# Will Landis-gate blow over without any results?



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

I go back and forth on this question - will Landis-gate produce any concrete results (convictions, admissions, etc.)? Or will it blow over and get forgotten quickly?

Involvement of feds certainly opens up a lot of possibilities. But if Landis has no solid evidence, and most people involved have no strong motivation to start spilling beans, the investigation will stall very quickly. They are looking into 1999-2004 period, which involves events more than 6 years ago. Memories of specifics, dates, places get murky. There's already several inaccuracies in Landis' story, a fact that undermines other elements.

Landis seems to think that "Big Tex is going to jail" but I am not convinced anything will happen. Even in Puerto where you had TONS of evidence - blood bags that could be matched via DNA, phone records, visitor surveillance, financial records etc. - all freshly collected as it happened - it turned out it was difficult to reach any conclusions, with a lot of riders clearly involved getting an acquittal, and others, like Valverde, riding for years.

Of course we have Fed investigators that brought down BALCO, but that's different from looking into 6-10 year old case over something that happened in France. 

My gut feeling the whole thing is not going to be forgotten, and will be written about for years, but will not produce anything substantial - such as court conviction or forced admission of guilt from top players.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

Doping controls will get stricter more advanced, effective. Lesser skilled dopers will get caught. Thrown under the bus for publicities sake that things are getting better. The riders landis mentioned in his e-mails willbe untouched.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

As of tonight I think Landis-Gate will be vapor-ware. Call me if there is any physical evidence.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

I think Floyd will be revealed to be exactly what the banner on his website reveals him to be. . .


----------



## mangotreat0808 (Sep 4, 2006)

Compared to other claims of doping, this may be a case that will be investigated by the Feds (and I believe has already been started), since the USPS is considered a federal arm, and has paid between 8-10 million bukos to the USPS management team, of which LA was a part. The sponsoring entity, USPS, assumes the riders are clean with the transparency provided by the management team. If the management maintained a clean bill of healthy riding (vs doping) on its riders, and any evidence proves otherwise, then this would amount to defrauding the Federal government by the USPS cycling management team. This is why probably this is a different case altogether in a sense that we're now dealing with the Federal government as the sponsoring entity. Now I think I'm making some sense of this.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

My guess is that it will all come down to whether or not people will be required to lie when there are real consequences. If there is actually a federal investigation I just don't think all of these folks will be willing to perjure themselves.


----------



## rockstar2083 (Aug 30, 2005)

Velonews is reporting that the feds are considering fraud and conspiracy charges against LA. The feds generally play for keeps so it is possible Lance and company could face some fines, jail time and public flogging. 

Probably hurts the sport from a U.S. perspective. If Lance is taken down, I would expect to see less U.S. coverage of EU races.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

I'd be very surprised if we see any results of this investigation this year. These are usually long procedures, opening up previous cases, going through previous testimonies etc.
At best we may start seeing results of this investigation by 2011.

Will this be good for cycling, the answer is no, not in the short term. But let's also be honest about road racing in North America. The only time the major news outlets mention it are when LA is involved, TdF and when major scandals break out. During the Giro?.... nada, during the classics?.....again nothing.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

Cycling will do minimal, but with a Fed prosecutor looking to keep his name in the news we could see a whole new ball game. - TF


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

What are the chances that Radio Shack will be dis-invited to The Tour?


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

so what? what's new?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

I would say chances are 75%.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

fallzboater said:


> What are the chances that Radio Shack will be dis-invited to The Tour?


Slim to none.
The head honcho of the ASO was changed prior to last year's tour. Patrice Clerc was at the helm when Bruyneel's Astana was uninvited for the 2008 Tour. The new ASO has pretty much sided with ratings, money etc. So if Lance vs. Contador means better ratings they'll take that deal every time.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

fallzboater said:


> What are the chances that Radio Shack will be dis-invited to The Tour?


0.000000000% - LA vs AC = $$$


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I'm just not buying the federal prosecutor angle. Find me an actual crime that was committed that is 1) within federal jurisdiction and 2) not past the statute of limitations, and we'll talk. Didn't all the "crimes" take place in Europe?

I love the creative angle where the feds will investigate taxpayer funds that were used to support doping via of the USPS sponsorship. Misappropriation of funds? Uh, no. USPS paid money to sponsor the USPS team as a marketing arrangement. It was to buy good publicity and increase brand awareness. There's no crime here. To pursue this, they would have to file a civil suit against the team owners to recover those funds. But even that is a dead end. After all, did they not achieve their marketing goals? What is their argument going to be? That doping they didn't know about from 2002-2004 hurt their marketing efforts back then? That it hurts their marketing now? There is no basis for any suit on that angle, because USPS got exactly what they wanted out of the deal.

