"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Book: From Lance To Landis

http://www.amazon.com/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1658397-1979303?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182872482&sr=8-1

David Walsh's new book was published today. Based on the NPR interview, I'm interested in reading it. I know there's lots of mud slinging and hearsay, but I'd like to read it for myself if it's worth the time and money.

I know he's saying stuff that isn't popular and getting blasted with a flamethower, but I'm still curious.

Does anyone have a reasonable opinion on this guy.

This is what Lance (or someone who writes really well) had to say.
Armstrong Statement on Walsh book Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Back to Listing + Larger Font | + Smaller Font


A statement from Lance Armstrong:
Predictably, on the eve of the Tour de France, I will be the subject of a repeated, baseless attack in yet another unobjective book by David Walsh. Trying to jump on the bandwagon of current publicity surrounding cycling, Walsh now issues a recycled version of two earlier French books that were likewise founded upon a demonstrably false string of sensational, untrue and fabricated allegations.

This latest attack will be no different than the first two - a sensationalized attempt to cash in on my name and sully my reputation by people who have demonstrated a consistent failure to adhere to the most basic journalistic standards or ethics. We proved in Court that Walsh and his sources have no credibility. Walsh bolstered his first two book’s accusations by knowingly using false, backdated and manufactured diary entries and documents. He violated fundamental principles by paying his sources for “information”; he then compounded his unethical conduct by lying and denying those payments until confronted with irrefutable proof to the contrary.

The allegations and sources in the latest book remain just as baseless, unreliable and manufactured as they were in the first two books. Continuing a pattern of distortion and fabrication started in the other books, the new book takes recycled allegations from the first books and cherry-picked allegations and testimony from the losing side of a court case I won and attempts to portray them as facts. I responded in court to these allegations, most of which are made by a handful of grudge holders, axe grinders, and a so-called “expert” whose graduate degree turned out to be by way of correspondence courses -- and I proved them false. I was awarded 7.5 Million dollars in actual and punitive damages by a professional panel of legal experts who received all the evidence and heard from all the “eyewitnesses”. Every allegation and witness was confronted thoroughly, lawfully and fairly. I was vindicated yet again.

I raced clean. I won clean. I am the most tested athlete in the history of sports. I have defended myself and my reputation and won every court case to prove I was clean. Yet another Walsh book with baseless, sensational and rejected allegations will not overcome the truth.

Like most fair minded people, I am sick and tired of those who try to profit off the tactics of smear and guilt by innuendo or association.

Lance Armstrong

^^^^^
Pays to hire good lawyers and PR people.

^^^^^
Pays to hire good lawyers and PR people.

I agree. It's really the best way to write a concise statement that proves what a moron David Walsh is. Although Armstrong is an author too; so he probably wrote it himself.

I found a bootleg copies online of the English translation of Walsh's book. And it's clearly a lot of fabrication; but still entertaining to read.

I agree. It's really the best way to write a concise statement that proves what a moron David Walsh is. Although Armstrong is an author too; so he probably wrote it himself.

I found a bootleg copies online of the English translation of Walsh's book. And it's clearly a lot of fabrication; but still entertaining to read.

Armstrong never wrote anything. He has "editors", and a considerable budget of lawyers.

Walsh's books are not very good and not very believable, much like Armstrong's books.

http://www.amazon.com/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1658397-1979303?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182872482&sr=8-1

David Walsh's new book was published today. Based on the NPR interview, I'm interested in reading it. I know there's lots of mud slinging and hearsay, but I'd like to read it for myself if it's worth the time and money.

I know he's saying stuff that isn't popular and getting blasted with a flamethower, but I'm still curious.

Does anyone have a reasonable opinion on this guy.

doubtful.

What's good is that amazon has bundles it with other BS cycling books..one stop shopping of delusion.

Buy this book with Positively False: The Real Story of How I Won the Tour de France by Floyd Landis today!

