Professional Cycling For the Fans - Why hasn't the gaping hole in Floyd's story been addressed?

I've been waiting to find an article addressing what happened before/during Stage 17 in 2006.

Do people really not care about this? I see it as step 1 in his "coming clean".

Pathetic how Novitsky is going after guys who never tested positive BEFORE figuring out what the hell happened with the one guy who did.

I disagree that this represents a "hole" in his story as it really has nothing to do with what he did at US Postal or what's going on in cycling now, but I hope too that he comes clean with that at some point and just faces the consequences, whatever they are.

I've been waiting to find an article addressing what happened before/during Stage 17 in 2006.

Landis has addressed this numerous times. Were you not paying attention or do you just want to him to say what you want to hear?

He has addressed it, but not in a way that makes any sense imo.

Umm, to answer your question about why it hasn't been addressed...umm, it already has been addressed.

And another thing. You twisted it as if it were some secret conspirary thing. It's not. No hole either. Except the hole in your theory that Novitsky is only going after guys who NEVER tested positive. I know you ain't talking about Armstrong when you say that.

I've been waiting to find an article addressing what happened before/during Stage 17 in 2006.

Do people really not care about this? I see it as step 1 in his "coming clean".

Pathetic how Novitsky is going after guys who never tested positive BEFORE figuring out what the hell happened with the one guy who did.

You seem to misunderstand what the thrust of the federal investigation is about. It's not so much about doping as other laws broken in relation to the doping. Fraud, tax evasion, racketeering, misuse of federal monies. The reality is that the feds are trying to find the source from where the drugs flow and if Armstrong used federal monies to illegally advance his career.

Landis has already had his TDF victory taken away along with being financially bankrupt and his life destroyed. All the while Lance gets away with a more sophisticated doping and drug method and is sitting on millions of dollars and continues to ride the tide of success and positive public opinion when there is enough evidence against him to convict him in any court of law. So you think that they should continue to go after Landis when he is helping the investigation?

Total witch hunt. To say it's not about doping is ridiculous. Floyd's site is down in apparent shame.

Total witch hunt. To say it's not about doping is ridiculous. Floyd's site is down in apparent shame.


Ahh! Hanging your hopes on the "witch hunt" theory. I bet you read all the Armstrong twitter and press releases too, huh? :lol:

Total witch hunt. To say it's not about doping is ridiculous. Floyd's site is down in apparent shame.

As to the fundamental motivation you may be right. But it hardly matters if they have other legally legitimate avenues to go after him with.

Who knows, perhaps Lance really is a witch.

That's a pretty funny picture of Armstrong doing the Hook'em Horns. He never even went to the Univ of Texas. As a matter of fact, he never even went to college. Figures as much though. Dude barely has any intelligence to go with that total lack of class. The careers, businesses, and lives this guy has ruined. And making millions off cancer patients. Hope they clean up the sport starting with throwing him in prison for a long, long time.

That's a pretty funny picture of Armstrong doing the Hook'em Horns. He never even went to the Univ of Texas. As a matter of fact, he never even went to college. Figures as much though. Dude barely has any intelligence to go with that total lack of class. The careers, businesses, and lives this guy has ruined. And making millions off cancer patients. Hope they clean up the sport starting with throwing him in prison for a long, long time.

If you actually live in Austin then how are your surprised by the Hook'em Horns. Either a ton of people Austin went to UT or there are a lot of people that dress in UT gear because they like the football team. People like the big state schools and I would theorize that the more gear someone owns to the top public universities (UT, UNC, Michigan, UC Berkeley) the less likely it is that they went there.

As a matter of fact, he never even went to college. Figures as much though. Dude barely has any intelligence to go with that total lack of class. The careers, businesses, and lives this guy has ruined. And making millions off cancer patients.

I'm no Armstrong fan, but you've got to give the devil his due. You don't get where he's gotten without some intelligence. He's turned being a winning cyclist into a worldwide brand in a way that's never been done before, and made tens of millions for himself in the process.

Sometimes I think he can be his own worst enemy, but he's not stupid.

And how do you think he's been able to orchestrate a systematic program of doping, without getting nailed for it (at least until now), while all his major challengers were getting caught, without something on the ball?

