# Other riders to come forward?



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/two-people-named-by-landis-may-co-operate-with-authorities

So what will the folks who think Landis is making this all up say if other riders corroborate his claims? Why would riders be considering cooperating if there isn't something to Landis' accusations?

I doubt Bruyneel/Armstrong and company are sleeping as well now as they were over the last couple of weeks. Getting people involved who actually have investigative powers and the ability to force people to give evidence at the risk of perjuring themselves changes a lot.


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

I'm betting on Zabriskie stepping in to 'splain himself. He seems like he'd want to set the record straight. I'd also think that there could be reason for someone like Michael Barry to do the same. Frankie Andreu might also be willing to go on the record. I'm just thinking about it from the perspective of who is trading on their 'clean' participation in pro cycling. I still think that Garmin is racing on the level and would love to think Sky has the same philosophy as well. Frankie has already gotten knocked around a little by the Armstrong camp and could easily validate his version of Floyd's stories if they are true. Frankie has already spoken on the record relative to that LA insurance case from a few years ago, right? He's got very little to lose in this by speaking. Probably a bit of attention to gain, if I was being cynical about it (!) 

I guess the 'little to lose' philosophy could apply to Tyler as well. A bit of a rouges gallery I'll agree but I'd imagine the Feds learned something about this game from BALCO. Jose Canseco had little credibility for very similar reasons and turned out to be speaking the truth about the problem in baseball.

I'm hoping this is about to get really interesting. That's why the release of those email messages seemed like more of a strategy than an explanation of FL's motives. I'd still think the people who are really, really PO'd about Floyd will still say that if you haven't tested positive, you're not a doper. The evidence against that thinking is mounting.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

"Cooperating" doesn't necessarily mean "guilty"

Never has, never will.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> "Cooperating" doesn't necessarily mean "guilty"
> 
> Never has, never will.


No, but "in exchange for leniency" would seem to suggest that there's something compelling them besides the desire for a clear conscience.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

3rensho said:


> I'm betting on Zabriskie stepping in to 'splain himself. QUOTE]
> 
> That would be my bet. He and Landis are suppose to be good buddies, Landis is supposed to have stayed with him just before all this went down. JV seems to be saying "he's riding clean now".
> 
> Obvious deal would be telling what he knows about his own and other riders past doping in exchange for a reduced or no suspension at all. These are just the kind of deals the UCI has always opposed because they don't want anyone talking. It will be interesting if this pans out, to see what kind of stance USA cycling takes on such deal, since Johnson is suppose to be Armstrong & Weisel's man.


----------



## Comer (Jan 13, 2009)

You know, love him or hate him Armstrong has done more for cycling in the US than anyone. No, I don't ride a Trek and I've been into cycling way before Armstrong came around. I actually named my son after him in 1989 When Lance was a triathlete and my son's middle name is Davis, so you know where my thinking was. It's amazing so many people want the guy to fail? I even read one post where a guy said he'd like to see him cuffed, WTF???

I don't get it. My life isn't changed whether these allegations are true of false. Don't give me this **** that so and so would've won, hell they were doing it too more than likely...

I was one of those people that actually believed FL, but which FL do I believe? The one that testified, collaborated on a book, lost everything to prove his innocence? Or, do I believe the FL that's pissed and rightfully so that he has pretty much been black balled when others have not? Who do I believe? 

Plus I still love Lemond, in the mid to late eighties, he was the man for USA cycling. Love the guy. I don't know, I just don't understand the hatred for Armstrong? Is it his success? I applaud it. 

Finally, because of the Armstrong factor there are a lot of really cool people that I get to cycle with, people that probably would've never discovered the beauty of the sport if not for his dominance at the Td'F and his popularity, for that I am thankful for the many newer friendships.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

The game really changes now that Jeff Novitzky is involved leading an FDA investigation (of BALCO). The threat of grand jury testimony, indictments, and jail time for perjury (Marion Jones) will likely loosen some tongues.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Dwaynebarry said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/two-people-named-by-landis-may-co-operate-with-authorities
> 
> So what will the folks who think Landis is making this all up say if other riders corroborate his claims? Why would riders be considering cooperating if there isn't something to Landis' accusations?
> 
> I doubt Bruyneel/Armstrong and company are sleeping as well now as they were over the last couple of weeks. Getting people involved who actually have investigative powers and the ability to force people to give evidence at the risk of perjuring themselves changes a lot.


