# Landis talks about Armstrong, TONIGHT 7/23 ABCNEWS/NIGHTLINE 11:30pm



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/floyd-landis-nightline-interview/story?id=11226456


----------



## LWP (Jun 6, 2006)

Whatever. Doesn't matter to me if what he says is true or not and I really don't care who he points his finger at. He's a complete tool... and I'm not basing that on the TdF stuff. He's living by the "misery loves company" motto. If I do something I shouldn't and get in trouble for it, I don't spend the next 5 years trying to see how many others I can drag down with me. I take my lumps and move on. I refuse to watch him claw for another 15 minutes of semi-fame.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

If what Landis is saying is true - then he needs to tell the world every sordid detail and name names - not continue to lie and protect other liars.

I'm not saying that I believe every word he is saying, given his track record that would be difficult, but the truth (whatever that is) needs to come out for the long-term good of the sport. If that means that some dopers get knocked off of their podiums, well then so be it.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

The Boy who cried Dope! starring Floyd Landis, coming soon to a toilet near you.


----------



## WeakMite (Feb 20, 2005)

Poor Floyd ...he don't don't know what he's doin' ;-)


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

LostViking said:


> If what Landis is saying is true - then he needs to tell the world every sordid detail and name names - not continue to lie and protect other liars.
> 
> I'm not saying that I believe every word he is saying, given his track record that would be difficult, but the truth (whatever that is) needs to come out for the long-term good of the sport. .


I am not sure I understand but how is this good for the sport?


----------



## ECXkid04 (Jul 21, 2004)

LostViking said:


> If what Landis is saying is true - then he needs to tell the world every sordid detail and name names - not continue to lie and protect other liars.
> 
> I'm not saying that I believe every word he is saying, given his track record that would be difficult, but the truth (whatever that is) needs to come out for the long-term good of the sport. If that means that some dopers get knocked off of their podiums, well then so be it.


Yes, please explain to me how revealing these "truths" will help cycling in the present day? If Lance and the other staples of US cycling for the last 20 years burn, what good will that bring specifically for American cycling and for cycling as an international sport? I don't know about other people, but I find it more enraging that Lemond and Landis are more willing to bring down their own sport while much more ____ing goes on in high school, collegiate, and professional arenas in much more popular and economically prominent sports - you must understand, also, that cycling is not taking a "necessary fall" for other sports. Cycling is discrediting itself and other sports, especially Americanized sports, will do absolute f**king nothing. I'd be interested in hearing your take.


----------



## stealthman_1 (May 2, 2004)

Who's Landis?


----------



## tomcho (Jan 30, 2010)

The guy is an idiot, after years of lying and basically stealing money his conscience finally got to him? It's clear the Landis fund has finally dried up and he's trying for another 15 minutes of fame and whatever book deal comes along with it.


----------



## Willster (Mar 30, 2009)

_Yes, please explain to me how revealing these "truths" will help cycling in the present day? If Lance and the other staples of US cycling for the last 20 years burn, what good will that bring specifically for American cycling and for cycling as an international sport? I don't know about other people, but I find it more enraging that Lemond and Landis are more willing to bring down their own sport while much more ____ing goes on in high school, collegiate, and professional arenas in much more popular and economically prominent sports - you must understand, also, that cycling is not taking a "necessary fall" for other sports. Cycling is discrediting itself and other sports, especially Americanized sports, will do absolute f**king nothing. I'd be interested in hearing your take_


Anybody who cheated should be exposed if possible. That is what is fair to anyone (if any) who competed and did not cheat. Cheat = knowingly putting something in your body that both improved your performance and represented a risk to your short and long-term health. It's kind of like porn, we all know, almost of us anyway, when we see it. Seems really simple.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*Better to live the Lie?*



ECXkid04 said:


> Yes, please explain to me how revealing these "truths" will help cycling in the present day? If Lance and the other staples of US cycling for the last 20 years burn, what good will that bring specifically for American cycling and for cycling as an international sport? I don't know about other people, but I find it more enraging that Lemond and Landis are more willing to bring down their own sport while much more ____ing goes on in high school, collegiate, and professional arenas in much more popular and economically prominent sports - you must understand, also, that cycling is not taking a "necessary fall" for other sports. Cycling is discrediting itself and other sports, especially Americanized sports, will do absolute f**king nothing. I'd be interested in hearing your take.


If Cycling doesn't clean-up - every thing that happens in this sport we all claim to be fans of will be tainted - every win, every heroic climb, every amazing sprint will be considered "drug induced".
You seem to think that "Lance and the other staples of US cycling for the last 20 years" will "burn" if the truth comes out. Why is that?
I think it's sad that we point to doping in other sports as an excuse not to clean up Cycling. This is short-term thinking.
Will the truth hurt the sport in the short term - probably. Will continuing to stick our collective heads in the sand hurt the sport in the long term - I, for one, am sure of it.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

I guess from my view is- so we may find out who doped great what does that do, drag names across newspapers and put it in the face of the public. 
The consequences will be that companies are NOT going to want their brand names on dopers so I an see teams loose sponsorship. Sponsors are already pulling out do we really need to loose more just to find out who may have doped? Too many don't realize the damage this sort of publicity will bring to cyclings future


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*Hard Truths*



Willster said:


> _Yes, please explain to me how revealing these "truths" will help cycling in the present day? If Lance and the other staples of US cycling for the last 20 years burn, what good will that bring specifically for American cycling and for cycling as an international sport? I don't know about other people, but I find it more enraging that Lemond and Landis are more willing to bring down their own sport while much more ____ing goes on in high school, collegiate, and professional arenas in much more popular and economically prominent sports - you must understand, also, that cycling is not taking a "necessary fall" for other sports. Cycling is discrediting itself and other sports, especially Americanized sports, will do absolute f**king nothing. I'd be interested in hearing your take_
> 
> 
> Anybody who cheated should be exposed if possible. That is what is fair to anyone (if any) who competed and did not cheat. Cheat = knowingly putting something in your body that both improved your performance and represented a risk to your short and long-term health. It's kind of like porn, we all know, almost of us anyway, when we see it. Seems really simple.


Not if you don't want to face it.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*The Broom Wagon*



JimT said:


> I guess from my view is- so we may find out who doped great what does that do, drag names across newspapers and put it in the face of the public.
> The consequences will be that companies are NOT going to want their brand names on dopers so I an see teams loose sponsorship. Sponsors are already pulling out do we really need to loose more just to find out who may have doped? Too many don't realize the damage this sort of publicity will bring to cyclings future


Okay, I accept your point (I don't agree, but I think I understand your concern).

If we, the cycling community come clean, sponsorship money will dry up.

So, we should do nothing and attempt to sweep it under the rug?

Then we die the death of a thousand small deaths as each rider is either singly or in groups (ala Operation Porto) caught doping - and the story becomes how "cycling" (the UCI, the Teams, the riders...even the fans) are hiding the truth - does that not make all of us part of the problem?


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

LostViking said:


> If Cycling doesn't clean-up - every thing that happens in this sport we all claim to be fans of will be tainted - every win, every heroic climb, every amazing sprint will be considered "drug induced".
> You seem to think that "Lance and the other staples of US cycling for the last 20 years" will "burn" if the truth comes out. Why is that?
> I think it's sad that we point to doping in other sports as an excuse not to clean up Cycling. This is short-term thinking.
> Will the truth hurt the sport in the short term - probably. Will continuing to stick our collective heads in the sand hurt the sport in the long term - I, for one, am sure of it.


No lie has to be lived nor do heads need to be buried in the sand, and yes doping needs to out of the sport but how will digging up bones publicly help now or in the future???
When you have a problem at home do you broadcast it to the world??? I believe in the saying dont air out your dirty laundry...
I am looking at it from the point of view of dollars and cents and survivability of future teams and sponsors, especially in the US, we have lost the tour of Ga and Mo. I think the possibility of a tour in Colorado will face more opposition once the garbage starts hitting the fan, didn't consider that huh? 
You mentioned other sports, other sports are much, much bigger than cycling and can survive a blow because of the large fan base although baseball, "Americas pastime" was severely hurt by it. Cycling does not have that fan base, hence sponsors wont want to risk the money. I hate to also add that most people would rather see cycling and cyclists off their roads...


