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

Diarmuid

goldencleric wrote: »

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

hate to break it to you....

RobFowl

leftism wrote: »

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).

That was a situation where the A sample had been tested declared clear and discarded. LA had signed a release to allow the B samples to b eused anonymously for research.
2 issues here one no-one should ever have been able to link the samples to the person they were taken from and 2 a failed test needs to be both the A & B sample (unless the athletes admits guilt). The A samples were declared "clean" and destroyed so legally that was the end of the matter.
The testing process for research also does not have the same chain of custody recorded so is inherently unreliable legally.

jman0war

Glad to hear Landis finally came out.
Looks like the rest of the gang are closing ranks, no surprises there.

I read that Floyd said the US team bus went to a quiet road one time and the whole team got blood transfusions.
Would love to be that bus driver now, it'd be nice holding LA over a barrel reckon he's got deep pockets.

We'll never catch cheaters that are taking blood transfusions, the only way is to create a culture where whistleblowing is rewarded.

kennyb3

leftism wrote: »

Retroactive testing is one area that i hold a lot of hope for.

Surely it is the only hope? The sport will never be clean(er) until competitors know that all the samples they give will be retroactively tested. the tests will never keep pace with the doping methods, surely its only catching them after and disgracing them that will ultimately lead to them not attempting to dope.

billaustin

Landis is a bitter bitter man and his allegations are falling in deaf ears, he's a proven liar and how can you believe anything he says. The timelines etc in his email are all out of sync as LA said yesterday. It's such a nuisance for me to hear abbout LA and doping all over agin though, he has never tested positive. You will always have people who love to try and break you down though.

Landis is just naming anyone he can get his hands on, Bruyneel, Zabriskie et al, he was a liar for so many years.

Hermy

billaustin wrote: »

Landis is a bitter bitter man...

Why?

Chips Lovell

billaustin wrote: »

It's such a nuisance for me to hear abbout LA and doping all over agin though, he has never tested positive.

Well that clears that up then.

Harrybelafonte

billaustin wrote: »

It's such a nuisance for me to hear abbout LA and doping all over agin though, he has never tested positive

Usual tripe the LA love gang wheel out. He has tested positive.

Read this run down of the 1999 test results by Michael Ashendon, that should clarify it for you.

Lumen

Austin you say? Hmmm.

ednwireland

it did make me go and buy this though http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9780345499622/From-Lance-to-Landis
13 euro !

billaustin 2 posts hmmmmmmmmmmm that you lance

petethedrummer

billaustin wrote: »

he has never tested positive.

Neither did Marion Jones. Look where she is now. Do you work for Public Strategies by the way?

It seems the Lovestrong chamois sniffers have reached boards.ie.

nacho libre

may the best cheat win. I wonder how David " show me the proof!" Duffield feels about these latest revelations"

shaungil

Lumen wrote:

]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.

You might excuse my cynicism for the whole last 10 years and I would be upset if Wiggins was proven to cheat but it's just too hard to believe anyone anymore. Money talks and that's what it's all about.
Too many people with too much too lose. Ex-cyclists now employed in UCI, media teams do they all just clear off? Insert icon for long sigh of sadness and resignation.

Look what Lemond has been put through.

Probably easier for me as I'm newer to cycling while most other posters are more in love than cycling as a sport. Now please don't tell me there's ever been any drugs in rugby.........Oh wait.

RobFowl

shaungil wrote: »

You might excuse my cynicism for the whole last 10 years and I would be upset if Wiggins was proven to cheat but it's just too hard to believe anyone anymore. Money talks and that's what it's all about.

Too many people with too much too lose. Ex-cyclists now employed in UCI, media teams do they all just clear off? Insert icon for long sigh of sadness and resignation.

Look what Lemond has been put through.

Probably easier for me as I'm newer to cycling while most other posters are more in love than cycling as a sport. Now please don't tell me there's ever been any drugs in rugby.........Oh wait.

We'll take your comment seriously once you shave your legs

jman0war

Michelle Smyth never tested positive either.

Just for tampering a urine sample.
But she kept her medals.

nacho libre

Bluefoam wrote: »

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

i've litte doubt Roche was cheating - indeed his comments on eurosport a couple of years ago, more or less implied that they were all cheating in his day and it was time to draw a line under it.

I'm reluctant to believe Kelly was doping but then again maybe that's being naive.

kennyb3

ednwireland wrote: »

billaustin 2 posts hmmmmmmmmmmm that you lance

or bill richardson?

niceonetom

It's Friday ffs. This thread desperately needs some lancefans.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

It's Friday ffs. This thread desperately needs some lancefans.

Indeed, Blorg is suspiciously quiet so far. Omerta!

ednwireland

Lumen wrote: »

Indeed, Blorg is suspiciously quiet so far. Omerta!

prob pulled over at the side of the road for a transfusion

aidanbike

kennyb3 wrote: »

or bill richardson?

