Landis: ABC Nightline Friday Night
Thought that this might be worth watching, if only to understand the brouaha it will create tomorrow.
almost 2 years ago
Ruthann
148 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I for one am excited for this
"You know if there's any contact at all Cristiano Ronaldo's gonna go down...maybe even just a puff of wind"
"At some point, you need to tell your kids that Santa Claus isn't real" - Landis
Starts off the piece. “widespread doping program” on USPS. Small amts of EPO during the Tour de France, autologous blood doping, Many times. Reiterated a lot of the details we already know (Testosterone patches first.)
Lance’s lawyer says he has not been subpoenaed & will participate in a credible investigation, but not any witch hunts.
Next (after a word from our sponsors:) What happened on the bus!!!
What happened on the bus
stays on the bus… :)
by RoadRash911 on Jul 24, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Apparently not...
http://www.bah.net/
by dees ees en drama on Jul 24, 2010 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
He told the bus story, about pulling the team bus over and the team getting
blood. Implies JB and the team doctors were the ones overseeing the program. In hotel rooms. 1 or 2 doctors there, 20 minutes, done. Emma O’ Reilly interviewed & she says she never saw Lance do anything. But she suspected drug use on the team, and was once told to get ride of a bag of syringes.
Taked about the dichotomy of Lance’s public personna, cancer-survivor, his foundation.
The Betsy Andreau story next. I won’t go on, it seems to be all the stuff we’ve already read. The interview of Landis part is the real shock value.
yeah, seems a good summary for folks not having already heard this...
But, so far, nothing new for me either…
by JustJoshinYa on Jul 23, 2010 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Good consumer-level review
and welcome to one of the greatest sporting frauds in history… and the idea that Santa Claus isn’t real
by RoadRash911 on Jul 24, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
What I loved was his lawyer's comment
about participating with a fair investigation, yet not participating in any witch hunt. He proceeded to say this present investigation was a witch hunt, which one could presume will mean they will stay stubborn and they;ll probably stick with the innocent story to the grave (watch out lance, perjury charges can be a bitch in the long run). This could be a long, drawn out, three ring circus, I hope there are hearings at some point, and I hope there will be video of them.
"You know if there's any contact at all Cristiano Ronaldo's gonna go down...maybe even just a puff of wind"
That was about the only thing I took away from it too.
They are already declaring it a witch hunt – but he also said they haven’t even been contacted yet. How’s that indicate witch hunt?
by JustJoshinYa on Jul 24, 2010 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions
One of the last things Floyd did was to tell the interviewer that he wanted to take
this opportunity to apologize to the public. And he’s not afraid of what is going to happen. At least there was that.
turn that around and apply it to Armstrong
if he’s guilty of doping etc. how much money should he return?
best record money can buy
(cough cough)
by JustJoshinYa on Jul 24, 2010 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps he was smarter than the others who were caught.
I am not debating innocence on doping, Lance has never failed a doping control.
actually, he has
in 1999. produced a TUE/RX after-the-fact (which, just, by the way, should not have been accepted . . .)
I recall that one...
Wasn’t that supposed to be some sort of chamois cream or something?
2010 Tour de France Stage Predictor Game Champion
by JustJoshinYa on Jul 25, 2010 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Nope
I’m not a defender of Lance, while he did have a TUE/RX after-the-fact Dr.’s note that explained the existence of cortisone in his system,
HOWEVER (and it is a big however that makes all the difference
the amount of Cortisone in his test results was below the threshold for a positive finding. So the post-dated TUE was just for show. His test showed the presence of cortisone, but not enough to trigger a positive finding.
Vlaanderens Mooiste
but he has lied repeatedly
about a wide variety of issues:
most recently, his ownership stake in Tailwind.
about the SCA case proving that he hadn’t doped.
about definitely still being engaged to Sheryl Crow.
about publishing his bio-passport data with Don Catlin . . . etc.
He only tells half-truths,
Not a lie, just not the whole truth. Exactly what all of American politicians, lawyers, news outlets, and CEO’s do all the time.
They are all different forms of deception
And maybe that’s the problem with the Lance mythology, Wall Street derivatives, you name it
by RoadRash911 on Jul 24, 2010 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I completely agree.