----------



## Willster (Mar 30, 2009)

I think the sponsors already know. How could they not? **** them. We, or at least the competitors, deserve a clean sport I think. As much as that is possible. If that set us back a bit so be it.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

Willster said:


> I think the sponsors already know. How could they not? **** them. We, or at least the competitors, deserve a clean sport I think. As much as that is possible. If that set us back a bit so be it.


Of course sponsors know. I am sure they are not effected as of yet by the possibility of defending their name in public forums and courtrooms on dping allegations by teams they are giving money to. Can you see the CEO's of major corporations sitting on witness stands testifying that they had no idea this was going on. Furthermore if it goes that far what CEO in their right mind would consider giving money to the sport. 

I am not saying we dont need a clean sport, we do. Burn those who cheat or cheated by permanent ban but keep it in "our" house to keep the collateral damage to a minimum.

Without sponsorship there is no professional cycling.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*It's out of the box*



JimT said:


> Of course sponsors know. I am sure they are not effected as of yet by the possibility of defending their name in public forums and courtrooms on dping allegations by teams they are giving money to. Can you see the CEO's of major corporations sitting on witness stands testifying that they had no idea this was going on. Furthermore if it goes that far what CEO in their right mind would consider giving money to the sport.
> 
> I am not saying we dont need a clean sport, we do. Burn those who cheat or cheated by permanent ban but keep it in "our" house to keep the collateral damage to a minimum.
> 
> Without sponsorship there is no professional cycling.


JimT - This story is already out of the box - how do you propose we put it back into the box and clean up the sport at the same time?

Just curious.

BTW - Totally agree on the permanent ban. :thumbsup:


----------



## lastchild (Jul 4, 2009)

LostViking said:


> If Cycling doesn't clean-up - every thing that happens in this sport we all claim to be fans of will be tainted - every win, every heroic climb, every amazing sprint will be considered "drug induced".
> You seem to think that "Lance and the other staples of US cycling for the last 20 years" will "burn" if the truth comes out. Why is that?
> I think it's sad that we point to doping in other sports as an excuse not to clean up Cycling. This is short-term thinking.
> Will the truth hurt the sport in the short term - probably. Will continuing to stick our collective heads in the sand hurt the sport in the long term - I, for one, am sure of it.




that was a joke...right?


----------



## Willster (Mar 30, 2009)

I hear you JimT I just don't see how we burn 'em but keep it in our house. I think the fire department is going to show up.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*Agreed!*



JimT said:


> Burn those who cheat or cheated


My first point exactly - so we agree?


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

LostViking said:


> JimT - This story is already out of the box - how do you propose we put it back into the box and clean up the sport at the same time?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> BTW - Totally agree on the permanent ban. :thumbsup:


Your kinda right there. I just hope the impact is minimal because I would hate to see a great young riding talent be wasted because the sport had become virtually non-existent in the US.

Ahhh, I have to go to sleep I'm going to ride like [email protected] in the AM.... Nite..


----------



## ECXkid04 (Jul 21, 2004)

LostViking said:


> If Cycling doesn't clean-up - every thing that happens in this sport we all claim to be fans of will be tainted - every win, every heroic climb, every amazing sprint will be considered "drug induced".
> You seem to think that "Lance and the other staples of US cycling for the last 20 years" will "burn" if the truth comes out. Why is that?
> I think it's sad that we point to doping in other sports as an excuse not to clean up Cycling. This is short-term thinking.
> Will the truth hurt the sport in the short term - probably. Will continuing to stick our collective heads in the sand hurt the sport in the long term - I, for one, am sure of it.


I completely understand that and want cleaner sports as much as the next guy/gal. However, I do not care about what happened 10 years ago. You say "If cycling doesn't clean up"... Cycling has begun to clean up, even good ol' Greg Lemond thinks so. Personally, I don't care about what Lance and Co. did back in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 etc when everybody doped. EVERYBODY. Also, go read Jay Mariotti's column on AOL if you want to see why I think Lance and Levi will BURN if the truth comes out. The vast majority of the American and international public is pathetically ignorant and unaware as to the reality of modern day professional sports. Lance is being decried for his performance in this years Tour - he's "washed up", "past his prime", "gone on Tour too far"... I don't get what people don't get. The Tour is arguably the most challenging physical/mental endurance event on the planet. Riding in the Tour, whether one finishes first or last, is a HUGE accomplishment. The best of the best of the best cyclists in the world strive to compete in the "race of all races" - they're some of the fittest human beings on the earth. Yet Lance is bashed for not winning the God forsaken race!!! THAT < is why he will be burned if the truth regarding his Tour triumphs comes out. Because 99.99 percent of the US population doesn't possess the mental capacity to understand cycling, Lance, and/or sports in general, THAT is why I fear for cycling and would prefer that this mess of an investigation just vanish.

I am concerned with cycling NOW, as in the present, and in the future. I want young riders to be able to pursue pro careers without feeling an inescapable pressure/need to use performance enhancing substances/techniques to be competitive and realize their potential. If you've read "From Lance to Landis", you will know that Lance was a strongly opposed to doping as a young professional. He, like many other competitors back in the 1990's, was allegedly forced to use drugs in order to have the career he was deserving of. I don't know about you, but if I had been in Lance's position, or in the position of other professional riders during the EPO era, I cannot say that I would have been able to give up an entire career, lifestyle... in lieu of taking drugs. I'm only human, and so are they (professional cyclists).


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*Young Riders*



ECXkid04 said:


> I completely understand that and want cleaner sports as much as the next guy/gal. However, I do not care about what happened 10 years ago. You say "If cycling doesn't clean up"... Cycling has begun to clean up, even good ol' Greg Lemond thinks so. Personally, I don't care about what Lance and Co. did back in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 etc when everybody doped. EVERYBODY. Also, go read Jay Mariotti's column on AOL if you want to see why I think Lance and Levi will BURN if the truth comes out. The vast majority of the American and international public is pathetically ignorant and unaware as to the reality of modern day professional sports. Lance is being decried for his performance in this years Tour - he's "washed up", "past his prime", "gone on Tour too far"... I don't get what people don't get. The Tour is arguably the most challenging physical/mental endurance event on the planet. Riding in the Tour, whether one finishes first or last, is a HUGE accomplishment. The best of the best of the best cyclists in the world strive to compete in the "race of all races" - they're some of the fittest human beings on the earth. Yet Lance is bashed for not winning the God forsaken race!!! THAT < is why he will be burned if the truth regarding his Tour triumphs comes out. Because 99.99 percent of the US population doesn't possess the mental capacity to understand cycling, Lance, and/or sports in general, THAT is why I fear for cycling and would prefer that this mess of an investigation just vanish.
> 
> I am concerned with cycling NOW, as in the present, and in the future. I want young riders to be able to pursue pro careers without feeling an inescapable pressure/need to use performance enhancing substances/techniques to be competitive and realize their potential. If you've read "From Lance to Landis", you will know that Lance was a strongly opposed to doping as a young professional. He, like many other competitors back in the 1990's, was allegedly forced to use drugs in order to have the career he was deserving of. I don't know about you, but if I had been in Lance's position, or in the position of other professional riders during the EPO era, I cannot say that I would have been able to give up an entire career, lifestyle... in lieu of taking drugs. I'm only human, and so are they (professional cyclists).


Well argued, but what is in place now to relieve new riders of the "inescapable pressure/need to use performance enhancing substances"? If we do not pursue dopers, don't we just encourage new riders to dope as well?


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

I think the worst option would be to keep things quiet, but that's not going to happen anyway. I'd expect a number of riders will get a welcome back home to the USA and by the way, here's your subpoena next week.


----------



## karatemom (Mar 21, 2008)

I can't believe this thread hasn't been bounced to the doping forum yet...


