A place becoming a cesspool .....................
Comments
-
That's assuming they call him as a witness....Le Blaireau (1)0
-
MG just for your information before you swallow the Fabricator's schtick hook, line and sinker - Landis stands to gain nothing at all, zip, nada, zero unless the Federal Govt decide to recover taxpayer's money. Now, should they decide to pursue that case based on Landis' testimony then one must agree that there is some truth in it - otherwise there's nothing in it for the Govt and certainly nothing for Landis.
So no waste of tax payer's money but potential recovery of monies defrauded by Lance Armstrong and his associates0 -
DaveyL wrote:That's assuming they call him as a witness....
That's assuming it even goes to trial.
If it does, though, Landis is only a small cog. Like it says in that interview you posted yesterday, the investigation beginning before Floyd spilled his guts. One witness alone doesn't amount to much, so it all depends on who else has something to say.0 -
micron wrote:MG just for your information before you swallow the Fabricator's schtick hook, line and sinker - Landis stands to gain nothing at all, zip, nada, zero unless the Federal Govt decide to recover taxpayer's money. Now, should they decide to pursue that case based on Landis' testimony then one must agree that there is some truth in it - otherwise there's nothing in it for the Govt and certainly nothing for Landis.
So no waste of tax payer's money but potential recovery of monies defrauded by Lance Armstrong and his associates
Micron just for your information as you appear to let your obvious hatred for LA cloud your judgement on Landis ........he is a liar a cheat and a swindler there is no arguement and Fabiani pointing that out is a perfectly acceptable thing to say. It seems becuase you think the FL is some kind of truth warrior that this is clouding your judgement.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
iainf72 wrote:dougzz wrote:
Iain, do you think if FL had been picked up by a decent team after the ban the toys would have come out of the pram so dramatically?
No, but he would've probably eventually told the truth. I believe the same of Tyler Hamilton.
He did what was expected of him by the cycling establishment. They left him to rot so they get what they deserve now.
Sadly my faith in the likes of Floyd is a lot less than yours. Why would he have told the truth if he wasn't at rock bottom. The truth has made him out to be a serial liar. If he'd have got a decent ride he'd have kept quite and pretended to be a reformed character without openly and clearly admitting anything (see Vino, Basso, Ricco and no doubt the eventually returning Valverde). I think Floyd is so screwed up he wouldn't know the whole truth. I'm sure the bulk of what he's said is true, but I'd place a decent size wager that there's a chunk of embellishment as a feck you to Lance. I'm glad he did it, it's nice to see all the vipers turning on each other.
I'm no LA fan boy, but I stand by my point that there are a lot of views posted here that imply/infer which ever is the right way round, that doping by romanticized riders is OK, it's just Lance that has to be taken down.
On another thread there was a discussion that LA ruined the tour, someone (you?) made the point that all the Tours in the 90's were dull. I believe in response to another post you accepted 98 wasn't. I wonder how Pantani could be that much better than everyone else at the time..... We all know the answer, and I just don't understand this divide of the cheaters. I'm going to stop now as I fear I'm treading the BB path to ruin.0 -
afx237vi wrote:DaveyL wrote:That's assuming they call him as a witness....
That's assuming it even goes to trial.
If it does, though, Landis is only a small cog. .
Well as Dennisn often says you lot (you,Monty Dog,Micron,BB,Iainf,Deejay and others) seem to know who said what to who and who did what so i would presume you have told Novitsky all this and are helping his investigation as i type.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
dougzz wrote:iainf72 wrote:dougzz wrote:
On another thread there was a discussion that LA ruined the tour, someone (you?) made the point that all the Tours in the 90's were dull. I believe in response to another post you accepted 98 wasn't. I wonder how Pantani could be that much better than everyone else at the time..... We all know the answer, and I just don't understand this divide of the cheaters. I'm going to stop now as I fear I'm treading the BB path to ruin.
Actually you make some very valid points i did notice the 98 Tour comment on that other thread by andyp and iainf72 and thought it smacked of hypocrisy . So you are right certain dopers even dead ones are revered in here while other suspected dopers are the devil incarnate.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:dougzz wrote:iainf72 wrote:dougzz wrote:
On another thread there was a discussion that LA ruined the tour, someone (you?) made the point that all the Tours in the 90's were dull. I believe in response to another post you accepted 98 wasn't. I wonder how Pantani could be that much better than everyone else at the time..... We all know the answer, and I just don't understand this divide of the cheaters. I'm going to stop now as I fear I'm treading the BB path to ruin.