However, you cannot blame any of them. Either way, the negative press always can bring about a stinky feeling about cycling.
From a common sense point, all of his teammates, competitors, and directors doped…sounds fishy if he didn’t and beat all of them by large margins.
What Floyd says is most likely true, I just don’t see how a liar in this manner can be trusted to a “jury” or a Congressional inquiry.
the whole, "liar, liar, pants on fire" argument gets people only so far.
Just look at the evidence:
- Floyd says what he says.
- Fired employees say what they say (yes, they’re all disgruntled) – all basically backing up what Floyd says…
- Tyler leaves USPS (positive)
- Heras leaves USPS (positive)
- Landis leaves Disco (positive)
- Basso primary competitor (positive – err, I intended to dope)
- Ulrich (Puerto)
- Vino (Puerto)
- and on and on and on
I’d love to believe, but come on. How can I?
2010 Tour de France Stage Predictor Game Champion
by JustJoshinYa on Jul 25, 2010 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
He may not be innocent.
However, he is not guilty as of right now. Unless they get the right evidence, he will remain not guilty.
Accepting testimony from a person who.
A. Did not dope at the ’06 tour.
B. The numbers are from drinking.
C. They botched the test
D. I was dehydrated.
E. Ok ok, since no one likes me, yes I doped.
Oh yeah, real credible.
yep, Floyd lied - probably a lot.
He might be lying now too – but evidently people are stepping forward and confirming things. Some people, in the past, already said some things already that seem to validate points. That was what I was meaning with the prior post. This isn’t just about Floyd – there’s many people saying things that are damning to LA. Face it…he can’t say everyone’s lying. Eventually, when enough people say enough things, reality sets in.
And, I think this whole thing is sad. I do. I am not a hater – not a fan – but not a hater.
2010 Tour de France Stage Predictor Game Champion
by JustJoshinYa on Jul 26, 2010 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions
uh . . . no
Only a fool jumps to hasty conclusions without evaluating evidence.
Credibility is not a blanket quality that covers all statements made by a person.
Someone can be totally credible about one area of their experience and lack credibility with respect to other areas of their experience.
The evidence Landis provides—and I use the term evidence in a broad sense—for these most recent allegations suggests that a reasonable presumption of credulity should exist.
Of course, I see Landis’s admission of his own doping AND especially his explanations of his decision to do so, and what led him to lie as part of the evidence that allows me to assume some degree of credibility to his current assertions.
Finally, I’d hate to be your kids if you used the “once a liar always a liar in all cases” standard.
If he had evidence
He’d quitely go to the authorities. He wouldn’t make a no doubt considerable sum whoring himself out to TV networks and publishers, at least until whatever legal proceedings follow are concluded.
It just smacks of attention seeking from a bitter and twisted individual.
He did.
He was in contact with USADA etc BEFORE he went public.
And doesn’t he have a right to be bitter?
Repeating memes that seek to discredit one party from another interested party in a dispute needs to be done with care.
Calling Landis a “whore” is an easily deconstructed ad hominem argument that seeks to discredit the person making a point without doing ANYTHING to disprove the point:
In this case, the problem is that it boils down to an easy example of “I;m rubber, you’re glue” because all of the statements made about Landis can fairly easily be made about Armstrong.
1. Everyone agrees that Landis could care less about money (the same can’t be said about Armstrong). Which of the two has more at risk in this?
2. Armstrong’s relationship to the concept of truth is fraught with infidelity.
Look
I’m not defending Armstrong. FWIW i think he cheated, lied and all the rest of it.
I just can’t stand the storm of bullshit that surrounds him, and cycling as a whole.
He’s retired. Unless he’s charged and convicted by either sporting or leagl authorities I don’t know why he has to continue to dominate cycling discourse, and allow people with their own questionable motives to make a quick buck.
he's retired as of yesterday
from professional cycling. But his contract with Radio Shack isn’t over, and ain’t no way he isn’t still a principal in the ownership.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of FL's allegations are false
Yet, I think they’re credible enough — they fit well enough with other testimony we know about — that it’s worth investigating whether they can get other corroborating evidence to match FL’s new allegations.
As sleazy as Landis is,
he’s a choirboy compared to the average witness in a drug conspiracy case.
