Fifty Plus (50+) - Landis situation grows wierd

This is getting stranger and very sad.

http://www.nbcsports.com/sports/1519529/detail.html

Well Landis is going to get screwed anyway so why not get an interesting movie script out of the mess.

Well Landis is going to get screwed anyway so why not get an interesting movie script out of the mess.


If getting screwed is a finding which confirms the fact that he has tested positive for doping on two occasions, then yes he's going to get screwed.
Landis should take a page from Millar's book; he got caught doping, admitted it, and did his time. No excuses.
Landis tried everything:
tried to play us for fools (stating that drinking beer and whisky explained his astounding stage 17 performance in the TdF);
tried playing the patriotic card (hinting at a anti-US french conspiracy);
tried resorting to dirty tricks (check out the article -- velonews liked above -- to read about his business manager making a threatening call to Lemond before he testified).
But it won't wash. Like Hamilton before him, he's guilty of doping. And he's hurting the credibility of his sport, our sport, everyday that he's denying the painfullly obvious.
Shame on you, Floyd.

I've been sympathetic to Landis up to now. But reading about how he has been intimidating LeMond makes me wonder about Landis' ethics.

Sad. Very sad. It's turned into a folly, a Saturday Night Live skit. At this point, regardless of outcome, cycling loses.

Tom B,

Did Landis try to intimidate LeMond? I thought it was his business manager, apparently without knowledge or approval by Floyd. Even then, I am not sure it is witness intimidation as we know it. It was certainly rude, though, regardless of legality.

Tyson

Did you read the story about the web page stuff that Landis posted about LeMond?

I think LeMond erred in sharing sensitive personal information with Landis ... never suspecting that both Landis and his manager would later use it against him.

winning isn't everything...it's the only thing...

Bring laywers, guns and money!


Thankyou Glenn Frey

Bring laywers, guns and money!


Thankyou Glenn Frey

Great line, but it's Warren Zevon you should thank for it.

Learned something new again. For some reason I had always attributed this to "Smugglers Blues" but it aint there. Thanks Dawg.

Everything can be found in 50+ eventually.

ARTIST: Warren Zevon
TITLE: Lawyers, Guns and Money

I went home with the waitress
The way I always do
How was I to know
She was with the Russians, too

I was gambling in Havana
I took a little risk
Send lawyers, guns and money
Dad, get me out of this, ha

I'm the innocent bystander
But somehow I got stuck
Between a rock and a hard place
And I'm down on my luck
Yes, I'm down on my luck
Well, I'm down on my luck

Now I'm hiding in Honduras
I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns and money
The <excrement> has hit the fan

Send lawyers, guns and money {4X**

I don't think Floyd's comments about Lemond on the website are that out of line. Lemond has had a chip on his shoulder for a number of years and frequently talks about how doping in the sport showed up at the end of his career. I think he still has some depression over what might have been if he had not had his shotgun accident and rightly so, he was a great rider. But he does come off as a bit of a whiner some times. The intimidation is way over the top, but I don't think we can be sure FL knew about it. If GL's testimony about FL's reply on coming clean is accurate it sure sounds like an admission to me.

I think the sport is just a mess. WADA is mess, USADA is a mess, the teams are a mess. Generally when you get to this state you have to blow everything up and start over. Between this trial and OP it may force that to happen.

I'm not saying Landis is innocent or guilty-I don't know, Landis & maybe some doc(if he is guilty) are the only ones who know for sure. But I do find it interesting how Lemond's name pops up whenever an American cyclist is accused of something. I almost didn't buy my Reno because of the Lemond name on it, after he had said some accusatory (is that a real word?) things about Armstrong. I would like to see the sport go "clean", but I think we all know there is quite a bit of doping going on, with some of the recent confessions of pro cyclists. I just think it's a shame-I'd like to see everyone on an even playing field, but when it comes to big money, or a mention on the back page of the Podunk Times and being broke, we know who wins. Unfortunately, it's the fans who lose.

If getting screwed is a finding which confirms the fact that he has tested positive for doping on two occasions, then yes he's going to get screwed.
Landis should take a page from Millar's book; he got caught doping, admitted it, and did his time. No excuses.
Landis tried everything:
tried to play us for fools (stating that drinking beer and whisky explained his astounding stage 17 performance in the TdF);
tried playing the patriotic card (hinting at a anti-US french conspiracy);
tried resorting to dirty tricks (check out the article -- velonews liked above -- to read about his business manager making a threatening call to Lemond before he testified).
But it won't wash. Like Hamilton before him, he's guilty of doping. And he's hurting the credibility of his sport, our sport, everyday that he's denying the painfullly obvious.
Shame on you, Floyd.

