# David Walsh's book



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

Has anyone else read David Walsh's new book, "From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France"? I'm not all the way through it yet, but about 3/4. I've never really had any great regard for Walsh's journalism skills, but I have to say, he does make a compelling case. It's a very interesting read. These are the things that stand out for me (so far):

1. I had no idea how MUCH r-EPO these people (supposedly) take--some sources in the book say 4 injections of EPO a DAY! These poor people--they're human pincushions!

2. I've always thought Walsh was sort of an anti-sport zealot who was just jealous he couldn't make a living as a professional athlete, but in the book, he doesn't really come across that way. He seems to feel sympathy for cyclists, both those who dope because there is a tremendous amount of pressure to do so, as well as those who remain clean, because it's incredibly difficult to compete clean with all these riders who are doped to the gills. I think he is on a crusade to get rid of drugs for everyone's benefit. 

3. There is a LOT of anecdotal evidence that Lance did a lot of drugs (he said, she said, etc).

4, Tyler Hamilton is still an idiot. But I don't understand his psychology at all. Basically his only defense has been that he is not the sort of person who would do such a thing (as doping) in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and then he will lie through his teeth about other facts. He must think people are stupid. Like, he keeps referring to himself as a college graduate when actually he never graduated. A simple matter of fact that would be easy to check--why does he even bother! 

I was just wondering if anyone else had read it, or is reading it, and what their impressions were.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

No, haven't read it and have to say it's not on my list.

While I hate doping in sports, helping Walsh make a few bucks off what's essentially re-runs of the past 10 years of doping is not something I'm interested in. I don't want to help him make money selling doping news. I'll read Paul Kimmage, Willy Voet, and others who have an interesting perspective on things, but Walsh does not, IMO.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

*ditto.........*



SilasCL said:


> No, haven't read it and have to say it's not on my list.
> 
> While I hate doping in sports, *helping Walsh make a few bucks off what's essentially re-runs of the past 10 years of doping is not something I'm interested in.* I don't want to help him make money selling doping news. I'll read Paul Kimmage, Willy Voet, and others who have an interesting perspective on things, but Walsh does not, IMO.




...+1...:thumbsup:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

I've looked through it and it is pretty damning. How someone can dismiss an authors perspective as uninteresting without reading what has been written is beyond me...


----------



## JohnnyChance (Dec 13, 2006)

you can get it from the library for free and he wont see a dime.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

lookrider said:


> I've looked through it and it is pretty damning. How someone can dismiss an authors perspective as uninteresting without reading what has been written is beyond me...


I read an excerpt posted on espn.com last week and he put on a brief chat. There's a lot of info out there which implicates Armstrong, it's publicly available. Walsh had nothing to add, IMO.

I'll read the book when it's available in my library...


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

JohnnyChance said:


> you can get it from the library for free and he wont see a dime.


Umm, it's not in PDF format yet?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

There is an email in the book between Jonathon Vaughters and Frankie Andreu that was part of the SCA trial which seemed pretty devastating. Vaughters also discussed how surprised he was when he got to Credit Agricole and they had very little in the way of a "medical" operation, and/or products being used/injected...

The perspectives of Lemond, Hampsten,Swart, Emma O'Reilly and others were also outlined and, although the evidence is circumstancial, it's pretty powerful as Walsh has laid it out..

The scientific evidence Armstrong has presented is also explained and discredited somewhat..


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

havent read it yet, Ill probably buy it this weekend. lindsey's blog references it however and apparently walsh alleges in the book that armstrong's TUE for his positive cotrisone was forged. Id like to know more about that.


----------



## Rouleur (Mar 5, 2004)

*Can't put it down.*

Mr. Walsh puts together a fairly logical and coherent argument. Great narrative.


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

*Almost half-way through...*

..and I must say it is quite an interesting read but so far he hasn't focused that much on Armstrong. He's spending a lot of time talking about other American cyclists in the early Motorola/Postal teams. I was unaware of Hincapie's early cycling days as a junior olympic rider but what Walsh has to say based on teammate accounts from Greg Strock is compelling. 
The biggest shortcoming so far for me is the utter lack of references, bibliography or even footnotes. Walsh being a journalist should know that if he wanted some credibility a reference section would help a little, especially when he mentions anything about elite athlete physiology. This day and age though with Google one could easily look up old race results, newspaper articles, published interviews and maybe even lawsuits, but it would be nice to have it already cited in the book. 
On another note, a fairly large local bookstore chain in my area only had one copy of the book which I thought was odd. Unless the book is selling like hot cakes which I suppose it very well could be, you would expect at least several copies for a fairly recent publication.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Considering the current doping meltdown in Germany, Walsh appears to have been simply ahead of his time. I find it very difficult to believe that Lance did NOT dope. Everybody BUT him did? I like Lance, but if he had any balls (ok that was a cheap shot) he'd fess up... My guess is he is waiting for the statute of limitations to expire, maybe then he'll come clean.


