LA taking PED's Nooooo! the question is "who isn't?" 1, Floyd knows his professional career is over 2, From what reports suggest, he has nothing to be sued for 3, might make a bit of cash if his info can be proved or isn't sued for it. But will become the most hated cyclist in the professional ranks in the world. The only time he will pedal again will be on a Sunday before church. Pity, I did actually like him as a rider, but all he is doing is sending cycling down the gurgler even more than the cheaters already are. Is he doing this to better the sport or to make a dollar?
jules21 wrote:lance is a doper. the evidence against him is strong, regardless of what Landis has claimed.
Until the rider has been proven to be a doper, these internet "proofs" are just trial by the mob, insufficient to ruin someone's reputation. If Lance did dope and was so smart as to be able to evade all investigations, then that's his luck. Too bad that FloydL is a dumbass.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
jasimon wrote:I can see one approach that would provide corroboration - that is a fianancial audit of UCIs/related parties books for 2002. There is an allegation that money changed hands in 2002 related to a positive test in the Tour de Swiss. Follow the money.
+1. Landis's credibility is lower than a snake's belly. If he has credible evidence up his sleeve (beyond his own words), he should put up or shut up. Our legal principle is that you're entitled to a presumption of innocence - the UCI and related parties don't have to prove their innocence.
That's not to say that it wouldn't be a wonderful idea if they were more transparent and enthusiastic about demonstrating that there has not been any bribery or corruption relating to drug use.
WombatK
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
I am certainly not pro doping and think it really destroys the sport. At the same time, I think that Loyd should have just kept quiet. It doesn't matter if Lance doped or not IMHO. He has never been caught so in my book, he is drug free. What Loyd has done was make the sport look bad.
J
Jon's bikes....... Reynolds 953 (warranty replacement, 7 months and waiting) Kona Jake the Snake Cervelo R3 Cervelo R5
I don't like the guy either, but I'm not so sure he went about it the wrong way. He has to get that information to the relevant people to give them a reason to kickstart an investigation. Who says it was Landis that released the email to the world? So what if he did; perhaps the people he sent it to didn't want to do anything about it and he felt like 'this is the next step'?
I'd be pretty annoyed if there were other self-righteous Tour winners on PEDs getting worshipped for their amazing abilities, while I'm copping it in the media for doing exactly the same thing.
Pain Train wrote:I'd be pretty annoyed if there were other self-righteous Tour winners on PEDs getting worshipped for their amazing abilities, while I'm copping it in the media for doing exactly the same thing.
Well, that's natural selection in the work... Bad luck, poor adaptation and low IQ. Looks like Floyd Landis has all 3.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Interesting article (can't vouch for credibility of that site), but regardless of his previous indiscretions, I'd suspect Landis is in some serious mental state possibly leading to depression or similar. His world has seriously been turned upside down (for the past 4 or so years), and people do strange things when under stress.
sogood wrote:Well, that's natural selection in the work... Bad luck, poor adaptation and low IQ. Looks like Floyd Landis has all 3.
that's not a nice thing to say and can't really be founded, particularly following this attitude
sogood wrote:Until the rider has been proven to be a doper, these internet "proofs" are just trial by the mob, insufficient to ruin someone's reputation.
Why did Landis not go straight to USADA instead of the media? It's reported Landis wanted to ride in the ToC, but was denied by Amgen. He then allegedly threatened to bust out a massive story to ruin them if they didn't let him ride.
Three years or so of claiming to be clean, an estimated $1million US for his legal fees paid for by the general public, then the backflip? Also, it's about 1 month before the statute of limitations hits and those he claims are drug cheats cannot be chased.
Convenient huh?
I think Landis just doesn't want to go down alone and is trying to ruin a lot of people's reputations, or at least tarnish them.
Probably right. and I reckon he knows a lot lot more about what really goes on than any of us do. He feels it's unjust, and it is for those who do get away with it. Still i reckon he's not in a good state of mind (ie. stable).
I say the UCI just allow PEDs. Level playing field . might see a few horses on bikes. Alpe d'Huez TT in 20min ?
Floyd's letter has aspects that can be confirmed or denied by witnesses, so we'll see how it holds up as time passes.
I personally doubt Lance is doing PEDs, simply because if he had been then it is likely that his ex-wife would have dropped him into that world of trouble by now.
wombatK wrote:Our legal principle is that you're entitled to a presumption of innocence - the UCI and related parties don't have to prove their innocence.
But that is not that UCI's legal principle in the slightest!.
Pain Train wrote:I'd be pretty annoyed if there were other self-righteous Tour winners on PEDs getting worshipped for their amazing abilities, while I'm copping it in the media for doing exactly the same thing.
