WSJ Part 2

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

[Dennis] H*ll, who hasn't misappropriated public money at some point? These guys are just like you and me. You should sit down for a beer with them, sometime.[/Dennis]

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

These guys are going to fill their lives with lawyers over a bag of blood?

No. They're not. And you know they're not so try not pretend it's some kind of petty thing. That bag of blood is irrelevant.

I asked a question. You answered, telling me it's about a bag of blood. Now you tell me that the "bag" is irrelevent. OK then.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

I asked a question. You answered, telling me it's about a bag of blood. Now you tell me that the "bag" is irrelevent. OK then.

The case is not about a bag of blood.

Do you work for Public Strategies?

dennisn

Kléber wrote:

I think it's about more than one blood bag. Step away from that one alleged incident and the bigger story of a team operating like Festina is a significant deal, just as other investigations have exposed other teams. But this tale is potentially bigger given it involves the media personality that is Armstrong and also because it is raising questions about the sport's governing body and its ability to administrate, govern and oversee the sport.

Couldn't agree more. When "iainf72" said it was all about a bag of blood I just rolled my eyes. Although I suppose that FL could possibly carry a grudge that long, but that's just a bit of a stretch. Then again by naming names it would seem that he has other motives other than just clearing HIS conscience.

sherer

the bad og blood is just one incident.

What Landis has said is that he knows he cheated and lied in the past and now wants to tell the truth. According to Landis he learnt to dope while at Postal from Armstrong and the team as they had a team culture of doping just like Festina and T-Mobile used to.

That is what this is about Landis finally wants to tell the truth to ease his conscience

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

Couldn't agree more. When "iainf72" said it was all about a bag of blood I just rolled my eyes. Although I suppose that FL could possibly carry a grudge that long, but that's just a bit of a stretch. Then again by naming names it would seem that he has other motives other than just clearing HIS conscience.

Except I never said that, did I Dennis?

You asked what the bag of blood was about, I explained. Don't try and make it something it wasn't.

If Floyd had said, yes, I did it, the next question would be, how and who else was involved. He puts it all on the table, he's clearing his conscience.

iainf72

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Care to expand on that???? It was a serious question, not a troll.

You really pay not attention to the allegations yet comment on them all the time. Odd.

Lance and Johan got annoyed at Landis after he didn't take it easy on a stage of the 04 Tour as requested. So they poured his top up bag of blood down the drain. Allegedly.

So Dennis, I answered your question but I never even raised the bag of blood.

If a simple thing like that confused you, no wonder you're having a problems with the whole thing.

dennisn

What I wonder now is, if all THIS comes to some sort of trial will FL be a so called "star witness for the prosecution" or will a prosecuter be very leery of putting him on the stand. He's been talking away at pretty much whomever will listen lately and that may trip him up if he's caught in even the smallest of lies. Could cause him to be looked upon as an unrealable witness, to say the least. Whomever is running whatever investigation that is going on is probably wishing he would keep his mouth shut.

Kléber

Landis was only a busted as a liar because he kept on making ridiculous claims despite a mountain of evidence. By the sounds of things, the opposite is true, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence to suggest what was happening within US Postal.

Any statements from Landis today are only going to add to the story. After all, if his claims are corroborated by others (eg methods, places, people) then this is clearly not about Landis.

SpaceJunk

dennisn wrote:

What I wonder now is, if all THIS comes to some sort of trial will FL be a so called "star witness for the prosecution" or will a prosecuter be very leery of putting him on the stand. He's been talking away at pretty much whomever will listen lately and that may trip him up if he's caught in even the smallest of lies. Could cause him to be looked upon as an unrealable witness, to say the least. Whomever is running whatever investigation that is going on is probably wishing he would keep his mouth shut.

I agree with your thoughts about Landis, and his credibility as a witness, the defense could have a field day finding inconsistencies with his story.

That said, Landis will beaver be the 'star witness'. He might give evidence, but I imagine that will be all. There should be plenty of other evidence submitted.