----------



## yater (Nov 30, 2006)

LostViking said:


> If what Landis is saying is true - then he needs to tell the world every sordid detail and name names - not continue to lie and protect other liars.
> 
> I'm not saying that I believe every word he is saying, given his track record that would be difficult, but the truth (whatever that is) needs to come out for the long-term good of the sport. If that means that some dopers get knocked off of their podiums, well then so be it.


The sport was FOUNDED by cheaters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Garin


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

The point is many other LA generation dopers were caught and punished

Landis, Ulrich, Basso, Rasmussen, Heras, Vinokourov etc etc.

all they paid for it but Armstrong and Co who made the most money out of it BTW.

The sport must be cleaned, and all the dirty ones who took profit of doping should pay.


----------



## yater (Nov 30, 2006)

Salsa_Lover said:


> The point is many other LA generation dopers were caught and punished
> 
> Landis, Ulrich, Basso, Rasmussen, Heras, Vinokourov etc etc.
> 
> ...


Give it time.....technology and testing will improve, and racers will find ways to dodge them. Enjoy it for what it is, or find another hobby/sport.


----------



## fab4 (Jan 8, 2003)

It seems like Lance has something else on his mind during this tour. Maybe all the Landis hoopla is really affecting him. Who knows? If he really wanted to he can be to ten.


----------



## barhopper (Aug 10, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> The point is many other LA generation dopers were caught and punished
> 
> Landis, Ulrich, Basso, Rasmussen, Heras, Vinokourov etc etc.
> 
> ...




All those you mentioned tested *postive.* LA hasn't ........


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

barhopper said:


> All those you mentioned tested *postive.* :


wrong.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

barhopper said:


> All those you mentioned tested *postive.* LA hasn't ........


6 out of 14 of Lance Armstrong’s urine samples, kept in storage for six years, had a positive test for EPO, using the modern test that wasn't avaliable at the time, but this wasn't admitted because a procedural error... look up the information about

edit : one link about it

http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2010/07/_lance_armstrongs_final_tour.html


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> The point is many other LA generation dopers were caught and punished
> 
> Landis, Ulrich, Basso, Rasmussen, Heras, Vinokourov etc etc.
> 
> ...


"ALL the dirty ones"?' (my emphasis)
And how is an American prosecutor with testimony from a few American riders going to catch "all" of the dopers exactly?
Oh, that's right- he can't. So we'll just fry our own heroes (or "heroes") and let the rest of the world gloat while American cycling goes down the sh*tter.
Awesome!!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

RRRoubaix said:


> "ALL the dirty ones"?' (my emphasis)
> And how is an American prosecutor with testimony from a few American riders going to catch "all" of the dopers exactly?
> Oh, that's right- he can't. So we'll just fry our own heroes (or "heroes") and let the rest of the world gloat while American cycling goes down the sh*tter.
> Awesome!!


the rest of the world don't care much about american cycling.......


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Salsa_Lover said:


> The sport must be cleaned, and all the dirty ones who took profit of doping should pay.


Must be cleaned? Or else what? Do tell.


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Who gives. . .*

a sh*t? Landis is a has-been, asshat loser of a person. Why would anyone care what this clown has to say. He looks like a NASCAR racer anyway perhaps he go do that.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

wipeout said:


> Must be cleaned? Or else what? Do tell.


ask the german team owners. Oh wait.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

ECXkid04 said:


> I am concerned with cycling NOW, as in the present, and in the future. I want young riders to be able to pursue pro careers without feeling an inescapable pressure/need to use performance enhancing substances/techniques to be competitive and realize their potential. If you've read "From Lance to Landis", you will know that Lance was a strongly opposed to doping as a young professional. He, like many other competitors back in the 1990's, was allegedly forced to use drugs in order to have the career he was deserving of. I don't know about you, but if I had been in Lance's position, or in the position of other professional riders during the EPO era, I cannot say that I would have been able to give up an entire career, lifestyle... in lieu of taking drugs. I'm only human, and so are they (professional cyclists).


You have a good post... but you lost me on this last point, about LA being strongly opposed to drugs.... In the 1999 tour, the year after the Festina affair LA could have gone a different route... instead he bought the best doctor... The French started major drug reform and they pretty much sucked until the last couple of years and having their best tour since 1997... I think a much cleaner tour this year.

But my point is LA became the king pin, the enabler, head of the omerta, pushed people around that didn't want to play the game, like Bassons, like Simineo (sp?), Andrea.. And then he built up his empire, his fortune, his livestrong.org AND his livestrong.com... he is a genious at marketing, loves power and will crush anyone who gets in his way... His former teamates, one by one get caught... He makes huge donations to the UCI... 

I'm sorry but all this crap about hurting cycling and the truth can't come out... is BS and it is a sad state of affairs on this forum that most would rather see a horrible lie remain than the actual truth.. I guess I'm just old fashion. that's my 2 cents.


----------



## ECXkid04 (Jul 21, 2004)

pedalruns said:


> You have a good post... but you lost me on this last point, about LA being strongly opposed to drugs.... In the 1999 tour, the year after the Festina affair LA could have gone a different route... instead he bought the best doctor... The French started major drug reform and they pretty much sucked until the last couple of years and having their best tour since 1997... I think a much cleaner tour this year.
> 
> But my point is LA became the king pin, the enabler, head of the omerta, pushed people around that didn't want to play the game, like Bassons, like Simineo (sp?), Andrea.. And then he built up his empire, his fortune, his livestrong.org AND his livestrong.com... he is a genious at marketing, loves power and will crush anyone who gets in his way... His former teamates, one by one get caught... He makes huge donations to the UCI...
> 
> I'm sorry but all this crap about hurting cycling and the truth can't come out... is BS and it is a sad state of affairs on this forum that most would rather see a horrible lie remain than the actual truth.. I guess I'm just old fashion. that's my 2 cents.


The people who truly care about cycling already know the truth. Any avid cyclist/fan of the sport knows that Armstrong is a "fraud". He, however, is no more of a fraud than anybody else who was competing at the top of the sport during the "EPO" era - even Floyd had that to say in Lance's defense. The damage that will be caused by exposing an already known truth will not hit home amongst knowledgeable cyclist; instead, it will further ruin the perception of cycling as an organized sport in the United States. I don't know about you, but if you ever get a chance to watch ESPN (Around the Horn, PTI...) when they actually talk about cycling, I'm pretty sure that you would rather the "truth" stay buried as well. The coverage is nothing short of pathetic, an egregious crime against sport. Reading Jay Mariotti's column made my blood boil. Honestly, he isn't worth the keyboard he types at with the comments that he makes about cycling. He's an ignorant idiot and how he gets paid to write absolute garbage is beyond me. The world really is backwards. That, as I stated in my former post, is why I would rather the "truth" stay buried. The people who matter and who are concerned with making change in the sport already know the truth and things are already being done to change cycling (even you said that the Tour was perceivably much cleaner this year)...

Also, if you have not, I would recommend reading "From Lance to Landis". It, like Greg Lemond's ranting, does get old after pages and pages of what is more-or-less the same thing. However, also like Greg's ranting, there is substance to it in most cases. Walsh is actually documents Lance's original resistance to doping adamantly. As a reader, at least during that part of the book, Walsh paints a portrait of Lance Armstrong the victim. Lance, like many other cyclists, was wrongly disallowed an equal opportunity to achieve his athletic potential due to the use of PEDs and performance enhancing drug techniques by other cyclists. Lance was not the first or only cyclist to dope. He was, however, the most high profile cyclist to escape the EPO era relatively unscathed (I am aware of the tests that he allegedly failed). Enough cyclists have taken the fall (Ullrich, Basso, Vino, Macebo, Heras, Ricco, Kohl, Landis...) for people to understand that the sport has a problem. It has less of a problem, I do believe, than many other professional sports. What good will come of Lance's falling? What immediate impact is it going to have where it really matters, amongst the cycling community? People will be disappointed; most will be unsurprised... I just do not see what good it will cause. My $.02


----------



## Cevan (Jul 19, 2004)

Landis lied under oath. Landis took money for his legal defense. Landis wrote and sold a book proclaiming his innocence.

Now, almost 4 years later he claims that was all a lie. 

