Landis on Armstrong - the gory details

Hey Dawg wrote:

Chad Gerlach, who rode with the U.S. Postal team before Messrs. Armstrong and Landis were on it, said he's inclined to believe Mr. Landis's account of widespread doping based on what he saw during his own career. "I believe it because I have seen it personally," he said. "I am not ready to out my friends or provide names. I just saw it. It's just a systematic thing."

The part of this that makes it so believable is that Landis isn't smart enough to make this stuff up! But, he needs to get some more credible witnesses to come forward. Chad Gerlach is probable the least credible person he could have found as a witness. He's the guy on who was on intervention for being a homeless crack addict!

It is my opinion that Lance may not have been doped up. Everyone here has given absolutely no benefit of doubt to him. According to his book he was tested basically once a month, if not more (it has been years since I read it). How can a rider be using and not have a positive test if this is the case? I mean that means he would use for one week then not use so drugs wouldn't show up in the test. This is assuming the tests weren't at random times. For me, until a verified positive test comes up I cannot throw guilt on him for using performance enhancing drugs.

Based on my knowledge of blood transfusions it is difficult if not impossible to test for. So maybe he has done that, but he should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. For me that means a verified positive test, or an admission of guilt.

It has been said before and I'll say it again, Landis is a shitty source. You just can't take his word to the bank.

The US Postal team sold bikes to make money, and Trek didn't want them too. I could see this causing the assumption that they were using the illegitimate money for illegitimate purposes. However, I don't think this means that they used the money for doping regimens. Maybe the coach was in gambling debt. Maybe the US Postal guys liked to party extravagantly. Maybe it was for a doping regimen and Lance didn't utilize it. Maybe it was and Lance used. Point is, you don't know and probably never will.

Casting suspicion on Lance I understand, I am suspicious. However, the line needs to be drawn there. You cannot be completely convinced that he used because there is no solid evidence.

I am not naive, I have no idea if Lance used or not, but neither do you.

bruinboy wrote:

We all agree that cycling is, and has been, a dirty sport for years. A clean cyclist can NEVER routinely beat a sport full of drug cheats. They make too much of a difference. We WANT to believe Lance is clean, but there is no way.

Sergio Sanchez can dope himself into oblivion, but he's not beating Bekele or Geb in his prime.

Why are people so fixated on the number of drug tests? If the test cannot detect what they are doing, then it doesn't matter if they are tested 50 times a day.

I'm unconvinced wrote:

The US Postal team sold bikes to make money, and Trek didn't want them too. I could see this causing the assumption that they were using the illegitimate money for illegitimate purposes. However, I don't think this means that they used the money for doping regimens. Maybe the coach was in gambling debt. Maybe the US Postal guys liked to party extravagantly. Maybe it was for a doping regimen and Lance didn't utilize it. Maybe it was and Lance used. Point is, you don't know and probably never will.

Grasping at straws.

Maybe you should think again:1) When you can't rebut the message, shooting the messenger is a very weak alternative.2) Six urine samples from Lance in 1999 tested positive for synthetic EPO.3) There are lots of shreds of evidence, from a wide cast of characters besides Landis.

Michael Faraday wrote:

I think the key things to remember are:

1) Floyd Landis is a proven liar

2) Lance Armstrong has never failed a drug test

3) Other than Landis' imagination, there is not ONE shread of evidence that his wild accusations are true

Has there been an athlete in history with more of a soap opera swirling around him for longer than Lance? I'm enjoying the ride, so to speak.

So is he. He intimidates people to keep their mouths shut, and basks in the adulation of people who think he is so noble because of his charity work.

But then again, he has undeniable charisma, and a certain charm.

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe you should think again:

1) When you can't rebut the message, shooting the messenger is a very weak alternative.

2) Six urine samples from Lance in 1999 tested positive for synthetic EPO.

3) There are lots of shreds of evidence, from a wide cast of characters besides Landis.

1. When the messenger has zero credibility (negative credibility) that matters

2. No they did not.

3. "I heard that he said that she said that my brother's cousin saw Lance doing drugs."

1) No it doesn't. You just need to corroborate the facts.2) Yes they did.3) http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html

Hold on a sec wrote:

1. When the messenger has zero credibility (negative credibility) that matters

2. No they did not.

3. "I heard that he said that she said that my brother's cousin saw Lance doing drugs."

rekrunner wrote:

1) No it doesn't. You just need to corroborate the facts.

2) Yes they did.

3)

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html

1. Yes it does. There ARE no facts. There is the word of Landis. He even got the year wrong in one case. Credibility matters

2. No they did not.

3. Hey look, someone collated some of the he-said she-said. Big deal.

I'm unconvinced wrote:

I am not naive, ...

sorry dude, but yes, yes you are. If you think everyone else doped but he didnt AND he CRRRUUUSSHHED them you need to go on and start your Xmas list to Santa.

