Flandis retires

Ron Stuart

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

How many people with red hair do well in cycling?

Mmm?

err.... well two that come to mind straight away that's Jan Ullrich and Sean Kelly

Is Kelly red?!

No way!

Yep and still is check out me and him 4th down top left here....

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=1 ... ed0e427dcb 8)

Oh! and another one that might surprise you is Winston Churchill :shock:

DaveyL

Ricco.

*cough*

rick_chasey

I take it back....!

Ron Stuart

DaveyL wrote:

Ricco.

*cough*[/quote

Ricco and Kelly on the same page... ave ya no shame man? :oops:

DaveyL

Sorry. Consider me banished until I've written out "Some riders need a fookin drillin" 100 times...

Ron Stuart

DaveyL wrote:

Sorry. Consider me banished until I've written out "Some riders need a fookin drillin" 100 times...

Accepted

moray_gub

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Guys a fruitcake and won't be missed.

Really?
I'm betting you were happy he was around USPS, especially in 2004.
Don't blame him for your man's mistakes.

Its amusing how peoples perceptions of cycllists change as you definately would have floyd as a loon 18 months ago . But now ????????

moray_gub

Ron Stuart wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Ricco.

*cough*[/quote

Ricco and Kelly on the same page... ave ya no shame man? :oops:

Well both tested positive for PEDs in Kellys case more than once so thats a link between the two.

moray_gub

warrior4life wrote:

I'll miss Landis, I think he was a genuinely talented rider and probably a very nice guy who got caught up in a world he didn't know how to handle.

It seem's he's had people pulling him one way or the other his full career, coming from his background it can't have been easy.

I believe what he's saying now and i'm sure the lies weren't easy for him to live.

I think Landis has been spit up and chewed out by the worst aspects of cycling, I just hope he can move on and live a happy life.

I hope what Landis has said does lead to some changes in cycling, I know Landis didn't go about things the right was and there are plenty of others who "spat in the soup" but i don't believe any of them (Kimage, Miller etc) would have had anywhere near the pressure that Landis did, From the press, Armstrong and his legal army and all the US-Armstrong fans.

He only got that pressure this last 8 months after he made his USPS accusations up until then his positive test was on his own head and he was fighting in his own way without any pressure from those named above, and whats more he was being ridiculed every step of the way by people in cycling forums including this very forum and from some in this very thread............the same people who know come out with things like the little boy lost in mans world line, misunderstood, forced into blah blah........
Amusing indeed.

blazing_saddles

Moray Gub wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Guys a fruitcake and won't be missed.

Really?
I'm betting you were happy he was around USPS, especially in 2004.
Don't blame him for your man's mistakes.

Its amusing how peoples perceptions of cycllists change as you definitely would have floyd as a loon 18 months ago . But now ????????

Certainly true.
A lot of folks have swapped their sides of the fence.
Lying cheat to contrite cheat.
Unproven cheat to lying cheat etc.

Still, I should think he would be universally considered the top domestique of the 2004 Tour, by a country mile.

peterst6906

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Lying cheat to contrite cheat..

I wouldn't say contrite cheat. I would say absolute crook.

How many people gave him money in good faith to fight his doping charges because they believed the lies he told and kept telling?

How many of those has he returned the money to yet?

Saying he's going to pay it back at some unknown point in the future counts for nothing. You either do, or you don't.

From him, nothing is believable other than that he's a fraud and crook.

He's not alone in that regard, but doing what he did to fight charges he knew were right all along was disgusting.

DaveyL

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Still, I should think he would be universally considered the top domestique of the 2004 Tour, by a country mile.

I'd maybe have given that one to Jose Azevedo - he was very prominent in both Pyrrenean stages that year and I think he finished 5th overall. Landis whittling the whole field down on the road to Le Grand Bornand was however a real spectacle.

As one poster mentioned already, Landis probably was a hell of a rider, when clean. If his confession is 100% honest then he contested the 2002 Paris-Nice clean (he alleges he was introduced to doping by Armstrong and Bruyneel after the Dauphine that year). He finished second while competing against a field that might well have had a large number of riders doping (it was 2002 after all).

iainf72

peterst6906 wrote:

He's not alone in that regard, but doing what he did to fight charges he knew were right all along was disgusting.

A huge amount of his support appears of have come from Armstrong's money men.

But it's the culture - Deny and fight it.

peterst6906

iainf72 wrote:

But it's the culture - Deny and fight it.

That's the culture isn't really an excuse.

Even if that's what everyone else does, doesn't make it right and doesn't make him any less of a fraud.

iainf72

peterst6906 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

But it's the culture - Deny and fight it.

That's the culture isn't really an excuse.

Even if that's what everyone else does, doesn't make it right and doesn't make him any less of a fraud.

It's not an excuse but it's an explanation.

Ultimately, if you donated, you're a mug. If you didn't understand the science, don't throw money at it. If it's true 70% of the cash came from people involved in the cycling establishment, then you have to consider they were keeping it going for a reason.

moray_gub

peterst6906 wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Lying cheat to contrite cheat..

