# Landis: USADA offered deal for dirt on Armstrong



## steephill (Jul 14, 2005)

RBR members aren't the only ones that can't let Lance live in piece. Floyd Landis says he was offered a measly one month suspension in exchange for "incriminating information" about Lance Armstrong:

USA Today story

"We are aware that this would be a lightning rod, but the incident demonstrates the lengths to which this corrupt system will go," Michael Henson [Floyd's lawyer] said referring to the USADA offer. Earlier today, before the story was published I read a succinct blog entry raising a motive for framing Landis that fits into this reasoning.

The current RBR thread - 
Reality check: why should I still believe Lance? has some excellent points for those who can't get enough of this saga.

The puzzling issue remains. With so many riders getting caught for doping why have former Postal/Discovery riders only been implicated when riding for different teams? I've never found a good answer to these other related questions either: 
• Why are many of Armstrong's (former) good friends (Miller, Basso, Ulliich, Hamilton) lying dopers. (Miller has redeemed himself)
• What made Armstrong appear super-human for one month every year competing against doped riders?
• Why would Lance get so upset when a teammate left Postal?

One of these days I won't care because the sport is much bigger than individual riders. In the words of Bob Schwartz, "It is the spectacle that draws the fans, and the fantasy of honest competition is too resilient."


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

steephill said:


> RBR members aren't the only ones that can't let Lance live in piece. Floyd Landis says he was offered a measly one month suspension in exchange for "incriminating information" about Lance Armstrong:


So was Landis wearing a wire and have proof, or is this all part of his master plan to 
try to discredit USADA?


--------

AP) - Floyd Landis claims the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's lead attorney approached his lawyer offering "the shortest suspension they'd ever given an athlete" if Landis provided information that implicated Lance Armstrong for doping

...

USADA has a history of reducing penalties for athletes who provide evidence of doping violations by other athletes, though asking for information about specific athletes is not allowed.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

steephill said:


> The puzzling issue remains. With so many riders getting caught for doping why have former Postal/Discovery riders only been implicated when riding for different teams? I've never found a good answer to these other related questions either:
> • Why are many of Armstrong's (former) good friends (Miller, Basso, Ulliich, Hamilton) lying dopers. (Miller has redeemed himself)
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

bas said:


> So was Landis wearing a wire and have proof, or is this all part of his master plan to
> try to discredit USADA?


The sad thing is that you can't take either at their word so you have no idea what the truth is.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Call me a cynic but this just reaks of being the piece d'resistance of his PR campaign. Perfectly timed to get great exposure just before his hearing. I call BS. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is completely fabricated. FWIW, Tygert called it nonsense.

I also noticed how Armstrong was right there to chime in with something but I've yet to see anything about Basso's or Ullrich's situation come out of his mouth.

Futhermore, why would USADA be interested in Armstrong? He is (and was) retired. Think about it? What could USADA do with anything they find out about Armstrong? Hell, they can't even comment on the Landis case in public.

I see it's already (Friday morning) made it to the front of CNN's webpage. Well-played on Landis' part again. Although, for me, this has reached a Hamilton level of pathetic now.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Henry Porter said:


> The sad thing is that you can't take either at their word so you have no idea what the truth is.


Except you cannot hear the USADA's side - their rules prohibit them from commenting on current cases -- and Landis' camp knows this full well. I tend to discount anything coming from Landis' attorney as part of their "shock and awe" PR campaign. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt -- Landis, be a man (for once!) and agree to waive the USADA's gag order. Otherwise, we'll have to wait to read the outcome of the hearing .. while those who donated money to Landis' defense will be perusing their options for high-return investments in swampland.

from cyclingnews.com:

<i>"Tygert (USADA's general counsel) told ESPN that he is not allowed to comment on ongoing cases, but that "if Mr. Landis wants to waive the rule and allow USADA to comment, I will be more than happy to comment on his nonsense."</i>


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

philippec said:


> that "if Mr. Landis wants to waive the rule and allow USADA to comment, I will be more than happy to comment on his nonsense."</i>


Hey, that non-comment was a comment, see USADA doesn't follow it's own rules so Landis didn't dope


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Hey, that non-comment was a comment, see USADA doesn't follow it's own rules so Landis didn't dope


d'oohh!!


