Kimmage-Landis Interview
BLafferty
Part of this was in last Sunday's Times of London
Anton Berlin
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage
>
> Part of this was in last Sunday's Times of London
Very long but god damn great. About halfway through it. I really
like Floyd this is all very understandable.
I think Lance will have a problem coming across as sincere and direct
as Floyd does.
Anton Berlin
the way to the question - is falling out of favor with Lance the same
as falling out with the UCI.
Were more tests suppressed and the UCI VERY complicit in this? Lance
brought money to cycling and the UCI. This fucking sport sucks.
From the interview:
Okay, given your ambition to win the Tour; and given what you know
about Lance and his power within the UCI; and given that you had been
working with Ferrari and a doping programme: Was there no element of
you thinking ‘How do I do this if I step out of that programme? If I
break those ties and provoke them, how will I succeed?’ Did you think
that through at all?
I did, absolutely, and I was worried about…not how I was going to do
it myself, but I was worried they were going to prevent me from doing
it. Because by this time I had figured out that all I really needed
was blood transfusions and a little bit of anabolic (steroids) over
time. I knew I could recover well enough on my own, and could train
well enough without other crazy things. Because that’s all I did up to
2004, and I was extremely good in 2004, I was about as good as I have
ever been. And I knew that if I just improved a little bit from there
I’d be good enough to win. So I didn’t really need Ferrari’s advice
any more because I didn’t really use his training programmes anyway
because I had all his other information. My main concern was: ‘Is the
UCI going to be told to manipulate something or do something against
me?’
ilan
>
> I think Lance will have a problem coming across as sincere and direct
> as Floyd does.
True, and damning if you use this criterion as the basis of the
criminal justice system.
-ilan
Anton Berlin
Juries don't like being lied to. That's a safe bet
Simply Fred
>> True, and damning if you use this criterion as the basis of the
>> criminal justice system.
Anton Berlin wrote:
> Juries don't like being lied to. That's a safe bet
And Landis has never lied to anyone.
ilan
"Being lied to" cannot be detected objectively, the proof being that
lie detector tests are inadmissible in court. That's why it's better
to base criminal justice on physical evidence.
Moreover, the fact that he has already admitted being a liar means
that his current statements probably won't stand up in court, despite
his apparent sincerity. His accusations are also plagued with errors,
e.g., mistaking the year in which Lance participated in the Tour of
Switzerland, which leads to doubt as to the accuracy of any of his
recollections.
On the other hand, irregardless of your opinion of Lance's
believability his statements have been consistent and to the point. It
is the accusations against him which are inconsistent: the supposed
positive test for corticosteroids which wasn't, the positive for EPO
which wasn't, etc.
All I'm saying is that Landis is presenting a weak legal case while
Lance's is strong. The proof is that Armstrong has already won the
civil suit accusing him of doping.
-ilan
-ilan
ilan
Of course, I meant this as an analysis of the legal consequences. If
you ignore this aspect, then I agree that Landis is presenting a much
more entertaining story than Lance.
-ilan
A. Dumas
> The proof is that Armstrong has already won the
> civil suit accusing him of doping.
He never won anything. The insurance case was settled.
DirtRoadie
I don't believe that's quite true.
There's a convenient fresh link that describes what took place:
(Jump to "Refuted or not relevant to the matter at hand?")
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/news/the-explainer-new-old-and-updated-allegations_156198
The arbitration was decided in LA's favor. As described in the link,
that does not mean that doping allegations were decided either way.
Now, I don't know whether the case was "settled" after the arbitration
decision.
DR
Brad Anders
> On Jan 31, 10:54 am, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage
>
> > Part of this was in last Sunday's Times of London
>
> Very long but god damn great. About halfway through it. I really
> like Floyd this is all very understandable.
I think Floyd is despicable. He willingly doped himself to the gills,
denied all when caught, duped $1M from supporters, then tried to
blackmail his way back to the top. Now, he's spilling the beans in a
last attempt to profit. You're a sap for buying into that Memmonite
sincerity bullshit.
> I think Lance will have a problem coming across as sincere and direct
> as Floyd does.
I think LA's lawyers will rip him a new one on the stand and destroy
any credibility he has, if it comes to that. I believe LA was just as
big a doper as Floyd the Crusader, but it's going to take more than
Floyd to bring him down.
A. Dumas
Ah, I guess I did not remember the details, should have looked it up.
What I meant was, like you say, no verdict on the doping allegations.
