# Kimmage on Landis



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage#comment-84924

This is a LONG... read and goes into lots of details. I found it very interesting and sad... I've not been fond of FL but reading thru this I do now have a better understanding of why he lied... IMO he is telling the truth now.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

The most shocking thing here is,13 Capuccinos?


----------



## vandalbob (Dec 13, 2001)

*Wow.*

regardless of what you think about Landis or Kimmage, this is one good read.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

A highly recommended read. He implicates Pereiro, Boogerd, Barry and Van Petegem, among others. 

I'm no Floyd fan, but it's remarkable to see how Floyd loses everything, while Contador gets a one-year *****-slap, isn't kicked off Saxo Bank, and appears will be ready to ride the Tour in 2012.


----------



## clipz (Aug 28, 2008)

wow that was interesting and long. i agree i think there is alot of truth to what was said in that interview


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

the truth hurts


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

Awesome interview. I still need a day or two to process it, but I think I'm a Floyd fan again.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Thanks for posting this. I'm only part way through it and really enjoying it.


----------



## frpax (Feb 13, 2010)

Wow. What an interview... Talk about speaking freely and candidly... Holy cow!


----------



## Sasquatch (Feb 3, 2004)

this is a must read for all cycling fans. its finally out that those who have the power to clean up the sport are doing the complete opposite.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

If anything in Pro cycling has a ring of truth to it, it's that interview. That would make Floyd out to (at least recently) be a brave man, and Lance to be a prick.

If your opinion differs, I'm OK with that.


----------



## jjjdc1 (Oct 3, 2006)

I am a Lance fan, not a big Floyd fan but this interview is very informative. It is hard to read all that and think it is all made up. If it is all true Floyd really got the shaft, and Lance pulled the wool over my eyes.

I am a cancer survivor and Livestrong fan, i hope Livestrong is bigger than Lance if he is pinched.

jjjdc1


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

Great article. Always been a Floyd Fan (though never assumed he was innocent) got concerned when he went what appeared to be batsh!t crazy last year, but understand now. Am even more of a fan now.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

That was a read every cycling fan needs to read - failure to do so is just burying your head in the sand. I'll admit, I always liked the guy - I used to race mountain bikes against him when he was 17 and he was crazy fast and so young to boot. His whole upbringing was crazy too. I was pissed at him with the whole LeMond thing - it was just such a low blow - I knew about his father inlaw killing himself, but never all the details.

I do admit, the whole drug thing is getting old and is turning me off to the sport - I think we all want to think we see a clean tour, when all we're seeing is riders change their tactics since the tests change. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence on LA and look, a smoking gun is literally circumstantial evidence. The Simeoni thing, though, was a dark day for cycling - that was just straight up bullying and then LA comes back to the sport and says "I was just following his wheel" - now that's a bunch of bullcrap.

Great read, stayed up till midnight reading it.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

Two versions of the Kimmage/Landis interview are available: one in the Sunday Times the other in nyvelocity.com.

I have read that the reason for the two different versions being released is that the version appearing in nyvelocity.com would be of more interest to the cycling specific audience (or something to that effect). For those of you who have read both versions, can you please share your thoughts on whether you believe this to be true?

Another question - in the version appearing in the Sunday Times, does Kimmage/Landis "name names" as in the nyvelocity.com version?

I'm curious to hear more about this - as it is easier to bring a suit for libel in the U.K. than it is in the U.S. - and I wonder if this could be an underlying reason for two versions of the interview being released.

Regards.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

NextTime said:


> Two versions of the Kimmage/Landis interview are available: one in the Sunday Times the other in nyvelocity.com.
> 
> I have read that the reason for the two different versions being released is that the version appearing in nyvelocity.com would be of more interest to the cycling specific audience (or something to that effect). For those of you who have read both versions, can you please share your thoughts on whether you believe this to be true?
> 
> ...


For the Sunday times, the article went in the "magazine" section, rather than the sports section so it was not really targeting cycling/sports fans (not many readers will have heard of van Petegem). The Sunday Times article is much shorter, and more focused on the human interest than on the sport itself. As for the libel issue, that is a very good point.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

PhatTalc said:


> As for the libel issue, that is a very good point.


But wouldn't Floyd need assets in order to be sued?


----------



## bnoojin (Mar 24, 2002)

*against the grain*



fornaca68 said:


> A highly recommended read. He implicates Pereiro, Boogerd, Barry and Van Petegem, among others.
> 
> I'm no Floyd fan, but it's remarkable to see how Floyd loses everything, while Contador gets a one-year *****-slap, isn't kicked off Saxo Bank, and appears will be ready to ride the Tour in 2012.