NO NO NO must be this Bill LOL

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bill-stapleton-cse-will-own-manage-team-radioshack

And the Austin must refer to his Austin Maxi.

mloc123

niceonetom wrote: »

It's Friday ffs. This thread desperately needs some lancefans.

Lance is Mr clean, he defeated cancer and will one day rid the world of it... Landis is just a bitter cancer loving hasbin trying his best to drag a true American hero down.



Count 'em Landis, 7.

Captain Havoc

niceonetom wrote: »

It's Friday ffs. This thread desperately needs some lancefans.

Where's the facepalm smiley? :pac:

Mark OK

I don't now if Kelly was taking drugs or not, however he does go very quiet when the subject is mentioned unlike Lemond. The sooner all these cheats are kicked out of the sport the better.

aidanbike

Is that a parody of a Lance fan or are you for real ?

Captain Havoc

aidanbike wrote: »

Is that a parody of a Lance fan or are you for real ?

It's a fan made from a jousting lance, poor effort at humour, sorry.

godihatedehills

niceonetom wrote: »

It's Friday ffs. This thread desperately needs some lancefans.

anseo! Sorry, I haven't been paying much attention as my faith is unwavering in the face of adversity

You know that riddle where you're at the gates and you have to work out which one is heaven and which one is hell? There's a liar and a non-liar and you only have one question....

Well, long story short, Landis is a known liar saying Lance is doping.

ergo....Lance is not doping.

I thankyou.

aidanbike

godihatedehills wrote: »

anseo! Sorry, I haven't been paying much attention as my faith is unwavering in the face of adversity

You know that riddle where you're at the gates and you have to work out which one is heaven and which one is hell? There's a liar and a non-liar and you only have one question....

Well, long story short, Landis is a known liar saying Lance is doping.

ergo....Lance is not doping.

I thankyou.

The uci might have an opening for you

jwshooter

Mark OK wrote: »

I don't now if Kelly was taking drugs or not, however he does go very quiet when the subject is mentioned unlike Lemond. The sooner all these cheats are kicked out of the sport the better.

he probably has brains enough not to speculate on some thing he knows noting about .

ROK ON

@GIHTH - enjoy your training camp in Spain. Will be watching your results with interest. That's where all the clean cyclists go to train.
:-)

Mark OK

jwshooter wrote: »

he probably has brains enough not to speculate on some thing he knows noting about .

You would want to be fairly naive to think he knows nothing about the subject considering nearly every rider in the 80's was doping

RobFowl

godihatedehills wrote: »

anseo! Sorry, I haven't been paying much attention as my faith is unwavering in the face of adversity

You know that riddle where you're at the gates and you have to work out which one is heaven and which one is hell? There's a liar and a non-liar and you only have one question....

Well, long story short, Landis is a known liar saying Lance is doping.

ergo....Lance is not doping.

I thankyou.

Landis is a liar

Landis claimed he did not dope at the 2006 tour and hence was disqualified

Now Landis says he did dope ergo as a known Liar he didn't therefore he won the 2006 TDF fair and square....

Lance cures cancer hence can do no wrong

Everybody wins and we all go home happy

davyjose

RobFowl wrote: »

he 2006 tour and hence was disqualified

Now Landis says he did dope ergo as a known Liar he didn't therefore he won the 2006 TDF fair and square....

he's still lying about it.

leftism

RobFowl wrote: »

Landis is a liar

Landis claimed he did not dope at the 2006 tour and hence was disqualified

Now Landis says he did dope ergo as a known Liar he didn't therefore he won the 2006 TDF fair and square....

Lance cures cancer hence can do no wrong

Everybody wins and we all go home happy

Man i feel really bad for Floyd right now... The guy was clean the whole time! Sure, he's a compulsive liar, but is that enough reason to take the 06 yellow jersey off him?!?

Poor Floyd...

buffalo

Barry's official response on his blog: http://michaelbarry.ca/2010/05/official-response-to-landis-comments/

I am shocked at the allegations from Floyd Landis. They are completely untrue. A few years ago, I cycled the Vuelta a Espana race and trained two days prior to the Vuelta with him — one 6 hour ride and one two hour ride. I did not share or use any banned substances such as EPO when I was riding with him and am dismayed at his allegations. Landis is either lying or has mistaken me with another rider.

I have nothing to hide. I compete as a clean athlete.

jman0war

RobFowl wrote: »

Landis is a liar

Landis claimed he did not dope at the 2006 tour and hence was disqualified

Now Landis says he did dope ergo as a known Liar he didn't therefore he won the 2006 TDF fair and square....