I'm no Armstrong fan, but you've got to give the devil his due. You don't get where he's gotten without some intelligence. He's turned being a winning cyclist into a worldwide brand in a way that's never been done before, and made tens of millions for himself in the process.

Sometimes I think he can be his own worst enemy, but he's not stupid.

And how do you think he's been able to orchestrate a systematic program of doping, without getting nailed for it (at least until now), while all his major challengers were getting caught, without something on the ball?


OMG! Are you serious?! How did he NOT get busted for doping in 1999? EPO that is? How? I'll tell you how. Money talks. The UCI knows it. Money drives the sport. Money lines the pockets of the UCI prez. And money funds doping.

Now, you tell me how the guy at the top, who is making millions off of cancer patients, is incapable of pressuring other riders to dope?! He's already shown that is he capable of ruining other people's business, rider's livlihoods, families, etc. A hero? Not in my book. Maybe yours though.

I do not know if LA doped or not. One of Landis' allegation, though, is that LA had prior knowledge of testing protocols. This allegation, if true, infers that there is a corrupt individual(s) within the UCI who fed the ins/outs of the testing protocols to LA and possibly others.

OMG! Are you serious?! How did he NOT get busted for doping in 1999? EPO that is?

How does he get busted in 1999? With no test for EPO available, how does anyone prove he was using it.

How does he get busted in 1999? With no test for EPO available, how does anyone prove he was using it.



How does Armstrong NOT get busted when he, in fact, DID test positive in 2005 via retroactive testing that was not available in 1999! Just because he got off on some horrendous lies and technicalities does not mean he has never tested positive.

Armstrong puppets like to claim that he is the most tested mammal on earth, and that he never tested positive for anything other than hope, but this is blatantly false.

How does Armstrong NOT get busted when he, in fact, DID test positive in 2005 via retroactive testing that was not available in 1999! Just because he got off on some horrendous lies and technicalities does not mean he has never tested positive.

Armstrong puppets like to claim that he is the most tested mammal on earth, and that he never tested positive for anything other than hope, but this is blatantly false.

You know, I am smart enough to know that I don't know if Armstrong doped or not, having said that it boggles my mind how anyone can look at the information available about the 1999 samples and claim that they know LA was doping and that those samples are definitive proof. "Lies and technicalities?!?!?!" Last time I checked it was facts and testing protocols. The sad part is that people who have so much obsessive hate for LA are willing to see things that aren't even there, ignore facts that don't fit and attack and insult anyone who does not agree with everything they say.

Moving the goalposts. *yawn*

You know, I am smart enough to know that I don't know if Armstrong doped or not, having said that it boggles my mind how anyone can look at the information available about the 1999 samples and claim that they know LA was doping and that those samples are definitive proof. "Lies and technicalities?!?!?!" Last time I checked it was facts and testing protocols. The sad part is that people who have so much obsessive hate for LA are willing to see things that aren't even there, ignore facts that don't fit and attack and insult anyone who does not agree with everything they say.



That's because you are a casual fan who only joined the forum to be a mouthpiece for Armstrong. I think you don't know much about science behind the retroactive tests. Do you even know what retroactive means? Do a search on EPO dope methods, scientific research testing protocols for drug testing, and basically more homework. Enlighten yourself. I see how it could boggle your mind since you can't look at the information without any knowledge on what was tested and how or really why Armstrong would want to conceal that.

Let me translate for you:


That's because you are a casual fan who only joined the forum to be a mouthpiece for Armstrong.
You didn't agree with me so I must try to insult you


I think you don't know much about science behind the retroactive tests. Do you even know what retroactive means?
You don't agree with me so I must try to insult you.


Do a search on EPO dope methods, scientific research testing protocols for drug testing, and basically more homework. Enlighten yourself. I see how it could boggle your mind since you can't look at the information without any knowledge on what was tested and how or really why Armstrong would want to conceal that.

I have no intelligent retort so I will say nothing and attempt to insult you again.

Thanks bellweatherman for doing an excellent job of proving what I said.

P.S.- Your assertions about me could not be farther from the truth.