Federal prosecutors are used to building cases around the testimony of drug dealers, jailhouse snitches, and guys who’d pimp their sisters for a fix. Landis’s credibility problems aren’t likely to faze them.
by Susie Hartigan on Jul 26, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
How many people will/would donate to the Livestrong fund if LA was/is a doper?
by ZoeRochelle on Jul 24, 2010 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
The outcome would be bad.
Due to the negative press against Armstrong’s cancer foundation. An organization that reaches out to and helps many people.
Other than that fact, if it comes out that he is guilty of doping, then so be it.
The doping will only be the leading edge . . .
Armstrong, Stapleton, Knaggs, and some others will be facing real felony charges, not just sporting sanctions.
if Livestrong provides a useful service it will survive.
Livestrong
For the sake of people who have donated to the .org, I do hope that the money flows and whatnot between the non-profit and the for-profit Livestrong corporation have stayed above the law. Because if they haven’t, I would expect the feds to uncover it.
ooh, forgot one more thing...
I liked how Frankie Andreau’s wife said something to the effect of, “Imagine if Barry Bonds paid Bud Selig (MLB Commissioner) $100K.” in relation to Lance “donating” money to the UCI…
Her statement was directed to the audience that isn’t aware what the UCI is in relation to the cyclists.
That was great perspective by Betsy Andreu
different sports, different situations, but it’s still a pretty accurate assessment of why people could question such happenings.
"You know if there's any contact at all Cristiano Ronaldo's gonna go down...maybe even just a puff of wind"
Imagine you are Joe Buck.
Your job is to interview Barry Bonds and your wife says this. Does Frankie Andreau have body guards while doing Lance interviews?
Woof
This has been rumbling on for years.
At least the Betsy/Lance thing has.
I don’t think it’s going to make much difference what she says now.
That's exactly the whole point of this whole interview...
to cycling fans – Nothing new
to 99% of america – Totally new
by JustJoshinYa on Jul 24, 2010 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions
check the Walsh book for a transcript
of a recording F. Andreu made of Stapleton (Armstrong’s agent) trying to get him to get Betsy to shut up—and threatening Andreu’s access . . .
Are there any female cycling fans posting here?
If you are female, type 1 Now
Read the comments after the article
If you want a really good example of why this place does not suck
Jens! Voigt puts the 'laughter' in 'manslaughter'
this place sucks
great tagline btw. still sucks
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Jul 24, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Considering how much you know about sucking
I may have to reconsider my position
Jens! Voigt puts the 'laughter' in 'manslaughter'
hehe true, true
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Jul 25, 2010 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
it's kicking up a small scale shit storm here in Bend, but
The Cascade Classic and the racers remain the main focus… Floyd is a quiet side note, and no one has seen Lemond since the ITT.. Maybe tonight they’ll throw down with six shooters on Wall before the crit.. Oh wait The Enemy is in France. Floyd is riding a credible race on his on. After that stupid grey t-shirt stunt at the Prologue, he’s been in OUCH/Maxxis kit.
Anyone who has every thought a working Photojournalist had a glam job needs to rethink...
by Christopher See on Jul 24, 2010 6:08 PM EDT reply actions
The domestic rider perspective is refreshing...
But I think the conclusion is bullshit. If he decides he likes Floyd after a couple beers, ok. Impressionable guy. It doesn’t somehow change who Floyd is or what he has done since July 2006.
Armstrong doping back in the day is a given in my book, has been for about a decade. But he has to be taken on from a morally defensible perch. This can be done. Not with Floyd as lead. Getting emotional and defending the undefensible doesn’t work.
Instead, we get “burn, burn, burn down” the cycling establishment as justification. Sounds cool. But it’s rubbish. At the least he could be quoting Howard Beale from Network instead of those pretentious and nonsensical Pretty Boy Floyd excerpts.
by Mr 60 Percent on Jul 25, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree it is pretentious & over the top, especially on the burning down
but maybe that’s part of my emotional detachment wrt. doping in cycling.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Floyd didn't buy him any beers.
He’s not saying burn the whole thing down. It’s the upper levels where there is systematic doping that is embedded in the system that he was referring to. Maybe the sport would benefit from a restructuring, if the UCI is in any way involved with a cover up them you might want to also burn it down.