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

yeah, cycling authorities have really been hamstrung by not being allowed to comment..especially McQuaid, Pound, and certain lab members who have a direct line to L'Equipe. What's unreasonable about this story? The account out of CONI is that Basso was offered a reduced suspension for cooperation. LA might be loved by some in the public, but inside cycling the guy is the Barry Bonds of cycling. Dominating is one thing (Indurain did that) but doing it while being an arrogant prick who makes only enemies along the way is as good as putting a target on your back.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> What's unreasonable about this story?


Nothing unreasonable about them offering a reduced sentence in exchange for accepting the results of the dope tests and cooperating by giving more information. Unreasonable that this offer would have anything to do with Armstrong who was and is retired. Why would USADA have any interest in him at this point?


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

I agree. That's pretty much par for the course in prosecutions of all sorts.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Nothing unreasonable about them offering a reduced sentence in exchange for accepting the results of the dope tests and cooperating by giving more information. Unreasonable that this offer would have anything to do with Armstrong who was and is retired. Why would USADA have any interest in him at this point?


Putting aside anti-Armstrong conspiracy theories and grudges, there is a very real and legitimate reason that USADA would have interest in Armstrong if he were doping. As Lance himself has said, he never has tested positive. If the antidoping authorities are to discover doping infractions in the future, they need to know how Armstrong (and USPS/Discovery) has evaded positive results if he was doping. Many of us have remarked in other threads that it is very suspicious that USPS/Discovery has not had positive drug test results, but the alumni seem to test positive as soon as they go to another team. If Landis could tell USADA the secret that USPS/Discovery has used to evade positive tests (assuming that its riders have been doping), that would be sufficiently valuable information to justify a deal with Landis.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

MarkS said:


> Putting aside anti-Armstrong conspiracy theories and grudges, there is a very real and legitimate reason that USADA would have interest in Armstrong if he were doping. As Lance himself has said, he never has tested positive. If the antidoping authorities are to discover doping infractions in the future, they need to know how Armstrong (and USPS/Discovery) has evaded positive results if he was doping. Many of us have remarked in other threads that it is very suspicious that USPS/Discovery had not had positive drug test results, but the alumni seem to test positive as soon as they go to another team. If Landis could tell USADA the secret that USPS/Discover has used to evade positive tests (assuming that its riders have been doping), they would be sufficiently valuable information to justify a deal with Landis.


OK maybe Landis is simply spinning it as they were looking for dirt on Armstrong in particular, but really all of that above would presumably apply to Landis when he was at Postal. No need to even bring up Armstrong's name. I don't think it's rocket science as to how any team avoids positives, the only big surprise might be finding out they have somebody(ies) inside warning them about dates of out of competition testing.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

I don't see much difference between Landis's PR tactics and those of Dick Pound (putting aside the fact that Pound has a duty of objectivity whereas Landis does not). Sauce for the goose.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Boy howdy! The propellers on the beanie-hat's are a spinnin'!!!
Some of these conspiracy theories just might fly!!!!!! :idea:


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

Finding anything on Armstrong would further deteriorate the state of cycling and all of the scandal surrounding it. 
Landis wouldn't be stupid enough to fall into a tactic of laying the blame at someone elses feet to ease his own problems, because it wouldn't call of the dogs. 
I'm personally not interested in finding out about past doping. 
It won't help clean up the sport right now.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

harlond said:


> I don't see much difference between Landis's PR tactics and those of Dick Pound (putting aside the fact that Pound has a duty of objectivity whereas Landis does not). Sauce for the goose.



what has pound said about landis that is factually questionable?


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

jhamlin38 said:


> I'm personally not interested in finding out about past doping.
> It won't help clean up the sport right now.


I disagree.

If someone has had a successful doping program in the past that was undetected by various testing programs, then finding out how it was conducted will help to clean up the sport.


----------



## mikeyp123 (Mar 9, 2007)

sounds like a desperate move by the Landis legal team.. pathetic.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Hmmm......*



blackhat said:


> what has pound said about landis that is factually questionable?


- Have you ever really listened to Mr. Pound speak blackhat???


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

DMFT said:


> - Have you ever really listened to Mr. Pound speak blackhat???


enlighten me, I can't think of anything he's quoted as saying about landis that isn't true. heavy on rhetoric and inflammatory, sure. outright falsehoods, not that I can remember.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

blackhat said:


> what has pound said about landis that is factually questionable?