I wouldn't say contrite cheat. I would say absolute crook.

How many people gave him money in good faith to fight his doping charges because they believed the lies he told and kept telling?

How many of those has he returned the money to yet?

Saying he's going to pay it back at some unknown point in the future counts for nothing. You either do, or you don't.

From him, nothing is believable other than that he's a fraud and crook.

He's not alone in that regard, but doing what he did to fight charges he knew were right all along was disgusting.

excellent post.

cajun_cyclist

Tyler is writing a book I believe.

So that'll be fun.

Maybe my outlook is flawed but the way he had that grin on winning Olympic gold, at least the other American winning apparently Bronze (corrected from Silver) I believe his name is Bobby Jurich seemed a bit humble, but Tyler, repugnant and to me, it's one thing to rip off the classic races and another to do it at the Olympics so I wouldn't even care to read how he frames that experience. Hamilton was one character I have little sympathy for and if Floyd won gold at the Olympics in that style, I'd think that'd be pretty poor too but he didn't. There are a lot of photos on the event to search out, this one isn't the best one but I think it shows him to be pompous and proud, compare to Julich.



I've never disliked Floyd per se: He got caught out and others who have been caught, I'm sorry, they deny too at first. Maybe his intentions though were to capitalise on the situation vs. "I want to be able to look into the mirror without guilt", but it's kind of the situation that many of them dope and many of them lie too. I'm not like some who see Floyd as scum and also, I don't think fans of Armstrong need the description "USA Lance Armstrong fans" because he probably wouldn't get invited to places like Australia if that was totally so.

andyp

peterst6906 wrote:

I wouldn't say contrite cheat. I would say absolute crook.

How many people gave him money in good faith to fight his doping charges because they believed the lies he told and kept telling?

How many of those has he returned the money to yet?

Saying he's going to pay it back at some unknown point in the future counts for nothing. You either do, or you don't.

From him, nothing is believable other than that he's a fraud and crook.

He's not alone in that regard, but doing what he did to fight charges he knew were right all along was disgusting.

Do you take the same stance on Armstrong? Or does the cancer cloak make it all okay?

peterst6906

iainf72 wrote:

It's not an excuse but it's an explanation.

Ultimately, if you donated, you're a mug. If you didn't understand the science, don't throw money at it. If it's true 70% of the cash came from people involved in the cycling establishment, then you have to consider they were keeping it going for a reason.

It's not really about the people who supported him, or those who donated money.

It's simply about the lies Floyd himself told. Claims of innocence, counter accusations and claims that the testing labs were not accountable, had no standards and no respect because they were less than competent, when the truth was anything but.

There are lots of apologists who want to just believe the Floyd was a misguided stooge who really didn't know any better.

Whether that's true in relation to the doping is one issue. But the straight facts of the case show that he made his own choices to stand up in front of people and lie openly to them, both about his own involvement in doping and about the integrity of the system and people that caught him out.

No-one can force you to say something you don't want to. That's a choice he made.

iainf72

peterst6906 wrote:

There are lots of apologists who want to just believe the Floyd was a misguided stooge who really didn't know any better.

I definitely don't believe that. And Floyd has made it clear he made up his own mind about what to do and it was a bad choice.

But it is true to say people randomly changed their opinions.

Bakunin

"I'm relatively sure this sport cannot be fixed, but that's not my job, that's not my fight," Landis said.


The sport cannot be fixed? Why? So the grand confession is all about him then? The politics of looking in mirrors and a good night sleep?

LJAR

Bakunin wrote:

"I'm relatively sure this sport cannot be fixed, but that's not my job, that's not my fight," Landis said.

The sport cannot be fixed? Why? So the grand confession is all about him then? The politics of looking in mirrors and a good night sleep?

Maybe he tried to change things and subsequent events have informed that opinion.

"more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents etc etc"

DaveyL

Seems like the anti-Lance cultists are spitting feathers over the heavily revised SI article - the toys have really been tweeted out of the pram today. One hates to think what the reaction will be if Eliot Novitzky doesn't deliver the requisite pound of flesh...

blazing_saddles

DaveyL wrote:

Seems like the anti-Lance cultists are spitting feathers over the heavily revised SI article - the toys have really been tweeted out of the pram today. One hates to think what the reaction will be if Eliot Novitzky doesn't deliver the requisite pound of flesh...

Of course, you prompted me to have a peep in "The Clinic", where there has been a fair amount of "deflation" with today's news, only to find this had just been posted.
(I've only browsed, but on first glance, it may not be quite as sanitized as predicted)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/m ... ?eref=sihp

Bakunin

There is a lot of new stuff there.

iainf72

Linked to Dr F in 09. There's a surprise.

I'd forgottten about the Popo thing there

cajun_cyclist

From the SI/CNN article:

In a letter reviewed by SI, Armstrong's testosterone-epitestosterone ratio

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/m ... z1BRtQkx4b

They caught floyd on the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio and he lost the yellow jersey over that. So I see this as significant if there is a paper trail to confirm this about Lance Armstrong.