Plus, regardless of where you stand, the reality is that Landis has huge credibility problems as a witness, and in any criminal prosecution or civil suit, he would have to testify. That means he would be torn apart on the stand. So what you need is to get someone else to corroborate Landis' story who doesn't have his baggage. Good luck with that. There is zero incentive for anyone he named to come forward, considering they all have strong legacies and all are still racing. Call them and they'll take the fifth. Bypass that with immunity and you'll hear "I don't recall" an awful lot. 

In short, yes, this will all blow over without any results. It's unfortunate, but that is the reality. But that doesn't meant there won't be a lot of posturing by various agencies.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*Without other, hard evidence*

one disgruntled, already condemned ex-teammate who changed his tune about events several years in the past, I don't think will turn into anything serious.

For those that suspect that LA &co doped, this is not new. For those that thought him clean, this is not enough to demonstrate otherwise.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

Statute of Limitations for Fraud depends on the state 2-3 years from when it should have been discoverable. Don't know if Fed can pursue fraud now.


----------



## mangotreat0808 (Sep 4, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> I'm just not buying the federal prosecutor angle. Find me an actual crime that was committed that is 1) within federal jurisdiction and 2) not past the statute of limitations, and we'll talk. Didn't all the "crimes" take place in Europe?
> 
> I love the creative angle where the feds will investigate taxpayer funds that were used to support doping via of the USPS sponsorship. Misappropriation of funds? Uh, no. USPS paid money to sponsor the USPS team as a marketing arrangement. It was to buy good publicity and increase brand awareness. There's no crime here. To pursue this, they would have to file a civil suit against the team owners to recover those funds. But even that is a dead end. After all, did they not achieve their marketing goals? What is their argument going to be? That doping they didn't know about from 2002-2004 hurt their marketing efforts back then? That it hurts their marketing now? There is no basis for any suit on that angle, because USPS got exactly what they wanted out of the deal.
> 
> ...


It also intrigues me that people (I guess lay people like you and me) are apt to form conclusions quickly on what is probably a far-reaching, complex situation. Federal jurisdiction at least for the United States has a much larger scope than we could probably imagine. The reason being that we have US diplomats, ambassadors, representatives in many countries outside the territorial US of A that could potentially commit a crime. Remember the endless spy stories that have covered the headlines that past umpteen years, stories which involve US citizens, which have occurred in non-territorial US countries?

The issue of misappropriation of funds is also a subject matter that has tentacles that spread out outside the core issue of funds-handling. There is perjury. Remember Mr. Baseball, Barry Bonds, who claimed not to have used any performance enhancing drugs? Well, we know what happened, he faced a grand jury and was found guilty of perjury – thus the misappropriation of funds is just one angle in the prism of what might have gone wrong or what did they (whoever the they may be ) did wrong. 

Regarding Landis’ credibility, we know the guy’s got credibility problems. But, the investigating arm does not need a “stable” witness, what they need is documented evidence that points to actual usage, be it a piece of email, document, etc. It is after all, evidence that can implicate individuals. Landis, in this case, was a tool, a whistle blower, however unstable he may be.

I am not for or against anyone in this case, I’m just an observer, and the overall effect of this case may be over and above what any of our blogs can try to simplify.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

I feel like this Landis thing has got a lot more people raising an eyebrow at LA. Sooner or later, Lance is going to really be put under the microscope.

Yes, I understand the whole "Lance is the most highly tested athlete out there" concept, but from what I understand, there really was not an accurate test for EPO during many of Lance's wins. EPO levels drop dramatically from injection date to test date too as far as I know. I think it is easy to inject EPO on a Monday, for example, and be tested on Wednesday with no problem.

I hope Lance is not found guilty, but my oh my...I have a feeling the feces is about to hit the oscillator....


----------



## 97G8tr (Jul 31, 2007)

Perception is reality and the SI piece that I received today doesn't do LA any favors with p.r. That said, most of the public will look at the team pic with several of the riders either banned, investigated, or under suspicion and the public thinks that with all of this, there must be some truth to the story..not unlike Bonds/Canseco/A-Rod etc.

The biggest issue at hand, per the article, is the use of Federal money for a blood doping program. 

Regardless of your take, this doesn't paint cycling in a good light.


----------



## ronnoX (Mar 30, 2009)

Blood doping is not illegal in the United States. It is against USA Cycling rules but it is not a crime. Those that keep referencing Bonds are forgetting, he was not found guilty of taking PED's. He was found guilty of lying under oath. In Europe doping is a crime, not in the United States.