He has no credibility. He is a douche bag. And he does nothing to make pro cycling cleaner.


----------



## Harold Snepsts (Apr 26, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> 6 out of 14 of Lance Armstrong’s urine samples, kept in storage for six years, had a positive test for EPO, using the modern test that wasn't avaliable at the time, but this wasn't admitted because a procedural error... look up the information about
> 
> edit : one link about it
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2010/07/_lance_armstrongs_final_tour.html


Did you read your own link? The way you're stating it is not even close to what actually happened.

A French newspaper claimed they tested 6 of Armstrong's 14 archived urine samples from 1999 and they came up positive for EPO.

That's a hell of a lot different than an actual cycling organization testing his samples and coming up with that result. Consider with that any sort of reliability study on samples that are that old. The reality is there is no accepted test on samples archived that long. Or at least there wasn't at the time. Not to mention that's a massive violation of his privacy as an athlete.

If you're trying to build a case for Armstrong as a doper, that's not a very strong one to build it on. Him wanting to take a shower for 20 minutes when the inspector from ALDF showed up is much more suspect than L'Equipe's claims.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

ECXkid04 said:


> The people who truly care about cycling already know the truth. Any avid cyclist/fan of the sport knows that Armstrong is a "fraud". He, however, is no more of a fraud than anybody else who was competing at the top of the sport during the "EPO" era - even Floyd had that to say in Lance's defense. The damage that will be caused by exposing an already known truth will not hit home amongst knowledgeable cyclist; instead, it will further ruin the perception of cycling as an organized sport in the United States. I don't know about you, but if you ever get a chance to watch ESPN (Around the Horn, PTI...) when they actually talk about cycling, I'm pretty sure that you would rather the "truth" stay buried as well. The coverage is nothing short of pathetic, an egregious crime against sport. Reading Jay Mariotti's column made my blood boil. Honestly, he isn't worth the keyboard he types at with the comments that he makes about cycling. He's an ignorant idiot and how he gets paid to write absolute garbage is beyond me. The world really is backwards. That, as I stated in my former post, is why I would rather the "truth" stay buried. The people who matter and who are concerned with making change in the sport already know the truth and things are already being done to change cycling (even you said that the Tour was perceivably much cleaner this year)...
> 
> Also, if you have not, I would recommend reading "From Lance to Landis". It, like Greg Lemond's ranting, does get old after pages and pages of what is more-or-less the same thing. However, also like Greg's ranting, there is substance to it in most cases. Walsh is actually documents Lance's original resistance to doping adamantly. As a reader, at least during that part of the book, Walsh paints a portrait of Lance Armstrong the victim. Lance, like many other cyclists, was wrongly disallowed an equal opportunity to achieve his athletic potential due to the use of PEDs and performance enhancing drug techniques by other cyclists. Lance was not the first or only cyclist to dope. He was, however, the most high profile cyclist to escape the EPO era relatively unscathed (I am aware of the tests that he allegedly failed). Enough cyclists have taken the fall (Ullrich, Basso, Vino, Macebo, Heras, Ricco, Kohl, Landis...) for people to understand that the sport has a problem. It has less of a problem, I do believe, than many other professional sports. What good will come of Lance's falling? What immediate impact is it going to have where it really matters, amongst the cycling community? People will be disappointed; most will be unsurprised... I just do not see what good it will cause. My $.02


Yes, I have read from Lance to Landis, everyone should read this.  And I agree for the most part the cyclist are the victims... but IMO Lance is NO victim.... Re-read the part about Christophe Bassons, "Mr Clean", who Lance ridiculed for riding clean... just another small example of the real creep that Armstrong really is. 

And... I like Lemond (gasp....) He has always spoken the truth.. 

The truth should be told.... because IT IS THE TRUTH!!! LA built an empire around a lie!! 

And... my mother told me the truth is always the best..... and in the long run the sport will be better for it... We(U.S.) have lots of good young talent, and I'd like to see these riders not have to become drug lords or users just to compete.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

pedalruns said:


> Yes, I have read from Lance to Landis, everyone should read this. And I agree for the most part the cyclist are the victims... but IMO Lance is NO victim.... Re-read the part about Christophe Bassons, "Mr Clean", who Lance ridiculed for riding clean... just another small example of the real creep that Armstrong really is.
> 
> And... I like Lemond (gasp....) He has always spoken the truth..
> 
> ...


Don't you think if people really cared they would buy the book. I swear this thread sounds like a witch hunt....

Point is, if the powers that be would police the riders better (which they are) and have permanant bans there would be no problem, there is no need to try to destroy the sport with bad publicity. Anyway the "Old Guard" is all but retired or retiring anyway so what is there to be gained. It isn't going to hurt them, what will happen, a ban from riding (they're done) and a nominal fine  It will only hurt those future US riders you are talking about. 

Has anyone seen the utube video of the kid crying saying "Leave Britney Alone" read some of these posts in that voice and you will get a good chuckle... Uh, no offense to anyone, it is just how my sordid mind works at times.


----------



## Joe A (Sep 5, 2003)

Get off the bike for a minute. Love or hate Lance, he does raise millions for cancer research and if landis et al bring him down then will his fund raising power be brought to a halt?

Just saying...


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Joe A said:


> Get off the bike for a minute. Love or hate Lance, he does raise millions for cancer research and if landis et al bring him down then will his fund raising power be brought to a halt?
> 
> Just saying...


Cancer research? Do you mean cancer survivorship research? 

AFAIK, Livestrong hasn't spent any money funding biological research into cancer treatment.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

pedalruns said:


> Yes, I have read from Lance to Landis, everyone should read this. And I agree for the most part the cyclist are the victims... but IMO Lance is NO victim.... Re-read the part about Christophe Bassons, "Mr Clean", who Lance ridiculed for riding clean... just another small example of the real creep that Armstrong really is.
> 
> And... I like Lemond (gasp....) He has always spoken the truth..
> 
> ...


this !

LA is the living proof that a liar doper can win. and this is what we don't want in our sport.

as someone else said. The french were hard with the dopers, that's why they sucked on cycling for so many years. but now a new generation of hopefully clean cyclists is winning again. this is what we want


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

karatemom said:


> I can't believe this thread hasn't been bounced to the doping forum yet...



I can't either!

I just wanted people to know he was on Nightline last night.


----------



## joep721 (May 4, 2009)

Can I ask a question? I'm trying to understand this who situation. I don't know all of the facts and I really want to understand. I don't want a cheater winning the races, but why is an American prosecutor trying to find out something that happened in a sport that races primarily in Europe? Why are we paying for this investigation? Is it because it was the US Postal Team? Is it because someone thinks that they can cleanup the sport? Is it because we think we (Americans) know what is best for the sporting world? Or is it a media witch hunt? 

Who outside of the UCI should care? And I'm not talking about the cycling public. I'm talking about the organization that legislates the cycling world.

In auto racing there is continuous cheating? The old saying is/was "if you ain't cheatin' you ain't trying!" Why doesn't an American prosecutor try to send old NASCAR or Indy drivers, owners, mechanics to jail?


----------



## penn_rider (Jul 11, 2009)

Stop living under a rock! Jesus, pro, semi pro, college, and high school sports are affected by enhancers. It ain't new.
Take baseball for example,,, you burn a few and bury the rock. If you play AA or AAA ball and the only thing that keeps you from a show paycheck is a very minute amount of performance,, you will look and take every advantage. It has been happening for years.
Hell, pro football does not even really test. Testing in high school is all but non existent and all the young athletes here is it is better to win,,, wait, you must win to get the contract. 
Even this years TDF,, yes testing is widely done,, but you miss the Yellow by what? Because of what.. ****,, give me epo or the like.. I am making the fame and the big bucks. This is what we as fans have turned the sports empire into...... It is your fault, dig your head out of your arse and root for the winner and damn the loser...