You know, I am smart enough to know that I don't know if Armstrong doped or not, having said that it boggles my mind how anyone can look at the information available about the 1999 samples and claim that they know LA was doping and that those samples are definitive proof. "Lies and technicalities?!?!?!" Last time I checked it was facts and testing protocols. The sad part is that people who have so much obsessive hate for LA are willing to see things that aren't even there, ignore facts that don't fit and attack and insult anyone who does not agree with everything they say.
Good post.

How does Armstrong NOT get busted when he, in fact, DID test positive in 2005 via retroactive testing that was not available in 1999! Just because he got off on some horrendous lies and technicalities does not mean he has never tested positive.

Armstrong puppets like to claim that he is the most tested mammal on earth, and that he never tested positive for anything other than hope, but this is blatantly false.
In case you hadn't noticed, the OP specifically restricted the time to 1999 and the PED to EPO. So whatever you might think about 2005 really isn't relevant.

As to why he wasn't sanctioned in 2005, the rules in place in 2005 required cofirmation via a B sample. Since there weren't any B samples of the urine collected in 1999 available, there was no way to sanction anyone. (It also means the requirement for a scientifically recognized test doesn't have to be addressed.)

Umm, to answer your question about why it hasn't been addressed...umm, it already has been addressed.

And another thing. You twisted it as if it were some secret conspirary thing. It's not. No hole either. Except the hole in your theory that Novitsky is only going after guys who NEVER tested positive. I know you ain't talking about Armstrong when you say that.

Huh? Article please.

Landis says he doped all the time, but not in 2006 on Stage 17 with testosterone. We should take his word for it? Nobody's tried to dig any deeper?

Huh? Article please.

Landis says he doped all the time, but not in 2006 on Stage 17 with testosterone. We should take his word for it? Nobody's tried to dig any deeper?

The main reason why the Feds don't care about this is that there is no US crime committed. Landis's allegation have led to an investigation of potential US Federal crimes. Compare this investigation to the BALCO case where there was a drug distribution ring and the Feds broke the ring and revealed it with the use of their powers.

I think the allegations against Armstrong/Bruyneel and Tailwind appear to be of this sort. On the other hand, Landis admitted to basically a solo operation with Phonak and being part of the broader ring in Discovery. He may plead guilty to crimes associated with being part of the ring. However, if his allegations are true, then others are the big fish as far as the feds are concerned.

As far as how I feel specifically about Landis's claims that he didn't take testosterone on that specific stage, I would tend to not really care. He's admitted to doping leading up to and during the Tour, so no claim could be made to make him the legitimate winner again. His credibility is already tarnished by his previous lying so a minor point such as this seems to not really matter. Could you explain why it would matter why it would matter whether he took testosterone on that day given that he admits to taking HGH and blood doping before and during the tour?

Could you explain why it would matter why it would matter whether he took testosterone on that day given that he admits to taking HGH and blood doping before and during the tour?

Because I think he's still lying. Implicating Armstrong and others on US Postal by admitting to blood doping benefits him financially. Admitting to using testosterone and confirming the legitimacy of the Stage 17 test does not.

If he would just admit to the testosterone, he'd have some credibility. Right now he has zero. That's why it matters.

I think the points I was trying to make is

1. Novitsky and the rest of the Feds don't care about one person doping (i.e. Floyd's testosterone or no), especially if it occurred in a foreign country. They care about conspiracies to purchase and distribute drugs and possible fraud.

2. Floyd's allegations, by themselves, are not credible, regardless of whether he was lying or not. Such allegations need to be corroborated and I think that is what the investigators are doing now. I think that their specificity and their links to many people is why they investigated them. These characteristics should allow the investigators to check for physical and eyewitness evidence to corroborate them.

3. I don't think Floyd is trying to claim that he won the Tour, and so in terms of interest in the sport, I don't care because he has admitted to being on a full doping program for the Tour. This leads me to believe that Pereiro is the rightful winner.

Finally, I don't regard Floyd as a hero for making the allegations, but if it cracks the lid a bit more on doping in cycling, then it is a welcome event.

I think old bellweatherman is Floyd in disguise. Talk about haters, fanboys and other B.S. This is an old argument.......get a life. SSDD. So far, many people have made millions making accusations, writing books, etc. Still it's like watching the news, there is a certain lemming element that feeds on death and disaster. I really just don't see the point.