The point is that Landis is not trustworthy, and he's proven this for at least four years. Apparently Landis cannot prove his accusations. If he can, it seems that he would've handed over the "proof" rather than simply accuse. At this point, his whole story reeks of careless anger. He's just trying desperately to take down anyone with him. And what if "other riders" corroborate his claims? Unless Landis has undeniable evidence, the only way your target (Bruyneel/Armstrong) will go down would be by their own confession. "Proof" in a court-of-law does not exist in the form verbal accusations or corroborations, regardless of the number.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

ghost6 said:


> The point is that Landis is not trustworthy, and he's proven this for at least four years. Apparently Landis cannot prove his accusations. If he can, it seems that he would've handed over the "proof" rather than simply accuse. At this point, his whole story reeks of careless anger. He's just trying desperately to take down anyone with him. And what if "other riders" corroborate his claims? Unless Landis has undeniable evidence, the only way your target (Bruyneel/Armstrong) will go down would be by their own confession. "Proof" in a court-of-law does not exist in the form verbal accusations or corroborations, regardless of the number.


Actually, corroboration is accepted in a court of law as a form or means of evidence. If Zabriskie, Leipheimer, and Hincapie all corroborated that they also doped themselves and with the help or direction of Armstrong/Bruyneel this would be very damaging to LA, especially if it is true that US Federal investigators are now assigned to the case.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Mr. Scary said:


> Actually, corroboration is accepted in a court of law as a form or means of evidence. If Zabriskie, Leipheimer, and Hincapie all corroborated that they also doped themselves and with the help or direction of Armstrong/Bruyneel this would be very damaging to LA, especially if it is true that US Federal investigators are now assigned to the case.


True. But as I implied, corroboration alone is not necessarily "proof." The right form of corroboration could be damaging, but not necessarily enough to establish legal guilt. The corroborators must convince the investigators that their story is true. Of course, Lance's critics will likely take nearly anyone's word that he dopes, but investigators cannot do this. Even if--and this is a big if--Zabriskie, Leipheimer, and Hincapie "corroborated" it does not automatically equal guilt for Armstrong and company. Damaging, yes. Guilt, not necessarily.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

So. Who else will come "forward" ??? 
Andreu & Vaughters??? They already have haven't they? Nothing "new" there...
Maybe LeMond finally???


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Armstrong, Bruyneel, Eki... those guys are not sleeping as well as they are leading the public to believe.

The guys that can corroborate the dope info are not talking to the media...yet. For now, there is most likely an investigation underway. And those people WILL tell the truth to federal investigators, or face perjury charges later on. The UCI president has something to hide. USA Cycling has something to hide. There are alot of sleepless people involved in this.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

ghost6 said:


> True. But as I implied, corroboration alone is not necessarily "proof." The right form of corroboration could be damaging, but not necessarily enough to establish legal guilt. The corroborators must convince the investigators that their story is true. Of course, Lance's critics will likely take nearly anyone's word that he dopes, but investigators cannot do this. Even if--and this is a big if--Zabriskie, Leipheimer, and Hincapie "corroborated" it does not automatically equal guilt for Armstrong and company. Damaging, yes. Guilt, not necessarily.


DNA evidence left at the scene of the crime is not necessarily proof, ask OJ. Nothing automatically equals guilt, so pointing out that numerous eyewitnesses don't equal guilt is beside the point.

We'll see what comes of these other riders and how much they are willing to say.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

SilasCL said:


> DNA evidence left at the scene of the crime is not necessarily proof, ask OJ. Nothing automatically equals guilt, so pointing out that numerous eyewitnesses don't equal guilt is beside the point.
> 
> We'll see what comes of these other riders and how much they are willing to say.