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

I really don't think he'll ever come clean. I think he really enjoys being a hero, and furthermore he'd lose a ton of money if he actually ever did confess. Maybe we'll find his diary or something after he dies.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

It should be required reading for all 99ers and Lance fanboys. I know, I know, Walsh should have codified it like some kind of university level text. However, there are enough sordid little details to connect plenty of dots. Omerta.

Has anyone ever wondered why Frankie Andreu really got fired from Toyota-United last year? I presume he cleared his work at the TDF with the top management, especially as they had to have known about his prior work with the network. Mighty suspicious that only after the SCA litigation, where BA and FA gave testimony did the axe come down. My how much power the Golden Goose has in the world of cycling. There is a passage in the book where someone on the team notes how Lance often gets someone else to do his bidding, like Bruyneel, John Burke of Trek, Thom Weisel of Weisel and Tailwind etc. He really knows how to wield the septer.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

karategirl said:


> I really don't think he'll ever come clean. I think he really enjoys being a hero, and furthermore he'd lose a ton of money if he actually ever did confess. Maybe we'll find his diary or something after he dies.


not only that but it would do enormous harm to LAF. I'd pity him for that were the impending damage not so completely self incflicted.


----------



## EasyRider47 (Sep 18, 2005)

*Read it & weep....(for cycling)*

Bought the book on Friday, finished it on Saturday - couldn't put it down. Unfortunately, the case he makes and all of the sources named and confirmed make a pretty daming case that doping is everywhere in cycling and makes an incredible case against LA. If you don't believe it - check out Rendell's book on Pantani, which I also read a few months ago - same story!
.
Consider this - cylist dopes, dope gives cyclist testicular cancer, cyclist makes miraculous recovery, cyclist wins Tour de France, cyclist gets vast recognition for beating cancer (and marketing his persona to other victims) and being a winning cyclist (while still using dope...?).....? Talk about layers of deceit.........

Professional cycling is where it deserves to be...in the toilet!

Queasy Rider...(sick of the whole mess)

PS - check out the connection in the book between drugs & cancer...hmmmm...?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

I read it,

It interesting to say the least.

walsh still comes across as a Zelot to me. I don't get the impression at all that he cares about clean cycling all he seems to care about bringing Armstrong down. 

As far as the Tyler quote about collage Walsh presents that like a smoking gun proving Tyler lies - however I havn't found a sorce that has tyler saying hes a collage graduate (I haven't done and exhaustive search) the qoute is attributed to a article about Tyler so it could have easily been poor fact cheack by the writer - not that that makes Tylers case any more or less convincing but its indecaive of Walshes style at times he builds up a pont and brandishes some evidence and all comsumming proof that hes nailed it when ofter the evidence (while convincing) is not quite the nail in the coffen he presents it as.

The sort sad thing is that Walsh dosn't seem to get that he can't really touch Armstrong. To Armstong money and power are winning and hes won pleanty of both and continues to hold them to Walsh integraty is winning meaning the truth one knows about ones self - he can't change Armstrongs mind about that and the public by in large dosn't care. The reality is Armstong won the tour 7 times and hes done pretty much nothing will change that esp not this book, for better or for worse.




karategirl said:


> Has anyone else read David Walsh's new book, "From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France"? I'm not all the way through it yet, but about 3/4. I've never really had any great regard for Walsh's journalism skills, but I have to say, he does make a compelling case. It's a very interesting read. These are the things that stand out for me (so far):
> 
> 1. I had no idea how MUCH r-EPO these people (supposedly) take--some sources in the book say 4 injections of EPO a DAY! These poor people--they're human pincushions!
> 
> ...


----------



## EasyRider47 (Sep 18, 2005)

*LA - Convicted by Cancer & His Own Blood?*

Wouldn't it be ironic if LA is convicted by Cancer and his own blood?

The book outlines that testicular cancer releases certain markers in the blood, which would trigger a false positive in doping tests at the time. However, during the year prior to his cancer diagnosis, no such false positives came up in the doping tests that he took when the cancer started to develop......hmmm....? 

It appears that the question was asked (but not answered) as to why this occurred. (Could masking agents used to cover up doping activity also cover up the cancer markers as well?). The book suggests that this is the case and produces evidence as well.

This reminds me of an incident in Pantani's book - he ends up in an accident, is taken to the hospital; and blood tests taken while he is there determine that his hematocrit level is above 60% - a copy of the hospital form is in the book.

Ironic....their own body tells the truth....


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Wow, what a dirty, dirty mess indeed... I never thought about the cancer / doping connection, that would be a bombshell if it's true and provable.