I do not know if LA doped or not. One of Landis' allegation, though, is that LA had prior knowledge of testing protocols. This allegation, if true, infers that there is a corrupt individual(s) within the UCI who fed the ins/outs of the testing protocols to LA and possibly others.

If you read about the inside history of cycling this was a common thing among all of the teams. The UCI is essentially an organization that is staffed with ex pro bike racers who grew up in the age of rampant doping. They are sympathetic towards the racers and doping. Until the last few years the doping controls have been a total sham. This is why Armstrong had such an issue when non UCI people showed up at his door for an unannounced doping control. He wasn't expecting it and he needed an excuse to have time to dilute his blood and urine. Someone like Armstrong who has fame and money probably has a few guys in his pocket at the UCI.

So far, many people have made millions making accusations, writing books, etc.
Who?

If I were to make that argument I would first think of Arch-Lance-Hater David Walsh, so had this biased lie to say to biased anti-lance hater website velocity nation in an interview (http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/david-walsh):


As for the money making bit, I've made virtually nothing from all of this, I'm sure if you spoke to my accountant I'm sure he'd tell you it's actually cost me money. The money doesn't interest me, never has it interested me. Andy, you're talking to me now in a South African hotel, we're speaking on my mobile phone because there isn't a phone in my room. I don't care about that stuff, I never have. I don't fly business class, I don't wish to fly business class. I don't have an expense account, I don't wish to have an expense account. So money has always been a complete irrelevance for me here. And this book, it will have cost us as much to do it as we will earn from it. So what. That's not what it's about.
And the people who say that make me laugh, because we are investigating people who might well be committing fraud to earn millions of dollars, and we operate at the very least in the few thousand dollars, and we're the ones who are considered the mercenaries. How absurd is that?
My emphasis. Of course he's the incarnation of the devil and should be forced to donate $1 to Livestrong for every word he utters in public or private, but it is an interesting perspective.

Can't help but think of it every time someone claims "many" people have made "millions" out of the hate crusade.

As to the fundamental motivation you may be right. But it hardly matters if they have other legally legitimate avenues to go after him with.

Who knows, perhaps Lance really is a witch.

:) I hadn't thought of that.

What?! Only the Armstrong fans who wait breathlessly for each press release from Armstrong or his attorney claims that Walsh is full of it. Have you even read the book? It's more a collection of quotes and opinions from former teammates, team personnel, etc. than it is based on author opinion. Armstrong fans remind me of ostriches with their head in the sand. They can't see the truth for what it is because they refuse to acknowledge the real world. Every now and then, they pop their head out get a morsel from Armstrong's lawyers so that they can know what to do with their lives as they proudly wear their yellow rubber bands and spout Armstrong PR lies.

Hey if that's a response to me, the whole Walsh is a biased liar thing is meant ironically. It's just that every time I quote anyone who has ever spoken against Lance I'm reasonably sure that LanceFanboi_001 will just respond that 'that guy is a proven biased liar with an axe to grind so if that's where you get your information I don't even have to respond'. So I call him biased preemptively in what is supposed to be something of a jab at that predictable kneejerk response.

Who?

For all the "I dont care about money" he says, he never says what he made.

All I can say is that when its all over with, its gonna make one helluva movie!

Ok, I don't know if Lance was doping or not. But can someone explain how he placed on the podium last Tour De France without being busted for doping? Was he not under a ton of scrutiny then yet still placed? Heck maybe I'm just naive.

Ok, I don't know if Lance was doping or not. But can someone explain how he placed on the podium last Tour De France without being busted for doping? Was he not under a ton of scrutiny then yet still placed? Heck maybe I'm just naive.


The #1 method for avoiding a high hematocrit is saline infusions. Undetectable. You can just claim that you were dehydrated, ask the team doc, for a saline bag IV. Presto. Hematocrit goes down. Mancebo and others have spoken about this and other illicit ways riders cheat the system. Landis has alleged that this is also one of Armstrong's methods. How can you not get caught? In fact, if you can do the IV stuff yourself, then you don't really even need a doctor for administration. Only for consultation. Armstrong did consult with a Hematologist that was convicted of blood doping. Dr. Michele Ferrari.