Which may or may not be in contradiction with Ilan's statement.
ilan
> On Jan 31, 12:09 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 10:54 am, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage
>
> > > Part of this was in last Sunday's Times of London
>
> > Very long but god damn great. About halfway through it. I really
> > like Floyd this is all very understandable.
>
> I think Floyd is despicable. He willingly doped himself to the gills,
> denied all when caught, duped $1M from supporters, then tried to
> blackmail his way back to the top. Now, he's spilling the beans in a
> last attempt to profit. You're a sap for buying into that Memmonite
> sincerity bullshit.
Actually, I believe that Landis didn't dope as detected by the 2006
TdF test and the CAS decision confirms that, as that test was
unanimously rejected as incorrectly obtained by the USA CAS panel.
From that standpoint, I believe his defense was valid and in fact
successful: in any correct judicial procedure, the whole case is
thrown out if the original evidence was tainted. But you are correct
in pointing out his poor behavior.
-ilan
Brad Anders
Sorry for the "Memmonite" misspelling, though it's amusing...
DirtRoadie
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 2:00 pm, "A. Dumas" wrote:
> >> ilan wrote:
> >>> The proof is that Armstrong has already won the
> >>> civil suit accusing him of doping.
> >> He never won anything. The insurance case was settled.
>
> > I don't believe that's quite true.
> > There's a convenient fresh link that describes what took place:
> > (Jump to "Refuted or not relevant to the matter at hand?")
>
>
> > The arbitration was decided in LA's favor. As described in the link,
> > that does not mean that doping allegations were decided either way.
>
> > Now, I don't know whether the case was "settled" after the arbitration
> > decision.
>
> Ah, I guess I did not remember the details, should have looked it up.
> What I meant was, like you say, no verdict on the doping allegations.
> Which may or may not be in contradiction with Ilan's statement.
Yup. LA (or his people) can claim the arbitration panel "made no
finding that I ever doped," but cannot claim the arbitration panel
"found that I never doped." Subtle distinction - Advertising 101
But somewhere out there in the ether is Floyd's whstleblower lawsuit
which IS a "civil suit accusing him [LA] of doping." He has not won
that one yet
DR
Fred
Floyd apparently never considered the third option, 1) lose to
cheaters, 2) cheat and have a chance, or 3) GO DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR A
LIVING.
When I think back on all the people I've heard over the years tell me
that they came back from Belgium or wherever without breaking into the
pros, all because they said they wouldn't dope, and who I just thought
the real issue was that they had no real talent and they were making
excuses... maybe they were telling the truth. My apologies. I
shouldn't have judged you so harshly.
Fred
ilan
> On Jan 31, 3:59 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > DirtRoadie wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 2:00 pm, "A. Dumas" wrote:
> > >> ilan wrote:
> > >>> The proof is that Armstrong has already won the
> > >>> civil suit accusing him of doping.
> > >> He never won anything. The insurance case was settled.
>
> > > I don't believe that's quite true.
> > > There's a convenient fresh link that describes what took place:
> > > (Jump to "Refuted or not relevant to the matter at hand?")
>
> > >http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/news/the-explainer-new-old-and...
>
> > > The arbitration was decided in LA's favor. As described in the link,
> > > that does not mean that doping allegations were decided either way.
>
> > > Now, I don't know whether the case was "settled" after the arbitration
> > > decision.
>
> > Ah, I guess I did not remember the details, should have looked it up.
> > What I meant was, like you say, no verdict on the doping allegations.
> > Which may or may not be in contradiction with Ilan's statement.
>
> Yup. LA (or his people) can claim the arbitration panel "made no
> finding that I ever doped," but cannot claim the arbitration panel
> "found that I never doped." Subtle distinction - Advertising 101
You're still working with the principal misconception, which is that
it can be proved that one never doped. The same principle that legally
you do not have to prove your innocence applies to doping, that is,
the only reasonable requirement is to disprove any one specific
charge. Therefore, your distinction is between correctness and the
fallacious thinking that is leading to the current inquisition.
-ilan
Anton Berlin
not doping is the primary attribute of a sport that we all love or
loved at one point?
Or is it the same with everything - politics - corporations - ?
A. Dumas
> Isn't anyone else just having a slight bit of disgust that doping or
> not doping is the primary attribute of a sport that we all love or
> loved at one point?
Sport is what you do, not what you watch.
Anton Berlin
It was my sport and would be if I had any hint the field was level.
A few years ago (pre- Papp) I considered making a run at a national
masters title. I got busy with my career - enjoying life and post
Papp couldn't be happier that I made the right choice.
The fucking sport sucks. From the TdF to the Masters BS and the cunts
of tomorrow taking who knows what drug.