----------



## rodster (Jun 29, 2006)

EasyRider47 said:


> Wouldn't it be ironic if LA is convicted by Cancer and his own blood?
> 
> The book outlines that testicular cancer releases certain markers in the blood, which would trigger a false positive in doping tests at the time. However, during the year prior to his cancer diagnosis, no such false positives came up in the doping tests that he took when the cancer started to develop......hmmm....?
> 
> ...



For those of us that have read the English translation of L.A. Confidential (pdf excerpts), this book seems to be a rehash of that with a bit of SCA testimony thrown in. This non-positive dope test vs cancer link is yet another instance of the rehash. 

I wonder what "technicality" Walsh was able to skirt to get this book published in English whilst Lance etal was able to block English language publication of L.A. Confidential?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

EasyRider47 said:


> The book outlines that testicular cancer releases certain markers in the blood, which would trigger a false positive in doping tests at the time. However, during the year prior to his cancer diagnosis, no such false positives came up in the doping tests that he took when the cancer started to develop......hmmm....?
> 
> It appears that the question was asked (but not answered) as to why this occurred. (Could masking agents used to cover up doping activity also cover up the cancer markers as well?). The book suggests that this is the case and produces evidence as well.


I remember reading this before, basically his hormones should have been very abnormal but weren't. But I think you have to remember that that was pre-WADA, pre-Festina, the testing was pretty much a joke and Lance was just another good rider. Not somebody riding day after day in the yellow at the Tour and subject to a lot of tests. I doubt he was masking anything. Just a testing system that wasn't set up to catch anyone and I'd be surprised if he was tested more than a handful of times (and possibly not for the hormones that should have been abnormal) when his cancer was manifesting itself.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

rodster said:


> For those of us that have read the English translation of L.A. Confidential (pdf excerpts), this book seems to be a rehash of that with a bit of SCA testimony thrown in. This non-positive dope test vs cancer link is yet another instance of the rehash.
> 
> I wonder what "technicality" Walsh was able to skirt to get this book published in English whilst Lance etal was able to block English language publication of L.A. Confidential?


I had not previously heard that lance somehow prevented the publisher from releasing an english version of LA confidential. where did you hear this?


----------



## rodster (Jun 29, 2006)

blackhat said:


> I had not previously heard that lance somehow prevented the publisher from releasing an english version of LA confidential. where did you hear this?


Lance sued the Sunday Times for publishing English excerpts. I forget whether there was a settlement prior to trial or what but regardless, an English language book never emerged.

The PDF English version texts can be found here, btw:

http://eposino.com/yabb/Attachments/

The ones entitled Big Tex (4 different files) are the ones.


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

*Markers*



EasyRider47 said:


> Wouldn't it be ironic if LA is convicted by Cancer and his own blood?
> 
> The book outlines that testicular cancer releases certain markers in the blood, which would trigger a false positive in doping tests at the time. However, during the year prior to his cancer diagnosis, no such false positives came up in the doping tests that he took when the cancer started to develop......hmmm....?
> 
> ...


Don't always work to make the diagnosis. THere are times they are missing, or the numbers are "normal" and don't cause any alarm to the clinicians. What you'll find about cancer is that nothing is "always". 

There's no telling when the cancer started to develop, outside the physical signs LA has discussed numerous times. His cancer was fast moving and aggressive and these markers may not have been in his system until just before his diagnosis. 

Cancer is highly studied and quantified. There are statistics on practically every piece of known information. The problem here is two-fold: One, after all the studies _we still know that we don't know a lot_; two, statistics in cancer are good for setting trend lines, but they mean little on a patient-by-patient basis. Most cancer survivors I know (and I know a lot of them) break the statistical model in some phase of their disease. For example, of all prostate cancer cases dxed in the US, 98% are in men over 50. 2% Odds of getting this disease seem pretty long, unless you're one of the 2%. Like me. In my case, the 98% is meaningless. I understand that this is anecdotal, but I also understand the harsh truth of the fact that I am on the far tail of the curve, yet I am on the curve nonetheless. No reason LA could not have been there as well.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

rodster said:


> Lance sued the Sunday Times for publishing English excerpts. I forget whether there was a settlement prior to trial or what but regardless, an English language book never emerged.
> 
> The PDF English version texts can be found here, btw:
> 
> ...


thanks for the link. IIRC there was a settlement which came after LA's side won, then lost on appeal. to the best of my knowledge, english publication of walsh's book wasn't a part of the lawsuit.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

rodster said:


> For those of us that have read the English translation of L.A. Confidential (pdf excerpts), this book seems to be a rehash of that with a bit of SCA testimony thrown in. This non-positive dope test vs cancer link is yet another instance of the rehash./QUOTE]
> 
> Does he get into the issues of Bruyneel bringing on a bunch of doping apologist docs from ONCE to USPS/Disco? Would be interesting in light of the kind of operation Saiz/ONCE was running and where Bruyneel did a number of years as a rider.
> 
> Would take on real significance if the Valencia blood doping clinic Manzano talked about really exists(ed) and was run by the docs who people have speculated (or even claimed to know) were running it.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Manzano was right about everything else - and if he _is_ right about this, then the Girona boys will be up to their necks in it...