I agree with you about what equals guilt, but pointing out that eyewitnesses doesn't equal guilt is relevant on this forum because many assume that accusations and potential corroborations spells definitive guilt.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*I'm confused. What crime would have been committed?*

Why would there be an FBI inquiry? Dealing the drugs? I think that if you're going to compare this scandal to the BALCO scandal then you should know that those under investigation are there because there was a crime committed, the selling and distribution of the drugs. We don't have that here. Just the (alleged) use. So, would the FBI be interested in tracing back to where the supply came from? Maybe. Then we have BALCO in US cycling.

bt


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

eyebob said:


> Why would there be an FBI inquiry? Dealing the drugs? I think that if you're going to compare this scandal to the BALCO scandal then you should know that those under investigation are there because there was a crime committed, the selling and distribution of the drugs. We don't have that here. Just the (alleged) use. So, would the FBI be interested in tracing back to where the supply came from? Maybe. Then we have BALCO in US cycling.
> 
> bt


Possession, EPO is a controlled substance... That would be the start of it, but surely many civil suits would come into play if it was proved that Armstrong doped.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

*People will go to prison over this*



Mr. Scary said:


> Possession, EPO is a controlled substance... That would be the start of it, but surely many civil suits would come into play if it was proved that Armstrong doped.



And criminal charges as well. There is a reason why the EPO suppliers, doctors, trainers, etc. may be very scared right now. Vials, drugs, the whole lot, all have a paper trail. 

People associated with helping an athlete obtain these drugs will go to prison. There is precedent for this already. Bond's former trainer, Greg Anderson, did not cooperate with federal investigators in the BALCO incident. They traced information back to the trainer and boom! Prison sentence for the trainer.

Are the team docs, trainers, athletes, even other people associated with Armstrong afraid yet? They should be.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

rook said:


> And criminal charges as well. There is a reason why the EPO suppliers, doctors, trainers, etc. may be very scared right now. Vials, drugs, the whole lot, all have a paper trail.
> 
> People associated with helping an athlete obtain these drugs will go to prison. There is precedent for this already. Bond's former trainer, Greg Anderson, did not cooperate with federal investigators in the BALCO incident. They traced information back to the trainer and boom! Prison sentence for the trainer.
> 
> Are the team docs, trainers, athletes, even other people associated with Armstrong afraid yet? They should be.


You keep claiming that people should be afraid.

Somehow, I don't think they are. I think they know a WHOLE lot more than you, and they know exactly what they are dealing with, unlike you.

Howabout we just let this shake out, stop speculating and see what happens. Hrm?


----------



## vandalbob (Dec 13, 2001)

*Nobody Likes A Rat*

Even if the rat is correct, truthful, accurate, etc.....it takes cajones the size of grapefruit to step forward.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> You keep claiming that people should be afraid.
> 
> Somehow, I don't think they are. I think they know a WHOLE lot more than you, and they know exactly what they are dealing with, unlike you.
> 
> Howabout we just let this shake out, stop speculating and see what happens. Hrm?


What they know is why they're nervous, I suspect.

That aside, I'd be somewhat less than "tranquil" if <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Novitzky">Jeff Novitzky</a> were building a file on me.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

blackhat said:


> What they know is why they're nervous, I suspect.
> 
> That aside, I'd be somewhat less than "tranquil" if <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Novitzky">Jeff Novitzky</a> were building a file on me.


Your speculation is still just that: speculation.

And speculation is usually wrong. Especially when it comes from the mouth of a scumbag like Landis.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

eyebob said:


> Why would there be an FBI inquiry? Dealing the drugs?


I believe USPS cycling team was owned by Tailwind Sports which is a U.S. company. If it's shown they had an organized doping program funded by U.S. govt. organization, I'm thinking that might be illegal.

Regardless of a conviction of some sort, the investigation would likely ruin Armstrong/Bruyneel.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> And speculation is usually wrong. Especially when it comes from the mouth of a scumbag like Landis.


You think he's speculating about his own drug use and what he saw?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> Your speculation is still just that: speculation.
> 
> And speculation is usually wrong. Especially when it comes from the mouth of a scumbag like Landis.


except that it's not just landis. The list of "scumbags" that are implicating LA in illicit drug use is increasingly long.

and then there's the positives...


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

ghost6 said:


> The point is that Landis is not trustworthy, and he's proven this for at least four years. Apparently Landis cannot prove his accusations. If he can, it seems that he would've handed over the "proof" rather than simply accuse. At this point, his whole story reeks of careless anger. He's just trying desperately to take down anyone with him. And what if "other riders" corroborate his claims? Unless Landis has undeniable evidence, the only way your target (Bruyneel/Armstrong) will go down would be by their own confession. "Proof" in a court-of-law does not exist in the form verbal accusations or corroborations, regardless of the number.