I don't know. I was referring to his entire body of "work," which demonstrates a lack of objectivity and concern for the evidence. Consider his statements about Marion Jones' recent issue. His continued tenure at WADA makes it very difficult to have any faith in that organization's integrity.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

mikeyp123 said:


> sounds like a desperate move by the Landis legal team.. pathetic.


Agreed.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

you realize Pound is being replaced in November, right? His successor is Jean Francois Lamour, who tested positive twice when he was a fencing champion.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21711098-23218,00.html 

WADA, does that stand for What A Dysfunctional Association, or what?


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

I believe Landis was offered something.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

mikeyp123 said:


> sounds like a desperate move by the Landis legal team.. pathetic.


Some call it good lawyering. Nothing wrong with raising credibility issues against a possibly corrupt or overzealous prosecutor, particularly when your back's to the wall. See, e.g., the Duke case.

Or you can presume that there is some veracity to Landis' claim that USADA (which reports to WADA) wanted to cut a deal with Landis in exchange for Landis ratting out former teammates (which would include Armstrong). Not an unrealistic possibility.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

dagger said:


> I believe Landis was offered something.


No question, and a reduced suspension in exchange for ratting out former teammates' doping methods is possible.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

blackhat, after the 1999 samples were tested for research purposes only to work on test validation and someone in the lab leaked results and matched sample numbers to names, a clear violation of protocol, Pound made a public comment:

"now an onus on Lance Armstrong and the others to explain how it is EPO got into their systems"

That's just wrong for the head of WADA to say and not totally lose credibility in terms of complete disregard for protocol. Pound has also made an ass out of himself for unsubstantiated comments regarding the rate of doping in the NHL.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> blackhat, after the 1999 samples were tested for research purposes only to work on test validation and someone in the lab leaked results and matched sample numbers to names, a clear violation of protocol, Pound made a public comment:
> 
> "now an onus on Lance Armstrong and the others to explain how it is EPO got into their systems"
> 
> That's just wrong for the head of WADA to say and not totally lose credibility in terms of complete disregard for protocol. Pound has also made an ass out of himself for unsubstantiated comments regarding the rate of doping in the NHL.


I'd say that falls more under inflammatory rhetoric than falsehood. I was referring in my question specifically to his statements about landis though. to the best of my knowledge he hasn't said anything about landis that's untrue. nor about lance FWIW, but that really wasn't the comparison that the OP was making between landis statements and DP's.


----------



## steephill (Jul 14, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Call me a cynic but this just reaks of being the piece d'resistance of his PR campaign. Perfectly timed to get great exposure just before his hearing. I call BS.


From cyclingnews:
Speaking at a press conference Thursday in Los Angeles, Landis said that Travis Tygart, USADA's general counsel, made the offer to his lawyer, Howard Jacobs, *shortly after Landis' positive test was confirmed.*

So yes, the timing is suspicious.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

philippec said:


> Except you cannot hear the USADA's side


They shouldn't have a side!! I am getting so fed up with USADA/ WADA having their own PR shops. What the Hell is that!! They should only employ a bunch of brainiac science guys who are honest and trustworthy. No need for spin or press comments. 

The fact that they are having to get into this PR game shows the lack of credibility, authority, and the overall level of incompetence they have.

Nascar has a team of experts who inspect cars from head to toe- looking for unfair advantages after a race. When those guys find something, the team is guilty, case closed, move on. The inspectors don't have any PR shop, or feel the need to get their case out. This is how USADA/ WADA should be operating.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't think it's rocket science as to how any team avoids positives, the only big surprise might be finding out they have somebody(ies) inside warning them about dates of out of competition testing.


Well, not rocket science, but still - I'm not sure how they dope during the GTs. I mean, Jan had *nine* 'bags' of blood in storage at Fuentes clinic - nine! Now, I have no idea what volume of blood was in these bags (I'm guessing the Euro equivalent of a pint), but what the heck, was Ullrich part vampire. How could he prossibly need 9 infusions up to and during the tour?? How can it be that officials haven't discovered the procedures doc/riders use to illegally blood dope - after so many years!

The other strange thing is why so few have been found using EPO. A report commission by Wada (forget the author's name) found that pharmaceutical companies produce something like five (5) times the amount of EPO than is needed for legitimate clinical therapies.

