Landis admits doping, points finger at LA - Please read Mod Warning post 1

Lumen

davyjose wrote: »

Armstrong hinted at it. He said something like "I've sued many people before", in his press conference.

No.

From livestrong.com here:

(Asked if he will take legal action)" No, my days of legal action are over. Legal action takes time energy and a lot of money. I have sued a few people in my day and have been successful there and proved my innocence. But, I don’t need to do that anymore. My energy needs to be devoted to the team, to Livestrong, to my kids. I’m not going to waste time on that."

RobFowl

Bluefoam wrote: »

The question that effects me most is wheather my childhood cycling heros are implicated. eg. Kelly & Roche.

Best approach detailed below

leftism

Does anyone else think that these guys are possibly afraid to take legal action because they may end up under oath and suffer the same fate as Marian Jones?

The fact that Marian Jones did jailtime for lying under oath must be a massive disincentive for drugs cheats to take cases to court. Much safer to sit behind a table filled with microphones and tell the worlds media that the allegations are baseless...

Chips Lovell

teufelswerk wrote: »

I imagine in a civil case taken against the defamation of character it would be up to Landis to substantiate the claims rather than anything else. If anything this would be the best way of vindicating yourself after an accusation. The accused wouldn't have to prove themselves at all, Landis would need concrete proof to hold up in court, otherwise he'd be done for defamation?

Libel and defamation law is different to the US than over here. It's up to the person taking the case to provide proof, not the defendant.

partyguinness

It reminds me of the LA Olympics in 1984..there was mass cover up of the US athletes who tested positive, or the high moral high ground taken by the US against competitors from the old Soviet block...or how quick the US swimmers were quick to point fingers at Michelle Smith in 1996..even though the main US objector swam somthing like 5-6 secs faster than Michelle Smith 8 years earlier ....it was all indignation.

The attitude in the US is:

"We have the best sponsorship deals, best medical facilities, the best doping facilities, we can get away with it. If we are being beaten then you have to be on drugs."

That is coming from an old school teacher of mine whose wife competed for Ireland in the Olympics and he himself has been involved in national athletics in Ireland for over 50 years. In his opinion, 95 to 99% of Olympic track and field medalists are on drugs.

Cycling is no different.

The long distance African runners are doped up as well. There is this bull**** notion that they have some sort of natural higher endurance levels. Mark my words. That "scandal" is a timebomb waiting to happen.

I love cycling but the sport lost all credability years ago.

I mean the USI accepted a $100k gift from Lance Armstrong to buy doping machinies...what a joke and Pat McQuaid sounded like it was the most natural thing in the world.

davyjose

Lumen wrote: »

No.

From livestrong.com here:

My bad ... I didn't read the full transcript; I read the bit about suing people before and being successful, which was obviously placed massively out of context.

TinyExplosions

Leroy42 wrote: »

Lance crashes out, a people think its a coincidence.

Seems a bit extreme, especially for a known control freak to put himself into such an uncontrobable situation as a crash in the peleton.

Jeez, whatever you believe about LA, this is just crazy. Why not just climb off. Claim muscle strain or stomach bug etc. Whenever I want to chicken out on a bike ride I certainly don't cause an crash!!!

Lets concentrate on the real issues instead of concocting some silly conspiracy theories.

ITts called sarcasm... I don't think there's many people on here who actually think his crash is a bit suspect!

blorg wrote: »

That statement from Sky is the only one yet that sounds reasonable. The statements from everyone else are sounding EXTREMELY fishy. As you say, all non-denial denial, they are not coming straight out and saying "I didn't do it."

Agreed, they are the only ones that seems to say "we've done nothing wrong, but will talk to our rider". Everyone else is terribly wishy washy

davyjose wrote: »

If Armstrong did tell him, and I very much doubt LA would be foolish enough to do that, then it's still only a "your word against mine". In fact, it's "what you think you heard, against my word".

I suspect back in 2001 Lance would be foolish enough to talk about it, as it wasn't a taboo in the peloton, and if team organised doping was going on with riders safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't get caught, I can easily imagine some banter going on between teammates. Don't forget, it was a different atmosphere then than it is now

furiousox wrote: »

All the names Landis has mentioned and not one of them has taken or threatened legal action against him.....