Hey, career criminals in the mafia lie on the stand for years on end. Then they get busted and turn states evidence to take down their boss. It doesn't matter if Landis has lied - this is how the game is played.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Here's an interesting thought:

What if Landis is now lying? He has already been tainted so bad no big team wants him, he clearly can't get back to being a quality rider since his hip surgery, he is pissed about it, so he has nothing to lose by saying he doped and so did all these other guys.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

whatever landis says there is no denying that his revelations were not to clear his conscience. after reading the emails its clear that floyds motivation is revenge - he didnt make it on radioshack and the atoc so he squealed. yeah, i think lance doped but i also think floyd has zero credibility. theres probably some truth in floyds statements but not enough to get a conviction. cycling isnt interested in coming completely clean - LA already has the big boys denying things... there will be no federal charges, there will be no major corroborators and this episode will fade. i still think most at the front of the peloton are doping as are the entire NFL, the top track and field athletes, most of baseball, a lot of hockey and some in the nba. cycling is not unique.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Clearing his conscious?*

That's the biggest crock of toilet rubbish if I ever heard of it. Is he also trying to clear the conscious's of Michael Barry, Chechu Rubiera, Ekimov, Hincappie, Leipheimer at the same time? WTF did they do to him? It's not about Landis's conscious, it's "scorched earth" and nobody else is gonna get to be happy if he isn't not happy.



loudog said:


> whatever landis says there is no denying that his revelations were not to clear his conscience. after reading the emails its clear that floyds motivation is revenge - he didnt make it on radioshack and the atoc so he squealed. yeah, i think lance doped but i also think floyd has zero credibility. theres probably some truth in floyds statements but not enough to get a conviction. cycling isnt interested in coming completely clean - LA already has the big boys denying things... there will be no federal charges, there will be no major corroborators and this episode will fade. i still think most at the front of the peloton are doping as are the entire NFL, the top track and field athletes, most of baseball, a lot of hockey and some in the nba. cycling is not unique.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

dagger said:


> That's the biggest crock of toilet rubbish if I ever heard of it. Is he also trying to clear the conscious's of Michael Barry, Chechu Rubiera, Ekimov, Hincappie, Leipheimer at the same time? WTF did they do to him? It's not about Landis's conscious, it's "scorched earth" and nobody else is gonna get to be happy if he isn't not happy.


What did they do to him? They didn't get him on their teams.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

Mr. Scary said:


> Possession, EPO is a controlled substance...


None of the drugs which boost hemoglobin (EPO, etc) are controlled substances.


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

I think the jersey at the local bike shop makes more sense than ever now:

Yikes. Scorched earth indeed.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

They're not?

Pretty sure any drug that requires a prescription is considered a controlled substance.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

He's right, epo isn't controlled. My sister in law is a pharmacist (my mistake) so let's all have at it!!


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

Mr. Scary said:


> He's right, epo isn't controlled. My sister in law is a pharmacist (my mistake) so let's all have at it!!


I searched "define: controlled substance" on google:


Definitions of controlled substance on the Web:

<b>1. a drug or chemical substance whose possession and use are controlled by law</b>

2. A drug deemed to be illegal by a government (especially the United States of America) except for very limited professional testing purposes

3. means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedules I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of the Controlled Substance Act

4. has the meaning such term has under 21 USC 802(6) and includes all substances listed on schedules I through V of 21 CFR 1308, (§§1308.11 through ...

<b>5. Drug controlled by prescription requirement because of the danger of addiction or abuse.</b>

6. The violation of laws prohibiting the production, distribution, and/or use of certain controlled substances and the equipment or devices utilized in their preparation and/or use. ...


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> He's right, epo isn't controlled. My sister in law is a pharmacist (my mistake) so let's all have at it!!


What's the unit price in Wallgreen without a prescription?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

den bakker said:


> What's the unit price in Wallgreen without a prescription?


Depends if you have their Buyer's card and a coupon. . .


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

She did mention that it has been linked to cancer, and no she didn't offer any special deals...:aureola:


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Mr. Scary said:


> She did mention that it has been linked to cancer, and no she didn't offer any special deals...:aureola:


if you need a script to get it, it's "controlled'. pretty sure you can't buy EPOover the counter, no?


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

blackhat said:


> if you need a script to get it, it's "controlled'. pretty sure you can't buy EPOover the counter, no?