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

JimT said:


> No lie has to be lived nor do heads need to be buried in the sand, and yes doping needs to out of the sport but how will digging up bones publicly help now or in the future???
> When you have a problem at home do you broadcast it to the world??? I believe in the saying dont air out your dirty laundry...
> I am looking at it from the point of view of dollars and cents and survivability of future teams and sponsors, especially in the US, we have lost the tour of Ga and Mo. I think the possibility of a tour in Colorado will face more opposition once the garbage starts hitting the fan, didn't consider that huh?
> You mentioned other sports, other sports are much, much bigger than cycling and can survive a blow because of the large fan base although baseball, "Americas pastime" was severely hurt by it. Cycling does not have that fan base, hence sponsors wont want to risk the money. I hate to also add that most people would rather see cycling and cyclists off their roads...


that's great that you want to keep the omerta alive, really. Fortunately, it appears there's a possibility that LA and Co. broke federal laws so more dispassionate minds are deciding whether to pursue it. The future of the sport is irrelevant.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Floyd Landis likes to dig holes.


----------



## fab4 (Jan 8, 2003)

Landis knew the system was doped and he was one of the few who got caught. He did what most do when busted and lie hoping he can come back and ride with the big boys in Europe. When he could not get back to the European peloton he got bitter and decided to bring everybody down. I don't know if this whole investigation thing will clean up the peloton but I do know it's bad for cycling's image.


----------



## jptaylorsg (Apr 24, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> Cancer research? Do you mean cancer survivorship research?
> 
> AFAIK, Livestrong hasn't spent any money funding biological research into cancer treatment.


Why do you hate awareness? Why do you love cancer?


----------



## Kaleo (Jun 15, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> The point is many other LA generation dopers were caught and punished
> 
> Landis, Ulrich, Basso, Rasmussen, Heras, Vinokourov etc etc.
> 
> ...



This thread really is a witch hunt, so it's all about revenge is it? Get the bad guy, and the bad guy is Lance Armstrong cause he lied... you never did or any one else on this forum. Give me a break, so many Saints on here... You act like he single handly corrupted the sport.

Let's move past yesterday and make the sport cleaner going forward and leave the past and finger pointing behind. Bringing Lance down now will not help this sport, but it will apparently make a lot of people happy. We all know an eye for eye will only make us both blind.


----------



## smw (Mar 7, 2006)

fab4 said:


> Landis knew the system was doped and he was one of the few who got caught. He did what most do when busted and lie hoping he can come back and ride with the big boys in Europe. When he could not get back to the European peloton he got bitter and decided to bring everybody down. I don't know if this whole investigation thing will clean up the peloton but I do know it's bad for cycling's image.


 It really does no good at all. Im of the belief that all of the contenders at that time were doping. If they were all doing it is it really cheating? Also, it was soo long ago now that it really doesnt matter. The sport is cleaning up, but still has a ways to go. As a sport, it really cant afford continuing controversy about doping. Stop digging up the past and deal with the current.


Landis is cycllings Jose Canseco. They should both face the firing squad together.:thumbsup:


----------



## tomcho (Jan 30, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Cancer research? Do you mean cancer survivorship research?
> 
> AFAIK, Livestrong hasn't spent any money funding biological research into cancer treatment.


Wow...haters going to hate I guess.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

joep721 said:


> Can I ask a question? I'm trying to understand this who situation. I don't know all of the facts and I really want to understand. I don't want a cheater winning the races, but why is an American prosecutor trying to find out something that happened in a sport that races primarily in Europe? Why are we paying for this investigation? Is it because it was the US Postal Team? Is it because someone thinks that they can cleanup the sport? Is it because we think we (Americans) know what is best for the sporting world? Or is it a media witch hunt?
> 
> Who outside of the UCI should care? And I'm not talking about the cycling public. I'm talking about the organization that legislates the cycling world.



The way I understand it, The US Postal team took the US Government's money and they 'cheated'. Now heads are rolling and there is a hunt for owners/organizers of the team. I heard Lance is distancing himself from having any owner capacity in the team.

I saw Nightline last night and it looked like the opening shot to a long saga. There's a lot of men with shovels and they're gonna start digging through the skeletons.

fc


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

penn_rider said:


> Stop living under a rock! Jesus, pro, semi pro, college, and high school sports are affected by enhancers. It ain't new..


And they _all _need to be cleaned up.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

joep721 said:


> Can I ask a question? I'm trying to understand this who situation. I don't know all of the facts and I really want to understand. I don't want a cheater winning the races, but why is an American prosecutor trying to find out something that happened in a sport that races primarily in Europe? Why are we paying for this investigation? Is it because it was the US Postal Team? Is it because someone thinks that they can cleanup the sport? Is it because we think we (Americans) know what is best for the sporting world? Or is it a media witch hunt?
> 
> Who outside of the UCI should care? And I'm not talking about the cycling public. I'm talking about the organization that legislates the cycling world.
> 
> In auto racing there is continuous cheating? The old saying is/was "if you ain't cheatin' you ain't trying!" Why doesn't an American prosecutor try to send old NASCAR or Indy drivers, owners, mechanics to jail?


Doping is not only cheating on sports results.

It is fraud. Dopers make big money on prizes and sponsoring contracts defrauding the general public.

Misdemeanor, Crime, fine or jailtime ? I am no lawyer, probably someone with experience in american law can shed some light on this


----------



## 97G8tr (Jul 31, 2007)

Kaleo said:


> This thread really is a witch hunt, so it's all about revenge is it? Get the bad guy, and the bad guy is Lance Armstrong cause he lied... you never did or any one else on this forum. Give me a break, so many Saints on here... You act like he single handly corrupted the sport.
> 
> Let's move past yesterday and make the sport cleaner going forward and leave the past and finger pointing behind. Bringing Lance down now will not help this sport, but it will apparently make a lot of people happy. We all know an eye for eye will only make us both blind.


^^ Great post!! Completely agree. :thumbsup:


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

francois said:


> The way I understand it, The US Postal team took the US Government's money and they 'cheated'. Now heads are rolling and there is a hunt for owners/organizers of the team. I heard Lance is distancing himself from having any owner capacity in the team.
> 
> I saw Nightline last night and it looked like the opening shot to a long saga. There's a lot of men with shovels and they're gonna start digging through the skeletons.
> 
> fc



Meh.


Unless blood in bags is recovered--nothing will come of this. And odds are if Floyd had any real physical evidence, people would have been arrested already. If I were on a jury, and Floyd and his testimony were the lynchpin of the prosecution's case---I'd laugh the prosecutor out of the court room.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Doping is not only cheating on sports results.
> 
> It is fraud. Dopers make big money on prizes and sponsoring contracts defrauding the general public.
> 
> Misdemeanor, Crime, fine or jailtime ? I am no lawyer, probably someone with experience in american law can shed some light on this


Please name some caught athletes who've done jail time for doping in sport, in the USA. 

(The only one I can think of is Marion Jones for check fraud, and perjury in lying to investigators when asked if she had ever used steroids....even then these convictions were not directly related to blood doping or defrauding the public-but lying to prosecutors in a court of law.)


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

Harold Snepsts said:


> Did you read your own link? The way you're stating it is not even close to what actually happened.
> 
> A French newspaper claimed they tested 6 of Armstrong's 14 archived urine samples from 1999 and they came up positive for EPO.
> 
> ...


I haven't read the link, but I know that the way you've represented the situation isn't right either. The samples were tested by a laboratory. The leading laboratory in anti-doping research. Yes, it was unethical for a journalist to get hold of the test results, and it was stupid of the UCI to give away the codes which allowed the journalist to put names to individual samples, but that is not the same thing as saying that this was just made up by l'Equipe.

Sure, we can wonder about the affects of storage, and we can make a lot about the fact that these samples can't be used to lay a saction, but the bottom line is that the lab had no idea who's samples they were, and couldn't have spiked them, and there is no known way for EPO to magically materialize in a blood sample.