This ship just rots from top to bottom.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

BS. Under the World Anti-Doping Code there's no such thing as a plea bargain, and besides laying down sentence is beyond USADA's jurisdiction. Pat McQuaid has been very clear on the issue when similar rumors about Basso cutting a deal surfaced about a week ago.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

rogger said:


> BS. Under the World Anti-Doping Code there's no such thing as a plea bargain, and besides laying down sentence is beyond USADA's jurisdiction. Pat McQuaid has been very clear on the issue when similar rumors about Basso cutting a deal surfaced about a week ago.



I think someone here recently post the relevant section of the UCI bylaws that specifically allow for reduced suspensions up to half in the case of cooperation


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

blackhat said:


> I think someone here recently post the relevant section of the UCI bylaws that specifically allow for reduced suspensions up to half in the case of cooperation


from the UCI webpages. 

266. The Hearing Panel may also reduce the period of Ineligibility in an individual case where the License-
Holder has provided substantial assistance which results in discovering or establishing an anti-doping
rule violation by another Person involving Possession under article 15.6.2 (Possession by Rider
Support Personnel), article 15.7 (Trafficking), or article 15.8 (administration to a Rider). The
reduced period of Ineligibility may not, however, be less, in principle, than one-half of the minimum
period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime,
the reduced period under this Article may be no less than 8 (eight) years.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

I stand corrected. 

I should have known better than to take Pat seriously.  :cryin: 
Maybe he and Dick should have a talk-out-of-your-ass contest.  

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may08news

UCI president Pat McQuaid has said that Ivan Basso will not be granted a reduced ban from cycling after the Italian admitted involvement in the Operación Puerto affair. Speaking on Monday, McQuaid made clear that the World Anti-Doping Code does not make any provisions for confessions or collaboration, contrary to Italian legislation, and that if found guilty Basso would likely serve the standard two-year ban and could not ride for a ProTour team for a further two years.

"For the moment, I can only take note, I do not know all the details," McQuaid told AFP after hearing the announcement from the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI). "I am especially sad to learn that a talented rider like Basso has apparently partaken in illicit practices. However, I try to see this news in a more positive context. Our increased efforts, with our other cycling partners, to put riders under pressure appear to be paying off. Today it is not easy to circumvent the rules."

Continued McQuaid: "These last months, certain members of the Italian cycling community decided to take public positions (on the Basso case). These recent developments should lead them to reflect."

Should Basso be found guilty, McQuaid noted that he could still envisage seeing the Italian back in the professional peloton after serving his ban. "I will make a point of saying that Basso, like all the other riders, will not be given up by our world. That does not mean to say that the rules should not be complied with. They will have to pay the consequences of their actions.

"I confirm that according to the World Anti-Doping Code, no reduced sentence can be granted."


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Kestreljr said:


> They shouldn't have a side!! I am getting so fed up with USADA/ WADA having their own PR shops. What the Hell is that!! They should only employ a bunch of brainiac science guys who are honest and trustworthy. No need for spin or press comments.
> 
> The fact that they are having to get into this PR game shows the lack of credibility, authority, and the overall level of incompetence they have.
> 
> Nascar has a team of experts who inspect cars from head to toe- looking for unfair advantages after a race. When those guys find something, the team is guilty, case closed, move on. The inspectors don't have any PR shop, or feel the need to get their case out. This is how USADA/ WADA should be operating.


"Their" side is that they ARE like the nascar inspectors and USADA's PR would be to defend their objectivity but in nascar, drivers don't go out and claim, sue and the whole thing if they are found to be cheating as Floyd is doing... Yes cycling should be like that, 'you cheated, you are punished, end of story' but Floyd and many other are then complaining that the French are out to get them, that the process is flawed, they sometimes might be right but in most cases IMO, they just don't accept what they deserve.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I'm not sure why it is so hard for some people to see that it's not simply about whether Landis is quilty or not, but whether the process that is in place is capable of determining the truth. WADA has brought a lot of this on themselves by failing to put into place a process that is transparent and beyond reproach. Their insistence on using the same lab for virtually every case despite that lab's well documented irregularities is unfathomable to me. As a scientist myself, it is simply appalling that A and B samples would be tested by the same lab, with some of the same personnel, and in a non-blind manner. To then put into place a non-neutral arbritation process just compounds the perception that the process is corrupt.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Dan Gerous said:


> "Their" side is that they ARE like the nascar inspectors and USADA's PR would be to defend their objectivity but _*in nascar, drivers don't go out and claim, sue and the whole thing if they are found to be cheating as Floyd is doing*_... Yes cycling should be like that, 'you cheated, you are punished, end of story' but Floyd and many other are then complaining that the French are out to get them, that the process is flawed, they sometimes might be right but in most cases IMO, they just don't accept what they deserve.


