Subpoena calling

Bakunin

Here we go:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/grand-j ... estigation

deal

Loving the Landis picture

iainf72

Trek have definately recieved one.

Looks like Jeff is following the money.

disgruntledgoat

iainf72 wrote:

Trek have definitely recieved one.

Looks like Jeff is following the money.

"You follow drugs and you get drugs, you follow the money and you don't know where the hell you'll end up"

dg74

Forgive me if I'm wrong as I am new to cycling and all it's intricacies but to me, Landis just seems like some petulant little kid who has been dealt a bum deal.

How on earth can anyone take him seriously after his past "I'm clean - send me money" and now "I'm dirty - sorry I scammed all you lovely people" shenanigans?

Berk!

Snorebens

Perhaps what he has outlined in some detail sounds feasible to investigators and others have backed him up anonomously? And I don't mean Chad Gerlach.

Kléber

Few believed him when he said he was clean, most people took it that he was doping. Given the evidence, testimony and corroboration from others, it's enough to convince the US authorities to investigate and issue court orders to testify. Certainly for these guys, this is a subject worth pursuing.

But if you think otherwise, that's fine, only I suspect you don't have the same access to information

dg74

Maybe so, but if rumours (and they are just that at this stage - rumours) that he threw his toys out of his pram because Rshack wouldn't give him a deal (or predominantly LA wouldn't), then he just looks petulant.

Of course, I may be totally wrong but I've not followed the case 100%.

iainf72

dg74 wrote:

Forgive me if I'm wrong as I am new to cycling and all it's intricacies but to me, Landis just seems like some petulant little kid who has been dealt a bum deal.

How on earth can anyone take him seriously after his past "I'm clean - send me money" and now "I'm dirty - sorry I scammed all you lovely people" shenanigans?

What does Landis have to gain for this? Very little.

He did lie but he's now fed up with lying so decided to not do some kind of half confession. Laid it all on the table and off they go.

The fact the Feds are taking it so seriously means they have some significant reason to believe it's true.

dg74

iainf72 wrote:

dg74 wrote:

Forgive me if I'm wrong as I am new to cycling and all it's intricacies but to me, Landis just seems like some petulant little kid who has been dealt a bum deal.

How on earth can anyone take him seriously after his past "I'm clean - send me money" and now "I'm dirty - sorry I scammed all you lovely people" shenanigans?

What does Landis have to gain for this? Very little.

He did lie but he's now fed up with lying so decided to not do some kind of half confession. Laid it all on the table and off they go.

The fact the Feds are taking it so seriously means they have some significant reason to believe it's true.

No I kind of see that point but I'm trying to figure out if this is a case of - as I've mentioned - Landis being (rumoured) snubbed and taking a hissy fit on cycling - or more the case of taking it out on LA?

As I say, this is all new to me and I find it rather fascinating looking and reading peoples opinions that have followed cycling longer than me and know more than me. Interesting stuff!

DaveyL

Well, he said he was clean, now he has come out and said he doped. Either he was lying in the first place and is telling the truth now, or he initially told the truth about being clean but has now for some reason decided to lie and "confess" to doping. :roll:

finchy

dg74 wrote:

Maybe so, but if rumours (and they are just that at this stage - rumours) that he threw his toys out of his pram because Rshack wouldn't give him a deal (or predominantly LA wouldn't), then he just looks petulant.

Of course, I may be totally wrong but I've not followed the case 100%.

And what difference does that make?

Either he's telling the truth or he isn't. His motivation is absolutely irrelevant.

Kléber

Yes, it creates a dilemma. The difference is that instead of a UCI whitewash, we've got a trained investigator sniffing around. Less Grand Tour, more Grand Jury.

blazing_saddles

Lance needs some sympathy.
Is this a 3 or a 4, fall off, piece of news? :P

Seriously, folks ramble on about not been able to prove innocence being unfair, then damn Floyd if he does and damn him if he doesn't.

I don't see any charges being laid from Floyd's words alone, but from turning over the right stone. (think about it )

iainf72

Landis has not recieved a subpeona. I think in the grand scheme of things he will be the catalyst but in terms of proving the case, he'll be irrelevant.

dg74

johnfinch wrote:

dg74 wrote:

Maybe so, but if rumours (and they are just that at this stage - rumours) that he threw his toys out of his pram because Rshack wouldn't give him a deal (or predominantly LA wouldn't), then he just looks petulant.

