OrionKhan

This is pretty much the same thing people said about Jose Canseco. Remember when he was going around saying the MLB owners had black balled him out of the league? Today, nobody thinks of him as a better guy. But no one's calling him a liar anymore.

colombo357

Your argument would hold more water if Jose Canseco won the 2006 TDF and failed the stage 17 doping test.

But he didn't, Floyd Landis did, so all we can do is guess. Guesses from BF members are worthless.

colombo357

:facepalm:

He was jesting. It was a reply to Mick Rogers who sent him a picture of a bike with a ~50cc 2-stroke bolted to the frame. https://yfrog.com/0pt9isj

Motorized doping is one of the stupidest concepts ever. Any energy saved by the motor would be lost to drag when the motor is being backdriven. Furthermore, a cheapass, used airport X-ray machine could easily detect motors and gearboxes in the frame.

guadzilla

Yeah, I know that now. I sort of mixed up the timing of that tweet and that video on Velonews. Figured going back and editing my post would be the cheap way out. Oh well.

OrionKhan

What? You make no sense.

Jose Canseco was, and still is for the most part, a bad guy. Just like Floyd. Most ripped Jose when he came out. Said it was all for money. His credibility was attacked. Players threatened to sue. Years later we find that Jose probably is still a bad guy, but it looks like he was telling more of the truth about steroids in baseball than he was lying.

You're point about Landis failing a drug test in the TdF doesn't mean he's lying now. He's admitted lying about not taking PED's. Now he's giving details about how he did it. That's not guessing. The Floyd Landis story is still unfolding. People are ripping his credibility. Calling him a bad guy. Saying he's desperate. This may be true. He may have crappy motives for coming forward, but that doesn't mean he's lying about it.

DMF 

So. Have there been any developments in the story? It was rumored that others were poised to corroborate Floyd's (most recent) story. Have any shoes dropped?

colombo357

Not what I meant.

What I'm saying is that just because Jose Canseco turned out to be right doesn't mean Floyd Landis will be.

Two different incidents, two different people. The possibility is there but it's all speculation at this point.

OrionKhan

True.

I was just making the point that someone being a bad guy doesn't mean they're lying. People also said the same things about CJ Hunter as well. Where is Marion Jones today? Yes, its speculation. But its speculation on both sides. People are very quick to dismiss accusations of a bad guy in favor of the hero. We should approach cautiously in analyzing the allegations. But we shouldn't blindly dismiss them as well. Just like we should jump to the conclusion that the finger pointer is absolutely correct.

BadBoy10

The accomplishments many of the pro athletes achieve are frankly--unbelievable.
Why is any of this surprising? I can think of several athletes that have achieved the what appears humanly impossible --repeatedly. Everyone seems soooo shocked that Lance Armstrong may have doped. Why?

DXchulo

The WSJ article: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...reel_lifeStyle

Some people were saying this would be a big bombshell right before the race, but it looks like more of the same to me.

VT Biker

Well -

it seems that the claim about the sale of Trek bikes has some legitimacy. Federal investigators called Trek, which confirmed that some bikes went missing, and then ended up for sale on the internet (Ebay?). In addition, interviews with 3 other riders confirmed that doping occurred in the US Postal team during the first 1/2 of the 2000's.

Interesting that other riders denied ever having seen doping, but this was to the WSJ, not to the Feds. I wonder if their story will change if the threat of perjury hangs over their heads.

X-LinkedRider

+1. More of the same. Leak this, Expose that, Threaten this, Deny that.

DXchulo

You can see where this is going, though. Team Armstrong will claim the bikes were sold to raise money for cancer. Then they'll remind us that Landis is a known liar.

Frankie Andreu is probably one of the 3 other Postal riders they're talking about. That's nothing new.

DXchulo

The new WSJ article may shed some light on this. Assuming you can believe Landis (huge assumption), I get the impression that Phonak was new to the doping game and didn't really have their **** together. It was probably a simple mistake on their part that led to the positive test.