I think the difference is that Floyd wants to name everyone, including the UCI. other riders have gone down and rebounded because they kept all that they knew to themselves. as the interview says, Vaughters advised FL to admit it and not name names, he'd probably have rebounded like all those other guys. Floyd feels compelled to bring everyone in.

not saying it's wrong or right, but if he's viewed by the industry as whizzing in the pool, spitting in the soup, etc., then it's not surprising at all that he's been blacklisted.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

fornaca68 said:


> A highly recommended read. He implicates Pereiro, Boogerd, Barry and Van Petegem, among others.
> 
> I'm no Floyd fan, but it's remarkable to see how Floyd loses everything, while Contador gets a one-year *****-slap, isn't kicked off Saxo Bank, and appears will be ready to ride the Tour in 2012.



I agree with you here. I started having those feelings with the Valverde debacle. Valverde was still riding, still being a star, winning GT's after getting caught, and such. Floyd got caught and boy did he ever get thrown under the bus. Everybody hates him. What Landis did was wrong, but there is a double standard.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

thechriswebb said:


> I agree with you here. I started having those feelings with the Valverde debacle. Valverde was still riding, still being a star, winning GT's after getting caught, and such. Floyd got caught and boy did he ever get thrown under the bus. Everybody hates him. What Landis did was wrong, but there is a double standard.


There's definitely a double standard. 

Floyd made the blacklist along with Hamilton, Rasmussen, Ullrich, Heras, Pantani, and all the others whose careers ended with a doping violation. Heck, Floyd was told by Garmin and Shack that he'd put the team's TdF invite in jeopardy if they signed him.

Then there are the riders such as Vino, Millar, Basso, and others who didn't make the blacklist, ie, they made there ways back to the TdF.

WTF?


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Assuming what Landis said were all true, this article is surprising to me for several reasons:

 The depth of the collusion in support of Armstrong, within the UCI, USA Cycling, and possibly USADA and WADA. Verbruggen, Ochowitz, et al. Hence, the double standard and treatment of riders. 
 The openness with which dopers talk about doping in the peloton, even across opposing teams. Well, Pereiro and Landis were teammates in 2005, but Boogerd never was. And in the full view of the entire pedaling peloton, really?? 
 The back-and-forth between Landis, Armstrong, and Bruyneel during the Simeoni chase. 
 There are still pockets of seemingly decent characters. Landis made Rihs come across as a genuine guy, but not clear on Rihs' stance on doping? His team was plagued by the positives of Camenzind, Hamilton, Gutierrez, and then Landis all in only a few years. 
I can't wait to find out what we can from the Novitzky investigation, even if doping itself may not be the main target. It would be great to someday find out how things worked (or didn't) with Hamilton's comeback attempt.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

fornaca68 said:


> A highly recommended read. He implicates Pereiro, Boogerd, Barry and Van Petegem, among others.
> 
> I'm no Floyd fan, but it's remarkable to see how Floyd loses everything, while Contador gets a one-year *****-slap, isn't kicked off Saxo Bank, and appears will be ready to ride the Tour in 2012.


And people wonder why he is so pissed. Can you blame him? 

Corruption in cycling may be the big brother to doping in cycling.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

orange_julius said:


> Assuming what Landis said were all true, this article is surprising to me for several reasons:
> 
> The depth of the collusion in support of Armstrong, within the UCI, USA Cycling, and possibly USADA and WADA. Verbruggen, Ochowitz, et al. Hence, the double standard and treatment of riders.
> *The openness with which dopers talk about doping in the peloton, even across opposing teams. Well, Pereiro and Landis were teammates in 2005, but Boogerd never was. And in the full view of the entire pedaling peloton, really?? *
> ...


I'm not suprised at all at those comments. I could totally see athletes doing that.

I just finished it and just feel sad for Floyd. No matter what, he's lost a lot in this battle and that may include his mind. Hope he gets his head cleared.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Never really understood how Vino got to ride the Tour last year, or LBL, for that matter. (The ASO owns both.) Remember all the wailing and crying because Vino couldn't ride in 2006 because too many of his Astana-Würth teammates couldn't start because of Puerto? Then Astana is barred from the 2008, officially because of the previous year offenses. But then Vino gets nailed during the TDF, and they still let him back in??? 

WTF indeed.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

orange_julius said:


> Assuming what Landis said were all true, this article is surprising to me for several reasons:
> 
> The depth of the collusion in support of Armstrong, within the UCI, USA Cycling, and possibly USADA and WADA. Verbruggen, Ochowitz, et al. Hence, the double standard and treatment of riders.
> The openness with which dopers talk about doping in the peloton, even across opposing teams. Well, Pereiro and Landis were teammates in 2005, but Boogerd never was. And in the full view of the entire pedaling peloton, really??
> ...