Well, isn't that because NASCAR's sanctions are much less severe? If NASCAR suspended drivers or crew for two years (and then for two more years permitted them to work only for minor league teams), you know they would do the same sort of thing. NASCAR is too smart to get suckered into that. If cycling wants to be like that, it needs to reduce sanctions for first offenses to levels where it would not make sense for most riders to defend.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

harlond said:


> Well, isn't that because NASCAR's sanctions are much less severe? If NASCAR suspended drivers or crew for two years (and then for two more years permitted them to work only for minor league teams), you know they would do the same sort of thing. NASCAR is too smart to get suckered into that. If cycling wants to be like that, it needs to reduce sanctions for first offenses to levels where it would not make sense for most riders to defend.


I understand your point. But then they wouldn't mind getting caught doping if they didn't get serious punishments...


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

DMFT said:


> Boy howdy! The propellers on the beanie-hat's are a spinnin'!!!
> Some of these conspiracy theories just might fly!!!!!! :idea:


I am curious. If one finds any of the circumstancial evidence that would link LA to doping (ignoring the '99 retroactive tests) even mildly compelling or finds it possible that USPS/DC may have an, as yet undiscovered method of masking or doping, is that person a propellers-spinning beanie-wearing loon? That would make a number of people who have asked these very questions publicly "wearers of the beanie". I will assume that the court case that was brought by the insurance co. that had to pay off on LA's TdF wins was so absurd that the propeller-wearing members of the US judicial system allowed it to go forth? The evidence that has surfaced over the years has caused plenty of "loons" to ask hard questions. One must keep in mind that the french investigation into the allegations brought against USPS in 2000/01 are very serious indeed and simple "tabloid journalism" will not spark a government-sanctioned investigation. Mind you, we're talking France and not the current USA where it seems most anything will get one sent to Guantanamo!


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Dan Gerous said:


> I understand your point. But then they wouldn't mind getting caught doping if they didn't get serious punishments...


You really think NASCAR drivers don't mind getting caught and punished? You think Shawn Merriman didn't mind getting caught and suspended and losing a considerable percentage of his salary for doping. Cyclists don't get paid during suspensions, do they? So why wouldn't they mind? This does not make sense to me.


----------



## cazdrvr (Oct 11, 2005)

Purely theorizing here: 
Do you think Landis is trying to bring Lance into the fight somehow or is it a subtle way of possibly implicating him without looking like he rolled?


----------



## steephill (Jul 14, 2005)

Video from the press conference:


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

MarkS said:


> Putting aside anti-Armstrong conspiracy theories and grudges, there is a very real and legitimate reason that USADA would have interest in Armstrong if he were doping. As Lance himself has said, he never has tested positive. If the antidoping authorities are to discover doping infractions in the future, they need to know how Armstrong (and USPS/Discovery) has evaded positive results if he was doping. Many of us have remarked in other threads that it is very suspicious that USPS/Discovery has not had positive drug test results, but the alumni seem to test positive as soon as they go to another team. If Landis could tell USADA the secret that USPS/Discovery has used to evade positive tests (assuming that its riders have been doping), that would be sufficiently valuable information to justify a deal with Landis.


This is witch hunt stuff- the absence of evidence is evidence. Along with lots of other famous uses of this 'logic' was the Roosevelt administrations justification of interning Americans of Japanese decent, saying that the very lack of evidence of a conspiracy of 5th columnists was proof of how well organized they were. 

Personally I think it's stranger that USPS/Discovery riders who dope there forget how to do it when they leave and then get caught. (Why would their suppliers supply only USPS/Discovery? Why would their doctors work only with USPS/Discovery- it's not like they could be sued for breach of contract even if they made such an agreement, and they're already not the most ethical folks around.) Maybe the riders leaving find their teams just aren't as strong and can't support each other. They don't have the success they had, so they end up doing anything to repeat it.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

I posted a link to the BBC article on the subject on another thread, now closed. 

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1046927#poststop


----------