Unless you go to Mexico 

Whoever is saying it's not a controlled substance, go down to your local pharmacy and ask for some and come back here to tell us what they said.

I have a marathon this fall and I'd like to set a good time


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Dwaynebarry said:


> Unless you go to Mexico
> 
> Whoever is saying it's not a controlled substance, go down to your local pharmacy and ask for some and come back here to tell us what they said.
> 
> I have a marathon this fall and I'd like to set a good time


So now you know more than a pharmacist? I'm not privy to what the FDA considers controlled but she answered specifically that epo is not...


----------



## TedH (Jan 1, 1970)

Dwaynebarry said:


> They're not?
> 
> Pretty sure any drug that requires a prescription is considered a controlled substance.


A controlled substance is a technical definition; not all script products are "controlled" per FDA regulations, but they are regulated. Controlled typically refers to abuse potential in the addiction sense:

Controlled Substances are a special class of prescription drugs. The definitions of the five schedules for controlled substances have been abstracted from the US Code. Originally controlled substances referred to narcotic drugs exclusively, hence the term narcotics is a commonly used term. The classification of controlled substances has over the years been broadened to include other dangerous drugs as defined by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA).

Definition of Schedules for Controlled Substances

(1) Schedule I. (CI) - The drug or other substance:
- has a high potential for abuse, 
- has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or 
- has no accepted safe use under medical supervision. 
Examples: heroine, marijuana and a host of designer-drugs

(2) Schedule II. (CII) - The drug or other substance: 
- has a high potential for abuse, 
- has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or 
- has a currently accepted medical use but with severe restrictions, and 
- abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. 
Examples: morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, codeine, anabolic steroids 

(3) Schedule III. (CIII) - The drug or other substance: 
- has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II, 
- has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and 
- abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. 
Examples: hydrocodone, codeine and others in combination with other drugs 

(4) Schedule IV. (CIV) - The drug or other substance: 
- has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III, 
- has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and 
- abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. 
Examples: benzodiazepines (Valium, Ativan, etc), propoxyphene combinations 

(5) Schedule V. (CV) - The drug or other substance: 
- has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV, 
- has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and 
- abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV. 
Examples: Diphenoxylate combination, cough syrups 

Source: http://www.drugid.info/controlled-substances.html


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

+1...There is a big difference between controlled and regulated.. 

EPO is not controlled


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

Dave Hickey said:


> +1...There is a big difference between controlled and regulated..


Not to me, I still can't get it if I want it 

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

The more I follow all these doping accusations and counter-accusations the more I believe that Ivan Basso is a genius.
His "I only intended to dope" defense was so unique that it caught the authorities by surprise. I mean he gets to keep his 2006 maglia rosa, his previous TdF podium placings and when he comes back, he enters the ranks of LIQUIGAS, by no means a minor league team. He's under no pressure to rat out anyone else.

Contrast this to Floyd's story. I never doped, the French lab is incompetent, the Floyd fairness fund, positively false, to the now I doped and so did everyone at USPS cycling while I was there (very plausible IMO but I also understand when some talk about credibility).


----------



## real schwinns only (Dec 29, 2008)

I belive it was jacques anquetil after tom simpsons death in a debate with a government minister on French television said that only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride on just water. Anquetil argued that professional riders were workers and had the same right to treat their pains as, say, a geography teacher. It was an argument many found increasingly hard to support as public more riders were reported to have died or suffered health problems through drug-related incidents. 

Anquetil will be remembered not simply for the five Tour wins and his unique success in the Grand Prix des Nations. He will be remembered for his stand on the drugs issue that was beginning to concern professional cycling mostly because it got public attention and quite so with the death of the British rider, Tom Simpson, in the Tour de France of 1967. Anquetil never hid that he took drugs - a common practice in the peloton just mostly kept quite in the past several years in 1924the first real drug scandal arose when the Pélissier brothers gave an extraordinary interview to journalist Albert Londres. They said that they used Strychnine, cocaine, chloroform, aspirin, "horse ointment" and others drugs to keep going. 