+1

I got the OLN (Versus) upgrade so I could watch pro cycling. Now I hardly watch it. This isn't a knock on Landis in particular. But the entire sport seems to be a mess, and I don't want to put my energy into following it these days.

It would be presumptuous of me to hold that he is guilty or innocent, however, I'd like him to be innocent. The one area Lemond touched upon in his testimony yesterday that conjures up the most negative things for me is that there is so much money at stake with the major tours that winning at any cost has become the norm. I love cycling and get sucked into following the careers of those riders with exceptional abilities. It just plain old hurts my heart and sense of innocence that doping is such an issue in this magnificant sport. Innocent or quilty this process is painful to watch.

If getting screwed is a finding which confirms the fact that he has tested positive for doping on two occasions, then yes he's going to get screwed.
Landis should take a page from Millar's book; he got caught doping, admitted it, and did his time. No excuses.
Landis tried everything:
tried to play us for fools (stating that drinking beer and whisky explained his astounding stage 17 performance in the TdF);
tried playing the patriotic card (hinting at a anti-US french conspiracy);
tried resorting to dirty tricks (check out the article -- velonews liked above -- to read about his business manager making a threatening call to Lemond before he testified).
But it won't wash. Like Hamilton before him, he's guilty of doping. And he's hurting the credibility of his sport, our sport, everyday that he's denying the painfullly obvious.
Shame on you, Floyd.

Blaireau, you don't believe properly administered negative drug tests prove a rider clean. Why are you so certain a clearly botched positive test proves a rider doped? If the tests are so reliable, you ought to shut up about Armstrong. If they're not, you ought to shut up about Landis.

As for Lemond, he's a bitter, whiney, jerk, who can't stand to see his accomplishments eclipsed, and pi$$es all over anyone who might be viewed as better than he was. He whined in '85. He whined in '86. He's whining now.

Q: How can you tell when Greg Lemond is whining?
A: His lips are moving.

... explained his astounding stage 17 performance in the TdF...[/B]
Stepping aside from a discussion of what was or wasn't in any racers blood or urine that day or test results or lab procedures, and talking about bike racing: the stage 17 profile was perfect for a long solo breakaway. The series of climbs and descents negated the typical pack advantage. Once Landis began to threaten, his rivals were unable to reach a consensus about sharing the work to pull him back (the classic "You chase, I'll sit in." - "No, you chase and I'll sit in.") As mentioned in the real time commetary, Landis climbed slower on average on all the stage 17 climbs than the lead group's climbs on stage 16. Have one bad day and bounce back? Not unusual in stage racing. Landis' performance wasn't expecially "astounding" physically, it was just smart, agressive racing.

Eddie Merckx, who arguably knows a few things about bike racing, is going to say this same thing on the witness stand in a few more days.

TCS

Blaireau, you don't believe properly administered negative drug tests prove a rider clean. Why are you so certain a clearly botched positive test proves a rider doped? If the tests are so reliable, you ought to shut up about Armstrong. If they're not, you ought to shut up about Landis.



Incorrect. A negative test does not make a clean rider. Just give me the time to give you (2) examples. (1) Hamilton. He won an Olympic medal. When his blood tested positive for getting someone else's blood in a tranfusion to illegaly help his performance the Olympic games asked for their medal back. But guess what, Hamilton got off on a technicality. THe B sample was inadvertently frozen. So no B sample, Hamilton got to keep his medal. Though it has no legal weight, it is my opinion that Hamilton is a fraud and should return his Olympic medal, and I won't "shut up about it." as you so nicely put it.
(2) Armstrong. His 1999 test samples were retroactively (I think it was in 2004) tested for EPO and they showed EPO use. However there were no B samples, so the tests were considered negative. I say that means little. except that he got off for procedural reasons.

But I guess it your world, when Gotti or OJ got away with murder in a court of law this meant they were innocent. Most people know better --thank god.

Stepping aside from a discussion of what was or wasn't in any racers blood or urine that day or test results or lab procedures, and talking about bike racing: the stage 17 profile was perfect for a long solo breakaway. The series of climbs and descents negated the typical pack advantage. Once Landis began to threaten, his rivals were unable to reach a consensus about sharing the work to pull him back (the classic "You chase, I'll sit in." - "No, you chase and I'll sit in.") As mentioned in the real time commetary, Landis climbed slower on average on all the stage 17 climbs than the lead group's climbs on stage 16. Have one bad day and bounce back? Not unusual in stage racing. Landis' performance wasn't expecially "astounding" physically, it was just smart, agressive racing.