Woof
I'm not a legal expert, but I'm wondering how this can go anywhere from a criminal standpoint
It seems all the evidence against Lance is based from testimony from people who “say” he doped. Whereas Lance and his attorneys probably have 500 pieces of hard evidence in the form of passed drug tests that said he didn’t dope.
I would assume the hard evidence outweighs he said/she said testimony, and he could not be criminally convicted of fraud, perjury or anything else. Granted, his reputation would be destroyed and the UCI may have to do something, but from a legal context, I would assume Lance is in good standing unless hard evidence comes forward.
Would love to hear from the resident PdC lawyers if my assumption is correct, or if I’m completely wrong.
"Thanks again, Floyd Landis, Yellow Jersey Wearer: Nuisance Category"
Don't steal the lather from the soap.
The haters will take what they can get, they’ll settle for a ruined reputation.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Not a lawyer
but wouldn’t multiple sworn confessions that :
“yes, I/we/he doped’,
“yes, Armstrong, Brurneel or the team doctor gave me the dope, placed the IV in my arm, etc.”
“yes, we knew we would pass the doping controls (and there would be no “hard evidence”) because we knew xyz was undetectable at the time"
“yes, Armstrong et al owned Slipstream, ran a teamwide doping program and therefore violate staute X of thr RICO such and such”
constitute a case?
by RoadRash911 on Jul 24, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions
got me again :)
this and all these errors coming from a perfectionist, sigh
by RoadRash911 on Jul 24, 2010 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
my take was
the investigation is not focused on whether Lance was a ‘user’ per se, but on whether there was a systematic doping program set up and facilitated by team management/owners. any charges would stem from his role in that. and if the WSJ and NYT articles are correct, there are other members of the teams who have corroborated Landis’ claims. the evidence that they’ll use would likely include things like the teams’ financial statements, tax filings, etc. an accounting of the sale of the bikes (which Trek has already seemed to confirm) and how those proceeds were used will be key, given that Floyd says that’s how the program was funded.
they won’t necessarily need to prove Lance doped. which isn’t to say they won’t try to prove that he did, just that for some of the most serious charges they won’t need to.
My guess
What we are seeing is all the blabbermouths getting their attention. Floyd, Lemond etc. getting their views printed in the press. We don’t actually see much of what the real inquiry is focusing on. I think their focus is on finding documents and establishing a papertrail. They won’t build a case on the testimony alone, it’s probably a very small part of it.
In the end we will see if there was much documented evidence left behind , in which case Lance is legally screwed. If it’s just a bunch of people coming forward saying what they saw and did Lance might just be screwed PR wise.
As I recall, others may have downplayed this story elsewhere
as no new news, etc.
I think this story might have legs, because a) the mainstream media have got a hold of it, b) there is a successful, dope-savvy federal investigator involved, c) there, in the eyes of many, is substance behind the allegations, d) the American general public has been conditioned to doping stories of late and no longer seems to think doping in sport is impossible, e) nothing sells newspapers like a scandal (this being potentially one of the biggest in sports history).
Also, as the little ABC news blurbs suggest (and Lance’s recent performances might also suggest) Lance even seems to be affected by this.
So, with ABC News, the WSJ, the NYT, the Washington Post and other news outlets following the story, it’s no longer a matter exclusive to "internet forum types"
What will we do next?
what is your point?
You seem to be suggesting—as do many—that because Armstrong gave people hope and excitement, he should be given a pass (and, just by the way, bringing up Canseco sorta explains how a “liar” can be granted credibility, eh??),
But here’s my counter-point: it is an inexcusable fraud to give people false or fraudulent hope. Doped sports do that by setting fans a false example of what is possible.
The steroid years in baseball accustomed fans to an unrealistic spectacle of baseball—the same is true of the NFL in the era of 350 pound linemen etc.
Obviously, the epo years produced an unrealistic style of racing. And, not necessarily assuming that Contador and Schleck are clean, just less doped than in years previously, the duel up the Tourmalet showed riders at their limits.
The past is the past.
That is my point. Baseball didn’t benefit from digging up the past, and all of our wasted tax dollars asking guys who said no comment or they had no idea when they were clearly using PED’s.
Focus on the now, and fix it in the now for the future. You can’t fix the past.
The whole idea of the criminal justice system
is to punish past offenders as a warning to future offenders.
