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

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 passed 139 tests and failed zero while she was doping. The best drugs and best doctors and best cheats will ALWAYS beat the system.

Avocados Number wrote:

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."

Similarly, almost everyone who insists that Landis is credible has a strong emotional need for Lance Armstrong to be a doper. People have been screaming that Armstrong was doped when there was little evidence at all for it. If you go to those cycling forums, you'll discover a class of people who are obsessed with the urge to convince anyone who'll listen that Armstrong is doped. If Lance beats the current rap, these people will be heading for the ledges.

When Landis was pleading his innocence, he said exactly what people who wanted to believe him, wanted to hear. Now he is trying to please the crowd who want to believe that he and Armstrong are dirty. Does this mean he's lying? No, but he is saying what those who want to believe want to hear - perfectly, absolutely and completely, what they want to hear. That should give pause to an unbiased observer. Now why would he confess to doping and accuse every other big name in American cycling? Some people say it's to assuage his guilty conscience, to clean up cycling. If this was so, wouldn't he apologize to those he swindled who supported him during his hearings? Wouldn't he want to pay them back? Wouldn't he admit his positive in the TdF was not false? Wouldn't he apologize to the labs he slandered? No, he has done none of these things. I suggest that his sole motivation for his confession and accusations is vindictiveness. He is suffering from disappointed hopes, the end of his cycling career which without doping is apparently not terribly successful. He is bitter and resents that others are continuing in the sport he loves when he cannot. His revenge is to try to bring them all down and destroy the sport which he cannot longer participate in. Does this mean he is lying? No, but true or false, the impact is the same. Remember, he is saying exactly what you want to hear and he has no physical evidence.

The phenomenom exists in track and field too. The elites, especially anyone who is the best in their field, are smeared endlessly as dopers for the sin of simply being fast. Geb, Bolt, El G, Bekele, Lagat, Marion, Gay, etc. Some got caught, some weren't, were those that weren't clean? Who knows. The all-elites-dope crowd need the elites to be cheats. See, these people were good athletes in their towns, at their high school, maybe they had some success at college or beyond. They were used to being the star, the fastest, the BMOC. At some point they reached the level at which their athletic limits were exposed. Their egos built by years of small successes began to crumble. Some couldn't endure it that others were simply better. Since the clock doesn't lie, they needed another explanation for their apparent inferiority. The idea that all the better, faster guys could only be so through cheating was a great comfort. When you hear someone say "lanced" or "epopians", they're really saying, "I would be the best were it not for the dopers."

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

You mean Neil didn't really walk on the moon?

]

Lance had positive tests in 1999. That's what the whole L'Equipe article was about. And before anyone says they lied or the research lab had too many variables, I encourage you to read about the incident. One of the most unbiased and intelligent anti-doping officials in the world has commented in depth on how there is about a 1% chance the positive tests belonged to someone aside from Lance Armstrong.

And to the guy claiming that we cyclists should be ashamed to call the Lance story dragged out--pleeeeease. I guarantee you every cycling fan could write the trial brief in the case for or against Lance Armstrong at this point. Many of us probably know exact dates and numbers. There has been a federal investigation-Landis-Armstrong article up almost every other day, many of them headlining the page, and if you think the 1,567th story about Lance Armstrong's drug use is more important the the deciding race of the 2010 TDF, I don't know why you'd think anyone would enjoy following cycling any longer.

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?

Are you joking. Are you telling me that Lance should not have taken life saving drugs when he was fighting cancer? Yes its not ethical to use EPO, HGH and steroids to gain an athletic advantage but these kind of drugs are the difference between beating cancer and dying from cancer. Taking those drugs while being treated for cancer only helped him win by keeping him alive.

Ummmm... pretty sure that the deposition was regarding Lance's admission to taking said drugs before he came down with cancer when he was part of the peloton and showing promise. It had nothing to do with the cancer drugs themselves.

Lance, like every sinning human being, has both a dark side and an angelic side. He was given a second change and has done some meritous things with it and some not-so-noble things. Unfortunately, I think a full-blown admission, as much as it could do for the sport, would tarnish his image and, perhaps, some of the good that has come from it.

You're a dumb idiot wrote:

Ummmm... pretty sure that the deposition was regarding Lance's admission to taking said drugs before he came down with cancer when he was part of the peloton and showing promise. It had nothing to do with the cancer drugs themselves.

Lance, like every sinning human being, has both a dark side and an angelic side. He was given a second change and has done some meritous things with it and some not-so-noble things. Unfortunately, I think a full-blown admission, as much as it could do for the sport, would tarnish his image and, perhaps, some of the good that has come from it.

I almost agree. I dislike Lance for being an asshole, but I almost hope he doesn't get caught and disgraced. He does a lot of good, charitable things and has a lot of pull in the sport that we would lose if Lance were to get caught. Considering everyone else is doing it as well, I think that would be worse for our sport than catching him.

Not saying that I condone EPO and CERA in cycling, but until there is a better system or retroactive tests or something, I don't wan the biggest stars of the sport caught, to be honest. It's one thing to take away an Olympic Medal and give it down the line to Kiprop or Willis (it's possible they weren't doping, imo). You just can't do that in cycling, because the sport is so dirty that there isn't a "rightful" person to award the victories to. How absurd would it be if 5 LA victories were given to Jan Ulrich, another known doper?