The #1 method for avoiding a high hematocrit is saline infusions. Undetectable. You can just claim that you were dehydrated, ask the team doc, for a saline bag IV. Presto. Hematocrit goes down. Mancebo and others have spoken about this and other illicit ways riders cheat the system. Landis has alleged that this is also one of Armstrong's methods. How can you not get caught? In fact, if you can do the IV stuff yourself, then you don't really even need a doctor for administration. Only for consultation. Armstrong did consult with a Hematologist that was convicted of blood doping. Dr. Michele Ferrari.

"From his return to cycling in the fall of 2008 through March 2009, Armstrong submitted to 24 unannounced drug tests by various anti-doping authorities. All of the tests were negative for performance-enhancing drugs." Ummm....

Of course I couldn't come close to his level of performance even with non-stop blood doping but hey I'm not complaining. I wonder how many of those claiming foul can?

"From his return to cycling in the fall of 2008 through March 2009, Armstrong submitted to 24 unannounced drug tests by various anti-doping authorities. All of the tests were negative for performance-enhancing drugs." Ummm....

Of course I couldn't come close to his level of performance even with non-stop blood doping but hey I'm not complaining. I wonder how many of those claiming foul can?


You asked how Armstrong could've tested clean, but still be doping and I gave you one method. Now, you come back with the hype about his numerous tests being clean?

You asked how Armstrong could've tested clean, but still be doping and I gave you one method. Now, you come back with the hype about his numerous tests being clean?

Well, to me it's all hype if I'm being honest. When he is convicted or confesses to something then I'll know the truth. It won't be "wiki hype", your opinion, whatever. It will be his word and the decision of a jury of his peers. Until then why should anyone believe either way?

Well, to me it's all hype if I'm being honest. When he is convicted or confesses to something then I'll know the truth. It won't be "wiki hype", your opinion, whatever. It will be his word and the decision of a jury of his peers. Until then why should anyone believe either way?


So, then you were just asking a rhetorical question thinking that there wasn't any possible explanation for Armstrong's doping. Correct? You admit that you already have formulated a opinion. Then, why bother asking the question for an answer you hope not to be exposed anyway. And that is the high likelihood that Armstrong is a cheater, doper, liar, fill-in-the-blank. Despicable how he cons the cancer community and research companies to fill his bank account.

Bell, it's actually pretty pathetic how poorly you do in posting your obsessive hate for LA. The amount of holes in your posts are too many to count. You are much better off running away like you usually do then trying to get by with excrement like you keep posting.

So, then you were just asking a rhetorical question thinking that there wasn't any possible explanation for Armstrong's doping. Correct? You admit that you already have formulated a opinion. Then, why bother asking the question for an answer you hope not to be exposed anyway. And that is the high likelihood that Armstrong is a cheater, doper, liar, fill-in-the-blank. Despicable how he cons the cancer community and research companies to fill his bank account.

LOL, mine is just a curiosity not a hatred. I've no dog in this fight at all. But having both sat on juries (court martials) and participated in many drug tests as both the tester and the subject I know that your and my opinion ultimately don't matter at all in terms of the truth. No big deal though, life goes on whether Lance cheated or not.

Man, I am convinced. It's like the same person here logged in under the guise of two or 3 different users. If not, just get in with the mancrush for Armstrong already.. It's clear these bozos don't want to know the truth, as anything slightly negative against their idol is met with disbelief and that ignorance that is evident in those who only read the press clippings from the Armstrong press releases.

Man, I am convinced. It's like the same person here logged in under the guise of two or 3 different users. If not, just get in with the mancrush for Armstrong already.. It's clear these bozos don't want to know the truth, as anything slightly negative against their idol is met with disbelief and that ignorance that is evident in those who only read the press clippings from the Armstrong press releases.

Where do you see the press releases? It be interesting to see those as this develops.

Man, I am convinced. It's like the same person here logged in under the guise of two or 3 different users. If not, just get in with the mancrush for Armstrong already.. It's clear these bozos don't want to know the truth, as anything slightly negative against their idol is met with disbelief and that ignorance that is evident in those who only read the press clippings from the Armstrong press releases.

Once again bellweather resorts to insults. It's funny how in every thread you are in, any time someone does not agree with you, you resort to insults in order to avoid answering questions, providing proof to back up your assertions or admitting when you are wrong.

Essentially you are a coward.