Eddie Merckx, who arguably knows a few things about bike racing, is going to say this same thing on the witness stand in a few more days.

TCS

+1. The pack kept waiting for Landis to crack, and he didn't. It was bad tactics (by the pack), not good drugs, that won stage 17 for Landis.

+1. The pack kept waiting for Landis to crack, and he didn't. It was bad tactics (by the pack), not good drugs, that won stage 17 for Landis.


The post you are celabrating -- about Merckx's impending pro-Landis testimony -- announces something that is not going to happen! Its kinda, like, you guys are living in a dream world....:D
Merckx is on the record saying he will not testify. He also wondered why on earth he was called to do so. Not really a Landis endorsment.
As far as the stage 17 "performance." I think the positive test for that very stage tell a slightly different story then the "tactics defense." (Not quite the Jack Daniels defense in terms of sheer siliness, but close :D I guess he's come up with so many, you can always pick and choose one)

Funny how everyone is an expert, based solely on what we've heard and how it fits our preconceived views.

I'm just going to wait and see. I'll make up my mind at some point who and what I believe. For now I'll just watch and shake my head about the mess the sport is in.

In the meantime, I still watch the races and enjoy how the dramas unfold on the road. Much more interesting than the dramas unfolding behind the scenes.

Incorrect. A negative test does not make a clean rider. Just give me the time to give you (2) examples. (1) Hamilton. He won an Olympic medal. When his blood tested positive for getting someone else's blood in a tranfusion to illegaly help his performance the Olympic games asked for their medal back. But guess what, Hamilton got off on a technicality. THe B sample was inadvertently frozen. So no B sample, Hamilton got to keep his medal. Though it has no legal weight, it is my opinion that Hamilton is a fraud and should return his Olympic medal, and I won't "shut up about it." as you so nicely put it.
(2) Armstrong. His 1999 test samples were retroactively (I think it was in 2004) tested for EPO and they showed EPO use. However there were no B samples, so the tests were considered negative. I say that means little. except that he got off for procedural reasons.

But I guess it your world, when Gotti or OJ got away with murder in a court of law this meant they were innocent. Most people know better --thank god.

Then why do we even bother with tests, if nobody should believe them? We trash a rider's reputation and deny him the chance to practice his profession on the basis of a clearly botched test, and we don't give riders who test clean any respect for their accomplishments.

Maybe we should just declare the top ten finishers in each race guilty of doping and disqualify them. They either doped, or they beat someone who doped, so therefore they must have cheated somehow. It would be cheaper than these useless tests, and it would be as fair to the riders as the current system.

This entire affair is the direct result of global warming. Just sayin.

This entire affair is the direct result of global warming. Just sayin.

The hot air being spewed over this affair is a contributing cause of global warming. :)

I'm not using any drugs for my century tomorrow and that's all I care!

This entire affair is the direct result of global warming. Just sayin.


:love:

The post you are celabrating -- about Merckx's impending pro-Landis testimony -- announces something that is not going to happen! Its kinda, like, you guys are living in a dream world....:D
Merckx is on the record saying he will not testify. He also wondered why on earth he was called to do so. Not really a Landis endorsment.
As far as the stage 17 "performance." I think the positive test for that very stage tell a slightly different story then the "tactics defense." (Not quite the Jack Daniels defense in terms of sheer siliness, but close :D I guess he's come up with so many, you can always pick and choose one)

Bad tactics were the rule, not the exception in the '06 Tour. Periero took the yellow jersey by picking up 30 min. on a flat-stage break that the pack wouldn't chase.

Based on DG's latest route times, I'm certain he's doping. There's no other logical explanation. The new road bike (and cutesy "wish upon a star" avatar limmerick) are smoke screens fabricated by "his people." :D

Then why do we even bother with tests, if nobody should believe them? We trash a rider's reputation and deny him the chance to practice his profession on the basis of a clearly botched test, and we don't give riders who test clean any respect for their accomplishments.

Maybe we should just declare the top ten finishers in each race guilty of doping and disqualify them. They either doped, or they beat someone who doped, so therefore they must have cheated somehow. It would be cheaper than these useless tests, and it would be as fair to the riders as the current system.