The story was published in 'Le Petit Parisien' under the title 'Les Forçats de la Route' ('The Convicts of the Road'). Francis is reported as saying "In short, we run on dynamite." Henri is reported as saying "Do you know how we keep going? Look, this is cocaine, chloroform, too. And pills? You want to see pills? Here are three boxes - We run on dynamite.".in 1930 acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers in 1949 Fausto Coppi of Italy admitted in a television interview (date unknown) that he used 'la Bomba' as there was no alternative if you wanted to remain competitive. This referred to amphetamines, which had been developed for military use during the World War II to keep aircrew, merchant seamen and submariners awake, alert and energetic. After the war they found a ready market among endurance sportsmen. Coppi also said, "One day I will take the wrong pill and pedal backward." He also joked on camera that he only took drugs when absolutely necessary, which is nearly always. Roger Rivière of France, admitted that his career ending crash on the 1960 Tour de France was probably attributable to using Palfium (Dextromoramide), a painkiller that affects reflexes and judgment, during the descent of the Col de Perjuret on Mont Aigoual. Palfium was used to deaden pain in leg muscles where it was directly injected, (sometimes while riding). It was suggested that it had so numbed Riviere's fingers so that he couldn't feel the brake levers. He said he had an injection of solucamphor and amphetamine before the start and swallowed several amphetamine tablets. He said he was an addict who downed thousands of pills a year. 

Even Peter Post of the Netherlands acknowledged that he had doped at the Tour de France. Bernard Thévenet of France won the 1975 Tour de France by using cortisone.and won the 1977 Tour de France with the aid of cortisone.In 1982, after retiring from racing, he said "I was doped with cortisone for three years and there were many like me"... "The experience ruined my health".[Erik de Vlaeminck of Belgium, never failed a drugs test in his racing career, but he was treated after it for amphetamine addiction at a psychiatric institute. Many stories circulate about his supposed wild behaviour after races and after his career was over and when he returned to racing, the Belgian federation would offer him a licence for only a day at a time until it saw how his life would progress. He refuses to speak of this period of his life. even Frankie Andreu admitted in September 2006 that he had taken EPO to help prepare for the 1999 Tour de France, when he was riding for the US Postal team. as recent as 2009, on April 17, it was announced Tyler Hamilton tested positive for banned steroid Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) after an out-of-competition control in early February. He faces a lifelong ban, and decided to retire with immediate effect. 

I could go bloody on and bloody on but life is short, Drugs are common place in a lot of sports especially when the athlete will do any thing to win not thinking of cost in future. And yes even in the sport we all love ("cycling") so no one should act like they are bloody daft to that fact. But one can only be hopeful they clean up this bloody mess before our sport gets a bloody blemish that won't wash off.!!!!!!. "quote" An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."Sir Winston churchill"


----------



## wks9326 (Apr 24, 2004)

MG537 said:


> The more I follow all these doping accusations and counter-accusations the more I believe that Ivan Basso is a genius.
> His "I only intended to dope" defense was so unique that it caught the authorities by surprise. I mean he gets to keep his 2006 maglia rosa, his previous TdF podium placings and when he comes back, he enters the ranks of LIQUIGAS, by no means a minor league team. He's under no pressure to rat out anyone else.
> 
> Contrast this to Floyd's story. I never doped, the French lab is incompetent, the Floyd fairness fund, positively false, to the now I doped and so did everyone at USPS cycling while I was there (very plausible IMO but I also understand when some talk about credibility).



Basso was lucky enough to have had a bag of his blood found in a freezer and nothing in his body. It would have been a little hard for Floyd to have used the same excuse


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Perico said:


> Here's an interesting thought:
> 
> What if Landis is now lying? He has already been tainted so bad no big team wants him, he clearly can't get back to being a quality rider since his hip surgery, he is pissed about it, so he has nothing to lose by saying he doped and so did all these other guys.


to the extent he's "tainted" in the peloton it's because he no longer has legs, not because he broke omerta. If he could ride fast he'd have a job.

re the rest, welcome to last week. that's not a particularly interesting thought. it's been the meme from the yellow wristband club since this broke.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Tried to fix the editing for you- the huge block of text from whatever you pasted that from was very hard to read.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

two new stories on cyclingnews - one on widening investigation and a number of new potential indictments - fraud and conspiracy charges, looking into the SCA case, etc and the Belgium federation looking into Bruyneel. It's not going to go away. At least McIdiot admitted accepting a $100,000 'donation' from Armstrong was bad judgment...