I honestly cannot think how any impartial observer could look at this case and not come to the conclusion that Lance was using EPO in 1999. I understand that the process that led to this was unsavoury, and that there in no legal way he can be sanctioned, but irrespective of the legal situation, it is clear that Lance was an EPO using cheat.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

Jokull said:


> I haven't read the link, but I know that the way you've represented the situation isn't right either. The samples were tested by a laboratory. The leading laboratory in anti-doping research. Yes, it was unethical for a journalist to get hold of the test results, and it was stupid of the UCI to give away the codes which allowed the journalist to put names to individual samples, but that is not the same thing as saying that this was just made up by l'Equipe.
> 
> Sure, we can wonder about the affects of storage, and we can make a lot about the fact that these samples can't be used to lay a saction, but the bottom line is that the lab had no idea who's samples they were, and couldn't have spiked them, and there is no known way for EPO to magically materialize in a blood sample.
> 
> I honestly cannot think how any impartial observer could look at this case and not come to the conclusion that Lance was using EPO in 1999. I understand that the process that led to this was unsavoury, and that there in no legal way he can be sanctioned, but irrespective of the legal situation, it is clear that Lance was an EPO using cheat.



Is this the infamous WADA framing Armstrong case?


----------



## jorgemonkey (Jun 23, 2006)

Its even in Chess, oh the horror when will doping (or alleged doping) ever end!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,595819,00.html


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

RRRoubaix said:


> So we'll just fry our own heroes (or "heroes") and let the rest of the world gloat while American cycling goes down the sh*tter.
> Awesome!!


Where it can join baseball and gridiron, your other 'sports' full of dopers.


----------



## litespeedchick (Sep 9, 2003)

Marc said:


> lying to prosecutors in a court of law.)


Exactly. And Martha Stewart went to jail for obstruction, although she was cleared of insider trading. And Scooter Libbey went to jail for perjury and obstruction even though the actual leaker (Armitage) had already confessed to the prosecutor. I fear the publicity loving BALCO prosecutor will have no problem with finding a backdoor way to stick it to Armstrong, even if there is no real evidence.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

litespeedchick said:


> I fear the publicity loving BALCO prosecutor will have no problem with finding a backdoor way to stick it to Armstrong, even if there is no real evidence.


You're aware that direct testimony of the sort being sought by the grand jury right now, is very much "real evidence" in our justice system, no?


----------



## Harold Snepsts (Apr 26, 2009)

Jokull said:


> I haven't read the link, but I know that the way you've represented the situation isn't right either. The samples were tested by a laboratory. The leading laboratory in anti-doping research. Yes, it was unethical for a journalist to get hold of the test results, and it was stupid of the UCI to give away the codes which allowed the journalist to put names to individual samples, but that is not the same thing as saying that this was just made up by l'Equipe.
> 
> Sure, we can wonder about the affects of storage, and we can make a lot about the fact that these samples can't be used to lay a saction, but the bottom line is that the lab had no idea who's samples they were, and couldn't have spiked them, and there is no known way for EPO to magically materialize in a blood sample.
> 
> *I honestly cannot think how any impartial observer could look at this case and not come to the conclusion that Lance was using EPO in 1999. *I understand that the process that led to this was unsavoury, and that there in no legal way he can be sanctioned, but irrespective of the legal situation, it is clear that Lance was an EPO using cheat.


I find that statement pretty staggering.

A French newspaper hires an outside lab with stolen samples that have been frozen for six years. There's no real knowledge of the effectiveness of this test or how the samples were maintained in those years. There was no standard for freezing samples until 2004, 5 years after this one was frozen. And they tested only the B sample, as the A sample wasn't frozen. Plus there have been concerns about the reliability of urine tests for EPO as it is, let alone with a sample this old.

It's not about the lab spiking them. It's about getting a false positive. Not to mention the French newspaper that provided the samples knew who they were from. L'Equipe is a French daily that has consistently accused Armstrong of doping without evidence. They are also owned by the same company that organizes the Tour de France. that's hardly an impartial observer. 

If there weren't so many questionable aspects in those findings, then this would've been a huge revelation. But it's so suspect it's hardly credible at all.

I'm not claiming Armstrong isn't a doper. I like to hold on to some tiny chance that he isn't, but it seems extremely unlikely given his dominance in a sport riddled with doping. 

The paper is owned by a French company that organizes the Tour. It was only a B sample, which isn't enough for a positive with a fresh sample. There's no way of knowing how that B sample was maintained, especially since it was provided by the French paper. There's no real knowledge of the effectiveness on a sample frozen for 6 years. Or how or why the UCI would provide the rider codes to identify Armstrong.

Given all that, you still find that as undeniable proof Armstrong used EPO in 1999?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Harold Snepsts said:


> I find that statement pretty staggering.
> 
> A French newspaper hires an outside lab with stolen samples that have been frozen for six years. There's no real knowledge of the effectiveness of this test or how the samples were maintained in those years. There was no standard for freezing samples until 2004, 5 years after this one was frozen. And they tested only the B sample, as the A sample wasn't frozen. Plus there have been concerns about the reliability of urine tests for EPO as it is, let alone with a sample this old.
> 
> ...


This is not at all how it went down.

Scroll down to the 4th bullet point here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong#Allegations_of_drug_use


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

SilasCL said:


> This is not at all how it went down.
> 
> Scroll down to the 4th bullet point here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong#Allegations_of_drug_use


Let's ignore the Vrijman report...


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

thesmokingman said:


> Let's ignore the Vrijman report...


Did that somehow alter reality? I haven't seen Inception yet, so I'm not 100% on this stuff...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> Let's ignore the Vrijman report...


How about you point out in the Vrijman report or anywhere else that indicates the samples came from a French newspaper?


----------



## ECXkid04 (Jul 21, 2004)

pedalruns said:


> Yes, I have read from Lance to Landis, everyone should read this. And I agree for the most part the cyclist are the victims... but IMO Lance is NO victim.... Re-read the part about Christophe Bassons, "Mr Clean", who Lance ridiculed for riding clean... just another small example of the real creep that Armstrong really is.
> 
> And... I like Lemond (gasp....) He has always spoken the truth..
> 
> ...


In an ideal world, I too believe that the truth should be told. Unfortunately, there is no safe haven for truth in this world. All organized sectors of the world, at some level and to some degree, are corrupt. The government is corrupt. The business world is corrupt. The military (government) is corrupt. The US education system is corrupt. Religious institutions are corrupt... the list goes on. Why should cycling have to tell more of the truth than baseball, soccer/football, American football, hockey... other sports (especially when these truths involve things that, in some cases, happed over 10 years ago)!? I take this f**king personally. As a cyclist, my ignorant friends and family members make associations between the way that the press portrays cycling and myself. I have gotten into many futile arguments in defense of a sport that I care about greatly. These confrontations have done nothing, NOTHING to sway the views of people I know personally. Unfortunately, the media/news IS THE TRUTH. Because of their inability to represent sports equally, I would rather the truth, in this instance, stay buried. Cycling has made great progress in the last decade. Dragging Lance under will do nothing to aid the sports continued efforts to clean itself up. We'll see, but I'd be willing to bet my life on my prediction for how this works out... Hopefully, you'll be right and the sport will flourish, but I doubt it.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> How about you point out in the Vrijman report or anywhere else that indicates the samples came from a French newspaper?


The day after WADA got the codes from LLND, L'Equippe published the story. Coincidence you think? Technically those samples were unstable and never subjected to the scrutiny fit for sanctioning, yet a newspaper was able to get the findings of the research study a day after WADA got them... Hmm, coincidence?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> The day after WADA got the codes from LLND, L'Equippe published the story. Coincidence you think? Technically those samples were unstable and never subjected to the scrutiny fit for sanctioning, yet a newspaper was able to get the findings of the research study a day after WADA got them... Hmm, coincidence?


It's well established that L'Equipe almost certainly had a mole in the LNDD feeding them info.

You didn't answer my question though, where did you get the info that, "A French newspaper hires an outside lab with stolen samples that have been frozen for six years..."

That completely misrepresents what happened and suggests you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> It's well established that L'Equipe almost certainly had a mole in the LNDD feeding them info.
> 
> You didn't answer my question though, where did you get the info that, "A French newspaper hires an outside lab with stolen samples that have been frozen for six years..."
> 
> That completely misrepresents what happened and suggests you don't know what you're talking about.


