# Landis Gives More Details



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5222488

Not the first time we've heard of USPS getting advanced warning of "surprise" dope controls. 

Microdosing with EPO to avoid the biopassport detecting blood transfusions, brilliant.

Who was it on Bruyneel's team that just happened to have left early one day for a stage of the Vuelta when the testers showed up? Contador? and ?

Warning, the article is poorly written; e.g. it talks about beating the biopassport and USPS together, as if that would have even been a concern at that time.


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

Brings to mind that one time a tester showed up to Armstrong's house and didn't have access for 1hr while Armstrong took a shower and Bruyneel entertained.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

Wasn't it Frei that got popped, admitted micro-dosing EPO and said that if he'd drank water afterward he wouldn't have gotten caught?


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

danielc said:


> Brings to mind that one time a tester showed up to Armstrong's house and didn't have access for 1hr while Armstrong took a shower and Bruyneel entertained.


That was just last year.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

There are more time line issues here. 

Why would you need to microdose in 2005? Michael Ashenden says it's only become a bigger problem in the last year after people found ways to get around the passport. It doesn't make sense to me that riders would need to micro dose when there was no out of competition testing. 

I think this is a PR move by Landis in response to the claims from teams and riders that there is no point investigating what happened years ago. Now he has found a way to link it to the present system, despite the fact he was never apart of the blood passport system himself. 

Smart move though.


----------



## TWD (Feb 9, 2004)

What is interesting to me is that Floyd's claims sound a whole lot like former Kelme rider Jesus Manzano's claims dating back to the 2003 tour. I recall that Manzano made statements to the effect that they would get tip-offs about when the vampires were coming and they would pump themselves full of saline through an IV so that they wouldn't test positive. I also remembering him claiming that after the IV they would feel like crap and have a horrible stage that day. 

Like Floyd, Manzano was discounted as a nutjob who just wanted revenge on Kelme for firing him, and that he only made up the stories to get a big payoff for his story etc.... 

While Floyd has destroyed nearly all of his credibility, I believe there is a fair bit of truth in his allegations, regardless of his motives and some likely embelishments and half-truths thrown in for good measure. I don't think we're going to see a lot of hard evidence come to light, but enough of Floyd's statement seem to ring true to me. 

The sad thing is that when you engage in doping you are, by definition, a cheat and a liar. You have no credibilty, and that will always be the first defense against anyone who opens their mouths about doping and makes accusations. 

If there is any hope to come out of Floyd-Gate, maybe it will lead to the testers getting a few steps closer to the dopers for a while. I've gotten the impression that Manzano's claims played at least a small role in breaking Operation Pureto (Fuentes being Manzano's former dope doctor at Kelme).

Maybe we'll see something similar happen here. I'm not holding my breath though.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I didn't see a whole lot of new details from Landis. Most of this stuff has been discussed here already. 

To me, the most surprising in that article is that Ashenden was surprised. I thought he was supposed to be the expert on EPO testing. I'm shocked, frankly. It's hard to imagine riders could figure this stuff out and he couldn't.


----------



## TWD (Feb 9, 2004)

TWD said:


> I believe there is a fair bit of truth in his allegations, regardless of his motives and some likely embelishments and half-truths thrown in for good measure. I don't think we're going to see a lot of hard evidence come to light, but enough of Floyd's statement seem to ring true to me.


Of course, it's also pretty easy to argue the other side, that Floyd's claims are all made up and only corroborate the rumors we've all heard. Precisely because Floyd's claims are based on info provided by those same rumors, leaks and past claims from sources like Manzano.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> I didn't see a whole lot of new details from Landis. Most of this stuff has been discussed here already.
> 
> To me, the most surprising in that article is that Ashenden was surprised. I thought he was supposed to be the expert on EPO testing. I'm shocked, frankly. It's hard to imagine riders could figure this stuff out and he couldn't.


Yes Ashenden was being disingenuous. He has known about micro dosing for years. 

But Ashenden does also point out they could still well test positive for an early morning test, so really this is not about micro dosing and more about have advanced warning of a test. I doubt that sort of thing goes on anymore. Remember at the time out of compeition testing was just starting and doesn't have the procedures that it does today.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> There are more time line issues here.
> 
> Why would you need to microdose in 2005? Michael Ashenden says it's only become a bigger problem in the last year after people found ways to get around the passport. It doesn't make sense to me that riders would need to micro dose when there was no out of competition testing.
> 
> ...


This is why someone who understands the issue should be doing the interview, not someone who covers "tennis and Olympic sports". Who knows how much it is Floyd's statements vs. the author creating the jumbled mess.