It's just a mess, and isn't going to succeed with drug testing the way it is.

radiostar wrote:

You mean Neil didn't really walk on the moon?

]

No way! That's great!

WE'VE LANDED ON THE MOON!!!

what time are your kids going to bed if they are up watching/hearing Nightline quotes?

not sure who to believe, but I'd hate to see his followers and the whole foundation, go down.

is it really worth it...

RuKiddingMe! wrote:

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

Armstrong and Landis both passed hundreds of tests.

Landis ultimately failed one test (while riding for Phonak, a different team, and for testosterone, not EPO / blood doping), but they both passed all their previous tests - which just shows that the tests are not reliable, as so many others have pointed out.

Lance Armstrong has my respect for beating cancer, and helping others in that fight. I am still convinced he doped in his seven TDF wins, like his rivals, most of whom have been convicted by now. I would have even greater respect for him if he came clear about it.

stick to something you know something about. of which cycling is not one of them. you can not even get frankie's name correct!

Sagarin wrote:

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

There's no Tooth Fairy?

estesrunner wrote:

stick to something you know something about. of which cycling is not one of them. you can not even get frankie's name correct!

We both know who we're talking about, right?! So I guess we both know enough to know who we're talking about.

"Landreu", "Andreu". Yeah, okay, I admit I added an extraneous letter to his last name. If that's your basis for discounting all the things ANDREU said about LA in the deposition, then I want you on my jury if I ever go to trial for anything, because you're awfully easy to convince! Disregard the ANDREU statements in the deposition, disregard the rampant doping in the sport, disregard all that, but DO go to the length of pointing out a misspelled name. Got it.

What about L'Equipe?

What about Dr. Ferrari?

What about Landis?

What about ANDREU's deposition?

What about his masseuse, Emma O’Reilly, who claims Lance asked her to dispose of a bunch of used syringes? If he needed syringes for a legitimate purpose, why ask your masseuse to dispose of them? Why ask her for makeup to cover up needle marks?

What about a guy who had CANCER, coming back to beat a field of dopers, not once, not twice, not three times, but SEVEN times in a row?!

Dude, wake up.

As I said before, if Lance was clean in those Tours, he's the greatest athlete of this generation, and an even better story of coming back from the LITERAL brink of death. If he's a doper, he's a doper - a guy willing to cheat his way to the top.

At this point, I'm more annoyed by Lance apologists who honestly don't seem capable of reading and comprehending the very simple and obvious reality of what's' going on, than I am annoyed by Lance, because at the end of the day, Lance HAS done great things for cancer victims, at the least.

The Lance apologists, however, have to live their lives with the inability to comprehend simple reality. It's as if someone took you out at dawn, showed you the rising sun, then showed you a compass indicating that the sun was rising in the east, and having you dumbly look back and say, "No, the sun rises in the west." No, see, there's the sun. That direction is east. "No, the sun rises in the west. You don't know how to spell Andreu properly."

Okay, man. A misspelled name trumps everything else. Got it.

Novitzsky is going to open a lot of eyes.

sigh... wrote:

Novitzsky is going to open a lot of eyes.

Damn, I spelled Novitzky's name wrong, too. But that guy has a goofy name. Novitzsky, Novitsky, Novitzky... one of those should be right.

LeMond doped ('89 giro to '89 tour, cmon)

Landis doped

Hincapie doped

Hamilton doped

Andreu doped

Levi doped

Lance doped

tons of dutch, irish, italian, german and others doped...

blood doping wasn't even illegal until after the '84 games, as I recall the US had a huge medal haul there as well

they went after cycling with Operation Puerto because soccer would have taken down the sport

...can we say 'Golden Goose?' Nobody wants to squash the 'Golden Goose' as it feeds the industry world wide with you guessed it-'Dirty Kaysh Money!'

'Can you handle the truth son?'

Santa Clause isn't real???

Lance dropped Landis's sorry ass with out with dope it doesn't matter.

Geb and Bekele ARE in the same position ... track just doesn't have someone like Landis shooting off their mouth and then a Federal investigation being launched because of it.

There is (and has been) JUST AS MUCH rumor, speculation and suspicion of riders and runners like Viren, Cova and several other Italians, Vainio and several other Finns, Then every WR-setting runner since 1990 in the 1500-marathon and the Steeple. In cycling nearly every high-profile rider has either been caught with drugs in their house, with their trainer, failed a dope test, or admitted doping. Names like Pantani, Riis, Zabel, Moser, Museuuw, Virenque, Zulle, ... and these are just the guys from the 90's ... you could add over 100 high-profile riders that got suspensions since 2000 ... Ricco, Basso, Landis, ... tons of others.

You just think this is a big deal because this is Armstrong, and you believe Armstrong is EVERYTHING about cycling. As was stated before, everybody in cycling with a brain realizes that Armstrong has doped. Look at the TOP-10 riders in the TdF every year since the Festina Affair, you probably don't even know what that is, but if you look at the top-10 nearly every rider in the top-10 up until 2006 has doping infractions during their career.

If distance running took blood from the runners as often as cycling does, we would never have WRs set again, at least not until 2100.