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> two new stories on cyclingnews - one on widening investigation and a number of new potential indictments - fraud and conspiracy charges, looking into the SCA case, etc and the Belgium federation looking into Bruyneel. It's not going to go away. At least McIdiot admitted accepting a $100,000 'donation' from Armstrong was bad judgment...


So as not to leave any doubt about his idiocy though, in the same interview he guaranteed 100% that Basso and Evans are clean, and I believe he has said the same about Contador in the past.

How stupid.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Dwaynebarry said:


> So as not to leave any doubt about his idiocy though, in the same interview he guaranteed 100% that Basso and Evans are clean, and I believe he has said the same about Contador in the past.
> 
> How stupid.


... because he looked them in the eyes and could tell they were clean I presume.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

AJL said:


> ... because he looked them in the eyes and could tell they were clean I presume.


McIdiot should have been run out of town the moment he gave his "mafia Western European nations." vs. Anglo-Saxon culture speech....


----------



## smartyiak (Sep 28, 2005)

*Dopng in Europe.*



eyebob said:


> Why would there be an FBI inquiry? Dealing the drugs? I think that if you're going to compare this scandal to the BALCO scandal then you should know that those under investigation are there because there was a crime committed, the selling and distribution of the drugs. We don't have that here. Just the (alleged) use. So, would the FBI be interested in tracing back to where the supply came from? Maybe. Then we have BALCO in US cycling.
> 
> bt


What happens if the investigation reveals enough to conclude that there was an organised doping regime...but that the doping was done in Europe, not the USA? Doesn't that make it significantly different than BALCO. Isn't that an issue in MLB: players can go to Mexico or the Dominican Republic for winter leagues...and they get their drugs legally.

Could the FBI or any US agency do anything?

Officials in those countries could prosecute, but couldn't Lance just retire and not go there...I don't think the USA would extradict for those charges.

Just wondering,
-Smarty


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

wks9326 said:


> Basso was lucky enough to have had a bag of his blood found in a freezer and nothing in his body. It would have been a little hard for Floyd to have used the same excuse


While you're right about Basso never testing positive, we also have Michael Rasmussen and Jan Ullrich. They never did either. That's why I still think that his "intention to dope" defense was genius.

Chicken could've said, I just needed some private time that's why I went to Mexico......SORRY! A few tears later and maybe he get's to come back to a major team.

I agree that Landis could've done better than 4 years of denial and a very expensive smear campaign against the authorities.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

TedH said:


> A controlled substance is a technical definition; not all script products are "controlled" per FDA regulations, but they are regulated. Controlled typically refers to abuse potential in the addiction sense:


Right. Just because you need a prescription, does not mean that it is 'controlled'. Controlled substances often need additional lock-and-key storage, and there is certainly more paperwork in obtaining and dispensing. 

Here's your controlled substances list - about the only doping item I recognize would be some of your steroidal drugs:

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/orangebook/c_cs_alpha.pdf


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

MG537 said:


> Chicken could've said, I just needed some private time that's why I went to Mexico......SORRY! A few tears later and maybe he get's to come back to a major team.
> .


That's what he did. Very few bought the story though. 
("private time" was "marriage issues")


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

smartyiak said:


> What happens if the investigation reveals enough to conclude that there was an organised doping regime...but that the doping was done in Europe, not the USA? Doesn't that make it significantly different than BALCO. Isn't that an issue in MLB: players can go to Mexico or the Dominican Republic for winter leagues...and they get their drugs legally.
> 
> Could the FBI or any US agency do anything?
> 
> ...


The big question is if Federal money (USPS) was used to buy drugs illegally.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

PDex said:


> The big question is if Federal money (USPS) was used to buy drugs illegally.


if they're really looking at him for RICO and conspiracy violations, it seems to me they only need prove he "conspired" to do as much. He's got problems, and they don't end with Floyd.


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

blackhat said:


> if they're really looking at him for RICO and conspiracy violations, it seems to me they only need prove he "conspired" to do as much. He's got problems, and they don't end with Floyd.


Forgot about RICO. Feds don't like being lied to.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

rook said:


> Armstrong, Bruyneel, Eki... those guys are not sleeping as well as they are leading the public to believe. . . .
> There are alot of sleepless people involved in this.


to me, the only sleepless people seem to be bike geeks on internet chat forums hoping for a bit of schadenfreude.


----------