Anyone with any knowledge would have asked him about why he was worried about reticulocytes, etc. when the biopassport wasn't around a couple years ago and he's never had to worry about it. As far as microdosing, you'd still need to do it during races to avoid the controls even in the absence of OOC testing.


----------



## ronnoX (Mar 30, 2009)

danielc said:


> Brings to mind that one time a tester showed up to Armstrong's house and didn't have access for 1hr while Armstrong took a shower and Bruyneel entertained.



In this case Armstrong had the right to make the tester wait. Protocol is for the testers to travel in pairs. For their protection as well as the riders. This guy showed up alone. Also, there are not that many testers, most of them are known to the riders. (that could create all kinds of payola issues) This guy was also from the French Regulatory Body, (can't rember the acronym right now). Why was he testing on American soil. I could understand if it was US or UCI authorities. They had every right and Johan even had the duty to get verification before they let him take samples. 

If someone appeared at your door to take a blood sample wouldn't you demand some proof that they were indeed there legally and had the right, authority, and just cause to stick a needle in your arm and withdraw you blood?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

ronnoX said:


> In this case Armstrong had the right to make the tester wait. Protocol is for the testers to travel in pairs. For their protection as well as the riders. This guy showed up alone. Also, there are not that many testers, most of them are known to the riders. (that could create all kinds of payola issues) This guy was also from the French Regulatory Body, (can't rember the acronym right now). Why was he testing on American soil. I could understand if it was US or UCI authorities. They had every right and Johan even had the duty to get verification before they let him take samples.
> 
> If someone appeared at your door to take a blood sample wouldn't you demand some proof that they were indeed there legally and had the right, authority, and just cause to stick a needle in your arm and withdraw you blood?


Wasn't it in France?

The problem wasn't the time taken to confirm the guy was legit, the problem was Armstrong left his presence.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

Landis doesn't really bring any new *facts* to light. He has just repeated and elaborated on accusations many others have made in the past. At this point it's pretty naive to believe that doping isn't pervasive in pro cycling, but without clear, factual evidence it's doubtful that much will come of his revelations.

Now, the real goal should be cleaning up the sport for the future. Will the legal and media circus that would precede attempts to catch and punish riders who doped in the past significantly contribute toward attaining that goal, or will efforts to drag down the big names who cheated just diminish the sport? It's a tough call, particularly since it's highly probable that they all doped. It's not like the playing field wasn't level.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Doping needs to be required in pro cycling.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

StillRiding said:


> Landis doesn't really bring any new *facts* to light. He has just repeated and elaborated on accusations many others have made in the past. At this point it's pretty naive to believe that doping isn't pervasive in pro cycling, but without clear, factual evidence it's doubtful that much will come of his revelations.


eyewitness testimony, which is what Landis providing, is direct evidence. Whether you want to believe the evidence or not is your problem.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/05/24/truth-lies-and-evidence/


----------



## atimido (Jun 17, 2009)

ghost6 said:


> Doping needs to be required in pro cycling.


So you must agree with this guy then; not pissed because Lance was/is doping, only pissed because someone finally ratted him out. How stupid...


----------



## ronnoX (Mar 30, 2009)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Wasn't it in France?
> 
> The problem wasn't the time taken to confirm the guy was legit, the problem was Armstrong left his presence.



Colorado

Your right Armstrong should not have left his presence


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

ronnoX said:


> Colorado
> 
> Your right Armstrong should not have left his presence


Not splitting hairs but it was in France while he was training for Milan-San Remo. It was an out of competiton test by the French anti-doping authorities.

Since he is training in France at the moment I see a few more hair-pluckings in his short-term future.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

blackhat said:


> eyewitness testimony, which is what Landis providing, is direct evidence. Whether you want to believe the evidence or not is your problem.
> 
> http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/05/24/truth-lies-and-evidence/


There are already many people who have offered eye-witness testimony, but he-said, she-said is not even going to make it in front of a judge. If Landis can provide hard evidence (which he has admitted that he can't) then it would be a different story. Maybe investigators will be spurred by his revelations to dig deep enough to discover hard evidence. If so, lots of big names are going to be brought down. But, the question still remains: will that be good or bad for the future of the sport? Or, would it just be better to avoid the circus and just focus on making changes to ensure a clean future? Who knows?