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

*Errors...*

Going back to my criticism on the lack of references in this book, I noticed an error on p.268 second paragraph when Walsh mentions, " In his sworn deposition on November 30, 1995, Lance Armstrong emphatically denied..." He clearly meant 2005 in the context of the paragraph and so I couldn't get out of my mind how such an error was made. I have no doubts that most of his interviews are presented truthfully in the book but come on, he should at least get the dates right. It does lead me to think if there are other glaring errors (intentional or not) that I may have missed.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

danielc said:


> Going back to my criticism on the lack of references in this book, I noticed an error on p.268 second paragraph when Walsh mentions, " In his sworn deposition on November 30, 1995, Lance Armstrong emphatically denied..." He clearly meant 2005 in the context of the paragraph and so I couldn't get out of my mind how such an error was made. I have no doubts that most of his interviews are presented truthfully in the book but come on, he should at least get the dates right. It does lead me to think if there are other glaring errors (intentional or not) that I may have missed.


I caught that too, but dismissed it as sloppy and went on. The most compelling aspect of the entire book is the sordid details of the IM discussion between Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters. Even if some of it was received second hand it does explain how pervasive, but not unanimous the culture of doping, and doping in a massive and organized manner has become. Maybe the French teams have a reason for crying foul and that racing at two speeds is more of a reality than a sour grapes attitude. I guy I know had an off the record conversation with one of these two, which produced some similar information concerning doping culture and technique. No reason to disbelieve these guys.


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

*No reason at all*



mikeman said:


> No reason to disbelieve these guys.


Vaughters and Andreu both denied any first hand knowledge of doping by LA. The Paceline has published affidavits and transcripts from depositions that speak directly to this: 

http://www.thepaceline.com/lance/exhibits/ex5.pdf
Vaughters - _" I have no personal knowledge that any team in the Tour de France, including the Discovery Team in 2005, engaged in any prohibited conduct whatsoever. My exchange with Andreu was merely me gossiping about one of many issues that are bantered about the Tour de France that vary in type and range."_

http://www.thepaceline.com/lance/exhibits/frankieandreu.pdf
Andreu testiomony - 
_Q. Did he [Lance Armstrong] indicate to you that he was going to use EPO or
consider using EPO?
A. No.
Q. Was there any discussion between you and Mr. Armstrong
regarding EPO or the use of EPO during that time period?
A. No.
Q. '94, '95 time period?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone on the team tell you that Mr. Armstrong was using EPO during that time period?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever have a discussion with Mr. Armstrong about
whether or not you should use EPO?
A. Did I ever have a discussion with Lance about whether or
not I should use EPO?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Did he ever recommend or say you should do EPO?
A. No.
Q. Did he ever ask for your input about whether or not he
should use EPO?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether or not
Mr. Armstrong used EPO during that time period?
A. No.
Q. Throughout the entire time you were on the Motorola team,
do you have any knowledge about whether or not Mr. Armstrong used EPO?
A. No, I did not.
Q. So, if I asked you did Mr. Armstrong use EPO while you were
teammates at the Motorola team, your answer would be you don't know one way or another?
A. My answer would be I do not know.
Q. Did you see or hear anything from him or others that made you suspicious of whether or not Mr. Armstrong was using EPO?
A. No.
Q. I want to focus on his career when he returned to professional cycling.
A. While he was racing, no, I do not have any knowledge of him
using any drugs.
Q. And although he may not have shown you it, did you ever see
anything in his room, in his hotel room or in any of his possessions that you thought might be a performance-enhancing drug or substance?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Armstrong used performance-enhancing
substances while he was on the U.S. Postal team with you?
A. No.
Q. How about at any time from 1999 forward? Other than what you've already described for me where he showed you these pills, do you have any knowledge as to whether or not Mr. Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs or substances?
A. I was only on the team with him '99 and 2000, and in those two years, no.
Q. Okay. Have you ever had a discussion with Mr. Armstrong
about EPO?
A. No.
Q. Never actually talked about it?
A. We've talked -- I mean I've talked with Lance and other riders just about general EPO use in the Peloton and when stuff is written about it in the paper talking about what
the heck it is and what it does. Very general stuff.
Q. Nothing beyond general discussions about EPO?
A. Never.
Q. Did anyone ever tell you that Mr. Armstrong used
performance-enhancing drugs?
A. No.
Q. You actually roomed with Lance for some period of time, did you not?
A. Yeah. We lived together for a while.
Q. About how many races do you think you and Lance Armstrong were in together as part of the same team, you know, in your career?
Q. Hundreds?
A. Yeah. Hundreds._

Sworn affidavits and testimony, punishable by jail time if they are lying. I imagine there are those who would believe that LA has somehow threatened and forced Andreu and Vaughters to go to the risk of perjuring themselves, but I have my doubts about the credibility of that scenario.

