Do you think Floyd Landis is telling the truth about Lance?

ju5t1n

They’re running this poll on www.washingtonpost.com and opinion seems to be split about 50/50

Doobz

Of course he is.. Even my dead nan used to say Armstrong looked like a dodgy fukcer - nans know everything init?

paulc33

no way telling truth,

lance has been tested more times than any other ride he wouldnt have been able to get away with it for this long!!!

also look at the history of scientic tests done on him and his ablity to ride!

gsk82

the report i read yesterday (possibly on here) reported that it had never been revealed that he failed a test, not that he had never failed a test

Splottboy

People who see Flying Saucers are telling the "Truth", of what they think they saw.

But, the FACTS are a little bit different...

donrhummy

One thing doesn't sit right about Floyd's comments: he claims he came out now because the statute of limitations is about to run out. But his doping and knowledge of others doping ran all the way through at least 2004 (with Lance's team). So I'm not sure what he's talking about.

iainf72

donrhummy wrote:

One thing doesn't sit right about Floyd's comments: he claims he came out now because the statute of limitations is about to run out. But his doping and knowledge of others doping ran all the way through at least 2004 (with Lance's team). So I'm not sure what he's talking about.

Probably refers to certain cases. Like he knew something specific from 2002.

Lightning

I don't think he is. Why should I believe him now? For all I know he's lying again.

Also, we need to have a little faith in cycling.. Lance was tested more than anyone and they never caught him. If Landis is telling the truth, someone has been covering up test results.

RichN95.

Lightning wrote:

Lance was tested more than anyone and they never caught him. If Landis is telling the truth, someone has been covering up test results.

Or the tests aren't very effective unless they're targeted. Their limitations have been widely documented. And there's no test for transfusing your own blood.

And as to 'tested more than anyone' - that's proven nonsense. The sprinters get tested the most because they win the most.

afx237vi

RichN95 wrote:

Lightning wrote:

Lance was tested more than anyone and they never caught him. If Landis is telling the truth, someone has been covering up test results.

Or the tests aren't very effective unless they're targeted. Their limitations have been widely documented. And there's no test for transfusing your own blood.

And as to 'tested more than anyone' - that's proven nonsense. The sprinters get tested the most because they win the most.

And the US track and field athletes are tested way more than any other sports people. At one point, I think the actual most tested athlete was Marian Jones. And we all know how clean she was.

cougie

I am amazed that people still think lance could be clean. He beat all the other dopers - how could he be clean, and why would people keep coming out to say that he'd doped if he hadn't ?

samiam

People want or need to believe his victories are real because the alternative, that his career is without doubt the biggest fraud in sporting history, is far far too scary.

Forget Marion Jones. Forget Ben Johnson.

Armstrong would have created an enormous empire based on nothing but lies and cheating. Not only that, but he would have (with several others) destroyed an immensely important and historic international sport which would, or will regardless, take decades to recover.

Oh well.. it's always darkest before the dawn.

sherer

samiam wrote:

People want or need to believe his victories are real because the alternative, that his career is without doubt the biggest fraud in sporting history, is far far too scary.

Forget Marion Jones. Forget Ben Johnson.

Armstrong would have created an enormous empire based on nothing but lies and cheating. Not only that, but he would have (with several others) destroyed an immensely important and historic international sport which would, or will regardless, take decades to recover.

Oh well.. it's always darkest before the dawn.

think you are right there. Landis makes a comment about Lance the payment he made to the UCI. Seems he gave a completely different reason for it than the one Lance gave us

Lightning

Well, I'm sorry but I don't believe "beating all dopers" makes you a doper. Doping doesn't turn you into a superman. It gives you an advantage, but if you don't train as hard, or aren't as good naturally, you still won't win.

I just don't think it's right to assume he's a doper unless he gets caught. I obviously have my doubts (as I do with other riders), but until proven wrong, I think he's clean. Otherwise, I'd basically be saying "hey, that guy won the tour plenty of times, he's a doper". What's even the point in winning that way?

cal_stewart

cougie wrote:

I am amazed that people still think lance could be clean. He beat all the other dopers - how could he be clean, and why would people keep coming out to say that he'd doped if he hadn't ?