It'll be too expensive and risky, as they have to try and prove conclusively that they have never had anything to do with PED's, which might not be easy. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in this case (though I am open to correction on that)

Bluefoam wrote: »

The question that effects me most is wheather my childhood cycling heros are implicated. eg. Kelly & Roche.

The aren't implicated in the Landis emails, but Kelly tested positive twice, and Roche, while he never failed a test (as far as I remember), is fairly certain to have tried it too.

I think the most interesting thing in this case could be the Insurance payout for the 5 wins Lance got after the court battle... there's the (very slim) possibility now that he could get done for insurance fraud if any of these allegations have weight, and that's jail time most likely (we can but hope!)

TinyExplosions

teufelswerk wrote: »

I imagine in a civil case taken against the defamation of character it would be up to Landis to substantiate the claims rather than anything else. If anything this would be the best way of vindicating yourself after an accusation. The accused wouldn't have to prove themselves at all, Landis would need concrete proof to hold up in court, otherwise he'd be done for defamation?

If the plaintiffs want to sue, they have to prove that the statement made by Landis was false, so the burden of proof is on them to show that they didn't dope, and that Landis knows they didn't dope and was lying.

I don't think anyone will take the risk of suing Landis

niceonetom

Given the power and reach of the Armstrong empire, and the attention to detail and control that he generally exerts it seems like a HUGE omission to have allowed Floyd to have come to this point.

A secret is only as secure as its weakest holder, and Floyd's been inches away from public self immolation for a while now. Watching other banned dopers return to the sport while he fades into penniless pariah made Landis a ticking clock. It would not have been beyond the powers of LA to make a phone call or two and make sure that Floyd at least had a team, a wage, and the chance to appear in a few races here and there, probably not TOC, but maybe one of the lesser Pro Conti teams or something. For Armstrong, man management would have been a lot easier than the public clean up he has ahead of him now.

As tonto pointed out, I bet Hamilton's phone has been ringing off the hook since this broke. I would guess that Lance is one of those callers. Tyler wasn't crazy enough to start the fire, but he might be jilted enough to fan the flames if Lance can't bring him into the tent with some kind of deal.

Or maybe Lance should just sue Floyd in the UK. As far as I understand the law there, all you have to do it prove that a) you're loaded and b)your feeling were hurt.

Leroy42

Slight opff topic, but why is this general acceptance that Greg Lemond was clean?

I mean doping didn't start with LA, it's fairly clear, even from Kelly himeslf, that doping was around at the time.

Looking at the facts, a US kid arrives in Europe and does what nobody from the US had ever been able to do, and then goes on to fairly dominate the sport. 3 Tdf and Worlds etc. And nobody thinks this is suspicious?

How can people not think that he was using the same stuff to beat the guys that are faily suspect. Seems strange that so many are willin to accept that he is the clean god or something.

RobFowl

TinyExplosions wrote: »

The aren't implicated in the Landis emails, but Kelly tested positive twice, and Roche, while he never failed a test (as far as I remember), is fairly certain to have tried it too.

An Italian court decision found that Roche had been administered EPO by Dr Ferrari. He strongly disputes this finding.

Kelly failed 2 tests one for Stimul an amphetamine which he contested but which was discussed in Wily Voight's book at length and and a decongestant at the Tour of the Basque country.

Kelly competed at a time when doping was rife but the vast majority of stuff they took had no effect on performance. Sounds daft I know but it's a fairly proven fact based on the scientific literature.

The problem with EPO et al is that they radically improve performance and turn Donkeys like Riis into TDF winners.

partyguinness

The problem with taking Landis on now is that he has thrown in the towel and given up. He is liable to say anything...loose cannon so to speak. Either he is confessing everything and is telling the truth or just trying to cause as much damage as possible...nothing to loose now.

MrCreosote

partyguinness wrote: »

The attitude in the US is:

"We have the best sponsorship deals, best medical facilities, the best doping facilities, we can get away with it. If we are being beaten then you have to be on drugs."