The thing I'm having trouble reconciling is that-correct me if I got this wrong- FL seemed to imply that part of the reason that his positive was not covered up was because he didn't play ball with Postal which would indicate that Postal, or people connected to it, held sway with the UCI. Yet in the early part of the interview Landis describes being asked to apologize to the UCI for comments made which would indicate that Postal was somewhat at the mercy of the UCI. The 2 scenarios seem somewhat at odds......


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

slegros said:


> The thing I'm having trouble reconciling is that-correct me if I got this wrong- FL seemed to imply that part of the reason that his positive was not covered up was because he didn't play ball with Postal which would indicate that Postal, or people connected to it, held sway with the UCI. Yet in the early part of the interview Landis describes being asked to apologize to the UCI for comments made which would indicate that Postal was somewhat at the mercy of the UCI. The 2 scenarios seem somewhat at odds......


Sorry, no, I read it as he needed to apologize to the UCI for all the crap he said about them not following through on his pay.
.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

orange_julius said:


> I can't wait to find out what we can from the Novitzky investigation, even if doping itself may not be the main target. It would be great to someday find out how things worked (or didn't) with Hamilton's comeback attempt.


I find it very sad the double standards, I wish more would just speak out, but I guess they are afraid of the getting on the 'black' list, so they just lie....... I would love for Kimmage to do a interview like that with Hamilton... I would really like to hear the actual 'truth' from Hamilton.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

pedalruns said:


> I find it very sad the double standards, I wish more would just speak out, but I guess they are afraid of the getting on the 'black' list, so they just lie....... I would love for Kimmage to do a interview like that with Hamilton... I would really like to hear the actual 'truth' from Hamilton.


I agree!! +1!


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

I found Landis' email to Kimmage regarding the differences in the handling of his case and Contador's interesting. Never drew the connection before, but FL was sort of tossed under the bus, while AC's case was handled much differently.

To quote Landis referring to Pat McQuaid and the AC situation:

"****! I hate this *******. He announced my positive before I was notified and then requested my B sample be tested before I had a chance to decide (an unprecedented move by the UCI) and now he’s all over the map with his opinions. Not to mention it’s suspicious that he knows the timing of the verdict in a case which is completely removed from the UCI. What a joke."


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

ronderman said:


> Sorry, no, I read it as he needed to apologize to the UCI for all the crap he said about them not following through on his pay.
> .


Bingo.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

pedalruns said:


> I find it very sad the double standards, I wish more would just speak out, but I guess they are afraid of the getting on the 'black' list, so they just lie....... I would love for Kimmage to do a interview like that with Hamilton... I would really like to hear the actual 'truth' from Hamilton.


I'd also add to that list of show and tell,
Jan Ullrich
Ivan Basso
Alberto Contador
Alejandro Valverde
Alexandre Vinokourov
Jonathan Vaughters
Frank Schleck
Roberto Heras
Bjarne Riis (the team owner)
Johan Bruyneel (the team manager)
Michael Rasmussen
and finally the most rotten of them all
Pat McQuaid


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

slegros said:


> The thing I'm having trouble reconciling is that-correct me if I got this wrong- FL seemed to imply that part of the reason that his positive was not covered up was because he didn't play ball with Postal which would indicate that Postal, or people connected to it, held sway with the UCI. Yet in the early part of the interview Landis describes being asked to apologize to the UCI for comments made which would indicate that Postal was somewhat at the mercy of the UCI. The 2 scenarios seem somewhat at odds......


I don't think the implication was that was the only thing, just one of the things.

They aren't really contradictory anyway. If you "dispense favors" to a certain group of people, and then members of that same group of people publicly insult you how likely are you to continue to grant favors?

In other words, Lance and Postal was good for business and so UCI was willing to do a few favors, but offend them and they might not be so willing to grant those same favors in the future.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

slegros said:


> The thing I'm having trouble reconciling is that-correct me if I got this wrong- FL seemed to imply that part of the reason that his positive was not covered up was because he didn't play ball with Postal which would indicate that Postal, or people connected to it, held sway with the UCI. Yet in the early part of the interview Landis describes being asked to apologize to the UCI for comments made which would indicate that Postal was somewhat at the mercy of the UCI. The 2 scenarios seem somewhat at odds......


Naw this is really just a matter of two criminal enterprises working together towards the same goal.....money. 

The UCI once they have the goods on you, it's simply a matter of bribing them to keep quite and it doesn't hurt to sweet talk them a little to. 

The problem for me is no one else is coming forward about Lance getting those blood transfusions. If I was Lance I would have had my own room and trusted assistant giving me transfusions out of sight of everyone else. You simply can't trust anyone. And yet all these riders on other teams are doing this same thing and all these years it took people watching out for high HCT levels to bust them. So do you have to be a member of the cycling mob and prove yourself in order to be trusted by these teams to get to see what they're really doing to win? Why didn't someone sneak a hidden camera into one of these team buses. Why would anyone transfuse blood in the open when a team mate or crew member could have snapped a photo on a cell phone and used it to blackmail when Lance is getting a $10mil bonus for each tour.