But that said, Landis speaking to media first isn't the smartest of moves either. It might be good for us to gossip/speculate/drool over etc, but really if prosecutors want to catch out any perpetrators, the element of surprise is gone, and it potentially allows the accused to destroy evidence, cover tracks, collaborate their stories etc.

iainf72

SpaceJunk wrote:

But that said, Landis speaking to media first isn't the smartest of moves either. It might be good for us to gossip/speculate/drool over etc, but really if prosecutors want to catch out any perpetrators, the element of surprise is gone, and it potentially allows the accused to destroy evidence, cover tracks, collaborate their stories etc.

He didn't though, did he? The emails had been around for a couple of months and someone ( at the USADA?) leaked them to the media.

le_patron

Dennis.

Seriously, a good idea for your afternoon would be to read all the links Aurelio/BB has posted about a thousand zillion times (you can't have missed them). You don't have to take any at face value or agree with conclusions, but at least you'll know what we are talking about and can then come back and join the debate.

Otherwise you are trying people's patience having to explain everything just for you. dg74 is new to this and made this clear up front, you aren't, so have no excuse to be lazy.

sherer

what does everyone make of the so called hospital bed confession ? heard about this over on the CyclingNews forum and you never really know with the people over there.

Story is that during his cancer treatment he made a confession to his doctor about all the drugs he was taking. Frankie and Betsy Andreu were meant to be in the room at the time as well as someone women from Oakley.

The last part if why I doubt it a little as at the time he was a good one day rider and not even sure if he was signed to Oakley at the time. Add in the fact that if he had to have that sort of coversation with a doctor during his treatment a) would a doctor have that in front of a crowded room b) why would LA say all that in front of witnesses

rick_chasey

sherer wrote:

what does everyone make of the so called hospital bed confession ? heard about this over on the CyclingNews forum and you never really know with the people over there.

Story is that during his cancer treatment he made a confession to his doctor about all the drugs he was taking. Frankie and Betsy Andreu were meant to be in the room at the time as well as someone women from Oakley.

The last part if why I doubt it a little as at the time he was a good one day rider and not even sure if he was signed to Oakley at the time. Add in the fact that if he had to have that sort of coversation with a doctor during his treatment a) would a doctor have that in front of a crowded room b) why would LA say all that in front of witnesses

Sounds untrue to me.

SpaceJunk

iainf72 wrote:

SpaceJunk wrote:

But that said, Landis speaking to media first isn't the smartest of moves either. It might be good for us to gossip/speculate/drool over etc, but really if prosecutors want to catch out any perpetrators, the element of surprise is gone, and it potentially allows the accused to destroy evidence, cover tracks, collaborate their stories etc.

He didn't though, did he? The emails had been around for a couple of months and someone ( at the USADA?) leaked them to the media.

Yeah true, good point. But my first post was clumsily written. What I meant was since this story leaked by someone at USADAA etc, Landis has provided a couple of new thoughts - the bikes for dope scheme etc.

I just wonder if the prosecutors were made aware of this first, or if it was the media, and hence were able to catch the accused on the hop and catch them out, if that was even possible?

And even if the media were the first to know, would it matter anyway? How hard would it be to cover one's tracks?

Just thinking out loud.

iainf72

SpaceJunk wrote:

And even if the media were the first to know, would it matter anyway? How hard would it be to cover one's tracks?

Just thinking out loud.

Or are the media being used as part of the case. Wouldn't be the first time.

How much of what's happening do we know. 10%? 20%? Only a tiny amount I would suggest. The reaction from Armstrong was interesting because merely under media questioning he started to get his story muddled. Imagine when you have Jeff "Elliot Ness" Novitzky asking...

If I was a betting man, I'd put money on more this weekend.

dave milne

Rick Chasey wrote:

sherer wrote:

what does everyone make of the so called hospital bed confession ? heard about this over on the CyclingNews forum and you never really know with the people over there.

Story is that during his cancer treatment he made a confession to his doctor about all the drugs he was taking. Frankie and Betsy Andreu were meant to be in the room at the time as well as someone women from Oakley.

The last part if why I doubt it a little as at the time he was a good one day rider and not even sure if he was signed to Oakley at the time. Add in the fact that if he had to have that sort of coversation with a doctor during his treatment a) would a doctor have that in front of a crowded room b) why would LA say all that in front of witnesses

Sounds untrue to me.

didn't the andreu's testify to that under oath? why would they lie

dave_1

SpaceJunk wrote:

dennisn wrote:

What I wonder now is, if all THIS comes to some sort of trial will FL be a so called "star witness for the prosecution" or will a prosecuter be very leery of putting him on the stand. He's been talking away at pretty much whomever will listen lately and that may trip him up if he's caught in even the smallest of lies. Could cause him to be looked upon as an unrealable witness, to say the least. Whomever is running whatever investigation that is going on is probably wishing he would keep his mouth shut.