Absolutely spot on! The benefit modern doping gives means to me if some of the top riders are doping, then they all must be. Just doesn't make sense how anybody could believe a clean athlete can possibly beat so many dopers.

The only interesting thing is that Landis has admitted this- maybe angling for a new book deal? He's admitted himself he's broke.

Pro cycling is rotten to the core. I just pretend it's like WWF wrestling with nicer scenery.

Harrybelafonte

Bluefoam wrote: »

The question that effects me most is wheather my childhood cycling heros are implicated. eg. Kelly & Roche.

Kelly already tested positive, plus he goes damn quiet on Eurosport if doping is mentioned. Considering his reaction, and Roche's, to Kimmage's book, they very least they can be accused of is maintaining the "don't rat" attitude.

Armstrong's attitude to Simeoni shows he's of the same mindset.

davyjose

Leroy42 wrote: »

Slight opff topic, but why is this general acceptance that Greg Lemond was clean?

I mean doping didn't start with LA, it's fairly clear, even from Kelly himeslf, that doping was around at the time.

Looking at the facts, a US kid arrives in Europe and does what nobody from the US had ever been able to do, and then goes on to fairly dominate the sport. 3 Tdf and Worlds etc. And nobody thinks this is suspicious?

How can people not think that he was using the same stuff to beat the guys that are faily suspect. Seems strange that so many are willin to accept that he is the clean god or something.

If he was using it, then he went arseways about it. it's generally accepted that the peloton started using it in the early 90's. After 3 TdF's and in what he called the form of his life, in 1991, he finished 13 minutes down.

He's also one of the very few former Champions to be outspoken about it. Of course there's no proof he was clean, but Jesus, if anyone ever won it clean, it was him.

Ruprecht

Armstrong is 40 in 2011 and is still 3rd favourite for this years tour. Whilst we all have our opinions on whether he doped before what is the story now? Is he just a miracle man or what? Who is still doping now? How did Ricco get away with more recent and blantant doping for so long? Is Contador doping like Le Mond has suggested? These are questions that need to be addressed.
Think there may be a few high profile drop outs before The Tour enters France.

leftism

TinyExplosions wrote: »

If the plaintiffs want to sue, they have to prove that the statement made by Landis was false, so the burden of proof is on them to show that they didn't dope, and that Landis knows they didn't dope and was lying.

I don't think anyone will take the risk of suing Landis

Thats what makes me suspect these allegations are true. Its easy for LA to sue journalists and newspapers since their stories are nearly always based around second hand evidence and testimony from a third party. Floyd Landis is a different kettle of fish... He is someone who could actually produce concrete evidence that might bury these guys. I'd say these riders are scared sh*&less that if it ended up in court, Landis could produce a smoking gun that could finally catch them out.

Doesnt it seem strange that none of them are willing to take it to court? I mean Lance himself said it yesterday; "I've sued a few people in my time". He's sued for a lot less than what Floyd is accusing him of. This is the most damning accusation ever aimed at him and his response is "oh i don't have the time or effort to waste on a proven lier". That seems like a stupid move if you KNOW your an innocent man, or more likely a very clever move if you are guilty and you could lose in a court case...

partyguinness

MrCreosote wrote: »

Absolutely spot on! The benefit modern doping gives means to me if some of the top riders are doping, then they all must be. Just doesn't make sense how anybody could believe a clean athlete can possibly beat so many dopers.

The only interesting thing is that Landis has admitted this- maybe angling for a new book deal? He's admitted himself he's broke.

Pro cycling is rotten to the core. I just pretend it's like WWF wrestling with nicer scenery.

I was finding to interesting to see in any major sport (track and field mostly) it generally tends to be the guy who nobody has ever heard and finishes 10th or 11th that gets caught doping. Now if he is doping and can only manage 10th place either:

a. he is not very good at doping and was unlucky and a once off

b. they all doped and he just got caught out.

So who is going to suggest that all the competitors above him are clean!

I mean, it was generally accpted that Ben Johnson was actually very unlucky (if you want to look at it that way) he just mistimed it by just one day. Only for that he was out the gap.

