that he has something to hide. It's sort of like me calling you an idiot and because you don't respond I assume that you are an idiot.
See, again, you're proving you don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps if you listened to your hero Lance's statements from the AToC you'd know where he stands. ie, he's not going to sue.
He doesn't want to end up in court for whatever reason. Expensive maybe, not worth the hassle maybe, or fearful. It could be any manner of things.
Ever read "From Lance to Landis"?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
:roll:dennisn wrote:you're sort of assuming that because LA hasn't responded, or hasn't responded yet, that he has something to hide.
UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong
It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.
...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "
http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's very complex how the avoid all the controls now, but it's not any new drug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull of a well devised plan
Cyclevaughters: it's why they all got dropped on stage 9 - no refill yet - then on the rest day - boom 800ml of packed cells
FDREU: they have it mastered. good point
Cyclevaughters: they draw the blood right after the dauphine
FDREU: how do they sneak it in, or keep it until needed
FDREU: i'm sure it's not with the truck in the frig
Cyclevaughters: motorcycle - refridgerated panniers
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html0 -
The ever cool Mr Birnie wades in again
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... mment.html
Now, that conflicts with what the people at Sysmex told CW the machines would have gone for - they say it would have been north of $100,000 but that it's possible the UCI got a deal.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:Here again you're sort of assuming that because LA hasn't responded, or hasn't responded yet, that he has something to hide. It's sort of like me calling you an idiot and because you don't respond I assume that you are an idiot.
See, again, you're proving you don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps if you listened to your hero Lance's statements from the AToC you'd know where he stands. ie, he's not going to sue.
He doesn't want to end up in court for whatever reason. Expensive maybe, not worth the hassle maybe, or fearful. It could be any manner of things.
Ever read "From Lance to Landis"?
So, now you're saying that YOU believe what LA says(about not suing)? I thought you didn't believe a word he's said all these years. At least I got that impression. But, now he's telling the truth?? In any case it doesn't really matter because he does NOT have to respond if he chooses not to. You must agree with that? RIGHT? :? :? That's all I'm saying.
"...end up in court for..."??? Who the h*ll DOES want to end in court??? Not me?? YOU?
"Ever read....?"
No. Have not read anything about anyone in pro cycling outside of newsprint, online news, and the occasional magazine. No books by or about anyone. Not my type of reading(don't care for bio's and the like).0 -
@conceptual_primate You are spot on I was explaining why he may not want to sue.
@dennism I am far from a LA hater, actually I am bit of fan. I was just trying to give Gazzetta67 a reason why LA would not sue. The other reason if he does sue Landis he may be expected to sue everyone who has a pop.
The trouble is I don't trust anyone 100% in the peloton any more...
0 -
dennisn wrote:
So, now you're saying that YOU believe what LA says(about not suing)? I thought you didn't believe a word he's said all these years. At least I got that impression. But, now he's telling the truth?? In any case it doesn't really matter because he does NOT have to respond if he chooses not to. You must agree with that? RIGHT? :? :? That's all I'm saying.
I've never said he lies about everything. No one does that. You have the most warped view of the world and the really odd thing is you think you're rational.
The point was, Lance stood in front of the world on TV and said "I'm not going to sue". But you'd posted "He might sue" - But he's said he's not going to. And I'd think Lance was a lot more aware of his intentions than you are, wouldn't you say?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