Could they have lied? Sure. People do it all the time. Could it be that once they were actually called upon to tell the truth about what they knew that they admitted they didn't know much? Absolutely. While there testimony doesn't prove LA never doped, its pretty certain that if he did, he didn't tell them about it. For Walsh to use their IM exchange of "second or third hand gossip" as damning evidence seems to be a stretch.


----------



## percy (May 17, 2004)

What's more likely: a) that they just made stuff up (like the alleged hospital interview), or b) that they lied and denied what they said after it became public?

Here's something reportedly from the Walsh book that really got my attention. Why would they make this stuff up? (from a review of the Walsh and Landis books on roadbikereview.com):

Walsh's major revelation about Landis comes from something Jonathan Vaughters wrote to Frankie Andreu while they were instant messaging. According to Vaughters, Landis's "rest day blood refill" during the 2004 Tour was ceremoniously dumped in front of Landis by Armstrong and USPS director Johann Bruyneel. Even though they were all on the same team, the intention was "to make [Landis] ride bad" by denying him a transfusion, probably because it was suspected that Floyd was leaving Postal for the Phonak team. Vaughters said he heard this story from Landis himself.



If true, Landis, Armstrong and Bruyneel are connected to blood doping and, of course, this lays waste to their claims of racing clean. The chapter goes on to recount what Walsh calls Postal's "elaborate and well-organized system of doping involving blood transfusions." This remains relevant because the team (now Discovery Channel) is co-owned by Armstrong and directed by Bruyneel.


----------



## rs3o (Jan 22, 2004)

percy said:


> What's more likely: a) that they just made stuff up (like the alleged hospital interview), or b) that they lied and denied what they said after it became public?
> 
> Here's something reportedly from the Walsh book that really got my attention. Why would they make this stuff up? (from a review of the Walsh and Landis books on roadbikereview.com):
> 
> ...


LA relied heavily on Floyd for support that year. Why would he risk hurting Floyd's performance when it could negatively affect his own chances for another Tour win?


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Pardon the pun, but there's plenty of evidence of bad blood between Armstrong and Landis - look at Armstrong's behaviour during the Tour of Georgia when Landis was leading the race, after he had left the team. Any man that could exhibit that kind of pettiness - and let's not forget the Simeoni incident and the zipped lips - is more than capable of showing Landis whose boss in just such a manner. And I doubt if denying Landis one blood bag would have lost Armstrong the Tour - this is the sport's ultimate micromanager we're talking about...


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

moneyman said:


> Vaughters and Andreu both denied any first hand knowledge of doping by LA. The Paceline has published affidavits and transcripts from depositions that speak directly to this:
> 
> http://www.thepaceline.com/lance/exhibits/ex5.pdf
> Vaughters - _" I have no personal knowledge that any team in the Tour de France, including the Discovery Team in 2005, engaged in any prohibited conduct whatsoever. My exchange with Andreu was merely me gossiping about one of many issues that are bantered about the Tour de France that vary in type and range."_
> ...


Why would you believe their "testimony" to be more truthful than a candid discussion, which they never expected to be heard or discussed by others? Did you read the transcript, sounded like two people speaking openly, especially discussing their dislike of the controlling nature of Armstrong and his power to frame the doping controversy through regular mea culpas along the lines of "the most tested athlete in the history of the world" to I have never failed a doping test. Seems very unlikely that they would be punished for perjury for their testimony, but I would argue that it is more likely that they have been seen and maybe even been punished for their actions through Armstrong's tight ties in the cycling world. Just my opinion, but I have spoken to others who have spoken with one of these two and the stories were corroborated in their discussions. Sorry, but I think they lied when they spoke in the SCA trial.


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

*They lied*



mikeman said:


> Why would you believe their "testimony" to be more truthful than a candid discussion, which they never expected to be heard or discussed by others? Did you read the transcript, sounded like two people speaking openly, especially discussing their dislike of the controlling nature of Armstrong and his power to frame the doping controversy through regular mea culpas along the lines of "the most tested athlete in the history of the world" to I have never failed a doping test. Seems very unlikely that they would be punished for perjury for their testimony, but I would argue that it is more likely that they have been seen and maybe even been punished for their actions through Armstrong's tight ties in the cycling world. Just my opinion, but I have spoken to others who have spoken with one of these two and the stories were corroborated in their discussions. Sorry, but I think they lied when they spoke in the SCA trial.