Buy Together Today: $35.15

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/11KWqSd65mL.jpg + http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/11KoQDBP20L.jpghttp://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/nav2/dp/btn-buy-both._V46874255_.gif

Just finished reading the book. My opinion has been swayed a bit. I have to say that while I think that the amount of conjecture is staggering, and I think in many places a REEEEEEAAAAAAAL stretch, I do believe that there was enough in the way of fact to make me re-think the whole Lance story.

I did find it particularly amusing reading the supposed arguments between the Australian exercise and sports scientist/anti-doping crusader Dr Ashenden and Dr. Coyle. But maybe it is just because I understand a bit more about exercise physiology than I do about the euro doping scene.

Sorry to resurrect the thread as the whole doping thing has been talked to death, but I did not want to start a new one. Anyone have an idea of who the euro pro cyclist might be who was discussed in the very end?

Sorry to resurrect the thread as the whole doping thing has been talked to death, but I did not want to start a new one. Anyone have an idea of who the euro pro cyclist might be who was discussed in the very end?

Haven't read it. Give us a brief overview and someone might be able to work it out.

Just finished reading the book. My opinion has been swayed a bit. I have to say that while I think that the amount of conjecture is staggering, and I think in many places a REEEEEEAAAAAAAL stretch, I do believe that there was enough in the way of fact to make me re-think the whole Lance story.

I did find it particularly amusing reading the supposed arguments between the Australian exercise and sports scientist/anti-doping crusader Dr Ashenden and Dr. Coyle. But maybe it is just because I understand a bit more about exercise physiology than I do about the euro doping scene.

Sorry to resurrect the thread as the whole doping thing has been talked to death, but I did not want to start a new one. Anyone have an idea of who the euro pro cyclist might be who was discussed in the very end?

But I have re-thought the whole Lance story. I'm convinced that virtually all the cyclists of his era were doping. Which means it was a level playing field. And to me, that makes this whole 'debate' a major 'what's your point' topic. It only makes Lance look craftier than the cyclists who got nailed for doping (and most of those who doped in his era clearly never got snagged).

Regardless, there is nothing to be gained for anyone if Lance ever confessed. There would only be pain and loss, particularly in the cancer community. And for what? So DocRay can say 'I told you so' and all the idiots that confuse the pro cycling business with some Hallowed Ground of Sportsmanship? Direct your misdirected search for morality someplace more appropriate. Politics in Washington DC might be a good place to start.

Changes nothing for me. Essential truth: Lance gets very sick, somehow manages to survive (that alone was rather miraculous), then Lance inspires millions of cancer patients and their loved ones when he wins 7 Tours. That unprecedented feat remains utterly astonishing even if he was taking EPO, HGH, Steroids and Crank. Even if nobody else was doping. But they were. And you all know it. Lance's story is much bigger than cycling. Cycling is a friggin footnote in that Big Picture. And if you don't get that, you don't get anything.

Whatever. Go Giants. Thank God the NFL is clean, eh?

And you all know it. Lance's story is much bigger than cycling. Cycling is a friggin footnote in that Big Picture. And if you don't get that, you don't get anything.



But the emperor, as remarkable as his story is, has no cloths! He's stark friking naked. Integrity my freind, isn't about how "big" your story is. It's about time our sport had a little.

But I have re-thought the whole Lance story. I'm convinced that virtually all the cyclists of his era were doping. Which means it was a level playing field. And to me, that makes this whole 'debate' a major 'what's your point' topic. It only makes Lance look craftier than the cyclists who got nailed for doping (and most of those who doped in his era clearly never got snagged).

Regardless, there is nothing to be gained for anyone if Lance ever confessed. There would only be pain and loss, particularly in the cancer community. And for what? So DocRay can say 'I told you so' and all the idiots that confuse the pro cycling business with some Hallowed Ground of Sportsmanship? Direct your misdirected search for morality someplace more appropriate. Politics in Washington DC might be a good place to start.