+1

I've been looking at this all day and WOULD like to think lance is clean

BUT

He beat blokes who where smacked up on EPO. I asked on the PED tread how much EPO boosts you got a link and the report said 6-9%.

So if you think LA is clean, you think he is 6-9% better than a PED up worldclass rider. THAT MAKES HIM SUPERHUMAN

samiam

Cal_Stewart wrote:

cougie wrote:

I am amazed that people still think lance could be clean. He beat all the other dopers - how could he be clean, and why would people keep coming out to say that he'd doped if he hadn't ?

+1

I've been looking at this all day and WOULD like to think lance is clean

BUT

He beat blokes who where smacked up on EPO. I asked on the PED tread how much EPO boosts you got a link and the report said 6-9%.

So if you think LA is clean, you think he is 6-9% better than a PED up worldclass rider. THAT MAKES HIM SUPERHUMAN

The point isn't that he simply beat them. He destroyed people smacked up on EPO. All but one of his tour wins was a foregone conclusion.

Richrd2205

Lightning wrote:

Well, I'm sorry but I don't believe "beating all dopers" makes you a doper. Doping doesn't turn you into a superman. It gives you an advantage, but if you don't train as hard, or aren't as good naturally, you still won't win.

I just don't think it's right to assume he's a doper unless he gets caught. I obviously have my doubts (as I do with other riders), but until proven wrong, I think he's clean. Otherwise, I'd basically be saying "hey, that guy won the tour plenty of times, he's a doper". What's even the point in winning that way?

How much of an advantage do you think it gives you?
How much is the difference between first and last in the TdF (in percentage terms)?
Do a search and find which is greater....
Do you think the variations in training are all that significant? Why? How? With all the information I can get as someone who's faintly interested, do you think you can get more than 1 or 2 &% on me with access to all legal methods? If so tell me why & how, please.
No-one' assuming he's a doper. People have considered & weighed the evidence. You've merely offered an opinion (which contains both factual & logical errors). You're welcome to your opinion, but without evidence or facts, it remains just that. I'll stick with the facts, thanks!

cal_stewart

samiam wrote:

Cal_Stewart wrote:

cougie wrote:

I am amazed that people still think lance could be clean. He beat all the other dopers - how could he be clean, and why would people keep coming out to say that he'd doped if he hadn't ?

+1

I've been looking at this all day and WOULD like to think lance is clean

BUT

He beat blokes who where smacked up on EPO. I asked on the PED tread how much EPO boosts you got a link and the report said 6-9%.

So if you think LA is clean, you think he is 6-9% better than a PED up worldclass rider. THAT MAKES HIM SUPERHUMAN

The point isn't that he simply beat them. He destroyed people smacked up on EPO. All but one of his tour wins was a foregone conclusion.

So you agree because hes no superhuman

donrhummy

Lightning wrote:

Well, I'm sorry but I don't believe "beating all dopers" makes you a doper. Doping doesn't turn you into a superman. It gives you an advantage, but if you don't train as hard, or aren't as good naturally, you still won't win.

MAYBE. Maybe not.

Read this entirely and tell me what you think:
http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywor ... est_1.html

The guy in the above article actually took all the drugs (legally believe it or not) and wrote about EVERY benefit. The most amazing thing? After riding 700+ miles in a 76 hour time period, he felt as though he had just rested the next day.He was 100% recovered.

cal_stewart

marginal gains 1-2% max

world class sportsman 1-2% difference

I BELIEVE LA LOVES CRACK

rick_chasey

paulc33 wrote:

no way telling truth,

lance has been tested more times than any other ride he wouldnt have been able to get away with it for this long!!!

I don't think this chap in the middle ever tested positive either:



It seems not testing positive is not conclusive proof of anything, either way.



We could even count this chap, depending on how honest you think a "it was attempted doping, not actual doping" cover up is. Don't think he tested postive either:

JoeBond

Landis is a compulsive liar with a book deal. I don’t believe a word of it.