Its altogether possible that they lied in their testimony. In fact, when I read Vaughter's deposition, I had the impression of someone who was making a statement that someone else's lawyer gave him. 

The problem facing all of us who are trying to determine guilt or innocence is that we don't know the truth because we weren't there. We were not inside the head of Vaughters, Andreu or Mrs. Andreu and don't know the motivation behind what was either their exposition of the truth or their fabrication of the truth. All we can do is make assumptions based upon the evidence we see. I am of the firm belief that two reasonable and intelligent people can look at the same set of facts and circumstances and come to two different conclusions.

I cannot say for sure that LA was a doper, or that he never tried to intimidate those who spoke in opposition to him. Neither can you, or anyone else, say for sure that he did. All we can do is examine the evidence and reach our own decision.

I place more credence on sworn testimony than I do on IM conversations between two buddies. Personally, I would be more inclined to stretch the truth a little, embellish the facts a bit, if I was just BSing with a pal than if I was sworn in by an officer of the court, knowing that if I lied I could go to jail. Plenty of people have, btw. The sobering reality of having someone say to me "Do you solemnly swear..." would be enough for me to clear my cobwebs and tell the truth.

I can't say the same for Vaughters and Andreu, however, because I simply don't know. Perhaps I am transposing my feelings upon them, but I can't imagine lying in court. They lied somewhere - either in court or in their conversations with each other. Once again, we'll never know, and because we DO know they lied somewhere, their shield of credibility has severe weak spots. 

I doubt that I'll never convince those who believe differently than me that LA is and has been clean. But, as I have said in this forum before, I have weighed a great deal of evidence over the years and have reached my conclusions. Apparently, you have, too. It just so happens that we have reached _different_ conclusions.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> Pardon the pun, but there's plenty of evidence of bad blood between Armstrong and Landis - look at Armstrong's behaviour during the Tour of Georgia when Landis was leading the race, after he had left the team. Any man that could exhibit that kind of pettiness - and let's not forget the Simeoni incident and the zipped lips - is more than capable of showing Landis whose boss in just such a manner. And I doubt if denying Landis one blood bag would have lost Armstrong the Tour - this is the sport's ultimate micromanager we're talking about...


Extremely well put and spot on in my opinion. I have never ceased to be amazed by Armstrong's in-race public displays of very incriminating behaviour, like the zipped lips and the chasing Simeoni down in the Tour and the subseqent return to the peloton, but what amazed me even more was the idiotic responses by Phil and Paul. They tried to act like Armstrong broke away from the peloton without anyone chasing, while he wore yellow. Yeah, right Phil, you had no idea that it was oked by the peloton. I like those two, but they are part of the problem. Oh publicly they will say get the cheats out of the sport, but they know Armstrong's popularity buttered their bread for years.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Well put........*



moneyman said:


> Its altogether possible that they lied in their testimony. In fact, when I read Vaughter's deposition, I had the impression of someone who was making a statement that someone else's lawyer gave him.
> 
> The problem facing all of us who are trying to determine guilt or innocence is that we don't know the truth because we weren't there. We were not inside the head of Vaughters, Andreu or Mrs. Andreu and don't know the motivation behind what was either their exposition of the truth or their fabrication of the truth. All we can do is make assumptions based upon the evidence we see. I am of the firm belief that two reasonable and intelligent people can look at the same set of facts and circumstances and come to two different conclusions.
> 
> ...


and while, as You know, I fall on the other side of this issue from you, I do think you have summed it up well.

-We really don't know.
-We may never know.
-Like Walsh, there is enough smoke out there to make a reasonable case for his doping, there is also a reasonable case that he doped before cancer but not after, and a reasonable case for doping both before & after.

Maybe it's better that we don't know unequivically one way or the other. It allows us to find in his recovery & performance what we need to find.

Me, I think he doped both before & after. Inspite of that, I also am truly inspired by his performance (doped or not). He beat the best, repeatedly, when he was at his best and also not at his best. Personality aside, his recovery from near death was inspiring enough, but to win 7 times post cancer is nothing short of inspiring.

The dope would only allow him to train more, he still had to train more.
The dope would only allow him to recover equally with his competitors, he still had to go out there and pedal through the pain....he did.

I would have enjoyed this book more if it weren't written by a zealot like Walsh. Because of his zealotry, it's hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Len


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mikeman said:


> Extremely well put and spot on in my opinion. I have never ceased to be amazed by Armstrong's in-race public displays of very incriminating behaviour, like the zipped lips and the chasing Simeoni down in the Tour and the subseqent return to the peloton, but what amazed me even more was the idiotic responses by Phil and Paul. They tried to act like Armstrong broke away from the peloton without anyone chasing, while he wore yellow. Yeah, right Phil, you had no idea that it was oked by the peloton. I like those two, but they are part of the problem. Oh publicly they will say get the cheats out of the sport, but they know Armstrong's popularity buttered their bread for years.



dont leave bobke out...I really like him but he's as big an apologist as there is.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

blackhat said:


> dont leave bobke out...I really like him but he's as big an apologist as there is.