Devil

I believe Landis for the most part. What I found most interesting, even more than the sale of the bikes, is that Vaughters (allegedly) pressed Floyd to come clean about everything.

BengeBoy 

At this point, nobody has to believe Landis about anything. Landis is an "informer;" and informers almost always have somewhat dirty hands. What informers do, though, is get investigators and prosecutors interested enough to start following up on leads. *It doesn't matter at all* at this point whether Landis' word would stand up in court, or whether he even has to testify. All the investigators need to do is start talking to riders, coaches, team employees, sponsors, doctors, etc.

What's significant about the new WSJ story is the implication of fraud in the use of team funds. The U.S. Postal Service paid millions of dollars to a pro racing team so they could win professional races. Presumably part of that money went to purchase bikes from Trek. But those bikes weren't used to race, they ended up "on the Internet," according to the Trek lawyer quoted by the WSJ. Landis says Bruyneel told him the bikes were sold to pay for the doping program; Landis will never need to testify that because the investigators will start following the paper trail on that: where did the bikes go? who has the paper trail? was the money properly accounted for? etc. , etc. The federal investigators, acting on behalf of the U.S. Postal Service, will want to track this down.

Do all of the people who were on the "inside" of U.S. Postal want to go to jail or pay big fines to protect Lance Armstrong? I doubt it.

Forget Floyd; he's just the guy talking to the media. The investigators likely finished with him months ago and they're now onto putting pressure on people who have a lot more to lose by not telling the truth.

Hezz

If Lance's ex wife is forced to testify against Lance it will be over for Lance. Kristen has to weigh the possibility of going to jail for perjury when she has kids to raise. The stakes are higher here than in the Tailwind civil case. Even if Lance is not convicted of fraud because he didn't use Postal money for PED. His reputation has a large possibility of being completely destroyed.

colombo357

So... (SPOILER)

Lance came in fourth, beating Contador by 5 seconds. Highly unlikely that he would even get near any PEDs at this point.

Which begs the question, how much do PEDs really help top endurance athletes? "Studies" show that EPO helps n00bs by about 4%, but how much does it help PROS?

colombo357

Depends...

1. Was this particular incident true?
2. If so, did she know exactly what those patches were? If she says, "I dont remember much from 2001" or "I saw some patches but thought they were bandaids", then they have no case.
3. If it's true, and she lies, how will anyone know? The only other "witness" is Landis.
4. If it's true and the risk of getting charged with perjury is low, is she ready to take down LA, the entire Livestrong organization, and much of the interest in pro cycling in America?

tonski 

What's the statute of limitations on these kinds of records?..

umd

Look up "Spousal Privilege" and get back to us on that.

TechKnowGN

She no longer has right of refusal to testify, so if they decide to go after her, we can see what kind of man Lance is. Unless she really never saw anything other than stuff she could dismiss.

For example, Landis claims Lance gave him a bunch of foil packets that had testosterone patches in them. Landis is a guy going to France for a few months to train. Lance could have told his wife he was merely looking out for his buddy by giving him condoms to make sure if he dilly dallied with local cycling fanatic hotties, that he'd be safe. Could have been gum or a sport chew for all anyone knows.

Not saying I believe it one way or the other, but unless she has ever touched anything that could have her prints or that there could be any other tangible proof, bringing her in wont get them far.

TechKnowGN

Spousal privilege does not survive the marriage. She's a free target and has been for a while which tells me if they thought she knew anything they'd have gone after her long ago

umd

That's not my understanding. As with other privellege (lawyers, doctors, etc.) If the communication was privelleged, it remains so. Now, there are many exceptions to the privellege, it is not guaranteed.

fly:yes/land:no

well, i think both of you are a little confused. there are two seperate privileges that have very different rules. spousal immunity DOES NOT apply after the couple is divorced. however, marital communications privilege DOES apply after the couple is divorced.

check this from examples and explanations.