I hate to say it, but Floyd lost his credibility and even though I believe Lance obviously doped, I can't trust that this guy is telling the whole truth. Personally I'm shocked that he didn't end up killing himself with his minimal knowledge of collecting, storing and transfusing blood. The story about keeping it in ice water had me thinking he could have possibly froze and hemolyzed his blood. Then there's the problem of storing the blood and transporting it to the race which has to be done in large containers with plenty of ice. Then if something gets mixed up and you get the wrong blood with the wrong ABO type your dead, or your heading for kidney and liver failure. I wonder if these guys realize the risks.


----------



## 196nautique (Sep 23, 2005)

Some similarities between Jose Canseco and Floyd Landis-

Both took years to admit to doping.
Both blame the establishment for blacklisting them when they still wanted to compete.
When both finally admitted to doping, they both blamed teammates that were bigger stars.

So-

The fallout from Canseco was a congressional hearing that made the players look foolish. Several still lied, others refused to answer the questions. But the result was people realized how dirty baseball was/is. Now stars get popped (A-Rod, Manny) and it is quickly forgotten. I don't think baseball is any cleaner, I just think the dopers are a step ahead.

The fallout from Landis? I expect that shortly we will see riders get formally accused of, or forced to testify about doping. I expect a few to maintain their innocence, I expect more to dodge the questions, and I expect the fewest number to admit to doping. I believe since there is no way to tell when the doping started getting ridiculous, that this era will just be referred to as the doping era, and will carry a stigma. I also believe doping will continue, and there will always be ways to stay ahead of the tests. Unfortunately, I just don't see a time in the future when there aren't people getting caught, and it is naive to think the racing will be clean.

Soo......

When does Landis start pulling the crazy money making schemes that Canseco did? Can we see Floyd do some MMA? Can we pay him to hang out with us for a day?


----------



## jjjdc1 (Oct 3, 2006)

196nautique said:


> Some similarities between Jose Canseco and Floyd Landis-
> So-
> The fallout from Canseco was a congressional hearing that made the players look foolish. Several still lied, others refused to answer the questions. But the result was people realized how dirty baseball was/is. Now stars get popped (A-Rod, Manny) and it is quickly forgotten. I don't think baseball is any cleaner, I just think the dopers are a step ahead.




Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire. All seemingly pinched for doping circumstantially anyway. These guys shut up, and slide into the shadows. The only fall out we will hear about them is how they did not get elected into the Baseball Hall of fame. These guys cheated, and directly impacted the game through the cheating and yet they get a pass. Like it was said above it is quickly forgotten, perhaps because we don't want to admit that these "superhuman" athletes are really not superhuman, or we just don't care. The machine is much bigger than one disgruntled cyclist, unfortunately I think it would take the majority of the people involved in the game to come forward to make a difference. One or two people can be discredited, thrown under the bus and blacklisted too easily, or made to look like a crazy fool. Truth or lies Floyd is facing a huge uphill battle, unless the Feds come up with hard evidence, these guys can shut up and stay in the shadows. I want to hear that Lance is clean and has been clean, but I fear that I am fooling myself. Its a tough thought for me, because I am a cancer survivor, one that Livestrong has had a huge impact on. Lance is part of Livestrong but ultimately its the survivors, advocates and those involved in the fight that make up Livestrong.

Josh


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

jjjdc1 said:


> Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire. All seemingly pinched for doping circumstantially anyway. These guys shut up, and slide into the shadows. The only fall out we will hear about them is how they did not get elected into the Baseball Hall of fame. These guys cheated, and directly impacted the game through the cheating and yet they get a pass. Like it was said above it is quickly forgotten, perhaps because we don't want to admit that these "superhuman" athletes are really not superhuman, or we just don't care. The machine is much bigger than one disgruntled cyclist, unfortunately I think it would take the majority of the people involved in the game to come forward to make a difference. One or two people can be discredited, thrown under the bus and blacklisted too easily, or made to look like a crazy fool. Truth or lies Floyd is facing a huge uphill battle, unless the Feds come up with hard evidence, these guys can shut up and stay in the shadows. I want to hear that Lance is clean and has been clean, but I fear that I am fooling myself. Its a tough thought for me, because I am a cancer survivor, one that Livestrong has had a huge impact on. Lance is part of Livestrong but ultimately its the survivors, advocates and those involved in the fight that make up Livestrong.
> 
> Josh


I think many people need to de-couple what Armstrong and other riders did in order to be successful from their non-cycling contributions to society - such as Armstrong's Livestrong foundation. It is possible to use doping while competing, and at the same time want to help others fight cancer. In fact, it is possible to use doping and be otherwise a compassionate, decent human being who is kind to his friends and family. Hamilton is probably a good example - he sounds like a very nice, down-to-earth guy who I would enjoy hanging out with. Same for Hincapie or Millar or Levi or Zabriskie.