DirtRoadie
I am? OK, if you say so. I thought I was just pointing out what has
taken place and some of what has been said as a result - noting the
spin.
Nothing more.
DR
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:4vidnccv3PzEdNvQ...@giganews.com...
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage
>
> Part of this was in last Sunday's Times of London
I have only one question. During the *7 hours* of being interviewed, did
he finally admit to cheating at the 2006 Tour de France? Most apparently
don't realize that he had (has?) continued to profess his innocence long
after his confessions and accusations regarding doping. Where does he
stand on that now? And if he changed, when, and why didn't he confess
(to the 2006 TdF doping) at the same time he brought up the other stuff?
If I were Lance's legal team, I'd be having a field day with that one.
Talk about witness credibility issues? That's the elephant in the
closet. And the fact that Lance's has shown no reluctance to try and
sway public opinion ahead of the trial, the fact that they're holding
back on this may indicate that they actually have some intelligence and
are holding back their big guns for the trial.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
DirtRoadie
wrote:
> "BLafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4vidnccv3PzEdNvQ...@giganews.com...
>
> >http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage
>
> > Part of this was in last Sunday's Times of London
>
> I have only one question. During the *7 hours* of being interviewed, did
> he finally admit to cheating at the 2006 Tour de France? Most apparently
> don't realize that he had (has?) continued to profess his innocence long
> after his confessions and accusations regarding doping. Where does he
> stand on that now? And if he changed, when, and why didn't he confess
> (to the 2006 TdF doping) at the same time he brought up the other stuff?
From the transcript -here's what you are looking for.
Bottom line - he still denies doing what he was specifically charged
with doing.
PK:
So you take the yellow jersey in the Pyrenees at Val ‘D’Aran, lose it
to Pereiro two days later, win it back on Alpe D’Heuz, lose the next
day at La Toussuire and move back into the driving seat the next day
with the epic ride to Morzine. You submit to doping control after the
stage and submit a sample with traces of testosterone. Where did that
come from? My read was that it was in a transfusion?
FL:
That was the hypothesis that a lot of people came up with and I
couldn’t defend against it at the time because I couldn’t just say
‘This is when I did the transfusion and this is when the positive test
came.’ But then they went back and ran the B samples on other tests
and the pattern of the positives they came up with can in no way be
related to the blood bags. It just doesn’t make sense. And the
complexity of the test made it so that they could convict me without
anybody actually looking at what they actually did. That lab…they
probably do some good tests but the results they came-up with were
absolutely senseless. They really never did identify testosterone. And
the dumb part is…I actually took testosterone the year before that -
the cream stuff I used the entire race - and I was tested and nothing
came up. But then I decided if I am going to carry around drugs, I
might as well carry around something that’s in a syringe. Doing
testosterone was easier but growth hormone worked better.
PK:
What does ‘worked better’ mean?
FL:
It felt better. The effects of these hormones are delayed. It’s not
like taking an amphetamine or a drug where you feel something
different immediately; you really have to pay attention because the
differences are subtle. Some anabolics work faster than others; some
cause you to retain water more; for me, the growth hormone didn’t make
me feel as stiff and bloated as the testosterone did. And there was no
risk (of detection) with the growth hormone at all, apart from just
physically having it, so I just decided I would do that. USADA (the
United States Anti Doping Agency) have asked me to try and reconcile
the tests with what happened, and I don’t want to discredit them or
WADA (the World Anti Doping Agency) because I do think that there are
some people there trying to do the right thing, but I stand by my
argument that if you are going to have this strict liability thing,
where people are responsible for everything they’ve got in their
system, then you better get it right. I did use testosterone leading-
up to the Tour, and I know what the clearance rate is, and I know more
now about how the carbon-isotope test works and how long the delta
change in the carbon isotope should last and how it should degrade
over time and I can’t match it up with a blood transfusion. It just
doesn’t make sense to me.
That's his story and he seems to be sticking to it.
DR
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumbasses,
It doesn't even matter whether one can be proven
guilty or innocent of doping. Quit huffing the
Novitsky glue for a second. No one is on trial,
and if someone - say LANCE - goes on trial,
he isn't going to be charged with doping. It's
not a crime. He might be charged with
conspiracy to defraud the US government,
and proving doping may be necessary to prove
that charge, but it will not be sufficient by itself.
This is one of the reasons that whatever Floyd
says is basically immaterial to the case.
Fraud charges in a case like this are not easy.
It will depend on both the details of the contract,
what the parties thought the contract said, and
what actions were taken that could be construed
as hiding facts from the other party to the contract.