It this your response?!? Just give up because, they all cheat anyway. That's pretty impressive reasoning.......Not!
To enforce the doping laws, the idea is to at the very least penalize the riders who do get caught.
Giving up alltogether on drug testing does the cyclists and the sport absolutely no favors and, imho, is completely irresponsible.

Based on DG's latest route times, I'm certain he's doping. There's no other logical explanation. The new road bike (and cutesy "wish upon a star" avatar limmerick) are smoke screens fabricated by "his people." :D

Oh my gawd -- I've been outed!

Careful, BP...my manager may be giving you a phone call. Just sayin. And denyin. :D

PS: my dope is caffeine. Really!

Based on DG's latest route times, I'm certain he's doping. There's no other logical explanation. The new road bike (and cutesy "wish upon a star" avatar limmerick) are smoke screens fabricated by "his people." :D


Rogaine, Beta Blockers and preparation H.

Rogaine, Beta Blockers and preparation H.

Those Preparation H pills don't work for squat. I took them for weeks and they did no more good than if I had shoved them up my................. well, you know.

Those Preparation H pills don't work for squat. I took them for weeks and they did no more good than if I had shoved them up my................. well, you know.
I'm saving that line. That'll keep.

Got a 35 miler tomorrow and I guarantee I'll be doping: a mix of Starbucks, Advil, glucosamine, and Carters Little Liver Pills, plus Little Debbie snack cakes in reserve.

So sue me.

Carter's little liver pills? What do those do anyway?

I have no idea. But there are lots of them out there.

Carter's little liver pills? What do those do anyway?
Son of a gun. I just looked it up on Wikipedia. It says Carter's is bisacodyl, known to most folks as The Duke, or Dulcolax. Well, I'm going to delete that from my training program. It sure explains a lot of things in the past, now that I think about it......

Yeah, son of a gun...

I have no idea. But there are lots of them out there.

35 miles tomorrow morning. 48 degrees centigrade by 6.00 am. Grapefruit juice and outmeal before. Gatorade and a litre of water every 10 miles during. Fuddruckers apple pie at mile 30. Soft pedal home.

Does this obey all the regulations?

Depends on which lab performs the tests on the pie.

Careful, BP...my manager may be giving you a phone call. Just sayin. And denyin. :D

I got "the call" last evening. How the hell did your manager know that when I was in Ohio back in 1967....oh, never mind.

I got "the call" last evening. How the hell did your manager know that when I was in Ohio back in 1967....oh, never mind.
I have no idea what you're talking about. And by the way, I fired my manager.

I have no idea what you're talking about. And by the way, I fired my manager.


He's working at my LBS now>

35 miles tomorrow morning. 48 degrees centigrade by 6.00 am. Grapefruit juice and outmeal before. Gatorade and a litre of water every 10 miles during. Fuddruckers apple pie at mile 30. Soft pedal home.

Does this obey all the regulations?
I think that means 118 F if I did the conversion correctly :eek:

It definitely qualifies you for something. And as hot as that is, it ain't no wonder why them Aye-rab fellers get riled up so easy. I'd be hacked off about everything, too if it were that hot around here.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12283.0.html

This is a pretty good editorial...not that anybody hasn't already formed an opinion about Floyd Landis.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12283.0.html

This is a pretty good editorial...not that anybody hasn't already formed an opinion about Floyd Landis.

Well, we know for sure that the author of that editorial has formed an opinion.

I understand there's an opening for Manager in the Floyd Landis camp. Wonder what it pays, and where one should send one's resume? :D

I understand there's an opening for Manager in the Floyd Landis camp. Wonder what it pays, and where one should send one's resume?
Pay rate is nominal but the benefits are great; Travel the country visiting bars for fund raisers, visit Europe and meet all high level competing pro cyclists, front row seats for all legal proceedings, free beer and unlimited cell phone use.
Mud

It this your response?!? Just give up because, they all cheat anyway. That's pretty impressive reasoning.......Not!
To enforce the doping laws, the idea is to at the very least penalize the riders who do get caught.
Giving up alltogether on drug testing does the cyclists and the sport absolutely no favors and, imho, is completely irresponsible.

Actually, my post was more sarcasm and parody of the Lance-bashers' argument that since Lance beat dopers, he must be one, himself. I DO think that if we're going to have tests, we owe it to the athletes to accept negative test results as accurate, too. If the only results we believe are the positive ones, then testing is a complete lose/lose for the athletes. They're damned if they do test positive, and damned (at least by Blaireau and his ilk) if they don't test positive.

By your logic, Blaireau, we don't need testing, because the winners are all dopers. They wouldn't have won, if they weren't.