----------



## izzyfly (Jul 10, 2009)

ronnoX said:


> Blood doping is not illegal in the United States. It is against USA Cycling rules but it is not a crime. Those that keep referencing Bonds are forgetting, he was not found guilty of taking PED's. He was found guilty of lying under oath. In Europe doping is a crime, not in the United States.


So what's the difference between Bonds saying he didn't take PEDs when there was evidence that shows he did, and the USPS cycling management saying the riders were not taking PEDs (evidence, if it does exist, which we are not privy to yet) - would not the latter also be a potential perjury offense against the management team? It is also interesting that the FEDs are not so much after who or if drugs were taken per se, but how much of the truth was cloaked by the cycling management team. Basically they wanna know if there was some form of deception.


----------



## Comer (Jan 13, 2009)

I hope so. Actually, I wish the Feds were as worried about the fraud committed by our congressmen and president on a daily basis. Something that actually affects us.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

ronnoX said:


> Blood doping is not illegal in the United States. It is against USA Cycling rules but it is not a crime. Those that keep referencing Bonds are forgetting, he was not found guilty of taking PED's. He was found guilty of lying under oath. In Europe doping is a crime, not in the United States.


Are "blood doping" and injecting EPO hormone into your skin the same thing?


----------



## Mosovich (Feb 3, 2004)

*Reality to me is this..*

How can numerous teammates of his get busted, all his competition be doping.. Ullrich, spanish dude, Zulle, Mayo and co. and he still beat them.. I mean, how can a clean rider beat all the dopers? That's what I keep coming back to! I mean he was the strongest on the team, and he was the cleanest? I don't get that... I understand being gifted, but still...


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Comer said:


> I hope so. Actually, I wish the Feds were as worried about the fraud committed by our congressmen and president on a daily basis. Something that actually affects us.


I agree - I wish as much energy was spent investigating BP, Enron, Haliburton and wall street firms and banks - these guys perform fraud on the scale of $ hundreds of billions and they get away with it. 

Also makes me wonder if Armstrong foundation, Nike, other sponsors and Armstrong's political connections will make the whole thing go mysteriously away - at least after a few months once investigation stalls due to lack of evidence, which I think it might. They need paper trail, money trail, blood, syringes or other evidence. Going around asking riders non-specific questions like "Have you ever seen LA use blood doping? Have you ever seen his fridge full of blood bags?" is not going to get very far. Specific dates and facts could be a problem too. Do you remember where you were on a specific date back in 2003? I don't. Most people could easily and honestly answer "I do not recall" and not face perjury.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*all heresay*

all his word against theirs
and by this admission after "Positively False" his word ain't worth rubbing 2 sticks together

so then go to his motivation
I sympathize with him wanting to come clean
what's the purpose of implicating all the others, including his friends (like Zabriskie)?
a good attorney would have a field day with him


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*no they are not*



rydbyk said:


> Are "blood doping" and injecting EPO hormone into your skin the same thing?


Blood Doping typically means adding rbc's (typically your own) that have been centrifuged from the plasma back into the bloodstream

EPO is a drug that causes the body to produce more rbcs

end result same (higher H-Crit)


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

izzyfly said:


> So what's the difference between Bonds saying he didn't take PEDs when there was evidence that shows he did, and the USPS cycling management saying the riders were not taking PEDs (evidence, if it does exist, which we are not privy to yet) - would not the latter also be a potential perjury offense against the management team?


The difference is that Bonds said it to a grand jury while under oath _and_ under penalty of perjury.


----------



## ronnoX (Mar 30, 2009)

Mosovich said:


> How can numerous teammates of his get busted, all his competition be doping.. I mean, how can a clean rider beat all the dopers? That's what I keep coming back to! I mean he was the strongest on the team, and he was the cleanest? I don't get that... I understand being gifted, but still...



Until Alberto fails a test we have to assume he is clean


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

ronnoX said:


> Until Alberto fails a test we have to assume he is clean


Same for Lance?


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

ronnoX said:


> Until Alberto fails a test we have to assume he is clean


As Puerto records indicate, someone with initials A.C. riding for Liberty-Seguros Wurth team was a client of Dr. Fuentes. Too bad we will never figure out who this mysterious "A.C." person could be.


----------



## ronnoX (Mar 30, 2009)

rydbyk said:


> Same for Lance?


Sure. Same for all of them. My statement was tongue in cheek because I knew they were referring to Lance but it could just as easily been any number of riders. 

I know what I think goes on but until there is indisputable proof...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

55x11 said:


> As Puerto records indicate, someone with initials A.C. riding for Liberty-Seguros Wurth team was a client of Dr. Fuentes. Too bad we will never figure out who this mysterious "A.C." person could be.



I can't think of any big name guys with those initials. Wait a second...yep. Alberto Contador. Nailed it!


----------