Chips Lovell

RobFowl wrote: »

Kelly competed at a time when doping was rife but the vast majority of stuff they took had no effect on performance. Sounds daft I know but it's a fairly proven fact based on the scientific literature.
The problem with EPO et al is that they radically improve performance and turn Donkeys like Riis into TDF winners.

I think this is a very important point. There is a huge difference between pre- and post-EPO era doping. Stimulants etc had marginal or dubious benefits. EPO or blood doping could turn you into a winner from an also ran.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Slight opff topic, but why is this general acceptance that Greg Lemond was clean?

Because 1.) he says he was clean, 2.) nobody has ever thrown up a credible accusation against him, 3.) his performances went downhill almost the minute EPO began being used widely and 4.) the guy is hugely outspoken about it, unlike most ex-pros.

DirkVoodoo

Proving Landis' doping accusations

Chips Lovell

Barry denies:

“I’ve always raced clean and that was the goal since I was a kid,” said the three-time Olympian. “My mother put those values into me and my mother made me promise I would go back to school the minute I felt I wasn’t progressing. Having their support has been crucial in all this.”

Landis, stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after testing positive for doping, now admits to doping throughout his career in a series of emails he sent to cycling authorities that have now gone public. He’s also fingering many of his former teammates, most prominently Armstrong, whom he alleges had blood transfusions during the 2003 Tour de France among many other transgressions.

Landis is also claiming that Barry and another U.S. Postal teammate, Matthew White, shared testosterone and EPO with him while training for the Vuelta a Espana in 2003.

Barry said he only rode with Landis one day leading to the Vuelta and that drugs were never part of the equation. He learned about the allegations just before starting yesterday’s 215-kilometre stage in Italy.

garminguy

maybe its just me but, he was banned for doping and now that he is admitting he doped uci do not believe him!

i was under the impression that cyclists found guilty of doping were banned for 2 years and fined a years wages, a certain vino served his 2 year ban but paid no fine.

MrCreosote

partyguinness wrote: »

I mean, it was generally accpted that Ben Johnson was actually very unlucky (if you want to look at it that way) he just mistimed it by just one day. Only for that he was out the gap.

And now his Seoul time would be beaten routinely in heats. Have training methods really moved on that much since then?

As for cycling...can anyone name a winner or a major Tour or Classic from the last 10 years who hasn't tested positive/been dragged through the courts/been banned from competing in some countries/had bags of blood with their dog's name turn up in some dodgy clinic?

Chips Lovell

Gilbert, for a start.

aidanbike

MrCreosote wrote: »

And now his Seoul time would be beaten routinely in heats. Have training methods really moved on that much since then?

As for cycling...can anyone name a winner or a major Tour or Classic from the last 10 years who hasn't tested positive/been dragged through the courts/been banned from competing in some countries/had bags of blood with their dog's name turn up in some dodgy clinic?

Phillipe Gilbert, Thor Hushovd etc

RobFowl

MrCreosote wrote: »

And now his Seoul time would be beaten routinely in heats. Have training methods really moved on that much since then?

As for cycling...can anyone name a winner or a major Tour or Classic from the last 10 years who hasn't tested positive/been dragged through the courts/been banned from competing in some countries/had bags of blood with their dog's name turn up in some dodgy clinic?

Carlos Sastre (although he rode for Once and Riis)
Boonen seems fond of the coke but otherwise no allegations.
Oscar Freirie hasn't been queried AFAIK
Thats a few anyway

davyjose

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Proving Landis' doping accusations

AFAIK, a cyclist has to give permission to release his Urine for re-testing.

RobFowl

davyjose wrote: »

AFAIK, a cyclist has to give permission to release his Urine for re-testing.

Nope it's kept and can be retested at any stage
(the A sample only though , the B sample remains sealed unless there is an adverse finding in the A one, the problems occur when the A sample was not kept)

ednwireland

partyguinness wrote: »

I was finding to interesting to see in any major sport (track and field mostly) it generally tends to be the guy who nobody has ever heard and finishes 10th or 11th that gets caught doping. Now if he is doping and can only manage 10th place either:

a. he is not very good at doping and was unlucky and a once off

b. they all doped and he just got caught out.

So who is going to suggest that all the competitors above him are clean!