If it's OK for you to be an apologist for Dick Pound, why shouldn't Bobke be an apologist for LA?


----------



## barrym (Jul 15, 2007)

SilasCL said:


> No, haven't read it and have to say it's not on my list.
> 
> While I hate doping in sports, helping Walsh make a few bucks off what's essentially re-runs of the past 10 years of doping is not something I'm interested in. I don't want to help him make money selling doping news. I'll read Paul Kimmage, Willy Voet, and others who have an interesting perspective on things, but Walsh does not, IMO.


Pity to take that line.... I don't think Walshe is in it just for the money, although he has to live  

I have read Kimmage, and LA Confidential, in French, in fact it was the latter book that got me on to the whole thing....after a tv show in France when the book was first published in French. IIRC the English edition got blocked on a technicality and this one (published in the US, as yet, I have a copy on the way via Amazon, not possible to buy it outside the US on the publishers site) is (AFAIK) the English 'version' 

I think Walshe is genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of the issue, and, if the fall-out since he started is anything to go by, he is succeeding. Before his efforts there were ad-hoc doping events but in the last few years there has been a series of exposures, to the point where the UCI has entered the fray (finally!) and started to take the issuse seriously. 

In the end the problem is that pro-cycling will lose its commercial appeal if the doping thing isn't sorted. 

Bye, Barry


----------



## barrym (Jul 15, 2007)

danielc said:


> ... The biggest shortcoming so far for me is the utter lack of references, bibliography or even footnotes. Walsh being a journalist should know that if he wanted some credibility a reference section would help a little, especially when he mentions anything about elite athlete physiology. This day and age though with Google one could easily look up old race results, newspaper articles, published interviews and maybe even lawsuits, but it would be nice to have it already cited in the book.


In LA Confidential there are pages of references, related to each chapter. I don't know why the present book doesn't include them (and others), maybe a publishers decision? Having read both the present one is styled more like a 'story' - it almost reads like a novel in places, perhaps the US publisher preferred that and decided to drop the references as being to 'academic'? 

Bye, Barry

BTW, if any body want the refs from the French book I'd be happy to copy them and mail them....


----------



## lspangle (Aug 30, 2004)

*I put off reading this book for years*

I put off reading this book for years, but finally started reading it this week after the tour and everything going on with Lance and Frank. Just finished it and searched the forum for a discussion and found this thread, so I thought I'd post and bump it up. 

It was not what I expected -- as others have said, Walsh shows sympathy towards the riders and provides plenty of reasons why dopers do it -- not because they were out for glory but because they didn't want to get sacked. Mostly just to keep up and do their jobs.

What really got to me was the concept where he talks about how like second-hand smoke, there's second-hand doping, where the non-dopers' heath is hurt because they push their bodies beyond the natural boundaries over and over, just to keep up.

And the part where Bassons was basically forced out because he wouldn't keep his mouth shut about the culture of doping really made me sad.

What will it take for cycling to finally be clean?

Oh and the reason I put off reading the book is because I used to be a huge Lance fan; I wanted to believe. Thought the book was just a bunch of people out to get Lance, drank the kool-aid. I live in Austin, TX, I've done the Ride for the Roses, I've visited Livestrong HQ, and I've had so many close family members die from cancer. I wanted hope and inspiration and he gave it to me.

Now I just feel this huge let down and great sadness.

Sure Lance still had to ride his bike, and yeah he still had to diet and train. And yeah if you look at the podiums he beat dopers so maybe it was a "level" playing field. I guess it's the lengths he went to keep everything covered up and protect the omerta. 

Vino winning today didn't make it any better; there is a huge doubt in my mind about him. I know he served his suspension and he should get a second chance. But still. Wish he would have come out and said something about how doping is wrong.

Maybe that is what gets me about Lance. There was his speech at the end of the tour about "believing", but he didn't say or do anything else to support that. Unless you count his "anonymous" contribution to the UCI...right.

And I feel the need to do something, but I don't know what. What can we do as fans? Keep asking questions? Demand that things get cleaned up? Demand that there's coverage of the dopers? (How Phil and Paul don't mention anything that is going on just gets me.)

I remember Floyd winning and how happy I was for him (I was covertly watching the stage while at a big trade show and I yelled out loud and jumped up and down when he won that stage! Startled some people, haha.) And then I was crushed by everything that followed. Wish he would have just come out and told the truth from the beginning. Same with Tyler.

And I totally disagree with having a separate league for people doped to the gills. It would be like the WWF, ha. Not appealing in the least. 