Or just waste money
Mark McGwire said it best, just like Driff did
Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem. If a player answers ‘No,’ he simply will not be believed; if he answers ‘Yes,’ he risks public scorn and endless government investigations….My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, and myself. I will say, however, that it remains a fact in this country that a man, any man, should be regarded as innocent unless proven guilty
Yeah pretty much.
A poor use of tax dollars is all it ends up being. Small players take the fall while the real perpetrators come off lightly scathed in the public eye.
And then he confessed later when it was convenient for his career
Pretty much all his fortune was built on fraud, right?
It’s a romantic notion that pro sports is anything other than big business. Fraud needs to be investigated to the same extent in sports as it is in stock-trading, insurance, banking or any other big business
Looks like those hearings made us all aware what a bunch of liars the players are
and provoked MLB at least to put some minimal controls in place.
Those controls were already going in place.
Most players, in all sports are liars in one way or another.
I wouldn't call it the whole idea
Since another basic idea is to prevent the offender him-/herself from committing more crimes. Or somewhat related, to educate the offender that it’s wrong. And of course, the very old idea of retribution. Plus that different countries have different perspectives on punishment.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Jul 25, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm so sure the offender needs an education that PED's are wrong.
We have SouthPark for that… “drugs are bad, people who do drugs are bad”… do we need more than that?
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Hahaha.
Yeah, all those cyclists, footballers, baseballers, basketballers, rugby players, cricket players, swimmers, runners, bodybuilders, olympiads, etc. need an education on how PED’s are bad even though they go to extremes to never get caught using them.
I'm sure you'll agree with my principal point
that you can pretty much only punish past actions, so “the past is the past” isn’t much of an argument in criminal justice.
And what a revelation that point is.
However, when I get a hold of one of these crystal balls that some people have in their possession, I’m going to start convicting people before they commit crimes.
What was that movie they did on this?
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Good find Ted, you rock.
I would never have remembered that.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Also didn't remember the title, found it by googling
“future crime science fiction” (after my first try “future crime sf” failed because all results were about San Francisco).
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Totally
Next they’ll be asking for the name of that WWII Futbol movie starring Sylvester Stallone and some other guys.
For shame.
"Woof, woof, woof! That's my other dog imitation."
VICTORY!
sorry, I was a dumbass and watched it on netflix the other day…was sick and bored…
2010 Tour de France Stage Predictor Game Champion
by JustJoshinYa on Jul 26, 2010 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions
so so so so so very sad...
2010 Tour de France Stage Predictor Game Champion - Just Sayin
by JustJoshinYa on Jul 26, 2010 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
What is the alternative use? Is it better?
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Jul 26, 2010 5:01 AM EDT up reply actions
If you're SCA and you think you lost $7.5M due to perjury
yeah, you’d be grateful that federal prosecutors are looking into it. Same as any of us who gets defrauded would want. Bernie Madoff bilked relatively few people, but we all benefit, indirectly, from his prosecution.
Was the SCA really defrauded?
Or did they benefit from the reign of PEDs and doping with ever increasing advertisement dollars and fan bases?
Do you know what SCA promotions does?
they provide insurance. They had to pay off when Lance won hist fifth TdF. So, no, they did not benefit from the reign of PEDs.
It doesn't matter. Despite the fact you present an assertion
and no evidence,. let’s assume they did benefit. That doesn’t change the fact they think they were defrauded in this particular case. They feel they were robbed through fraud and then through perjury in their civil case; the job of law enforcement is to investigate potential crimes like that. So, law enforcement is doing their job. Good on them.
They'll charge him
Let him hang for a while and kick it into the long grass.
Why did they do with that Bonds? Stopped him playing didn’t it? No team will sign him with that over his head. Sucess all around, they stop him playing, everybody can pretend to move on and they don’t actually have to front up any evidence.
A PR spectacle, not justice.
Produce a 10,000 word
essay explaining how Plato’s Republic is really nothing other than an attempt to prove that the concept of justice is something other than a pr spectacle.
My point is, that if you can’t easily punt to some super-natural plane where abstract concepts exist in pure form, abstract concepts like “justice” are completely tied to PR spectacles.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Podium Cafe
Related FanShots on Podium Cafe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