I agree with your thoughts about Landis, and his credibility as a witness, the defense could have a field day finding inconsistencies with his story.

That said, Landis will beaver be the 'star witness'. He might give evidence, but I imagine that will be all. There should be plenty of other evidence submitted.

But that said, Landis speaking to media first isn't the smartest of moves either. It might be good for us to gossip/speculate/drool over etc, but really if prosecutors want to catch out any perpetrators, the element of surprise is gone, and it potentially allows the accused to destroy evidence, cover tracks, collaborate their stories etc.

LA will have had private investigators on landis for years , since the threatening emails I bet. Am sure LA will have had people followed. The amount of dirt he'll throw at Landis will undermine Landis...if Landis's has had substance problems or other issues since for example, they will be aired.

Bakunin

I have no doubt that Lance would react that way. But the point of the matter is that it is in the hands of the feds. Landis is not the key, but he has helped define the lock.

sherer

interesting story on the hospital confession here

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5508863

paulcuthbert

sherer wrote:

Story is that during his cancer treatment he made a confession to his doctor about all the drugs he was taking. Frankie and Betsy Andreu were meant to be in the room at the time as well as someone women from Oakley.

The last part if why I doubt it a little as at the time he was a good one day rider and not even sure if he was signed to Oakley at the time. Add in the fact that if he had to have that sort of coversation with a doctor during his treatment a) would a doctor have that in front of a crowded room b) why would LA say all that in front of witnesses

He was sponsored by Oakley at the time. In his book he says he'll be a Nike, Giro, and Oakley man all his life because they stuck by him through cancer when they could have easily terminated the contracts.

However, I think this part is BS. I was in hospital last month, and they asked my Mum - MY OWN MOTHER - to leave the room while they asked me some questions. It breaks every rule in the carer/patient confidentiality guidelines to have other people present in the room when private medical questions are being asked. There's no way in hell it happened.

RichN95.

paulcuthbert wrote:

However, I think this part is BS. I was in hospital last month, and they asked my Mum - MY OWN MOTHER - to leave the room while they asked me some questions. It breaks every rule in the carer/patient confidentiality guidelines to have other people present in the room when private medical questions are being asked. There's no way in hell it happened.

I agree with you. While I think Armstrong doped, this part of the story has never made sense to me. There's no way any doctor would ask those questions in front of an audience.

I wouldn't say the Andreus lied under oath either. They testified ten years after the event and the human memory is a very long way from perfect. For the same reason, I'm unwilling to take everything Landis has said as gospel truth (although I believe the jist of it)

paulcuthbert

RichN95 wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

However, I think this part is BS. I was in hospital last month, and they asked my Mum - MY OWN MOTHER - to leave the room while they asked me some questions. It breaks every rule in the carer/patient confidentiality guidelines to have other people present in the room when private medical questions are being asked. There's no way in hell it happened.

I agree with you.

That's a first on here. I'm so happy!

ratsbeyfus

The thing that make it believable to me is that BA was really taken back by what she heard and had it out with her fiancee at the time as it came as a real shock to her. So she's not really mis-recalling a simple insignificant conversation she had 10 years ago (no one could do that reliably), but instead recalling a conversation that had real significance in her life and really resonated withe her at the time. Again, this is well recorded in 'From Lance to Landis' - BA and FA come across as very credible people.

RichN95.

ratsbeyfus wrote:

The thing that make it believable to me is that BA was really taken back by what she heard and had it out with her fiancee at the time as it came as a real shock to her. So she's not really mis-recalling a simple insignificant conversation she had 10 years ago (no one could do that reliably), but instead recalling a conversation that had real significance in her life and really resonated withe her at the time. Again, this is well recorded in 'From Lance to Landis' - BA and FA come across as very credible people.