Where do we get this idea that people who doped must be evil, terrible scum of the earth individuals who hate puppies? Pro cyclists are flawed human beings, but it doesn't mean they cannot be decent in other ways. Similarly, there could be plenty of "supposedly" clean riders who generally come off as *******s.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

55x11 said:


> I think many people need to de-couple what Armstrong and other riders did in order to be successful from their non-cycling contributions to society - such as Armstrong's Livestrong foundation. It is possible to use doping while competing, and at the same time want to help others fight cancer. In fact, it is possible to use doping and be otherwise a compassionate, decent human being who is kind to his friends and family. Hamilton is probably a good example - he sounds like a very nice, down-to-earth guy who I would enjoy hanging out with. Same for Hincapie or Millar or Levi or Zabriskie.
> 
> Where do we get this idea that people who doped must be evil, terrible scum of the earth individuals who hate puppies? Pro cyclists are flawed human beings, but it doesn't mean they cannot be decent in other ways. Similarly, there could be plenty of "supposedly" clean riders who generally come off as *******s.


For me of course someone can dope and want to end cancer - I'm not sure I could ever NOT see it that way. With that said, I have an issue with LA profiting off doping and profiting from cancer. Livestrong .com or .org - what is it? It's purposely nebulous. Hope rides again - yea, hope and dope. Also, how can one claim to want to end cancer, but then put stuff into their bodies that causes serious medical issues - so much science doesn't yet know. LA should have separated the two a long time ago and he didn't - you can't claim to be the hope of the world and cheat at the same time - that is on it's face a pretty crappy thing to do.

Again, that's my issue with it - his whole possible jerkyness, that's just a side thing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

heathb said:


> Naw this is really just a matter of two criminal enterprises working together towards the same goal.....money.
> 
> The UCI once they have the goods on you, it's simply a matter of bribing them to keep quite and it doesn't hurt to sweet talk them a little to.
> 
> ...


Not exactly. The WSJ has talked with 4 teammates who have confirmed that there was doping on the team. Several support staff as well.  Hincapie has been cooperating with the Feds and Floyd has not told publicly all of his evidence.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

I am surprised how many people are taken in by anything Floyd has to say, what a bunch of rubbish and how affable. 

The guy has had plenty of time to learn his story and get it straight not to mention HOW to tell it. He stole money from fans under a false pretense, he published a book about his innocence then another about his guilt. Good grief Chuck, he made threatening phone calls to Lemond blackmailing him to expose his sexual abuse? wth?

its an old tale

Falsetti, you beat the drum pretty hard on Armstrong and fail to differentiate between a person being "bad" and being a doper. Whatever Lance did during the Tour, whatever he did on his bike, doesn't for a minute compete with the factual indictments of the slime Landis has covered himself with. I'll remind you Lance has yet to be formally charged with anything. Certainly Livestrong could be streamlined more fiscally but it is not the vehicle for LA's pockets that you make it out to be and I'd wager has done more good than many other charities and less than some too

I'm sure there is some truth in some of what Landis has to say but who would listen? I remind you to consider his immediate past and his behavior. It is atrocious and he lost his wife, his career, his money, his prestige, and the privilege to race which is his passion. He is a pathological liar which has yet once again stolen the spot light thanks to Kimmage - and Kimmage is more than willing to use a pathological liar to paint Lance as the evil in cycling

There is unfairness in sport, there is unfairness in life, that is the truth. There is doping in sport and some get away with it and some don't. All jobs require some diplomacy and some people possess that talent and some don't. People in power support and weigh the drawbacks and implications of people who break the rules, again unfair but true in every work place. It is a common occurrence, favoritism, triangulations, etc 

Try to read the news with a discerning eye and distance yourself from your prejudice which Falsetti you fail to do on a regular basis in my opinion

I have no idea if Lance doped, nor would I judge him as a human being if he did because I also know he inspired millions and spent time with cancer patients ( something I bet you can't claim ) not to mention he gave great awareness to cancer and cycling and he is more fun to watch ride a bike than almost anyone else in the field because of the very same things that piss everyone off about controversial people. I do doubt a meticulous guy like that would be doping in front of everyone so recklessly, a guy who speaks several languages fluently, who sacrifices everything compulsively to ride and win, would be so thoughtless as to the greatest risk of exposure in an era where media rules 

Floyd is clinging to any string he can to stay in the spotlight; legalize doping? really? he clearly thought that through. His latest contribution is equally researched I'm sure

I hope we can all see Floyd for what he is, desperate. If Lance comes out guilty it won't be good for anyone except pundits who find satisfaction in seeing the sport and others suffer. It won't change a lot, the game will go on 

be safe out on the road


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

Everything in the above posting - I feel almost exactly the opposite.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Chilli -

you see Floyd as a victim? Or just the guy who was hung out to dry? 