It would not surprise me if there is some
intermediary - some Tailwind accountant or Postal
team employee - who gets put in a vulnerable
position.
Of course, Novitsky doesn't give a rat's ass about
nailing Tailwind's bookkeeper (or even the mythical
ebay-bike-selling mechanic) and he doesn't really
give a rat's tail about fraud, he wants to prove doping,
but he needs the fraud charge to bring the doping
evidence to court. For all we know he is putting the
screws to the bookkeeper right now to testify against
LANCE, Weisel, and of course Ochowicz. This tactic
often successfully gets an indictment, but it doesn't
always fly as well in open court.
Fredmaster Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
That's his story and he seems to be sticking to it.
DR
Did Kimmage ask him, at any time, if he felt he won the TdF clean? If he
was actually saying that the doping he'd done was beforehand, or just
point out that it seemed like he (Landis) was trying to rationalize that
he did win the TdF without cheating?
Am I the only person on rbr who thinks this is inconsistent with his
"reformed & tell-all" status? And that Kimmage is treating very
carefully, making sure he doesn't "damage" the prized vehicle for the
anti-Lance story?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"DirtRoadie" <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7229471c-6738-4bdc...@n2g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
A. Dumas
> Did Kimmage ask him, at any time, if he felt he won the TdF clean? If he
> was actually saying that the doping he'd done was beforehand, or just
> point out that it seemed like he (Landis) was trying to rationalize that
> he did win the TdF without cheating?
Stop quizzing us and go read it yourself. It's all there.
ilan
> On Jan 31, 5:33 pm, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 1:06 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 3:59 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > Ah, I guess I did not remember the details, should have looked it up.
> > > > What I meant was, like you say, no verdict on the doping allegations.
> > > > Which may or may not be in contradiction with Ilan's statement.
>
> > > Yup. LA (or his people) can claim the arbitration panel "made no
> > > finding that I ever doped," but cannot claim the arbitration panel
> > > "found that I never doped." Subtle distinction - Advertising 101
>
> > You're still working with the principal misconception, which is that
> > it can be proved that one never doped. The same principle that legally
> > you do not have to prove your innocence applies to doping, that is,
> > the only reasonable requirement is to disprove any one specific
> > charge. Therefore, your distinction is between correctness and the
> > fallacious thinking that is leading to the current inquisition.
>
> Dumbasses,
>
> It doesn't even matter whether one can be proven
> guilty or innocent of doping.
How many times do I have to repeat this until it sinks in: The
principle of "innocent until proven guilty" means just that. There is
never any need to prove innocence, the burden of proof is on finding
guilt.
-ilan
Anton Berlin
I disagree - I think they always like to buy the biggest fish they
catch. Since doping doesn't appear to be a crime - it will be the
fraud and racketeering they will sink their teeth into.
Jeff N is a rabid dog but what if the prosecutor is sympathetic -
maybe a cancer connection and only throws meatballs?
BLafferty
The presumption is innocence is just an evidentiary rule that places the
burden of proving a charge on the prosecution.
BLafferty
We'll just have to wait to see what the feds have come up with. Probably
a lot more than just Floyd's words.
BLafferty
> The thing about the interview that bugs me perhaps the most is that
> Floyd apparently never considered the third option, 1) lose to
> cheaters, 2) cheat and have a chance, or 3) GO DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR A
> LIVING.
Lose to cheaters is what Andy Hampsten chose to do. But, that was
pretty much pre rampant EPO use. If EPO had been common in the 1980, I
don't think Andy would have one the Giro.
RicodJour
>
> PK:
> What does ‘worked better’ mean?
> FL:
> It felt better.
> me feel as stiff and bloated as the testosterone did.
So there you have it - Floid (he be null and void) road with a chubby.
I think I'm going to start watching curling instead. That seems like
a safe sport to watch.
R
Fred Flintstein
> I think I'm going to start watching curling instead. That seems like
> a safe sport to watch.
Dumbass, curling is the dirtiest sport there is.
http://deadspin.com/5498429/swedish-wheelchair-curling-finally-has-its-doping-scandal
Fred Flintstein
RicodJour
wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 9:55 AM, RicodJour wrote:
>
> > I think I'm going to start watching curling instead. That seems like
> > a safe sport to watch.
>
> Dumbass, curling is the dirtiest sport there is.
>
54 is an old man...? Who lowered the bar when I wasn't looking?!
I just like all of that frenetic sweeping in curling. Cleanliness is
next to Godliness.
Dave: Everybody cheats, I just didn't know!