Of course, I may be totally wrong but I've not followed the case 100%.

And what difference does that make?

Either he's telling the truth or he isn't. His motivation is absolutely irrelevant.

I disagree.

Let's say that you went for a job and were fairly certain of getting it as you know the boss well but are passed over and it goes south.

Actually bad analogy from me as I don't know you - sorry

What I'm trying to say is that the person who went for the job may be a bit bitter and has something on the boss so decides to stir a little s&%t up - payback?

Yes Landis is gaining nothing as he's a crook and a doper (allegedly) but he is certainly going out of his way to cause a storm that in the end is only going to damage the sport more (holy s&%t I'm beginning to sound like LA).

I quit - I may be wrong and my view skewed but I think I'm in over my head.

Kléber

Like I say, there's plenty that the US authorities feel worth investigating, they are hardly going to spring into action because of a "hissy fit" or a failed job interview.

iainf72

DG - I don't think Landis tried to use it as leverage to get a gig on the Shack. I think that was Brent Kay.

BikingBernie

dg74 wrote:

he is certainly going out of his way to cause a storm that in the end is only going to damage the sport more

Robust action with regards doping is long overdue, so it could be a case of short term pain (for some) and a long term gain for the sport in general.

What is really needed is for the 'fallout' to go all the way to the top, with the UCI being completely overhauled or replaced. For this to ever happen the exposure of Armstrong is vital, as if that were to happen if would in turn make it possible to expose the corruption in the UCI. For example, in relation to the way they have protected him over the years.

Bernie S

If Floyd took money from folks all around the world to fund his case and then he admits its all baloney..shouldnt the Feds be doing him for fraud even as they launch a case using his testimony...

FJS

dg74 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

dg74 wrote:

Maybe so, but if rumours (and they are just that at this stage - rumours) that he threw his toys out of his pram because Rshack wouldn't give him a deal (or predominantly LA wouldn't), then he just looks petulant.

Of course, I may be totally wrong but I've not followed the case 100%.

And what difference does that make?

Either he's telling the truth or he isn't. His motivation is absolutely irrelevant.

I disagree.

Let's say that you went for a job and were fairly certain of getting it as you know the boss well but are passed over and it goes south.

Actually bad analogy from me as I don't know you - sorry

What I'm trying to say is that the person who went for the job may be a bit bitter and has something on the boss so decides to stir a little s&%t up - payback?

Yes Landis is gaining nothing as he's a crook and a doper (allegedly) but he is certainly going out of his way to cause a storm that in the end is only going to damage the sport more (holy s&%t I'm beginning to sound like LA).

I quit - I may be wrong and my view skewed but I think I'm in over my head.

If you feel a need to understand it - the storyline of an unreliable, unstable Landis trying to get back at those he considers ruined his career, and at the sport as a whole is one line being promoted by some involved.
Another interpretation is that after trying to save his reputation through lies and court cases for a time, Landis has realised his career and reputation as cyclist can't be saved, and simply wants to come clear, get away from the lies that come with being a pro cyclist. It's quite common for former cyclists caught doping; just read up on Bernard Kohl.

dg74

iainf72 wrote:

DG - I don't think Landis tried to use it as leverage to get a gig on the Shack. I think that was Brent Kay.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

@ BikingBernie - the thing with the UCI protecting LA - true or allegation? I realise fully that you may not have access to links etc but this is interesting to a new convert like me who is (or is starting to wonder a little) a LA fan but is beginning to see through some of the s&%t (but still commends him for LiveStrong as that is good work) that seems to pervade the cycling side of LA and Bruyneel (who just looks shifty full stop).

BikingBernie

Bernie S wrote:

If Floyd took money from folks all around the world to fund his case and then he admits its all baloney..shouldnt the Feds be doing him for fraud even as they launch a case using his testimony...

This possibility is exactly why Landis is maintaining that whilst he took Epo, blood doped and all the rest along with his buddies as Discovery, he did not use testosterone in the 2006 Tour. He may well even have been 'advised' to maintain that position by the Feds as they get on with the job of frying some rather lager fish. Given that it is clear that he has been talking to the Feds for a while, such an agreement might well be part of a 'deal' they came to in return for him going public.

dg74

FJS wrote:

dg74 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

dg74 wrote:

Maybe so, but if rumours (and they are just that at this stage - rumours) that he threw his toys out of his pram because Rshack wouldn't give him a deal (or predominantly LA wouldn't), then he just looks petulant.