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

blackhat said:


> eyewitness testimony, which is what Landis providing, is direct evidence. Whether you want to believe the evidence or not is your problem.
> 
> http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/05/24/truth-lies-and-evidence/


I think the point is that Landis' statements indeed are direct evidence, but his credibility (either in a hearing or other tribunal) is subject to some serious impeachment because he's an admitted liar (on multiple fronts). The better evidence that is needed is physical evidence, like a videotape, an audiotape, photographs, or doped blood that can conclusively be matched to its source. That's what's lacking here. So what Landis is throwing out is nothing new. I'm sure by now Lance has engaged his law firm to prepare a detailed press release picking apart all of Floyd's statements that will portray Floyd in a very negative light. I'm not taking sides here -- just pointing out that in the absence of a true smoking gun, all of this is old hat -- unless Floyd has something else up his sleeve that he hasn't revealed. (His diary entries are all self-serving statements, so I don't think that's particularly helpful.)


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

StillRiding said:


> There are already many people who have offered eye-witness testimony, but he-said, she-said is not even going to make it in front of a judge. If Landis can provide hard evidence (which he has admitted that he can't) then it would be a different story. Maybe investigators will be spurred by his revelations to dig deep enough to discover hard evidence. If so, lots of big names are going to be brought down. But, the question still remains: will that be good or bad for the future of the sport? Or, would it just be better to avoid the circus and just focus on making changes to ensure a clean future? Who knows?


Exactly. Here is an artist's rendering of Floyd under cross-examination. . .


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

atimido said:


> So you must agree with this guy then; not pissed because Lance was/is doping, only pissed because someone finally ratted him out. How stupid...


No its actually pretty stupid for you to make assertions like that. 

Landis is a rat, pure and simple. And why do I and many other say that, because all he is trying to do is get even with the system. If his conscience really bothered him as much as he said, if he really wanted to make things right, he would explain what happened in 2006. Instead when faced with that question he responds

*Q: Were you in fact guilty of using synthetic testosterone during the 2006 Tour de France?

A: No, I was not guilty of that. But at this point, honestly, I don't even care to state it ... I don't even debate it anymore. It's insignificant in my point of view. *

Insignificant in who's eyes? Landis?! Sorry pal you lost the right to decide that the moment you stepped in a court room. Now, whats interesting is he's not willing to delve in that, but is willing to delve into other peoples doping practices.

*Landis has not changed.....It's pure and simple.* His doping in the past was motivated by selfishness. BUT his admittance is also motivated by that same selfishness. It's not what he says , but rather what he doesn't say. He doesn't say "I feel sorry for putting my Ex-wife through this, I feel sorry for my parents, I feel sorry for the people that believed me, I feel sorry for the lab personnel and their families" or even "I feel sorry for Greg Lemond." When asked why he came forward he says "I don't wish to feel guilty anymore." And the fact that his motives are constantly punctuated by the word "I" show that he's not doing this on principle but rather out of spite.


"if I was given the chance to race, I could deal with that little bit of guilt" [/B] (admits that its not the principle of honesty motivating him)

*"I'd prefer not to have to deal with the guilt, so I'm going to tell the truth." * (Statement shows that he believes that it is he, opposed to the Law, holds the power to decide when and if people hear the truth. Again showing selfishness)

*"You can make it out to look like I'm an evil guy, but the fact is, it's a fairly simple choice for me."* (once coming before a court, that choice was no longer his to make. And his failure to relinquish that choice and power again shows that selfish motive)

*"Yeah, I wanted to race again. I did what I thought I was supposed to do to make that happen. It didn't happen, and so I don't wish to feel guilty anymore." * (How many times can you say "I" in two sentences! So basically Landis admits if he got his way, back on a Pro Tour team after his suspension, he never would have come forward. That's a bit spoiled and selfish. And then admits that after that didn't happen, he's coming forward because he's not comfortable enough and so he simply wants a better nights sleep. Again selfish, not because he's being honest, but because he's being solely for what he can gain out it - A clean conscience.) 


PS. Lance doped....we all know it.........so does Cancellara(A name I don't hear enough in this room)


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*moderators note*

Let's tone down the "stupid" stuff please.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

CabDoctor said:


> PS. Lance doped....we all know it.........so does Cancellara(A name I don't hear enough in this room)
> [/LIST]




Looks like Cancellara's BIKE might be mechanically doped??


----------



## atimido (Jun 17, 2009)

CabDoctor said:


> No its actually pretty stupid for you to make assertions like that.
> 
> 
> PS. *Lance doped....we all know it*.........so does Cancellara(A name I don't hear enough in this room)
> [/LIST]


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Reticulocyte ratios have been part of the HCT limits for a number of years, it was what got the testers onto Hamilton's tail.

Microdosing was absolutely needed when the urine test for EPO was instituted but the reticulocyte ratio (and others) made maintaining a consistent CBC over time much more important.


----------