Mr. Stoller: Now you know.
{pats him on the back as Mrs. Stoller gets teary-eyed}
R
Amit Ghosh
> How many times do I have to repeat this until it sinks in: The
> principle of "innocent until proven guilty" means just that. There is
> never any need to prove innocence, the burden of proof is on finding
> guilt.
>
dumbass,
don't be so dense. your point is right that there isn't the need to
prove innocence, but it is also irrelevant. ben's assesment is
correct.
no one will go on trial "for doping" - a notion that is also
widespread in the press right now. the most serious possible
indictment will be for a conspiracy to defraud the government.
a likely scenario might be to force testimony from a team support
person who either broke the law through possibly through some
associated activity or is afraid to perjure themselves.
as a consequence athletes in question may be forced to admit they did
dope - which is the actual outcome novitsky is looking for, but it
will still be more complicated to show that this was an organized
system to defraud the government.
are you familiar with the tammy thomas and marion jones cases ?
Brad Anders
> Lose to cheaters is what Andy Hampsten chose to do. But, that was
> pretty much pre rampant EPO use. If EPO had been common in the 1980, I
> don't think Andy would have one the Giro.
I agree that EPO was a "breakthrough" drug for endurance athletes,
producing significant improvements in single and multi-day events.
What's interesting is that blood doping preceeded it, and also has
proven to be effective. It's hard to say if anyone was doing it
post-84 in the pro ranks, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'll bet that
Andy was up against blood dopers during the '88 Giro.
God knows Breukink was using, which is why Andy's victory over him on
the Gavia is so epic.
DirtRoadie
wrote:
> Did Kimmage ask him, at any time, if he felt he won the TdF clean? If he
> was actually saying that the doping he'd done was beforehand, or just
> point out that it seemed like he (Landis) was trying to rationalize that
> he did win the TdF without cheating?
I don't get anything like that from reading what FL said. He claims to
know when he used testosterone and when he didn't and doesn't think
the pieces can be made to fit for the positive test that brought him
down. Even taking into account the possibility that transfused blood
from pre- TdF-buildup was "positive" he is saying that the test still
does not match up with a transfusion. In other words, the lab work was
flaky regardless.
And there's not a hint anywhere that he does not think he was
"cheating."
Now if you are saying he was cheating (admitted blood doping) so,
therefore, stripping him of the MJ based upon a (questionable)
positive testosterone test is justified, well, that gets into a whole
different philosophical discussion.
> Am I the only person on rbr who thinks this is inconsistent with his
> "reformed & tell-all" status? And that Kimmage is treating very
> carefully, making sure he doesn't "damage" the prized vehicle for the
> anti-Lance story?
I'm not sure I understand your perspective. If you hate Floyd, fine.
If you love him, that's fine, too. But your (our) feelings toward him
don't have a lot to do with what he is actually saying. Unless you are
merely saying that he has lied before so we can never believe ANYTHING
he says.
DR
ilan
As I understand it, Tammy Thomas was the fall guy for the dope ring at
Lehigh Co. Velodrome. Marion Jones went to jail for writing bad
cheques and as an example (I'm not sure for who).
I doubt that Novitzky will be as succesful in his current
investigation, Balco was literally in his own back yard and was still
active. On the other hand, his curent investigation is of events
taking place over 5 years ago and on another continent.
As for athlete confessions, who knows. The Landis hearing had Lemond
confessing to being sexually abused as a child....
-ilan
DirtRoadie
"just an evidentiary rule... "
Hardly. It's a foundation of the criminal law system. But you knew
that. Right?
DR
Mike Jacoubowsky
I'm not sure I understand your perspective. If you hate Floyd, fine.
If you love him, that's fine, too. But your (our) feelings toward him
don't have a lot to do with what he is actually saying. Unless you are
merely saying that he has lied before so we can never believe ANYTHING
he says.
DR
===========
I'm coming from the assumption that he did, in fact, cheat using a
testosterone patch or whatever. I agree that the test was flawed, but at
this point, I'm in the camp that says he failed the test because he was
dirty, and the fact that the test might have been questionable in some
aspects doesn't overcome a preponderance of evidence that it did detect
testosterone that wasn't supposed to be there. The fact that he insists
that shouldn't have been the case (that either he didn't cheat to win
the TdF *or* he didn't cheat in the manner in which he was caught) does,
indeed, call everything into question. The guy still isn't facing
reality.