OMG! These supporters never stop with the insults and finger pointing. Pot, kettle, or both. I'm saying both as the flurry of new posters suggest that there is one groupthink, possibly one or two people, behind this. The Armstrong PR machine is alive and well I see.

OMG! These supporters never stop with the insults and finger pointing. Pot, kettle, or both. I'm saying both as the flurry of new posters suggest that there is one groupthink, possibly one or two people, behind this. The Armstrong PR machine is alive and well I see.

Good Morning Bell,

So once again I'm curious to know where I can see all the Lance PR stuff you keep referencing. Like I said before, it'd be interesting to see how this all plays out. Thanks,

The #1 method for avoiding a high hematocrit is saline infusions. Undetectable. You can just claim that you were dehydrated, ask the team doc, for a saline bag IV. Presto. Hematocrit goes down. Mancebo and others have spoken about this and other illicit ways riders cheat the system. Landis has alleged that this is also one of Armstrong's methods. How can you not get caught? In fact, if you can do the IV stuff yourself, then you don't really even need a doctor for administration. Only for consultation. Armstrong did consult with a Hematologist that was convicted of blood doping. Dr. Michele Ferrari.

IV fluids won't mask, or get rid of, synthetic epo molecules. Just ask Michael Ashenden, creator of the test. His interview on nyvelocity discusses it in detail. He also discusses how he changed the testing protocols until he got a positive result on the 1999 samples. This was after the unbiased lab initially tasked with testing the samples, using Ashenden's test, came up with a...wait for it...negative result. Ashenden changed the protocols, "reinterpreted" the results, and found a positive result...in part of the urine. Urine that had passed through more hands than a buffalo head nickel, and that was almost as old. Would you want to be prosecuted under those circumstances?

IV fluids won't mask, or get rid of, synthetic epo molecules. Just ask Michael Ashenden, creator of the test. His interview on nyvelocity discusses it in detail. He also discusses how he changed the testing protocols until he got a positive result on the 1999 samples. This was after the unbiased lab initially tasked with testing the samples, using Ashenden's test, came up with a...wait for it...negative result. Ashenden changed the protocols, "reinterpreted" the results, and found a positive result...in part of the urine. Urine that had passed through more hands than a buffalo head nickel, and that was almost as old. Would you want to be prosecuted under those circumstances?




No s--- Sherlock. Never did I say that IV fluids would mask metabolites of EPO. That is not their intended purpose. The stuff you posted about the NYVelocity articles and Ashenden are total lies. Just because another Armstrong fan says something does not make it true. Or do you also listen to the word of Armstrong's lawyers as gospel?

No s--- Sherlock. Never did I say that IV fluids would mask metabolites of EPO. That is not their intended purpose. The stuff you posted about the NYVelocity articles and Ashenden are total lies. Just because another Armstrong fan says something does not make it true. Or do you also listen to the word of Armstrong's lawyers as gospel?

Thanks for the thoughtful, reasoned response :rolleyes:. I had expected that you could make the connection between taking epo, and raising ones hematocrit. Apparently not.

The point I attempted to make, without being long-winded, and in keeping with the current course of the thread...Armstrong took 3rd in the 2009 Tour, despite having been tested >20 times prior to the event. Had he been doping (which, by your way of thinking, he must have been), wouldn't one, or perhaps several, of those tests have come back positive? Synthetic epo, from what I understand, stays in the body anywhere from three to seven days, depending on who you believe. Had he been doping, surely one of the tests would have taken place within the window of opportunity. They even took hair samples, for christ's sake.

The retroactive testing, and its skewed results (Ashenden admitted to changing the testing protocols until he achieved the results he wanted, he said so himself) were debunked in a court of law. Found to have no merit. Call it lies if you want, but the end result is unchanged.

My personal view? He was a doper, just like all, or at least most, of the rest. I'm no fan. Hell, I was a mountain biker til 2006, and never watched him ride in a Tour until 2009. The difference is, he wasn't caught. Maybe Novitzky can dig up proof, or a credible eyewitness. We've all waited a long time, why not wait a few more months for the truth?

I'll ask this, and hope for an honest response. If the present federal investigation finds that Landis' allegations are baseless, and nothing more than the rantings of a disgruntled former employee of Tailwind...will everyone let it go? Will that be enough to put it to bed?