Actually you make some very valid points i did notice the 98 Tour comment on that other thread by andyp and iainf72 and thought it smacked of hypocrisy . So you are right certain dopers even dead ones are revered in here while other suspected dopers are the devil incarnate.
Suspected my arse. Your attitude of denial regarding LA is far worse than anything I might have accused others of.0 -
dougzz wrote:Moray Gub wrote:dougzz wrote:iainf72 wrote:dougzz wrote:
On another thread there was a discussion that LA ruined the tour, someone (you?) made the point that all the Tours in the 90's were dull. I believe in response to another post you accepted 98 wasn't. I wonder how Pantani could be that much better than everyone else at the time..... We all know the answer, and I just don't understand this divide of the cheaters. I'm going to stop now as I fear I'm treading the BB path to ruin.
Actually you make some very valid points i did notice the 98 Tour comment on that other thread by andyp and iainf72 and thought it smacked of hypocrisy . So you are right certain dopers even dead ones are revered in here while other suspected dopers are the devil incarnate.
Suspected my ars*. Your attitude of denial regarding LA is far worse than anything I might have accused others of.
At this moment in time thats all he is depsite the bluster and hyperbole ..........end of.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
afx237vi wrote:Moray Gub wrote:afx237vi wrote:Except he's not defending his client, he is attacking the opposition. Subtle difference, but a tactic that usually backfires.
Its all part of a defence and If you are good at it like he is is its not a tactic that backfires and its perfectly acceptable to do what he is doing. After all Floyds' reputation is fair game here and you said yourself Fabiani should not comment on the facts of the investigation yet.
On what basis do you say he's good at what he's doing? I think he's very unlikely to change anyone's mind. Anyone who is interested in this made their mind up a long time ago. People are so entrenched in the opinion of Lance Armstrong, that whatever news emerges is just used to further enforce those ideas on both sides. Even after all this ends, I'd be very surprised if anyone actually changes their mind.
At the risk of channeling Dennis, the only people who win here are the lawyers.
+1 on the lawyer thing.
Not as convinced as you on the entrenched opinions(either way). I believe there could be a few minds changing either way, depending on what is revealed. I'm a firm believer in the fact that we / us don't have access to all the info. It's nice to think we know all about what happened on that bus or in that hospital room or any number of instances(good or bad) that may have happened(or not). Have any of us actually seen US Postal's
complete financial records to know if government money was used for doping? I think there is enough going on here that some, or a lot of people may say something like "whoa, I didn't expect that" or "... didn't realize that" and maybe reevaluate their ideas and conceptions of what was going on. I am counting, of course, on BikingBernie to maintain his stance no matter what. I don't believe I'll get any arguement on that?0 -
dougzz wrote:flattythehurdler wrote:iainf72 wrote:I've always thought Landis was a nice guy who was badly advised.
I agree entirely. Some of the comments here are awful.
........ and I just can't join the FL is OK bandwagon.
Why is it that people hate Lance but will create justifications for all the other cheats, e.g. Pantani, Indurain, Ullrich, Riis?
How is anyone of them guilty of cheating and perverting the races less/more than any other one of them?
I can't ride his wagon either. At least for now. That said I was a juror on a murder trial and believed the testimony of a convicted heroin dealer. (Ya never know)
Nicely said about justifications of other cheats and how are they less or more.......?0 -
jimmythecuckoo wrote:
Armstrong - we shall soon find out for sure.
I have to disagree. I'm pretty sure it won't be soon and am thinking that we may never know much of anything for sure. :? :? :?0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Talk about 'The pot calling the kettle black'! :roll:Moray Gub wrote:m“This news that Floyd Landis is in this for the money reconfirms everything we all knew about Landis,” Armstrong spokesman Mark Fabiani said Friday in a statement.
“By his own admission, he is a serial liar, an epic cheater, and a swindler ..
I have to admit that if I was an LA defense lawyer, the prospect of FL testifying for the prosecution would be some of the best news yet. I don't see FL having an easy time of it,
to say the least. However, it's not you or I that he has to be convincing to. I'd love to be on the Grand Jury(if there is one) for all of this. I'd be perfect. I'm retired, have plenty of time, and know a bit about cycling. Then I could write a tell all book.0 -
Moray Gub wrote:
Actually you make some very valid points i did notice the 98 Tour comment on that other thread by andyp and iainf72 and thought it smacked of hypocrisy . So you are right certain dopers even dead ones are revered in here while other suspected dopers are the devil incarnate.