Do I hate Floyd? No. I hate myself a bit for getting suckered into his
pitch; I sent him some money, I even wrote him a note. I was there in
2006 on the mountain when he came through minutes ahead of everyone else
and I was there when he rode off the circuit at the end. So yes, it's
personal to some extent.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"DirtRoadie" <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9f4048d1-8b69-4d80...@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
Ronko
b...@nowhere.com says...
in the United States; critical parts of the US Constitution cover that
fundamental aspect. This presumption innocence and the entire burden of
proof placed on the prosecution goes far beyond procedural rules,
includinge allowable evidence.
Simply Fred
>> The presumption is innocence is just an evidentiary rule that places the
>> burden of proving a charge on the prosecution.
DirtRoadie wrote:
> "just an evidentiary rule..."
> Hardly. It's a foundation of the criminal law system. But you knew
> that. Right?
DirtRoadie
"with my name in Latin and everything."
"Brutus Laffertiae"
DR
Fred Flintstein
> I don't get anything like that from reading what FL said. He claims to
> know when he used testosterone and when he didn't and doesn't think
> the pieces can be made to fit for the positive test that brought him
> down. Even taking into account the possibility that transfused blood
> from pre- TdF-buildup was "positive" he is saying that the test still
> does not match up with a transfusion. In other words, the lab work was
> flaky regardless.
> And there's not a hint anywhere that he does not think he was
> "cheating."
> Now if you are saying he was cheating (admitted blood doping) so,
> therefore, stripping him of the MJ based upon a (questionable)
> positive testosterone test is justified, well, that gets into a whole
> different philosophical discussion.
Just a refresher, that the lab results were flaky is not in dispute.
http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/Landis%20Final%20%2820-09-07%29%20%283%29.pdf
Page 83, Item 320.
----------------------------------
1. The charge of an elevated T/E ratio from the sample was not
established in accordance with the WADA International
Standard for Laboratories and is hereby dismissed.
2. The charge of exogenous testosterone being found in the
sample by the Carbon Isotope Ratio analysis is established in
accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations.
----------------------------------
It was the exogenous testosterone test that sank him.
As has been noted, his veracity is trash. He may be telling the
truth. But I'm hoping he testifies against LANCE. Watching LANCE's
legal team chop him into small bits will make great theater.
Fred Flintstein
marco_f...@yahoo.com
> God knows Breukink was using, which is why Andy's victory over him on
> the Gavia is so epic.
I think tED/Susan is more difficult to troll these days because he/she
has worked his/her way into the inner circle of cutting-edge cycling
journalism and probably has less energy for visits to the lonely
outpost of outcasts known as rbr. Plus, he/she might be devastated by
Flandis' comments re Boogerd (sp?)
Frederick the Great
"A. Dumas" <alex...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> ilan wrote:
> > The proof is that Armstrong has already won the
> > civil suit accusing him of doping.
>
> He never won anything. The insurance case was settled.
The case was not about doping.
The insurance company tried to make it about doping.
The court ruled that it was not about doping.
Armstrong flat out won the case.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
Ronko <ronkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The presumption is innocence is just an evidentiary rule that places the
> >burden of proving a charge on the prosecution
> The presumption of innocence is the basis of the criminal justice system
> in the United States; critical parts of the US Constitution cover that
> fundamental aspect. This presumption innocence and the entire burden of
> proof placed on the prosecution goes far beyond procedural rules,
> includinge allowable evidence.
Y'all are taking Lafferty far too seriously.
Perry Mason put it best, though I do not
remember the exact words. It's no good
trying to dismiss a point of law as a
legal technicality. Those technicalities
are exactly what maintain our rights and
fair hearings.
--
Old Fritz
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumbass,
Turn off the logic auto-responder and read
what I wrote for just a second.
Nowhere did I suggest that anyone has to prove
innocence of doping - or even prove innocence of fraud,
which will be the actual charge if there is one, because
*doping is not a crime in the US*.
The burden of proof in a criminal case requires
proving guilt. The burden of proof in the eyes of the
public is different. Novitsky et al may be able to
damage the LANCE by offering evidence of doping,
even if it does not rise to the level of proof. However,
the actual charge that they have to prove (fraud,
conspiracy, something like that) is different and
more subtle. It is entirely possible that they will
introduce evidence that damages LANCE on the
doping question, but that he gets cleared on the
fraud charge, in which case we can repeat this
argument about whether the trial cleared LANCE,
just like whether the SCA arbitration decision cleared
LANCE, in another 10 years.
IMO the most likely outcome is that some low-level
schmuck - somebody like Stephanie McIlvain, but
possibly someone more involved in finances or
carrying medical supplies - gets nailed for a
subsidiary offense or perjury. This will not be an
outcome that I celebrate as a victory for the
War on Dopes.