Either way he is a doper, thief, committed liar, attempted to blackmail a Tour legend, published a book under a lie, and has gone to great lengths to alienate the sport and it's riders. 

don't get me wrong, questioning authority and tradition is a good thing in my view. Like I said I'm sure there is some truth, but he is clearly pathological and desperate. Kimmage calling his stage 17 ride the greatest of all time is really hard to stomach

what can you identify with Floyd that you hold so hard against Lance or other cyclists who have been convicted of doping? 

there has been some laughable stuff in cycling but Landis isn't funny, it is tragic and sad. The only other individual that comes to mind with such self destructive tendencies would be FVB

I just don't see any redeeming values from this guy and it isn't like I have to prove he is nuts, he has done that

not sure why arbitrarily everything he says in a backslapping interview with Kimmage all of a sudden changes Landis to a normal down to earth believable person.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

CARBON110 said:


> Floyd is clinging to any string he can to stay in the spotlight; legalize doping? really? he clearly thought that through. His latest contribution is equally researched I'm sure


Try reading the interview. Seriously. I was skeptical and felt much the same way as you, but now I'm cruising eBay for "Phloyd" t-shirts.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

There really are no likable characters in this drama. Even Kimmage is an ass. I'll be happy to see all of them ride off into the sunset.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

ElvisMerckx said:


> Try reading the interview. Seriously. I was skeptical and felt much the same way as you, but now I'm cruising eBay for "Phloyd" t-shirts.


that's pretty funny hah

I did read some of it, then stopped when I considered how it was written and worded and the sources it came from. It's hog wash, read it for what it is, press for 2 flunkies who deserve the same company 

I could relate to Floyd right up until he did the Lemond phone calls and took $500K from donations in the Floyd Fairness Fund which must fall under some liable fraud right? $500K!

we all are subject to emotional hostility and to unfair treatment in our professional life at one time or another but if you roll the dice by breaking the rules, you can't really act surprised all of a sudden and pretend like you only had 2 choices ~ to cheat or be cheated! what a sales pitch of bs. 

he is a con man through and through. Poor form in the public eye is one thing, an error in judgment perhaps another, but this is pure narcissism. A grandiose view of himself and his talent, craving adulation at any expense, at every expense.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

Everything depends on whether George rolls over on his old buddy or not.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

CARBON110 said:


> I did read some of it, then stopped ...


Read the article. Once you've read it, feel free to spout off - it might even give you more ammo against him. However it will clarify many of your issues with Floyd.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

ElvisMerckx said:


> Read the article. Once you've read it, feel free to spout off - it might even give you more ammo against him. However it will clarify many of your issues with Floyd.



Will do Elvis, 

thanks!


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

culdeus said:


> Everything depends on whether George rolls over on his old buddy or not.


Kinda reminds me of Andy Petite and Roger Clemens.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*Good read..*

Thanks for posting. I have been wondering if sooner or later everyone (minus individuals such as Lance etc..) in and around cycling will actually thank Floyd for doing what he has done.

If Floyd is being honest in that interview, I found the idea of speaking freely from team to team about doping and "cheating" in the peloton to be shocking 

What happens in the peloton...stays in the peloton


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yes, thats right*



Gatorback said:


> And people wonder why he is so pissed. Can you blame him?
> 
> Corruption in cycling may be the big brother to doping in cycling.


OR how about Virenque.

He was NOT welcomed at the TDF and rode anyway.

NEVER tested positive , but confessed.

Came back over a year out of competition and won Ventoux at the TDF...............AND THEY CHEERED

Its not fair for a standard of ethics, but at this point, it is fair because THEY ALL DOPED


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> I did read some of it, then stopped when I considered how it was written and worded and the sources it came from. It's hog wash, read it for what it is, press for 2 flunkies who deserve the same company....
> 
> ...Floyd is clinging to any string he can to stay in the spotlight; legalize doping? really?


Like Elvis said, you have to read the whole interview. You're basing your judgements on the snippets you read from the cycling press. As everybody knows, the press tend to publish only the parts that create the best entertainment value, which often represents a very distorted view of the truth. At least by reading Floyd's view, you get both sides of the story, and then can intelligently attempt to reconcile both views. He addresses the "legalize doping" comment and gives some context that you may find enlightening.