Thanks for listening to my ramblings, I feel a little better after typing all this. Still sad tho -- and so frustrated. I love this sport and want the riders to be able to ride without doping. Hoping that Sky is clean...but alarm bells are going off...hate feeling this way.

When will it end? What will it take? Maybe Lance getting busted is just what the sport needs to start fresh? And wondering who all will be witnesses against him...


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lspangle said:


> I put off reading this book for years, but finally started reading it this week after the tour and everything going on with Lance and Frank. Just finished it and searched the forum for a discussion and found this thread, so I thought I'd post and bump it up.
> 
> It was not what I expected -- as others have said, Walsh shows sympathy towards the riders and provides plenty of reasons why dopers do it -- not because they were out for glory but because they didn't want to get sacked. Mostly just to keep up and do their jobs.
> 
> ...


It will never end. Ever. You either tolerate that the athletes of every sport are using drugs/medicines to put in ever better performances or you lose interest.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

After Vino's victory, I'm all done. This could not be a clean victory. I will admit, I have not seen the race, just read excerpts, totally ignorant for me to say, but something inside me says he had to have doped. Sorry pro peloton, I'm now all done with you. Don't get me wrong, I will still ride and race myself. I just cannot drink the cool aid anymore.

Bt


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

lspangle said:


> I put off reading this book for years, but finally started reading it this week after the tour and everything going on with Lance and Frank. Just finished it and searched the forum for a discussion and found this thread, so I thought I'd post and bump it up.
> 
> It was not what I expected -- as others have said, Walsh shows sympathy towards the riders and provides plenty of reasons why dopers do it -- not because they were out for glory but because they didn't want to get sacked. Mostly just to keep up and do their jobs.
> 
> ...


Good post.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

lspangle said:


> I put off reading this book for years, but finally started reading it this week after the tour and everything going on with Lance and Frank. Just finished it and searched the forum for a discussion and found this thread, so I thought I'd post and bump it up.
> 
> It was not what I expected -- as others have said, Walsh shows sympathy towards the riders and provides plenty of reasons why dopers do it -- not because they were out for glory but because they didn't want to get sacked. Mostly just to keep up and do their jobs.
> 
> ...


Very interesting. 

I'll have to check out the book (or at least check to see if my library has it).


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

eyebob said:


> After Vino's victory, I'm all done. This could not be a clean victory. I will admit, I have not seen the race, just read excerpts, totally ignorant for me to say, but something inside me says he had to have doped. Sorry pro peloton, I'm now all done with you. Don't get me wrong, I will still ride and race myself. I just cannot drink the cool aid anymore.
> 
> Bt


I've always been more of an athlete than a fan -- I ride/race more than I read/watch the pros. I'm just a guy who races bicycles after work. I'm so far removed from EPO, blood doping, diuretics, clenbuteral... It doesn't have any import on my life. 

Why should I let speculating on what the pros do prevent me from enjoying the excitement of a sprint or the drama of a stage race? What difference does it make to you if _they_ dope?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> I'll have to check out the book (or at least check to see if my library has it).


That explains a lot of the uninformed nonsensical arguing.




Local Hero said:


> I've always been more of an athlete than a fan -- I ride/race more than I read/watch the pros. I'm just a guy who races bicycles after work. I'm so far removed from EPO, blood doping, diuretics, clenbuteral... *It doesn't have any import on my life. *


*

:lol::crazy:


*


Local Hero said:


> Why should I let speculating on what the pros do prevent me from enjoying the excitement of a sprint or the drama of a stage race? What difference does it make to you if _they_ dope?


Who enjoys bs and drama in their life? Unless it's the drama of Bruno Sammartino hitting Chief Jay Strongbow in the head with a folding chair.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



Chris-X said:


> That explains a lot of the uninformed nonsensical arguing.


And that's an infraction for you. Don't like someone's posts- just use the ignore feature. Continue down this path and postings vacation will follow.


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> And that's an infraction for you. Don't like someone's posts- just use the ignore feature. Continue down this path and postings vacation will follow.


I don't know, after following the Doping Forum for the last several months...

I'd admit to being more than a bit thunderstruck just now reading that LH hadn't read Walsh's book. 

Just sayin' :thumbsup:


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

:wink5: Did y'all realize this is a 4 year old thread?


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

Umm, yep, just like the other 3 "new" threads that popped up in the last day. Kinda relevant I guess.


----------



## lspangle (Aug 30, 2004)

*Yep!*



David Loving said:


> :wink5: Did y'all realize this is a 4 year old thread?


Hi yeah -- I knew it was a four year old thread -- I just read this book over the weekend and I searched the forums for any reviews of the book and found this one. Was hoping to start a comparison thread between now and 4 years ago.

I had put off reading the book, but with everything in the news about Lance lately I broke down and read it.

Sad that nothing has really changed, isn't it? But I felt better after posting here -- thanks you guys.


----------