I mean, it was generally accpted that Ben Johnson was actually very unlucky (if you want to look at it that way) he just mistimed it by just one day. Only for that he was out the gap.

doping is expensive to do right (didnt landis say it cost him $90,000for a year) heard figures like that before, they comeing down the field has got hold of some stuff but doesnt know the ins and outs, exact time frames etc cos he cant afford to pay the doctors, likewise guys at the end of their careers also seem to push it cos they arent getting the results and are more likely to be injured etc so push the envelope tighter

leftism

I was training with an olympic biathlete a few years ago and over a few pints in the local pub at the end of the training camp the conversation turned to doping...

He was very open about the doping that went on in his sport, that he had tried the stuff for 2 months, it was too expensive and didn't like some of the side effects. The scariest thing he told me though, was the system they had in place with the testers. Lab technicians in WADA are being paid a lot of money to inform the teams on new testing protocols coming online. Its a simple enough system.

1) WADA get supplied with any new pharmacutical drug that is coming on the market.

2) Their labs assess if the drug has performance enhancing effects and if so, they begin developing a test for it (this is a slow process)...

3) Information is sent out on new drug X and Y which just arrived into the lab. It its unlikely that the lab technicians will have a test for it for 2 or 3years.

4) About 2 years later, warnings are sent out when a positive testing protocol is achieved for drug X or Y.

5)Repeat parts 3) and 4)

That is basically how the top athletes (those that can pay for the information) stay ahead of the testers...

davyjose

RobFowl wrote: »

Nope it's kept and can be retested at any stage
(the A sample only though , the B sample remains sealed unless there is an adverse finding in the A one, the problems occur when the A sample was not kept)

Hmm, I wonder where i heard that so? Anyway, LA better hope the next 3 years pass before the ideas in that article come to fruition.

leftism

davyjose wrote: »

AFAIK, a cyclist has to give permission to release his Urine for re-testing.

They ask you for permission to use your sample for WADA research in the case of your sample being clean. You just tick a little box at the bottom of the testing form if you don't want WADA using your sample for research.

Bluefoam

A guy I worked with was a fitness fanatic - always got slagged for using performance enhancers, but always denied it.

He developed a cyst on his spine/brain & basically admitted that he believed it was caused by the drugs he was using.

Unfortunately the the initial surgery didn't get the full cyst & it came back with a vengeance. He is now in quite a bad way. Hes a very nice guy and it upsets me to think that he was led into this & it worries me that others are doing the same without understanding the possible consequences.

ROK ON

el tonto wrote: »

Gilbert, for a start.

He is fast becoming my favourite cyclist. IIRC he did an interview with Walsh or Kimmage where he said that it would not be possible for him to win a grand tour due to doping. Apparently he dominated junior ranks and a lot of weaker riders than he have been more successful at pro level. Know that can be due to many things. Honestly if Gilbert or Wiggins doped I would probably cry. Would be like finding out that Santa doesn't exist.

goldencleric

ROK ON wrote: »

Honestly if Gilbert or Wiggins doped I would probably cry. Would be like finding out that Santa doesn't exist.

... please tell me there arent any questions about Cancellara because I would feel the same way ...

Chips Lovell

Ermmmmm....

goldencleric

Awh man!

davyjose

ROK ON wrote: »

He is fast becoming my favourite cyclist. IIRC he did an interview with Walsh or Kimmage where he said that it would not be possible for him to win a grand tour due to doping. Apparently he dominated junior ranks and a lot of weaker riders than he have been more successful at pro level. Know that can be due to many things. Honestly if Gilbert or Wiggins doped I would probably cry. Would be like finding out that Santa doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, too much about Wiggins' TdF last year raises alarm bells.

goldencleric

... I think in future events, all winners should be assumed to be dopers and locked up until proven otherwise ... would make some races a lot more exciting, possible track stands on the road to avoid coming first.

kennyb3

leftism wrote: »

That is basically how the top athletes (those that can pay for the information) stay ahead of the testers...

what about retrospective tests though?

petethedrummer

el tonto wrote: »

Barry denies:

Having read his truly awful book I'm not at all surprised, he never mentions the subject of doping once and he rode in the most doped era.