Rofl, check the poster names genius. Btw instead accepting the gross ethical infractions, you want to make it about someone else's lack of grasp of a technicality. OK, got it.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> Technically those samples were unstable and never subjected to the scrutiny fit for sanctioning, yet a newspaper was able to get the findings of the research study...


So was Armstrong sanctioned?

We're talking about whether he doped or not. Why do you think the lab got positives on Armstrong amongst other riders, several of whom we know were dopers (e.g. if I recall correctly; Virenque, Hamburger, Zulle, Beltran).

If the tests were faulty why weren't all the samples positive or negative? Why did they fall into a pattern that made sense both in light of the situation in France (all 4 riders were postive at the prologue) at the time and the detection time of injecting EPO (Armstrong was tested daily in yellow but wasn't positive everyday, just every couple of days).


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So was Armstrong sanctioned?
> 
> We're talking about whether he doped or not. Why do you think the lab got positives on Armstrong amongst other riders, several of whom we know were dopers (e.g. if I recall correctly; Virenque, Hamburger, Zulle, Beltran).
> 
> If the tests were faulty why weren't all the samples positive or negative? Why did they fall into a pattern that made sense both in light of the situation in France (all 4 riders were postive at the prologue) at the time and the detection time of injecting EPO (Armstrong was tested daily in yellow but wasn't positive everyday, just every couple of days).


Christ, you haven't read the report have you? WADA has admitted that urine storage is not stable and that even when frozen it can degrade and come up with false positives. They've since enacted reliability tests on stored urine, annnnnnd the tests on the samples LLND had were not the correct tests for SANCTIONED DOPING tests. Who knows what they were after nor their agenda, but what remains is the tests they ran were not the sanctioned tests for a doping case.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> Rofl, check the poster names genius. Btw instead accepting the gross ethical infractions, you want to make it about someone else's lack of grasp of a technicality. OK, got it.


The "technicality" being who performed the tests?

The only ethical infractions involve how the information came to light, not how the information was created.

What do poster names have to do with anything?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> Christ, you haven't read the report have you? WADA has admitted that urine storage is not stable and that even when frozen it can degrade and come up with false positives. They've since enacted reliability tests on stored urine, annnnnnd the tests on the samples LLND had were not the correct tests for SANCTIONED DOPING tests. Who knows what they were after nor their agenda, but what remains is the tests they ran were not the sanctioned tests for a doping case.


So were Armstong or any of the others sanctioned?

Their agenda was clear, they were seeing if they could detect EPO in old, frozen urine.

I did read the Virjman report, which basically said the correct protocol wasn't followed to sanction anyone. Big deal, no one was sanctioned nor were they going to be sanctioned with or without the report.

I'll believe you're not talking out of your ass if you can show me where it says "when frozen in can degrade and come up with false positives." I'm sure you've got that "technicality" right since you posted a bunch of other misinformation, e.g. the lab knew who's sample they were testing. That's complete BS, which you would know if you knew how the information came to light.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So were Armstong or any of the others sanctioned?
> 
> Their agenda was clear, they were seeing if they could detect EPO in old, frozen urine.
> 
> ...


Dude, you have your panties in a bunch because of what some other poster wrote, which is not what I have written. Get a grip, and when you are ready google Dr. Christiane Ayotte and this statement:

EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept frozen


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> Dude, you have your panties in a bunch because of what some other poster wrote, which is not what I have written. Get a grip, and when you are ready google Dr. Christiane Ayotte and this statement:
> 
> EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept frozen


O.K. I've unbunched my panties, sorry for my confusion.

Now, please point out how the above can lead to false positives, I would think the result would simply be you don't find any EPO if it is unstable?

Doing as you suggested I found this:

"Ayotte does not question whether the new type of analysis is correct; rather she questions the ethics of long-delayed test results."


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

You're not trying very hard.


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

Harold Snepsts said:


> I find that statement pretty staggering.
> 
> A French newspaper hires an outside lab with stolen samples that have been frozen for six years.


This is not true. The lab was working on the samples independently. A reporter took the anonymous results and asked the UCI for the codes which would allow names to be put to samples. The samples were not stolen and the paper did not provide the samples.

If you start off with the basic premise so wrong, of course you're going to come to wrong conclusions. 



Harold Snepsts said:


> There's no real knowledge of the effectiveness of this test or how the samples were maintained in those years. There was no standard for freezing samples until 2004, 5 years after this one was frozen. And they tested only the B sample, as the A sample wasn't frozen. Plus there have been concerns about the reliability of urine tests for EPO as it is, let alone with a sample this old.


Quite. That's why the lab was using the samples to try and refine information about testing old samples. They weren't using the samples to try to sanction anyone, and surprise, no one was sanctioned. _That doesn't mean that impartial, independent observers can't draw conclusions from the results though._



Harold Snepsts said:


> It's not about the lab spiking them. It's about getting a false positive. Not to mention the French newspaper that provided the samples knew who they were from. L'Equipe is a French daily that has consistently accused Armstrong of doping without evidence. They are also owned by the same company that organizes the Tour de France. that's hardly an impartial observer.


Of course there is a chance of false positives with any doping test. Thats the reason the lab was retesting samples from 1998/1999: they knew that there was a pretty good chance they'd find EPO. Given the who the other positive samples came from, and the pattern of doping revealed by Armstrong's samples, the coincidence of false positives coming up with this pattern is pretty slim though. All of your guff about L'Equipe is just mud slinging and comes from your original, wrong, premise. L'Equipe did not commission the test, they merely took the results, put names to them, and reported them



Harold Snepsts said:


> If there weren't so many questionable aspects in those findings, then this would've been a huge revelation. But it's so suspect it's hardly credible at all.
> 
> I'm not claiming Armstrong isn't a doper. I like to hold on to some tiny chance that he isn't, but it seems extremely unlikely given his dominance in a sport riddled with doping.
> 
> The paper is owned by a French company that organizes the Tour. It was only a B sample, which isn't enough for a positive with a fresh sample. There's no way of knowing how that B sample was maintained, especially since it was provided by the French paper. There's no real knowledge of the effectiveness on a sample frozen for 6 years. Or how or why the UCI would provide the rider codes to identify Armstrong.


It was a huge revelation. The samples couldn't be used to apply a sanction though. The matter had to end there. The way L'Equipe tricked the UCI into proving the information to put names to results meant that with a little spin the whole affair could be blamed on L'Equipe, resulting in people like you believing that the paper provided the samples, plus lots of other facts which are simply wrong.



Harold Snepsts said:


> Given all that, you still find that as undeniable proof Armstrong used EPO in 1999?


Yes (although I never used the words "undeniable proof" - I said it was difficult to come to any other conclusion if you were impartial)

You have too many of the basic facts wrong to make any kind of judgement.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

Jokull said:


> It was a huge revelation. The samples couldn't be used to apply a sanction though. The matter had to end there. The way L'Equipe tricked the UCI into proving the information to put names to results meant that with a little spin the whole affair could be blamed on L'Equipe, resulting in people like you believing that the paper provided the samples, plus lots of other facts which are simply wrong.


L'Equipe didn't trick the UCI. WADA and the French Ministry of Sport (according to Vrijman) got the results from the lab and crossed the dots and within days, the story broke news by your favorite magazine. 

How did they get this info? According to Dwayne here, it don't matter only the positive. Which btw is meaningless given that the protein is unstable in urine even when frozen -20 below. LLND would have you believe different, yet they are not the paragons of ethics they'd have you believe now are they? And with this testing which isn't even the actual EPO test with which you have the lawful right to convict, it is again meaningless.

And what of this testing, which was actually research to come up with a longterm urine test for EPO, which could not be tested after the fact? They can't prove the samples were not doctored, and btw they weren't even supposed to be testing with the samples in the first place. It all reaks of foul play, back door reach arounds, not exactly the material fit for impartial laboratories.

At the end of the ordeal what remains is that L'Equipe and the French Ministry of Sport or whatever they're called were able to drag Amrstrong through the mud. They got their conviction in the court of media.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

thesmokingman said:


> WADA has admitted that urine storage is not stable and that even when frozen it can degrade and come up with false positives.