Fredmaster Ben
Frederick the Great
<e7bb7433-e9e8-4e25...@k4g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
I enjoy watching curling. Whenever I am overwrought
and worried I put in a recording of a curling event
and have a good nap.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
Fred Flintstein <bob.sc...@sbcremoveglobal.net> wrote:
You can't make up stuff anymore.
I won't even try.
--
Old Fritz
Fred Flintstein
Whatever you do, DON'T CLICK ON THIS LINK!!!
http://deadspin.com/5523182/paralympic-curler-busted-for-fake-viagra
Curling is the absolute worst.
Fred Flintstein
--D-y
Beta blockers.
--D-y
--D-y
A 54 year old man who was SHOCKED...!
Curling, beta blockers... a natural!
--D-y
--D-y
wrote:
> I'm coming from the assumption that he did, in fact, cheat using a
> testosterone patch or whatever. I agree that the test was flawed, but at
> this point, I'm in the camp that says he failed the test because he was
> dirty, and the fact that the test might have been questionable in some
> aspects doesn't overcome a preponderance of evidence that it did detect
> testosterone that wasn't supposed to be there. The fact that he insists
> that shouldn't have been the case (that either he didn't cheat to win
> the TdF *or* he didn't cheat in the manner in which he was caught) does,
> indeed, call everything into question. The guy still isn't facing
> reality.
Um, "we still don't know what really happened" and never will. What a
bitch, huh?
I mean, the first test was so screwed that even Pound, Dick scoffed at
it in most public manner.
I read this Flaud interview as a carefully stage-managed tip-toe
through the garden, directed by a well-rehearsed founding member of
Lancehate International© who has a ton of dirt up both sleeves. IOW,
Floyd is still floundering but he is a useful pawn.
That said, I "believe" Floyd when he, in effect, says "No damn way
those crooks found any testosterone in the sample I gave, as it left
my body".
Indeed, as a later poster notes, and so appropriately from Breaking
Away: "Everyone is cheating". Well, maybe not everyone, but close
enough...
> Do I hate Floyd? No. I hate myself a bit for getting suckered into his
> pitch; I sent him some money, I even wrote him a note. I was there in
> 2006 on the mountain when he came through minutes ahead of everyone else
> and I was there when he rode off the circuit at the end. So yes, it's
> personal to some extent.
Don't hate yourself, he had a good story. We want to believe in our
fellow man. Plus, Floyd got flucked, repeatedly-- agreed?
So you helped him out a little, good on you!
--D-y
--D-y
> On 2/1/2011 10:09 AM, ilan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:31 am, Fredmaster of Brainerd<bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 1, 1:06 am, DirtRoadie<DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 31, 3:59 pm, "A. Dumas"<alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Ah, I guess I did not remember the details, should have looked it up.
> >>>>> What I meant was, like you say, no verdict on the doping allegations.
> >>>>> Which may or may not be in contradiction with Ilan's statement.
>
> >>>> Yup. LA (or his people) can claim the arbitration panel "made no
> >>>> finding that I ever doped," but cannot claim the arbitration panel
> >>>> "found that I never doped." Subtle distinction - Advertising 101
>
> >>> You're still working with the principal misconception, which is that
> >>> it can be proved that one never doped. The same principle that legally
> >>> you do not have to prove your innocence applies to doping, that is,
> >>> the only reasonable requirement is to disprove any one specific
> >>> charge. Therefore, your distinction is between correctness and the
> >>> fallacious thinking that is leading to the current inquisition.
>
> >> Dumbasses,
>
> >> It doesn't even matter whether one can be proven
> >> guilty or innocent of doping.
>
> > How many times do I have to repeat this until it sinks in: The
> > principle of "innocent until proven guilty" means just that. There is
> > never any need to prove innocence, the burden of proof is on finding
> > guilt.
>
> > -ilan
>
Now there was a quiet little stunner.
Presumption of innocence, a minor annoyance on the path to a
conviction. Just like those pesky rules regarding exculpatory
evidence, right to representation, bail, rules governing search and
seizure (No-No-Novitsky!).
Gee, Brian, which of your protections do you want taken away when they
come for you? Or are you not worried because you haven't ever done
anything wrong?
--D-y
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:S_udnXdIrM-VxNXQ...@giganews.com...
I don't think Novitsky is that dumb (to have Floyd testify against
Lance). On the other hand, I think Lance's legal team will do everything
possible to try and make that happen. The real question is, does Floyd
himself know how badly he comes across? If not, he's likely to say some
really stupid things under cross-examination in a trial.