Changes nothing for me. Essential truth: Lance gets very sick, somehow manages to survive (that alone was rather miraculous), then Lance inspires millions of cancer patients and their loved ones when he wins 7 Tours. That unprecedented feat remains utterly astonishing even if he was taking EPO, HGH, Steroids and Crank. Even if nobody else was doping. But they were. And you all know it. Lance's story is much bigger than cycling. Cycling is a friggin footnote in that Big Picture. And if you don't get that, you don't get anything.

Whatever. Go Giants. Thank God the NFL is clean, eh?
Wow. For once, I entirely agree with PCad, with no reservations!

-bullseye

Wow. For once, I entirely agree with PCad, with no reservations!

-bullseye

Incorrect.

The pats all the way baby.

:D

But I have re-thought the whole Lance story. I'm convinced that virtually all the cyclists of his era were doping. Which means it was a level playing field. And to me, that makes this whole 'debate' a major 'what's your point' topic.

I don't know. It seems possible to me that those with big money and power behind them like Lance would be able to more thoroughly investigate various doping alternatives, more thoroughly calculate the risks of various doping protocols, and in the end engage in a doping program that is superior to that of the average pro. Of course there is no way of knowing whether this was the case or not. I am just recognizing it as a possibility.

PCad, I agree completely.

Like it or not, we all have to help perpetuate The Great Lie because the general public wants a hero to believe in.

I don't know. It seems possible to me that those with big money and power behind them like Lance would be able to more thoroughly investigate various doping alternatives, more thoroughly calculate the risks of various doping protocols, and in the end engage in a doping program that is superior to that of the average pro. Of course there is no way of knowing whether this was the case or not. I am just recognizing it as a possibility.

ha

I don't know. It seems possible to me that those with big money and power behind them like Lance would be able to more thoroughly investigate various doping alternatives, more thoroughly calculate the risks of various doping protocols, and in the end engage in a doping program that is superior to that of the average pro. Of course there is no way of knowing whether this was the case or not. I am just recognizing it as a possibility.

So... you're saying he cheated better than everyone else? That doesn't fill me with sympathy for incompetent dopers.

And I'm not privy to financial statements, etc, but he didn't get big money deals until after he won his (at a minimum) first TdF.

So... you're saying he cheated better than everyone else?

Excellence in this regard is no vice.

I don't really care too much one way or the other, but my point (I think I had one) was that you're nit-picking/sour-grapes if you say he won because he doped better than the other dopers.

Haven't read it. Give us a brief overview and someone might be able to work it out.

"Four years ago, I traveled to Milan to meet a young American who had recently moved from Colorado to Italy. He told a story about a friend of his, a European-born pro cyclist..."

(Four years ago would put it in 2002-2003 as per publish date of the book?)

"Though the young man told me the cyclist's name, he did not want the guy publicly shamed, mostly because of the attention that would fall on the whistle-blower. I follow the rider's performances each year, and over the last three seasons, he has become quite a star. He has won stages of the Tour d France and is expected to claim another in 2007. Journalists write about him as a man and athlete we should admire."

I have a guess, but I know you guys know the Euro Peloton much better than I.

Any suggestions?

But I have re-thought the whole Lance story. I'm convinced that virtually all the cyclists of his era were doping. Which means it was a level playing field. And to me, that makes this whole 'debate' a major 'what's your point' topic. It only makes Lance look craftier than the cyclists who got nailed for doping (and most of those who doped in his era clearly never got snagged).

Regardless, there is nothing to be gained for anyone if Lance ever confessed. There would only be pain and loss, particularly in the cancer community. And for what? So DocRay can say 'I told you so' and all the idiots that confuse the pro cycling business with some Hallowed Ground of Sportsmanship? Direct your misdirected search for morality someplace more appropriate. Politics in Washington DC might be a good place to start.

Changes nothing for me. Essential truth: Lance gets very sick, somehow manages to survive (that alone was rather miraculous), then Lance inspires millions of cancer patients and their loved ones when he wins 7 Tours. That unprecedented feat remains utterly astonishing even if he was taking EPO, HGH, Steroids and Crank. Even if nobody else was doping. But they were. And you all know it. Lance's story is much bigger than cycling. Cycling is a friggin footnote in that Big Picture. And if you don't get that, you don't get anything.