RobFowl

goldencleric wrote: »

... please tell me there arent any questions about Cancellara because I would feel the same way ...

And his DS is..........

(a clue is 60%)

Chips Lovell

petethedrummer wrote: »

Having read his truly awful book I'm not at all surprised, he never mentions the subject of doping once and he rode in the most doped era.

His blog isn't bad though. The guy can write.

Bunnyhopper

During the earlier Tours and Giros that he competed in Wiggins's weight was about 76kgs. When he competed on the track in Beijing in 2008 he weighed 82kgs. In the 2009 Tour he weighed about 72kgs, and his current weight is around 71kgs (see here and here).

I'm willing to accept that modified training and diet and an improvement in power-to-weight account for his improvements on the road, particularly as a climber. 71kgs is not a lot for a guy who is 1.9m tall (11st 3lb and 6' 3"), and a change of 5kgs - never mind 11kgs - has to be significant.

aidanbike

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-rejects-landis-allegations

Watch Armstrong Pooing a brick and notice the sound editing @ 2.38
" We cant speak of what he did on that team, (phonak) we can only speak of " sound scrubbed" " Notice the lips still move though

PR in full flow

Lumen

aidanbike wrote: »

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-rejects-landis-allegations

Watch Armstrong Pooing a brick and notice the sound editing @ 2.38
" We cant speak of what he did on that team, (phonak) we can only speak of " sound scrubbed" " Notice the lips still move though

PR in full flow

According to the livestrong site he said "We can only speak about what he did when he was on our team."

It seems like he just mumbled. Perhaps you should read something into that.

aidanbike

If he was just mumbling, i think he realised the way it could be interpreted.
That man is hiding a lot of skeletons.
A very unconvincing performance imo.

shaungil

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

During the earlier Tours and Giros that he competed in Wiggins's weight was about 76kgs. When he competed on the track in Beijing in 2008 he weighed 82kgs. In the 2009 Tour he weighed about 72kgs, and his current weight is around 71kgs (see here and here).

I'm willing to accept that modified training and diet and an improvement in power-to-weight account for his improvements on the road, particularly as a climber. 71kgs is not a lot for a guy who is 1.9m tall (11st 3lb and 6' 3"), and a change of 5kgs - never mind 11kgs - has to be significant.

Did LA not use a similar argument? No agenda here btw just wondering

Lumen

shaungil wrote: »

Did LA not use a similar argument? No agenda here btw just wondering

From what I've read, no-one but Lance and his confidants actually have accurate historical weight data for Lance. He claimed that he'd lost a load of weight but that claim has been disputed (unfortunately I don't have a link).

Wiggins' TdF performances from last year looked fairly human to my eyes, as did those of Lance. They both obviously suffered a lot and I think both got dropped on the climbs. Lance was tested enough that any doping would have to be very subtle.

Further up the podium things looked less clear...

In my mind it is important to try and maintain credulity that the best cyclists can now compete clean reasonably often. If we abandon that and assume they're all dopers then there less incentive for anyone to stay clean.

leftism

kennyb3 wrote: »

what about retrospective tests though?

Retroactive testing is one area that i hold a lot of hope for. The problem is at the moment it is generally only done if sanctioned by major sporting bodies as was the case 6 months after the Beijing olympics, and if memory serves correct most of the positive doping cases from the games were from retroactive tests. There is a time limit on backdating these tests AFAIK and samples are not kept on storage indefinitely. But on a positive note, WADA recently changed its guidelines with regard to retroactive testing which allows for greater timelines and more definite rules regarding positive findings.

There was a legal case a couple of years ago over the legitimacy of retroactive testing and i believe one of Lance's samples was implicated in that. A french lab claimed to have attainied positive EPO result from four of his urine samples dated from 1999. The case was thrown out of court on a technicality. Armstrong argued that the lab had "improperly handled the urine samples". How valid these tests are on long-term samples is still being determined. Its similar to arguing the validity of tainted DNA samples 15 years after a murder case etc..... As soon as scientists can verify testing accuracy on a long timeline, these retroactive tests should be even more successful (hopefully with less legal cases surrounding them).