Kléber

Where's the book deal?

Even if there was a book deal, it would be so libellous that it would never be published.

Therefore there can be no book deal.

iainf72

JoeBond wrote:

Landis is a compulsive liar with a book deal. I don’t believe a word of it.

Yes, people often start book dealing by sending information to the relevant authorities.

One thing I'm curious about in general - If someone backed up Landis' stories, would they also be compulsive liars?

nic_77

JoeBond wrote:

Landis is a compulsive liar with a book deal. I don’t believe a word of it.

...whereas LA is a compulsive doper with a legacy to protect? I don't believe a word of the denial.

JoeBond

Kléber wrote:

Where's the book deal?

Even if there was a book deal, it would be so libellous that it would never be published.

Therefore there can be no book deal.

Wouldn’t his accusations have to be proven false to be libelous?

iainf72

This is worth a read. Gives a good American perspective.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100521/C ... -Armstrong?

Kléber

JoeBond, can you see a publisher thinking "yes, let's publish and test the book in court"

There is no book deal. Unless you have evidence of it, don't put porkie pies online.

JoeBond

Kléber wrote:

JoeBond, can you see a publisher thinking "yes, let's publish and test the book in court"

There is no book deal. Unless you have evidence of it, don't put porkie pies online.

Sorry - I read about the book deal in the long Landis thread.

I am angry with Landis here, I believed him when he said that he was innocent and that the French had fitted him up. I contributed towards his defence fund, now he says that was all bullshit. So, I don’t believe him now, I think he must have an agenda, and a last ditch attempt to make some money sounds the most plausible, whether that’s a book deal or something else.

Kléber

No worries. Look, every doper when accused denies. There must be a textbook somewhere that advises riders to keep denying no matter what. Landis spent loads on his defence but look at Valverde today, despite EPO and a DNA match, he's got lawyers working full time.

Now Landis was a fool for doing this but it's what everyone else does. Why? I think it's because of two reasons, 1) if busted the rider stands to lose everything anyway they might as well hold out in case a loophole or lab error emerges and 2) the rider sees everyone else doing it and thinks it's normal, how can they be punished when everyone else was at it, they lived in a bubble and get surrounded by lawyers promising to help

Note that there have been many whistleblowers, but they get squashed and painted as "bitter", as outcasts with an "agenda". Typical.

huuregeil

I'll eat my hat if Lance is clean!

Landis's claims are credible, because they tally with so much of what's come out about doping practices in the past ten years, not least as a result of Puerto, descriptions by people like Jaksche (Jaksche: "EPO is like getting your nappy changed" lol!), Frei, Kohl,...

What about virtually ever other USPS teammate getting busted, the failed doping test for testosterone cream (look this up, he backdated a doctor's letter), reading between the lines of accounts by Vaughters, Andreu,..

As regards the payment to the UCI. Dodgy as hell! Here's lance describing it last year:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... rview.html

He must be getting old because his memory has waned significantly recently:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstro ... llegations

CN: Did you ever pay the UCI [International Cycling Union] any money?

LA: Absolutely not. No.

Hmm... who's telling porkies now!

Then there's demolishing the field on, say, the Alp d'Huez or Sestriere or Ventoux (e.g. against Pantani, natural climber and juiced!), the field who was massively juiced on EPO and, particular with Sestriere, there being no known test for EPO at the time.

Relationship with Dr Ferrari and the hostility to Simioni:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni

I used to believe. So much stuff has come out since that I find it very hard to believe any more and, more than that, because of the way LA has intertwined his commercial and charity interests with cycling, he's now too big to take down and, along with Pat McQuaid, is a significant part of the doping problem that still exists in cycling.

The thing that really galls, is that if LA was clean and cared about dope-free cycling, he could quite easily stand up and put himself forward as proof that it's possible to win the TdF clean. He's political, he's got a big media machine, he could seriously change things. He doesn't because he doesn't want to and because I believe he's not clean, he simply couldn't pull it off.