Whatever. Go Giants. Thank God the NFL is clean, eh?

Correct, mostly. Some that got caught were just as crafty, but someone squealed on them, or an underling was sloppy and left evidence. He wasn't using anything special. He would use EPO at specific times to boost blood, then save off packets of blood in the freezer for later use. Blood doping is essentially undetectable. The pros are still doping, but I'm sure they're being much more careful with EPO and testosterone than they were before.

I agree that during Lance's era, it's quite possible that "they we're all doing it", but not so earlier. Greg LeMond got burned the year after his last TdF win because Indurain and the other started using EPO and he didn't. So although Greg was in his best shape ever, guys that he blew away the year before were now blowing him away. Pros at that level don't just magically improve 10% from 1 year to the next. Just like "Flo-Jo" in running. Did you ever see the "before" and "after" pictures of her when she started doping ?

Just finished reading the book. My opinion has been swayed a bit. I have to say that while I think that the amount of conjecture is staggering, and I think in many places a REEEEEEAAAAAAAL stretch, I do believe that there was enough in the way of fact to make me re-think the whole Lance story.

I did find it particularly amusing reading the supposed arguments between the Australian exercise and sports scientist/anti-doping crusader Dr Ashenden and Dr. Coyle. But maybe it is just because I understand a bit more about exercise physiology than I do about the euro doping scene.

Sorry to resurrect the thread as the whole doping thing has been talked to death, but I did not want to start a new one. Anyone have an idea of who the euro pro cyclist might be who was discussed in the very end?

It was Rasmussen. A guy who he used to race mountain bikes with was coming over to Europe, Ras asked him to bring over a pair of shoes, blah blah. That's all in the book, right? The guy (whose name I can't remember) decided to go on the record after Ras said he wasn't doping during the Tour.

Here's an article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/tour_de_france/article2116022.ece) about it.

So... you're saying he cheated better than everyone else? That doesn't fill me with sympathy for incompetent dopers.

And I'm not privy to financial statements, etc, but he didn't get big money deals until after he won his (at a minimum) first TdF.

He had a $2 million dollar deal with Cofidis just before he got cancer. That's pretty big money, in my book...

"Four years ago, I traveled to Milan to meet a young American who had recently moved from Colorado to Italy. He told a story about a friend of his, a European-born pro cyclist..."

(Four years ago would put it in 2002-2003 as per publish date of the book?)

"Though the young man told me the cyclist's name, he did not want the guy publicly shamed, mostly because of the attention that would fall on the whistle-blower. I follow the rider's performances each year, and over the last three seasons, he has become quite a star. He has won stages of the Tour d France and is expected to claim another in 2007. Journalists write about him as a man and athlete we should admire."

I have a guess, but I know you guys know the Euro Peloton much better than I.

Any suggestions?

Best guess the seppo is Danielson and the Italian is Basso (when they were at Fasso Bortolo), but there are likely other candidates.

Best guess the seppo is Danielson and the Italian is Basso (when they were at Fasso Bortolo), but there are likely other candidates.

No. Roq hit it on the head. The link matches up quite well with the story.

I read roqs reply. That fits. So many dopers, so many stories.....

That's Rog, actually...

The underline thingy threw me Rog. Is that short for 'rogering'?:p

He had a $2 million dollar deal with Cofidis just before he got cancer. That's pretty big money, in my book...

in context - Wasn't referring to his salary or winnings, which were quite high; I was referring to 'the machine' that was put together with the money after the TdF.

That's Rog, actually...

sorry Rog...maybe it is a byproduct of all of the 'g's used for guads instead of Quads (quadriceps). Just remember to drope the hamer.

The underline thingy threw me Rog. Is that short for 'rogering'?:p

:eek:


sorry Rog...maybe it is a byproduct of all of the 'g's used for guads instead of Quads (quadriceps). Just remember to drope the hamer.

'Tis all good...just saw a trend starting, and wanted to nip it in the bud. :p