Novitsky is likely telling Floyd, OK, it's time to shut your mouth and
step aside now. From here on, this game is for grown-ups only.
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
both tammy thomas and marion jones were charged with perjury and
obstruction of justice. thomas was found guilty and jones made a plea
bargain to the perjury charge and served a sentence for that.
neither were charged or found guilty of doping, so they could both
rightfully claim that they have never been found guilty to doping.
they have only been found guilty of lying about not doping, so in your
language they would be innocent since they have not been found guilty
of actually doping.
A. Dumas
> The real question is, does Floyd
> himself know how badly he comes across?
He does?
Vagina Gorilla
wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 2:07 PM, Frederick the Great wrote:
>
> > Fred Flintstein<bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 2/1/2011 9:55 AM, RicodJour wrote:
> >>> I think I'm going to start watching curling instead. That seems like
> >>> a safe sport to watch.
>
> >> Dumbass, curling is the dirtiest sport there is.
>
>
> > You can't make up stuff anymore.
> > I won't even try.
>
> Whatever you do, DON'T CLICK ON THIS LINK!!!
>
> http://deadspin.com/5523182/paralympic-curler-busted-for-fake-viagra
>
> Curling is the absolute worst.
>
> Fred Flintstein
Isn't the point of Viagra to make it straight?
BLafferty
William R. Mattil
>
> Isn't the point of Viagra to make it straight?
>
Makes Lawyers taller
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
A. Dumas
Read it. Dismissed it as mad ravings of a sycophantic chamois sniffer.
Mike enlightened me.
Ryan Cousineau
> On Jan 31, 7:44 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Anton Berlin wrote:
> > > Isn't anyone else just having a slight bit of disgust that doping or
> > > not doping is the primary attribute of a sport that we all love or
> > > loved at one point?
>
> > Sport is what you do, not what you watch.
>
> It was my sport and would be if I had any hint the field was level.
>
> A few years ago (pre- Papp) I considered making a run at a national
> masters title. I got busy with my career - enjoying life and post
> Papp couldn't be happier that I made the right choice.
>
> The fucking sport sucks. From the TdF to the Masters BS and the cunts
> of tomorrow taking who knows what drug.
OK, maybe serious age-group racers are an exception, but amateur
cycling great, pro cycling stupid.
Landis' interview reinforced my working theory, but I had some other
thoughts while reading the transcript:
-This sounds entirely convincing. It's fairly consistent with our best
unsubstantiated guesses, and so on.
-On the other hand, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame
on me; fool me...this would be Landis' third try at telling the truth,
right? #2 was "Positively False," right? I'm just saying the
credibility of a serial deceiver should give us a moment's pause.
-it's too bad the famous Vaughters/Andreu vindictive-blood-dumping
tale is apocryphal. Landis says Andreu misinterpreted something,
probably the dumping of a partly used bag.
-What is Landis going to do for the rest of his life? He exited the
community where he grew up, he's exiled from cycling, and as far as I
can tell, he has no marketable skills. A scary place to be.
-Hee hee: gratuitous trashing of Cyclingnews.
I'm at the point where I think the doping in the pro pack is neither
removable nor tolerable, so um, I'll just go racing. At this point,
the best outcome would surely be to reorganize pro racing around a pro-
wrestling model: scripted storylines and outcomes, and then we could
do away with the fiction that the results were meaningful, and
actually increase the amount of drama!
We even have the model: we just need to follow on from the post-Tour
crits.
Either that, or we add parimutuel betting; is Japanese pro Keirin
still considered reasonably credible?
RicodJour
>
> -What is Landis going to do for the rest of his life? He exited the
> community where he grew up, he's exiled from cycling, and as far as I
> can tell, he has no marketable skills. A scary place to be.
Model for Ball's Rock & Republic jeans.
http://www4.images.coolspotters.com/photos/88224/rock-and-republic-slim-fock-jeans-in-liberation-profile.png
R
Fred Flintstein
> I'm at the point where I think the doping in the pro pack is neither
> removable nor tolerable, so um, I'll just go racing. At this point,
> the best outcome would surely be to reorganize pro racing around a pro-
> wrestling model: scripted storylines and outcomes, and then we could
> do away with the fiction that the results were meaningful, and
> actually increase the amount of drama!
I think pro cycling could do very well under the FIFA model of
doping management.
Fred Flintstein
A. Dumas
> -Hee hee: gratuitous trashing of Cyclingnews.
That was awesome. PK: "There is only one thing worse than reading
Cyclingnews...talking to them."