The quote in full is:

In a letter reviewed by SI, Armstrong's testosterone-epitestosterone ratio was reported to be higher than normal on three occasions between 1993 and 1996, but in each case the test was dismissed by the UCLA lab of renowned anti-doping expert Don Catlin, whose lab tested the Texan some two dozen times between 1990 and 2000. In addition to detailing those test results, SI reveals what appears to have been a reluctance from USOC officials to sanction athletes using performance-enhancing drugs.

In 1999, USA Cycling sent a formal request to Catlin for past test results -- specifically, testosterone-epitestosterone ratios -- for a cyclist identified only by his drug-testing code numbers. A source with knowledge of the request says that the cyclist was Armstrong. In a letter responding to those requests, Catlin informed USA Cycling that his lab could not recover five of the cyclist's test results. Of the results that could be found, "three stand out," SI reports: "a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1."

For the record, Floyd's test/epi ratio was 11 to 1 http://www.steroidsources.com/floyd-lan ... ictory.php compared to the "three (that) stand out", '93, the big one at 9.0 to 1 '94 7.6 to 1, and '96 6.5 to 1

So Floyd was sentenced and it went to CAS and not only did they uphold the decision but made him pay a big amount for administration costs, $100,000 or something. This above is a real eye opener. It would be for a trial to find out if it is true.

I just know the basics of the Floyd case and it's that ratio, odd that this would rear it's head again. I agree, looks like some new things here.

Found an article on the fan house blog: http://www.fanhouse.com/2011/01/18/repo ... -i/?synd=1

"Report: Lance Armstrong Caught With Drugs by Customs Officials in 2003" That is some headline and I'm not sure if it is truthful, huh? Overdramatic.

The article has this quote:

"The story is filled with old news, recycling the same old tired lies from the same old tired liars," said Mark Fabiani, a spokesman for Armstrong, in an e-mail to FanHouse.

I'm not even sure how a Federal trial would go versus a State trial, I guess you would have a jury of your peers and all of that.

peterst6906

andyp wrote:

Do you take the same stance on Armstrong? Or does the cancer cloak make it all okay?

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

As a scientist I prefer to be led by evidence, so I'm open minded on the Armstrong thing as I haven't seen first hand evidence myself at this stage. However, there is so much talk that it is difficult to see how there is no substance to it, even though a lot of it is hearsay and accusation on different forums.

The hearsay has to count for something though, so I'm still reserving my opinion on that and will wait until the evidence is clear.

But this thread is about Floyd, and for him the evidence is clear and uncontested, so it's easy to make a decision based on fact.

He lied, ripped people off and took money from people who believed in him to fight charges he knew were true all along. At this stage he hasn't paid any of it back. That's just disgusting.

Regards,

Peter

cajun_cyclist

peterst6906 wrote:

andyp wrote:

Do you take the same stance on Armstrong? Or does the cancer cloak make it all okay?

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

As a scientist I prefer to be led by evidence, so I'm open minded on the Armstrong thing as I haven't seen first hand evidence myself at this stage. However, there is so much talk that it is difficult to see how there is no substance to it, even though a lot of it is hearsay and accusation on different forums.

The hearsay has to count for something though, so I'm still reserving my opinion on that and will wait until the evidence is clear.

But this thread is about Floyd, and for him the evidence is clear and uncontested, so it's easy to make a decision based on fact.

He lied, ripped people off and took money from people who believed in him to fight charges he knew were true all along. At this stage he hasn't paid any of it back. That's just disgusting.

Regards,

Peter

I wonder how much Landis raised in this manner? I wonder if there are people who have publicly complained about this. I know I have read people say they believed Floyd when he said he was innocent and they were disgusted with him because he lied, I've heard that. I didn't buy the book. I know too, he had this "Scientist Cyclist" who worked with him, Arnie Baker who has written a # of books on cycling out there. Lots on Baker out there, he in fact is a bit of a racer himself but not on an elite level. I once read one of Baker's books out of the library, it's okay, just one of those improve your speed kind of books about cycling, a sort of manual.

Ron Stuart

Moray Gub wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Ricco.

*cough*[/quote

Ricco and Kelly on the same page... ave ya no shame man? :oops:

Well both tested positive for PEDs in Kellys case more than once so thats a link between the two.

Wiki links... says...

The classification of substances as performance-enhancing drugs is not entirely clear-cut and objective. As in other types of categorization, certain prototype performance enhancers that are universally classified as such (like anabolic steroids), whereas other substances (like vitamins and protein supplements) are virtually never classified as performance enhancers despite their significant effects on athletes' performance. As is usual with categorization, there are borderline cases; caffeine, for example, is considered a performance enhancer by some athletic authorities but not others.

Danger here: probably fuel for another Topic: :shock: ..... http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2 ... ive-tests/ at the end of the day most will believe that which they want to believe. :?

Personally I'm with Laurent Fignion on this one who was a great fan of Kelly by the way.
He recons that drugs could help make a great rider a champion but an ordinary rider would never make a champion.