Landis on Armstrong: 'At some point, people have to tell their kids that Santa Claus isn't real.'

We don't know for sure what percentage of cyclists doped. We don't know for sure what percentage of current cyclists still dope. We do know that Lance beat a late stage cancer and has raised millions of dollars and an awareness for the disease. He might not be Santa Claus but a doped up cancer patient beating doped up non cancer patience in the Tour is still impressive.

coach wrote:

We don't know for sure what percentage of cyclists doped. We don't know for sure what percentage of current cyclists still dope. We do know that Lance beat a late stage cancer and has raised millions of dollars and an awareness for the disease. He might not be Santa Claus but a doped up cancer patient beating doped up non cancer patience in the Tour is still impressive.

Yeah it is.

Lets have Lance come clean and see what the reaction to it is.

ridethebikee wrote:

If he has passed 300 drug test without one failed test that is a compelling arguement. I know the drugs are always ahead of the test, but still to be that good.

Marion Jones never flunked a drug test. Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, A Rod etc. I'd believe they all doped.

Michael Faraday wrote:

Besides Landis' wild story, is there any proof that any of his accusations are true? Did Lance ever fail a drug test? Was he ever caught with syringes? Did he ever get caught with any medical equipment that was used for doping? I think that he probably did use drugs, but until I see actual proof, I"m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Landis has shown himself to be liar. Why should anyone believe him?

Here's a good reason to believe a liar: All of us lie, and yet much if not most of what we say is true. When a liar says something that comports with and confirms other information, a rational and unbiased observer gives that liar's statement a certain amount of credibility in light of all of the circumstances about which the observer is aware, including the liar's motives and propensities.

I'm guessing that almost everyone who insists that Landis has no credibility because he's a liar simply has an emotional or other type of investment in the belief that Armstrong has been a clean competitor. Most people have a strong tendency to believe what feels comfortable. But no rational and unbiased observer would conclude that Landis has no credibility because he "has shown himself to be [a] liar."

Michael Faraday wrote:

Besides Landis' wild story, is there any proof that any of his accusations are true? Did Lance ever fail a drug test? Was he ever caught with syringes? Did he ever get caught with any medical equipment that was used for doping? I think that he probably did use drugs, but until I see actual proof, I"m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Landis has shown himself to be liar. Why should anyone believe him?

It's kind of a catch 22 situation for Landis. He may have lied before, but while switching from a lie to truth means you did, in fact, lie, it still takes a lot of courage to begin to tell the truth. If a man switches from lies to truth, he should be heralded for his courage, not ridiculed for once being a liar. However, we can't be sure which is the truth. However, one or the other must be the truth, indicating that he was telling the truth about one of his stories (unless there's some unknown tangeant to it).

Now, which one do you think is more likely true? There are two different stories to consider: He either didn't dope and falsely came out about it, or he did and is now telling the truth. I'm betting most people would say the latter is more likely. The second story is that he either kept quiet when he should have been crying wolf, or he is now admitting to not crying wolf, when in fact there really was no wolf. OK, now the first story has an impact on the second story because if Landis was doping on the same team as Lance Armstrong, it inevitably brings Lance into the position of being vigilant of this fact. Either he saw it, did not partake, and did not say anything, or he knew it was happening and partook, and did not speak out for fear of being discovered himself. Now, to me it seems that it is much more likely that Landis lied before and is now switching to the truth. I guess the point is that saying Landis cannot be trusted for once lying is vastly oversimplifying things. Just the fact that he spoke out at all means something is going on, or else why would he say anything? What does he have to gain from exposing Lance? Besides, if he knew this were false, he would know that Lance had nothing to hide and would never be exposed, despite his attempts to expose him.

Get your head out of the sand and realize that you can't rely on drug test results to indicate illegal use. Use is probably very widespread now. Proof is only as good as the person interpreting the evidence. If you can see that, logically, the evidence weighs against Lance, there will be no better proof you can ask for. Likewise, if you are convinced you will not believe it until you see "proof" of it, you probably will never get sufficient evidence to finally convince you. A logical take on this says Lance is definitely doped, and to deny it is to skirt around the issue leading the 'Lance is Lanced' believer on an unending quest to provide you absolute evidence of it when it just cannot be done.

See reason and just realize that Lance is doped, and he is an asshole, but he is still one hell of a bike rider.

MarionJones was tested over 200 times by the very best WADA had to offer when she was a world-class track star and she never tested positive once. She would still be America's sweetheart if it weren't for the Balco investigation.

ridethebikee wrote:

If he has passed 300 drug test without one failed test that is a compelling arguement. I know the drugs are always ahead of the test, but still to be that good.

Did Lance cheat, more than likely, it isn't right, but in cycling it was pretty much the norm.