At the very least, it makes for a very entertaining read, so I recommend it.

A lot of people do the same thing with Lemond. They judge him as a hater and bitter old man who just hates that Lance stole the spotlight from him based on the little snippets they read. I've had the pleasure of meeting him and listening him talk for a few hours and found the exact opposite to be true. This interview with Floyd gives me a similar sense of seeing the big picture.

Disclaimer: I am a Lemond fan, and his wins in the TDF got me into cycling. But both he and Floyd, and Lance for that matter are not angels and all seem to have their internal demons they are dealing with. People who compete at that level very often seem to have a bunch of mental and emotional issues. Being OCD probably is very good for an athlete who must adhere to strict training regimen, and having high levels of self-confidence is probably necessary as well. But a haughty OCD person doesn't make for a very pleasant person to be around. So when I say I'm a fan, I mean I'm a fan of his accomplishments, and it affected my life, but I don't idolize him as a person.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

CARBON110 said:


> that's pretty funny hah
> 
> I did read some of it, then stopped when I considered how it was written and worded and the sources it came from. It's hog wash, read it for what it is, press for 2 flunkies who deserve the same company
> 
> ...


You may want to read the interview. The vast majority of FFF donations came from friends of Armstrong and investors in Tailwind. Floyd told many of them the truth up front. 

regardless I do agree that those that still question Floyd's words have a very valid reasons. Good thing he is far from the only guy talking


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

CARBON110 said:


> I have no idea if Lance doped, nor would I judge him as a human being if he did because I also know he inspired millions and spent time with cancer patients ( something I bet you can't claim ) not to mention he gave great awareness to cancer and cycling and he is more fun to watch ride a bike than almost anyone else in the field because of the very same things that piss everyone off about controversial people. I do doubt a meticulous guy like that would be doping in front of everyone so recklessly, a guy who speaks several languages fluently, who sacrifices everything compulsively to ride and win, would be so thoughtless as to the greatest risk of exposure in an era where media rules


This is right where you lose me - you say that Landis is a liar and he has had forever to codify his story.

Then you basically say people dope and life isn't fair - OK. 

Then you play the cancer card, OK, fine. 

Look at the first line - you don't care if he doped and if he did you wouldn't care. So why does Lance get a pass, but not Landis. If Lance is doping you are aware he's been lying for all these years, right? Is it because Landis is taking Lance down? Well if it's that then surely Lance did the same thing with crap like Simieoni (or however it's spelled). To me, this is all very inconsistent. One guy gets a pass and the other doesn't.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

ronderman said:


> This is right where you lose me - you say that Landis is a liar and he has had forever to codify his story.
> 
> Then you basically say people dope and life isn't fair - OK.
> 
> ...



Simplify it.

1 guy tested positive.
1 guy did not.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

DMFT said:


> Simplify it.
> 
> 1 guy tested positive.
> 1 guy did not.


Ok, fair enough, but it's not really that black and white.

You do know that LA basically tested positive for EPO in 1999? Right, you do know that - it was after the tour since they didn't have a test for EPO in 1999, but basically it's all there.

Also, you do know that Landis, who clearly and absolutely did dope, was busted when the lab most certainly didn't properly handle his samples correctly. 

I think it's fair to say they both got busted, one publicly the other not so. 

But still, yea, you're right, one has a record and the other doesn't. Fine. I suspect, though, give a few months and this story will change drastically.

Not failing a dope test is like a car fax report, it's worthless, it only has worth when the report contains something.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You may want to read the interview. The vast majority of FFF donations came from friends of Armstrong and investors in Tailwind. Floyd told many of them the truth up front.
> 
> regardless I do agree that those that still question Floyd's words have a very valid reasons. Good thing he is far from the only guy talking



Floyd told people who gave him money up-front that he was quilty? 
- Sources please.......

Keep in mind people - This "interview" was taken around Thanksgiving-time. Many snippets of his side of things/the past have been already thrown out there by FL.
Now Kimmage edits the interview to make it read as something sensational (which is the job he is paid to do) and this is "all new"...... Sorry, FL has issues, serious issues. 
Just look at every time he say's "so-and-so said this" he backs it up with "I don't recall if it was so-and-so or so-and-so.

And I'm not sayin' anyone that FL talks about is a saint either or get's a pass.....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> Simplify it.
> 
> 1 guy tested positive.
> 1 guy did not.


3 positives for Testosterone, 1 for Cortisone, 7 positives for EPO....didn't you get the memo? The new talking point is "Never Sanctioned" and "done a lot of good"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> Floyd told people who gave him money up-front that he was quilty?
> - Sources please.......
> ..


You did not read the interview did you? 



> What about the bigger donors? You did tell some of those?
> 
> The majority of them, yeah, because a lot of them had a financial interest either in Tailwind Sports or with USA Cycling and I figured I’d tell them the facts and if they helped then….