Well, that's natural selection in the work... Bad luck, poor adaptation and low IQ. Looks like Floyd Landis has all 3.
Landis goes down, the sport can survive. He's not well known outside of keen cycling followers and he's proof that the authorities are catching the cheats, small and big fish.
Armstrong goes down the sport suffers a mortal blow. Arguably the most well known cyclist of alltime (to people with just a passing interest, or less), to some he'd be the greatest cyclist of alltime. If he tests positive it just confirms what everybody thinks about cycling, they're all drug cheats. Sponsors, fans, networks flee in large numbers. Look at how sponsors leave when smaller riders get caught, imagine if the biggest name in the sport goes positive ? The sport, which is already on the nose, would be terminal.
Conclusion, Armstrong too big (he is bigger than cycling) cycling can't afford to have him tarnished. Landis, just big enough to show we're fair dinkum about cleaning up the sport, but not so big as to do any long term damage.
I dont know about that Chuck. If Armstrong was found to be positive tomorrow my first thought would be surprise, surprise!! it's the casual cyclist and younger generation who are a little blind looking to Lance as a riding "God" that would be..... "Surprised" and that is sad for them. I dont think LA is bigger than cycling. The sad part is, is the fact that his team and his sponsers all contribute to "Livestrong" and as much as I think LA is an arrogant bloke the organisation still contributes a hell of alot to Cancer research and without sponsers, a team and a tarnished reputation, millions of dollars a year would be lost to this. If I had a family member suffering with cancer, I would be reluctant to want to see him busted as much as I think he cheats.
Grant W wrote:I dont know about that Chuck. If Armstrong was found to be positive tomorrow my first thought would be surprise, surprise!! it's the casual cyclist and younger generation who are a little blind looking to Lance as a riding "God" that would be..... "Surprised" and that is sad for them. I dont think LA is bigger than cycling. The sad part is, is the fact that his team and his sponsers all contribute to "Livestrong" and as much as I think LA is an arrogant bloke the organisation still contributes a hell of alot to Cancer research and without sponsers, a team and a tarnished reputation, millions of dollars a year would be lost to this. If I had a family member suffering with cancer, I would be reluctant to want to see him busted as much as I think he cheats.
Hope all is well Chuck, It has been a while Grant
My Father suffered of cancer for 6 years before being defeated by it. From what I have seen, looking at him fighting and finally giving up in the last three months of his life (it is very marking when you are a 18 years old), there is no way you could recover like LA did without PED; Chemotherapy side effects are that many of your red cells are destroyed and trying to run or ride a bike while recovering leave you as breathless as if you were doing it at a 6000 m altitude (dito the cancerologist that was looking after my father), It was in the mid 80's and there was no EPO then. In the 90's chemotherapy did not get better in regards of it side effects, but everybody knows that EPO made its apparition. LA should have been a crippled man, instead he wins the toughest race in the world . I believe Flandis got support from LA when he got in trouble with the AFDL (the frog agency in charge of doping infringement on the TDF), he backed him up and claimed like him that they were a bunch of clowns that did not know what they were doing. Well take that LA, Flandis credibility is probably as badly rated as yours
Chuck wrote:Conclusion, Armstrong too big (he is bigger than cycling) cycling can't afford to have him tarnished. Landis, just big enough to show we're fair dinkum about cleaning up the sport, but not so big as to do any long term damage.
Perfectly feasible, it's "too big to fall" like many of the current financial institutions.
But no one here can categorically say one way or another.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
xavdav wrote:My Father suffered of cancer for 6 years before being defeated by it. From what I have seen, looking at him fighting and finally giving up in the last three months of his life (it is very marking when you are a 18 years old), there is no way you could recover like LA did without PED; Chemotherapy side effects are that many of your red cells are destroyed and trying to run or ride a bike while recovering leave you as breathless as if you were doing it at a 6000 m altitude (dito the cancerologist that was looking after my father), It was in the mid 80's and there was no EPO then. In the 90's chemotherapy did not get better in regards of it side effects, but everybody knows that EPO made its apparition. LA should have been a crippled man, instead he wins the toughest race in the world
What you have presumed are,
1) PED is a magic bullet... FALSE! PED does not turn a physically incompetent person into a sporting superhuman. 2) "Chemotherapy" is homogenous... FALSE! Chemos aren't homogenous, the cocktail mix varies widely depending on the disease and clinical status. And side effects vary greatly on the individual. Age, dosage and the particular cocktail mix all matters. If the chemo indeed destroyed LA's cardioresp reserve, then no amount of EPO could have been able to put him back on top.
So sorry, your n=1 experience is an inadequate basis for an objective conclusion.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
. might see a few horses on bikes. Alpe d'Huez TT in 20min 
?