I really think Lemond and Landis are just jealous, not of Lance's riding ability, but of his marketing ability. He won, and made a ton of money, something I don't think either one of them did.

I would wonder if something comes out, is there a way Armstrong could lose money that he has made in the past?

HOPE/CHANGE wrote:

Next you'll tell me that Obama isn't The New Jesus after all.

POD!

can someone answer this...if Landis and Armstrong where using the same dopeing methods, why did Landis come up positive and Armstrong negative?

I mean, Landis stated he was doing same things as Lance?

Everyone hated on Jose Canseco when he wrote "Juiced!", and called him a liar, called him unreliable, called him bitter, and said he was obviously making stuff up to sell books.

As it turns out, Canseco was telling more truth than those with their heads in the sand could handle.

I see the exact same thing with the LA apologists.

In his book, why didn't LA talk about his relationship with Dr. "EPO is like orange juice" Ferrari? Everyone in cycling knows why one goes to see Dr. Ferrari - he's the doping guru.

Why did Frankie and Betsy Landreu say, under oath in a deposition, that he heard LA admit, while being treated for his ball cancer, to taking EPO, HGH, steroids, and cortisone?

Was L'Equipe making it all up when they tested LA's blood from '99 and found EPO in it?

If LA was clean in all those victories, it makes him the most amazing athlete in a generation.

If he wasn't clean, then he's a CHEATER. Doesn't matter if 'everyone is doing it' or not - he's a CHEATER.

But he's done a lot of good for cancer patients, so he's got that going for him. And that's actually not meant as sarcasm - he's helped a lot of people. He's just a cheater as well.

Wait..... there's no Santa?

Do all of you Armstrong advocates still believe in Tyler Hamilton's "vanishing twin" theory too, in which he invested millions of his own money? There was a time when I desperately wanted to believe Tyler was clean too, because he seemed like one of the "good" guys. Wait, maybe Lance is Tyler's twin, separated at birth.

There is a culture of systematic doping in cycling; always has been. It even finds its way down to the ranks of cat 1/2s trying to get that "break." I've seen it. So has Jonathan Vaughters, and he's made a big push to look forward and root it out of the sport. We need more of these guys cracking and exposing the fraud that was/is competitive international cycling.

Santiago Perez was Tyler's vanishing twin.

Phonak got sloppy with practice, which is why both of those two got caught for homologous transfusion.

Same with Landis - remember he got caught while riding for Phonak. That's why Landis was caught and not Lance. Bruyneel's guys were always very good.

For those wondering about a supposed lack of coverage on Cycling News, you may have noticed that today was the penultimate day of the Tour de France. With it being a decisive time trial, it is arguably the single biggest day of the year in cycling.

Are you suggesting that the tired old story about Lance, true or not, be the headline over that?

The Tour De France podium over the years has been as littered with dopers as the 100 meter dash medal stand, which is saying a lot. It takes remarkable faith to believe that any among either group who remain untarnished are actually clean given that they competed with and beat so many who weren't.

Santa Claus is a good comparison.

Except that St. Nicholas was a real person and a virtuous one. He should have picked the tooth fairy.

BINGO

First of all, the 2nd leader on Cycling News is about LeMond responding to Landis' allegations, so they are commenting on the story.

Second, this story is sooo played out in the cycling community. Everyone's tired of it and just wants to focus on the racing.

Third, most people in the cycling community believe that Lance doped, but don't really care because it's widely known that everyone dopes. Lance certainly doesn't have a lot of fans in the racing community, but that's more because he has a reputation for being sort of an asshole...not because people view him as a 'cheater'.

Ralphy wrote:

HOPE/CHANGE wrote:

Next you'll tell me that Obama isn't The New Jesus after all.

POD!

No. Nope. Not at all.

More like stupidity of the day.

solonimnot wrote:

So naive! Go to cycling news forums, the clinic, and educate yourselves.

This.

Here is a good thread to get you started.

Also here is another good thread.

To those who think Floyd is lying: Think of the incredible damage Landis has done to his already massacred life by coming out with these allegations! He went to towns across the US, including San Jose where I live, and held rallies protesting his innocence and raising money for his defense fund! Can you imagine how many people who gave him money and bought his book are feeling totally duped now? Arguing that he has no credibility is fine, but when you think about what he has done by telling the truth/lying again (depending on your take), it makes a lot more sense to think that he is telling the truth now. He still had supporters before, and now he has defrauded all of them. Only Greg leMond is in his corner now, and after what happened in the courtroom regarding leMond's childhood and Landis' associate, that says something. Or...sure, they are both jealous and hate Lance for scoring Sheryl Crow and an Olsen twin with a single nut.

Marion Jones passed 200 drug tests

Lance Armstrong passed over 10,000 tests over the course of 10 years.