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> 3 positives for Testosterone, 1 for Cortisone, 7 positives for EPO....didn't you get the memo? The new talking point is "Never Sanctioned" and "done a lot of good"



Congrats! You got 1 of 4!


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You did not read the interview did you?


Great source. Floyd Landis.
- Isn't he the one that tested positive, pathologically lied about it and stole from people?

Shocking I know "Dr." but COMPLETELY believable he is.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> Great source. Floyd Landis.
> - Isn't he the one that tested positive, pathologically lied about it and stole from people?
> 
> Shocking I know "Dr." but COMPLETELY believable he is.


You might want to talk with Tiger Williams or Jeff Jacobs, they will confirm it. Floyd has been saying it for a while and none of those big donors have contradicted his statements.


----------



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> Floyd is clinging to any string he can to stay in the spotlight; legalize doping? really? he clearly thought that through. His latest contribution is equally researched I'm sure



For a long time I have been a proponent of legalized doping. Then again, I would legalize all drugs.


----------



## ragweed (Jan 2, 2009)

*Raw Documents – The Verbruggen/Landis Exchange*

Wow -- actual documents posted on Cylocosm on Floyd's salary dispute with the UCI and Verbruggen, which back up Floyd's story.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ragweed said:


> Wow -- actual documents posted on Cylocosm on Floyd's salary dispute with the UCI and Verbruggen, which back up Floyd's story.


It is amazing what an A$$ Verburggen is. His response to a legitimate plea for the UCI to follow their own rules is so petty and vindictive. It is no surprise that many question his clear lack of ethics.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is amazing what an A$$ Verburggen is. His response to a legitimate plea for the UCI to follow their own rules is so petty and vindictive. It is no surprise that many question his clear lack of ethics.


Lest we forget, Verbruggen is also the one who basically covered up Armstrong's EPOs with that ridiculous "investigation".


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Lest we forget, Verbruggen is also the one who basically covered up Armstrong's EPOs with that ridiculous "investigation".


True, it was a complete farce. Paying a friend, who made a career of getting dopers off, $600,000 to settle political scores then calling it an "Independent investigation".....it would be laughable if it was not so sad.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

DMFT said:


> Simplify it.
> 
> 1 guy tested positive.
> 1 guy did not.


A bit amazed that there still remain True Believers at this stage of the game.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

pretender said:


> A bit amazed that there still remain True Believers at this stage of the game.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

One thing is for certain - Verbruggen is an A$$HOLE. Did you see the email exchanges he had with FL this summer

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-labels-landis-a-nuisance


----------



## T-Doc (Apr 4, 2002)

1. they all dope
2. the uci is complicit
3. those that get used as sacrificial lambs, ie fodder for the press, are the un-anointed ones...FL was toast after he pissed off LA. They couldn't wait to throw him under the bus...they just can't believe he won't go quietly.
4. If you have to ask why....when they say its not the money...its the money.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I finally finished reading it. Interesting insight into Landis. I would have loved to hear his explanation for the Lemond black-mailing, since to me, that is the incident that really speaks most harshly against him being a decent person.

Not nearly as many insights into the doping game as I hoped. More confirmation that everybody in the game, knows how it's played. So Del Moral is the guy who actually administered the doping program at Postal/USPS, did we know that already?


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

Some things that really stood out for me:

The UCI sucks! Verbruggen and McQuaid are essentially petty mafiosos that give latitude to the dons that honor them and declare war on those that don't. Politics above sport seems to be the operating principle.

This validates stories I've heard about Armstrong and Bruyneel when I worked at a sponsor. Both men are arrogant, controlling, and put a premium on loyalty above all else. Maybe the reason so many ex-Postal riders got popped from 2004 onward was because they doped for a long time and whisper campaigns alerted the "authorities" to that fact? Seems like a good way to eliminate competitive threats and punish disloyalty while deflecting the spotlight from yourself.

Del Moral. No wonder Vaughters sacked Matt White at the TDU. He knows all too well what happened even if he won't be as forthcoming as Landis.

The Simeoni incident and Postal's response on the road makes sense now.

Floyd is a doper, a liar, a con man, and caused a massive trainwreck as a result of his actions. That said, he has nothing to gain at this point and I believe that he is unloading a great personal weight. It isn't pretty and it is going to piss off lots of people but he has no reason to continue the lies at this point. His career is over and his previous denials and lies make him a pariah in the sport, the industry, and the publishing world. With nothing left to lose, you often see the true character of a person. I think this interview is truthful and shows the real and genuine Floyd Landis: flawed, angry, repentant.

We'll see what happens as this gets digested and the Novitzky investigation continues forward.


----------