No.

The EPO test is isoelectric focusing (IEF) - an assay which separated a sample (purified protein) in a gel based on the inherent charge of the protein. In the case of EPO, recombinant protein (made by hamster cells or other methods) have a different set and arrangement of carbohydrate side-chains than they would if made in human cells. It's a subtle difference, but it can be detected. You get a series of bands for EPO, and a positive test identified by the number of bands you have in an area that a recombinant protein would fall in. 

Below, lane 2 is a non-doper, with normal EPO banding. Lanes 5 and 7 are a darbepoetin standard, lanes 1 and 4 are another recombinant EPO standard. Lane 3 show protein from the urine of a subject who dopes with recombinant EPO, lane 6 shows someone doping with darbepoetin. 

The degradation of the sample would mean that there wouldn't be anything but junk in the tube once you thawed it. It would not mean that it would cause the sample to suddenly shift into the area of a recombinant protein on the gel.










Reference: "Comparison of the Isoelectric Focusing Patterns of Darbepoetin Alfa, Recombinant Human Erythropoietin, and Endogenous Erythropoietin from Human Urine". Don Catlin, UCLA. Clinical Chemistry, 2002
https://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/48/11/2057


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

This matter depends on how you see LLND's results, either they are accurate or they are false positives. If you side with Dr. Ayotte (who was one of the two doctors along Don Catlin on USADA's behalf during the Landis trial) then the results from LLND are surprising and given their unstable nature are false positives. Ayotte makes the claim that the protein breaks down within months even when frozen. Thus how could it end up in tests 5 years later?

If you think otherwise, then Ayotte has been untruthful throughout her career as that's been the approach that she's preached.

"Suggesting a more recent test, she said, "really makes me wonder." "EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept frozen," she said. "This has long had implications for any plan we've had to keep samples and specimens for long periods of time with the hope that we might, some day, retest those samples for a new substance.""

So how did the EPO get in there then? This is where the ethics of those involved in this case come into play. Was Ayotte an authority for the Landis case, but not one for this case?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> L'Equipe didn't trick the UCI. WADA and the French Ministry of Sport (according to Vrijman) got the results from the lab and crossed the dots and within days, the story broke news by your favorite magazine.
> 
> How did they get this info?


Armstrong gave the L'Equipe reporter access to his UCI medical files under false pretenses. The reporter than was able to get the tracking numbers for Armstrong doping controls.

What had been published were the coded results of the retroactive testing so no one was sure who they belonged to, except all 4 tests from the prologue were positive and it's public knowledge who is tested each day (IIRC, one was Armstrong, along with Beltran, Hamburger, maybe Zulle?). I believe there was actually some time between this information going public and the reporter getting access to Armstrong's UCI files.

Putting the two pieces together is how the published coded results were linked to Armstrong's 6 positive samples.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> "Suggesting a more recent test, she said, "really makes me wonder." "EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept frozen," she said. "This has long had implications for any plan we've had to keep samples and specimens for long periods of time with the hope that we might, some day, retest those samples for a new substance.""
> 
> So how did the EPO get in there then? This is where the ethics of those involved in this case come into play. Was Ayotte an authority for the Landis case, but not one for this case?


So maybe Ayotte was wrong and EPO is stable when frozen under whatever conditions the LNDD stored them? Why did she say she didn't doubt the validity of their findings? If it's unstable you don't end up false positives, you end up with no EPO. They must have been finding both endogenous and exogenous EPO or else you couldn't have positives and negatives like they found, just samples that couldn't be evaluated.

IIRC, they also tested the '98 samples and found far more positives, which is related to another reason they did the testing which was to see if doping dropped off from 98 to 99 in the wake of the Festina affair.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> At the end of the ordeal what remains is that L'Equipe and the French Ministry of Sport or whatever they're called were able to drag Amrstrong through the mud. They got their conviction in the court of media.


Does it make any sense that in this great plan they devised it all hinged on Armstrong allowing access to his UCI medical files, which if didn't, would have scuttled the whole thing?


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Does it make any sense that in this great plan they devised it all hinged on Armstrong allowing access to his UCI medical files, which if didn't, would have scuttled the whole thing?


Why would they go through all that unethical activity in the first place? Were they really after the truth or just throwing rocks?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> Why would they go through all that unethical activity in the first place? Were they really after the truth or just throwing rocks?


What unethical activity? There was never any intention of anyone knowing about the positives, and technically there could be no "positives" since they weren't following protocol but rather doing research. They were clear about why the testing was done; to see if EPO could be detected in old frozen urine and to see if doping decreased in the wake of Festina.

Problem began because there was (is?) that mole in LNDD who sent the coded results to the newspaper. Still not a big deal.

Big deal when Armstrong gave Ressiot access to his medical files at the UCI and thus the code could be cracked.

You're not seeing things clearly because you're under the assumption that the testing was done to "catch" someone, presumably Armstrong, but if you understand how it all happened that becomes rather unlikely.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

This Ressiot?

"We also went and talked to some of his fraternity buddies back at the University of Texas," said Ressiot. "They said Lance did some serious drugs, and no small amount of drinking back in his college days. They said, and I quote, 'Dude, he was a total bong hound!'"

Confronted with the fact that Armstrong did not attend University of Texas, Ressiot responded, "Well, maybe they meant another Lance. But you have to admit it sounds suspicious: a guy named Lance going to a college in Texas. Is Lance Armstrong from Texas ? Yes, he is. Do I really have to connect the dots for you?"



Dwayne Barry said:


> You're not seeing things clearly because you're under the assumption that the testing was done to "catch" someone, presumably Armstrong, but if you understand how it all happened that becomes rather unlikely.


I could've sworn ole' Dickie Pound going off the deep end at Armstrong or maybe that was just a figment of my imagination?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

thesmokingman said:


> This Ressiot?
> 
> "We also went and talked to some of his fraternity buddies back at the University of Texas," said Ressiot. "They said Lance did some serious drugs, and no small amount of drinking back in his college days. They said, and I quote, 'Dude, he was a total bong hound!'"
> 
> ...


That Ressiot quote is from a fake/parody news article:

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2005/nelson_lequipe


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

Christ Silas, you don't giggle when posting?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> I could've sworn ole' Dickie Pound going off the deep end at Armstrong or maybe that was just a figment of my imagination?


What's that got to do with anything?

IIRC, it was the UCI not WADA that initiated the testing in the first place.


----------



## nathanbal (Feb 23, 2009)

not sure if this has been posted but provides a little context http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

LostViking said:


> If Cycling doesn't clean-up - every thing that happens in this sport we all claim to be fans of will be tainted - every win, every heroic climb, every amazing sprint will be considered "drug induced".


That is BS. People who love cycling and hate doping, will just keep on telling themselves how clean the sport has become, and tour organizers will keep a lid on testing. 

Cycling will never clean up, but whether the hypocrisy will change, is depending on public morality.


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

Kaleo said:


> Let's move past yesterday and make the sport cleaner going forward and leave the past and finger pointing behind. Bringing Lance down now will not help this sport, but it will apparently make a lot of people happy. We all know an eye for eye will only make us both blind.


An eye for an eye makes for a helluva good deterrent. It is basically the same principle behind perma-bans: if you screw with the sport, we screw with you. Most people posting here have supported the concept of the perma-ban.

What I find amazing is that so many people posting here truly believe that maintaining the reputation of the sport of cycling outweighs the advantages of uncovering truth. Ethics and morality are a quaint but antique concept unrelated to modern life I guess. 

But having worked for a sports recruiting related agency before, I can say this: Doping is not a cycling problem (although cycling is full of doping). Doping is not a sports problem (although it is happening in all the sports that our company worked with). Doping / Cheating is a human problem. Until people choose to play by the rules in their everyday life, why would they do it when tempted by the fame and fortune that comes with professional sport? Unfortunately, you can't legislate righteousness - it has to come from within. And until that happens, we will always have cheating.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

*Is Floyd's Dream....*

...to see Lance in a new kit?


----------

