
Report: Landis Admits Doping And Fingers Armstrong
#46
Posted 22 May 2010 - 09:33 AM
LA - hey george what do you want to do today
GH - i dont know what do you want to do
LA - i dont know what do you want to do
GH - i don't know what do you want to do
No wait, that is from a sponge bob episode. Sorry.
#47
Posted 22 May 2010 - 12:19 PM

#48
Posted 22 May 2010 - 02:20 PM
LA - hey george what do you want to do today
GH - i dont know what do you want to do
LA - i dont know what do you want to do
GH - i don't know what do you want to do
No wait, that is from a sponge bob episode. Sorry.
Hey, what the heck, that has just as much credibiity as Floyd Landis!

#49
Posted 23 May 2010 - 03:23 PM
http://www.timesonli...r...et=0&page=1
Excerpts:
The United States Anti-Doping Authority has taken a different line and appointed the federal investigator Jeff Novitzky to the case. Landis and Armstrong’s former wife are understood to be co-operating. The choice of Novitzky is significant because if his work in the infamous Balco case proved anything, it was that lying to federal investigators is not a good idea.
If Novitzky concludes that US Postal did run a doping programme, Armstrong and others could face charges. Through Tailwind Sports, the US Postal team was funded by taxpayers’ money. The penalties for misusing such funds are draconian.
The Landis emails may have been but the first chapter in a story destined to become far more interesting.
#50
Posted 24 May 2010 - 06:28 AM
Nothing like an unambiguous denial.
Funny thing is, I agree with him. 8 years ago is ancient history in cycling. Everyone who's anyone doped then -- but I like to think things are different today.
#51
Posted 24 May 2010 - 04:11 PM
Nothing like an unambiguous denial.
Funny thing is, I agree with him. 8 years ago is ancient history in cycling. Everyone who's anyone doped then -- but I like to think things are different today.
How many times would you like them to deny it? Maybe they should institute an annual date of denial where all preceding accusations are hereby denied for this past year.

Is it just Armstrong or do you not like all professional cyclists? You have seemingly gone out of your way to convince the jury he is guilty. But can you convict with only hearsay and accusations when some of us want to see the smoking gun first?
Are you saying that they all cheat and deny it or just Lance? Just wondering where you're coming from on this.
#52
Posted 24 May 2010 - 06:32 PM

Is it just Armstrong or do you not like all professional cyclists? You have seemingly gone out of your way to convince the jury he is guilty. But can you convict with only hearsay and accusations when some of us want to see the smoking gun first?
Are you saying that they all cheat and deny it or just Lance? Just wondering where you're coming from on this.
You have me all wrong -- I LOVE cycling! You won't find a much bigger ProTour groupie than me!
I do hate the idea of doping being "standard" in cycling. It puts tremendous pressure on young athletes (just like steroids in baseball), and you probably know that a significant number of young cyclists have died in their sleep as a result of thickened blood (from EPO). My husband -- a middle-aged amateur athlete -- has been offered drugs by other, more serious AMATEUR cyclists. (He declined, of course -- he is not going to put his life at risk by using HGH or prescription asthma meds). It is a scourge that needs to be eradicated.
I have nothing against Armstrong, Hincapie, Zabriskie, Liepheimer, or the rest of the accused. Well, I do find Armstrong arrogant, but I don't hate him for past drug use, because I understand that in the 90's and early 2000's, everyone felt they had to do it.
What I do find increasingly sickening (or at least embarassing) is the drumbeat of denials of drug use, most of which are then proven false (Hamilton, Landis, Rasmussen, Vinokourov, Ricci, Basso...) Much more refreshing are the athletes who have admitted a deep problem in the sport and become missionaries for drug-free riding (Millar, Vaughters).
Rather than increasingly squirrely denials (or in Hincapie's case, evasions), I would like to see a general amnesty for pre-2008 sins, admission of what went wrong, and a redoubled committment to clean sport.
#53
Posted 25 May 2010 - 09:02 AM
I do hate the idea of doping being "standard" in cycling. It puts tremendous pressure on young athletes (just like steroids in baseball), and you probably know that a significant number of young cyclists have died in their sleep as a result of thickened blood (from EPO). My husband -- a middle-aged amateur athlete -- has been offered drugs by other, more serious AMATEUR cyclists. (He declined, of course -- he is not going to put his life at risk by using HGH or prescription asthma meds). It is a scourge that needs to be eradicated.
I have nothing against Armstrong, Hincapie, Zabriskie, Liepheimer, or the rest of the accused. Well, I do find Armstrong arrogant, but I don't hate him for past drug use, because I understand that in the 90's and early 2000's, everyone felt they had to do it.
What I do find increasingly sickening (or at least embarassing) is the drumbeat of denials of drug use, most of which are then proven false (Hamilton, Landis, Rasmussen, Vinokourov, Ricci, Basso...) Much more refreshing are the athletes who have admitted a deep problem in the sport and become missionaries for drug-free riding (Millar, Vaughters).
Rather than increasingly squirrely denials (or in Hincapie's case, evasions), I would like to see a general amnesty for pre-2008 sins, admission of what went wrong, and a redoubled committment to clean sport.
Ok, I did have you all wrong. Interesting post and I agree with most of it. You should have led with this. You are definitely more in tune with the sport then I am.
Are you on a local team?
#54
Posted 25 May 2010 - 11:44 AM
Are you on a local team?
Gosh, no. I could only dream of being that fit. I'm lucky if I break 15 mph on my (purely recreational) rides.
Hubby is pretty serious. He rides with an established group (a couple of whom are on local amateur teams). I was shocked when it turned out one guy was taking human growth hormone (I don't even know what that does) and another guy had some bootlegged prescription asthma medicine that he claims gives the lungs greater capacity, or some such. Yikes! That is just so wrong, when amateur "nobodies" think they should dope.
Thanks for reading my post and not attacking me. I really do love cycling -- and deep down, I want to believe that what I am watching is marvelous "natural" athletes, not drug-powered fakes.
#55
Posted 02 July 2010 - 02:40 PM
"My Lance Armstrong prediction? Either he will not start or he will pull out just before the race enters France. I have a feeling that the world of cycling is about to change for the better."
Apparently the Wall Street Journal is going to publish an article over the weekend regarding Armstrong...
"The Wall Street Journal, which for a week has been rumored to be preparing a Game of Shadows-style story detailing doping allegations against seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong, announced in Friday's paper that it plans to release just such an article as the tour kicks off Saturday..."
http://blogs.sfweekl..._armstrongs.php
The plot thickens....
#56
Posted 02 July 2010 - 02:49 PM
#57
Posted 02 July 2010 - 02:53 PM
I think this will go again and again until the truth comes out. The Lance fanboys better buckle up!!
#58
Posted 02 July 2010 - 02:56 PM
This reminds me to the afterword of "From Hell" about how too much research just winds up making everyone more confused... only the guilty know for sure and the rest has devolved into bitter rivalry between the finger pointers
Genesis 49:16-17
http://www.active2030folsom.org
#59
Posted 02 July 2010 - 04:06 PM
Kinda like Global Warming?
#60
Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:50 PM
And yes, it is just rumor and speculation at this point. We'll see if anything ever comes of it.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users