Of course, I may be totally wrong but I've not followed the case 100%.

And what difference does that make?

Either he's telling the truth or he isn't. His motivation is absolutely irrelevant.

I disagree.

Let's say that you went for a job and were fairly certain of getting it as you know the boss well but are passed over and it goes south.

Actually bad analogy from me as I don't know you - sorry

What I'm trying to say is that the person who went for the job may be a bit bitter and has something on the boss so decides to stir a little s&%t up - payback?

Yes Landis is gaining nothing as he's a crook and a doper (allegedly) but he is certainly going out of his way to cause a storm that in the end is only going to damage the sport more (holy s&%t I'm beginning to sound like LA).

I quit - I may be wrong and my view skewed but I think I'm in over my head.

If you feel a need to understand it - the storyline of an unreliable, unstable Landis trying to get back at those he considers ruined his career, and at the sport as a whole is one line being promoted by some involved.
Another interpretation is that after trying to save his reputation through lies and court cases for a time, Landis has realised his career and reputation as cyclist can't be saved, and simply wants to come clear, get away from the lies that come with being a pro cyclist. It's quite common for former cyclists caught doping; just read up on Bernard Kohl.

Is this why Kimmage is regarded as a pariah by some people?

I can only imagine what that Walsh guy is up to right now, he must be in a stage of unfettered joy that this is happening. His book may get a few sales.

iainf72

BikingBernie wrote:

This possibility is exactly why Landis is maintaining that whilst he took Epo, blood doped and all the rest along with his buddies as Discovery, he did not use testosterone in the 2006 Tour. He may well even have been 'advised' to maintain that position by the Feds as they get on with the job of frying some rather lager fish. Given that it is clear that he has been talking to the Feds for a while, such an agreement might well be part of a 'deal' they came to in return for him going public.

Or he didn't knowingly take testosterone.

iainf72

Bernie S wrote:

If Floyd took money from folks all around the world to fund his case and then he admits its all baloney..shouldnt the Feds be doing him for fraud even as they launch a case using his testimony...

It's so minor - Lance is being accused of defrauding the US Government on a fairly significant scale. And tax evasion.

And probably perjury.

BikingBernie

dg74 wrote:

the thing with the UCI protecting LA - true or allegation?

There is certainly a lot of evidence indicating this. For example, there have been claims from within the Armstrong camp that the UCI accepted a pre-dated TUE from Armstrong when he tested positive for steroids in the 1999 Tour. Landis has talked about an Epo positive from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland being covered up by the UCI in return for a 'donation' from Armstrong, apparently of $25,000. When it came to light that six of his samples from the 1999 Tour had Epo in them the UCI commissioned a 'hatchet job' on the lab that did the tests, so giving them an excuse not to pursue the matter. (The notorious Vrijman report, which WADA said was "so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on the farcical"). 'Coincidentally', at the same time as this report was released Armstrong made another 'donation' to the UCI of $100,000. McQuaid has also made it clear on many occasion that he sees protecting the image of Armstrong come what may as being 'good of the sport'.

If you want to read more a good place to start would be the book 'From Lance to Landis', or even this thread:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12703967

Gazzaputt

A lot of idle speculation being spouted again.

Let's all wait and see where the investigation goes and then comment on it's results.

Hard evidence not hearsay is required to make any of this to stick to anyone.

iainf72

Gazzaputt wrote:

Hard evidence not hearsay is required to make any of this to stick to anyone.

But lets be clear, testimony by humans is considered hard evidence. If a couple of people back up what Landis said, it's hard evidence.

Gazzaputt

iainf72 wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Hard evidence not hearsay is required to make any of this to stick to anyone.

But lets be clear, testimony by humans is considered hard evidence. If a couple of people back up what Landis said, it's hard evidence.

If being the word.

RichN95.

Gazzaputt wrote:

A lot of idle speculation being spouted again.

Let's all wait and see where the investigation goes and then comment on it's results.

Hard evidence not hearsay is required to make any of this to stick to anyone.

+1

This thread will probably reach ten pages of more or less the same stuff that was written on the last one. Is this going to happen every time there's a minor development? Because this case isn't going to move quickly.