Can you please point out this 'reverence' of Pantani that I'm being accused of?
I seem to recall simply posting a comment that the 1998 Tour was exciting and made no reference to Pantani whatsoever. But that doesn't fit your argument, now does it?0 -
Moray Gub wrote:At this moment in time thats all he is depsite the bluster and hyperbole ..........end of.
Do you generally deny the plausibility of scientific method, or does that just apply when it comes to LA? There is no dispute whatsoever to the scientific fact that his samples from the 1999 Tour contained EPO.0 -
dennisn wrote:jimmythecuckoo wrote:
Armstrong - we shall soon find out for sure.
I have to disagree. I'm pretty sure it won't be soon and am thinking that we may never know much of anything for sure. :? :? :?
depends if he contests and contests any damning evidence that is found.
I am sure that challenging everything for ever will make it hard to get a definitive answer, unless there is some truth and he fesses up.
I think I am coming round to your idea.0 -
andyp wrote:Moray Gub wrote:At this moment in time thats all he is depsite the bluster and hyperbole ..........end of.
Do you generally deny the plausibility of scientific method, or does that just apply when it comes to LA? There is no dispute whatsoever to the scientific fact that his samples from the 1999 Tour contained EPO.
Was this EPO test conducted the normal way and in the normal timescales was the rider informed of his positive test and how did his disciplinary hearing go ? You could drive a horse and cart through that evidence the point remains at the moment he is a suspected doper. That may well change but for the now youre just gonna have to wait until you get your pound of flesh meanwhile just keep revering these exciting old dopers.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Who's revering old dopers then MG?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
andyp wrote:Moray Gub wrote:
Actually you make some very valid points i did notice the 98 Tour comment on that other thread by andyp and iainf72 and thought it smacked of hypocrisy . So you are right certain dopers even dead ones are revered in here while other suspected dopers are the devil incarnate.
Can you please point out this 'reverence' of Pantani that I'm being accused of?
I seem to recall simply posting a comment that the 1998 Tour was exciting and made no reference to Pantani whatsoever. But that doesn't fit your argument, now does it?
@MG - you chose to ignore this then. Mainly because there is no 'reverence'. :roll:0 -
See this page for the 'reverence';
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=220
My quote celebrating old dopers;
"1998 was guff? :shock: "0 -
andyp wrote:See this page for the 'reverence';
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=220
My quote celebrating old dopers;
"1998 was guff? :shock: "
The 1998 Tour was exciting in your eyes due to the use of performance enhancing drugs mainly by the winner the doped fuelled Marco Pantani. Its a bit like Wrestling you enjoy it but you know its fake.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
This (topic) is a worthwhile pursuit on the internet and will improve my cycling...... discuss :roll:0
-
antikythera wrote:This (topic) is a worthwhile pursuit on the internet and will improve my cycling...... discuss :roll:
Being out on your bike will improve your cycling not sitting at a keyboard .Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:
Being out on your bike will improve your cycling not sitting at a keyboard .antikythera wrote:This (topic) is a worthwhile pursuit on the internet and will improve my cycling...... discuss :roll:
True,.... some topics are informative and provide a positive (no pun intended) input that can help a person improve. But this tripe!!!! why do people bother?0 -
MG, simply pointing out the law in rebuttal to your Fabiani fuelled assertion that Landis automatically stood to gain from the whistle blower suit, which is a false assertion. I'm actually really surprised at such a rigorous poster as yourself swallowing Fabiani's spin and bluster at face value and not using a little critical thinking to decide for yourself whether his assertions are 100% accurate.0
-
iainf72 wrote:
In fairness to Moray (having to write that hurt) I think I said this initially. OK if I'm wrong I'm wrong. But it seems to me as a general view that I get from many postings LA is evil whereas Pantani was exciting, tragic and flawed. Indurain gets an almost free pass, Riis and Ullrich get an easy ride too. Just my view. If I'm reading into things something not there then I apologise.0 -
antikythera wrote:Moray Gub wrote:
Being out on your bike will improve your cycling not sitting at a keyboard .antikythera wrote:This (topic) is a worthwhile pursuit on the internet and will improve my cycling...... discuss :roll:
True,.... some topics are informative and provide a positive (no pun intended) input that can help a person improve. But this tripe!!!! why do people bother?
So why are you bothering then ? does anbody really comes on to pro race to improve their cycling.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0