Lance cures cancer hence can do no wrong

Everybody wins and we all go home happy

I'm not following the logic here.
Landis (previously) was claiming he didn't dope, and you believed him right?
So then it's only TODAY that he's lieing.
Which means he's not a proven liar.
Since he's not a proven liar it therefore means he's telling the truth about doping today.

Or is it:

Landis (previously) was claiming he didn't dope, and you believed him right?
But then he got ruled against and his TDF win taken off him so that makes him a proven liar. (I'm presuming your believing the court over Landis?)
Today he's admiting he doped so now he's not lieing but telling the truth.



Now for folks like me, it's easy.
I believed he was a doper from the beginning.
I believed he was lieing about not doping, and he couldn't stick it and he sure as hell doesn't want to end up like Tonya Harding.
So he finally gets it off his chest.

RobFowl

jman0war wrote: »

I'm not following the logic here.

That's where you're going wrong.

Throw logic and reasoning out the window and everything is rosy........

ednwireland

jman0war wrote: »

sure as hell doesn't want to end up like Tonya Harding.

oh god floyd landis porn video, thanks a lot for that mental image

davyjose

ednwireland wrote: »

oh god floyd landis porn video, thanks a lot for that mental image

From Pants to Landis

It's not about the Bonk

Rough Ride

Captain Havoc

davyjose wrote: »

From Pants to Landis

It's not about the Bonk

Rough Ride

Whore de France!

Chips Lovell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U

Slideshowbob

jman0war wrote: »

I'm not following the logic here.
Landis (previously) was claiming he didn't dope, and you believed him right?
So then it's only TODAY that he's lieing.
Which means he's not a proven liar.
Since he's not a proven liar it therefore means he's telling the truth about doping today.

Or is it:

Landis (previously) was claiming he didn't dope, and you believed him right?
But then he got ruled against and his TDF win taken off him so that makes him a proven liar. (I'm presuming your believing the court over Landis?)
Today he's admiting he doped so now he's not lieing but telling the truth.



Now for folks like me, it's easy.
I believed he was a doper from the beginning.
I believed he was lieing about not doping, and he couldn't stick it and he sure as hell doesn't want to end up like Tonya Harding.
So he finally gets it off his chest.

Ya sure there are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.

TinyExplosions

Statement from Radioshack

My favourite bit:

Lance never has and never will give anyone money, or anything else, to keep them from airing falsehoods.

Does that mean that Johan did on his behalf!?

I find it interesting that it seems more of an attack on Landis than an unequivocal denial of all the allegations

DualFrontDiscs

el tonto wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U

My favourite bit in the ad is when he just cycles up the drive and into the garage. No gates, no codes, no side entrances. I aspire to be like Lance some day...

DFD*

*DeliciousFrontDrive.

mcgratheoin

nacho libre wrote: »

I'm reluctant to believe Kelly was doping but then again maybe that's being naive.

Kelly tested positive twice. Once for Stimul in 1984 and for codeine in 1988.
He claimed the second one was due to a cough medicine and escaped a ban but the first one was the infamous driver case.
According to Willy Voet, Kelly had taken ephedrine and when called upon to give a urine sample he had used a bottle with a sample from one of the team;s drivers - unfortunately this guy had been taking stuff to stay awake at the wheel.
I'd be pretty sure that everybody was at it in those days.

Slideshowbob

wtf

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-radioshack-reveal-further-emails-from-landis

jwshooter

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Kelly tested positive twice. Once for Stimul in 1984 and for codeine in 1988.
He claimed the second one was due to a cough medicine and escaped a ban but the first one was the infamous driver case.
According to Willy Voet, Kelly had taken ephedrine and when called upon to give a urine sample he had used a bottle with a sample from one of the team;s drivers - unfortunately this guy had been taking stuff to stay awake at the wheel.
I'd be pretty sure that everybody was at it in those days.

eddy merckx tested positive 3 three time if memory serves me right .

so what does that have to do with this ....noting .

Diarmuid

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Kelly tested positive twice. Once for Stimul in 1984 and for codeine in 1988.
He claimed the second one was due to a cough medicine and escaped a ban but the first one was the infamous driver case.
According to Willy Voet, Kelly had taken ephedrine and when called upon to give a urine sample he had used a bottle with a sample from one of the team;s drivers - unfortunately this guy had been taking stuff to stay awake at the wheel.
I'd be pretty sure that everybody was at it in those days.

Not to mention the PDM affair...

Slideshowbob

Diarmuid wrote: »

Not to mention the PDM affair...

I think let sleeping dogs lie regarding Kelly etc

LA is still getting millions and 'promoting' cycling etc n all that

jwshooter

Mark OK wrote: »

You would want to be fairly naive to think he knows nothing about the subject considering nearly every rider in the 80's was doping

cant comment as i was not there .were you ?