See here's the thing. How did BA find out that FA and LA were doping? Was it really at the hospital bed? There was a good article in The Times this week saying that political memoirs, while of interest, were of little historical worth due to the unreliablity of the human memory. I'm sure we've all sworn blind about events in our past that we think are true, but actually never happen quite as we thought.

Basically, I'm saying that human memory is rubbish when it comes to details and sometimes people, over time, convince themselves that something happened when it really didn't. Ultimately, I don't believe any doctor would ask those questions with an audience.

sherer

i;ve posted a link at the top of this page that has some more info on the story.

There is also the taped phone call between Lemond and the Oakley women where she admits this happened.

Still not sure what to make of this as I can't believe that a) this conversation wouldn't take place in private and b) that LA would say all this in front of a whole room full of people

conceptual_primate

paulcuthbert wrote:

However, I think this part is BS. I was in hospital last month, and they asked my Mum - MY OWN MOTHER - to leave the room while they asked me some questions. It breaks every rule in the carer/patient confidentiality guidelines to have other people present in the room when private medical questions are being asked. There's no way in hell it happened.

Whilst this indeed does sound unusual, the obvious quesiton would be, assuming this is true, is why LA and team never used this argument in their defense? It'd be a fairly obvious dismissal and iIf they had claimed this then it would have cast a lot more doubt on the likelihood of tihs conversation having taken place.

RichN95 wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

The thing that make it believable to me is that BA was really taken back by what she heard and had it out with her fiancee at the time as it came as a real shock to her. So she's not really mis-recalling a simple insignificant conversation she had 10 years ago (no one could do that reliably), but instead recalling a conversation that had real significance in her life and really resonated withe her at the time. Again, this is well recorded in 'From Lance to Landis' - BA and FA come across as very credible people.

See here's the thing. How did BA find out that FA and LA were doping? Was it really at the hospital bed? There was a good article in The Times this week saying that political memoirs, while of interest, were of little historical worth due to the unreliablity of the human memory. I'm sure we've all sworn blind about events in our past that we think are true, but actually never happen quite as we thought.

Basically, I'm saying that human memory is rubbish when it comes to details and sometimes people, over time, convince themselves that something happened when it really didn't. Ultimately, I don't believe any doctor would ask those questions with an audience.

Agreed, but in this case we have 2 people remembering the same 'facts'. It would be unusual for both to have the same recollection but both euqally mistake the conversation.

Steve2020

Ultimately, I don't believe any doctor would ask those questions with an audience.[/quote]

I agree, it does seem pretty weird. But I guess that is why David Walsh deals with it so thoroughly in From Lance to Landis.

There were 6 people in the room: his GF, the Andreus, Chris Carmichael and his GF, and Stephanie McIlvain. Of those, I guess it is quite likely that LA would expect all of them to know (Betsy said she saw Carmichael looking round the room to see if everyone was trustworthy), so it it maybe didn't seem like a big deal for him to say it.

And a very odd thing for the Andreus to misremember - according to David Walsh Betsy Andreu spent weeks soul searching and considering whether to marry Frankie - the kind of thing you would remember pretty well.

And it was corroborated by McIlvain in the taped conversation with Lemond. And two friends of Betsy confirmed to Walsh that Betsy called them in distress to report what happened.

On the other hand, the doctors both deny it.

One of the doctors is on the Scientic Advisory Committee of Livestrong (presumably .org not .com)

BikingBernie

Of course, it's not just the Andreu's who corroborate that story. Stephanie McIlvain, Armstrong's personal representative with Oakley, has also said the she heard Armstrong confessing to doping. She did retract this later, but only where both her and her husband were threatened with being sacked from Oakley if she didn't back Armstrong. You can hear her talking about Armstrong's 'confession', and promising that she will speak the truth, in the following taped conversation with Greg Lemond.

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

BikingBernie

Steve2020 wrote:

On the other hand, the doctors both deny it.

One of the doctors is on the Scientic Advisory Committee of Livestrong (presumably .org not .com)

Also Betsy Andreu has said that the doctor who asked the question was definitely not the consultant in charge of Armstrong's treatment. This doctor who did ask the question has never been identified by the hospital. 'Coincidentaly', the failure of the hospital to identify who the doctors in the room actually were followed the acceptance of a donation by the hospital of $1.5 million from the Lance Armstrong Foundation...