Lance the enigma. maybe he should just have stayed retired and Landis would shut his big mouth. although in my mind he's guilty as sin. that said, I don't wanna see him busted. Lance sure did a lot of good with his live strong Cancer movement. Guilty or not he's brought more hope and good to people's lives than the millions he got personally.

I'll go ahead an assume Armstrong was using PEDs based on all of the circumstancial evidence before anything from Landis came out.

I am not a court of law so I do not need more proof.

History has shown that athletes can use and pass tests and that PEDs do not show up in tests until tetsters are aware of their existance (2003 BALCO synthetic steroids for example).

That being said, with the scrutiny that Armstrong was under I couldn't see him letting a group of other riders witness him do this.

I would think he would have a string buffers leaving no direct trail to him.

So, for me, Landis' accounts (given his credibility), do not compel me conclude anything more than my original assumptions. His gory details may be true. But I don't know if Armstrong is who he saw involved in the gory details. He may have seen Bob do this and replaced Bob's name with Lance Armstrong.

1) Landis' words can lead investigators to discover new, verifiable facts, from other, credible sources, that they may have not otherwise found. Landis' words can lead drug testers to improve their drug testing procedures, improving detection for future cycling, even if past abuse goes unpunished due to lack of evidence. Landis' apparent lack of credibility is not insurmountable, or a barrier to cleaning up the sport. Landis' credibility doesn't matter if he isn't actually called to testify.2) Yes they did. Michael Ashenden tested 87 urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France for synthetic EPO. 13 tested positive. 6 of those came from Lance. Two more of Lance's samples also showed evidence of synthetic EPO, but the definitive criteria was not met, so these were not counted. It is an indisputable historical fact that 6 of Lance's urine samples from 1999 tested positive for synthetic EPO. So claiming that "Lance never tested positive" is simply untrue. Facts are facts.3) Hey look -- lots of "shreds of evidence" beyond Landis' wild imagination. Firsthand testimony from friends, wives, teammates and employees.

Hold on a sec wrote:

1. Yes it does. There ARE no facts. There is the word of Landis. He even got the year wrong in one case. Credibility matters

2. No they did not.

3. Hey look, someone collated some of the he-said she-said. Big deal.

unreasonable asshole wrote:

And yet, and yet, there are still those naive Lance-is-whiter-than-white believers. His denials are pathetic, the sour milk analogy a desperate attempt to discredit Landis. I believed not a word of what Landis said the last four years, but I believe everything I'm reading the last month or so, mainly because for the first time, what he's saying makes sense.

Yeah, but I bet you ignore the who's who of dirty guys behind some of your favorite runners, like Rosa and Hermens. Because your favorite runners are of a darker shade. And it isn't PC to question them. Ever ask yourself why you're such a hypocrite? Who made you such a hypocrite? LOL!

drinker wrote:

Lance sure raised a lot of money with his live strong Cancer movement. Guilty or not he's brought more attention to himself and his public image than the millions he got personally.

Fixed.

KB iz da Dirtiest wrote:

Yeah, but I bet you ignore the who's who of dirty guys behind some of your favorite runners, like Rosa and Hermens. Because your favorite runners are of a darker shade. And it isn't PC to question them. Ever ask yourself why you're such a hypocrite? Who made you such a hypocrite? LOL!

Did you jerk yourself off with that strawman? Maybe illogical rants make you feel better about worshiping Armstrong, but it's safe to say that almost anyone who takes issue with Armstrong over doping would also have a problem with any runner who dopes. It's usually those with their heads in the sand over Armstrong who also have their heads in the sand over the fact that top runners dope. So you're probably just projecting here. Sorry to have to crush your wishful thinking with very basic logic.

I did not read much of this thread, so this is to no one in particular, but a few points.

* yes, of course by this point it is silly for anyone to believe that Lance never did any performance enhancing activity that broke the "rules" (the rules of cycling that used to never be enforced or even cared about by any cyclists)

* however, most of you do realized that in that whole article, Landis only provides "evidence" of a couple blood transfusions and some testosterone patches over several years of riding with lance, over several tours. That hardly appears like some hard-core drug regimen to me. I am not defending it, but simply pointing out that in the world of cycling, it ain't much.

* and I am still not that convinced that taking out one's OWN blood, and transfusing it back into your own body later is that much more unnatural or performance-enhancing than is sleeping in an altitude tent and inhaling synthetic air that stimulates one's body to produce epo. And so many of the top running heroes on here have slept in those chambers. And yes, I understand the difference between breaking the rules and not breaking the rules, but the "rules" as they are often riddled with inconsistencies.

Lance clearly cheated during his career. I am also certain that 99.9% of his rivals , and 99% of all top cyclists of past eras (amphetamines anyone?) were also cheaters. This means: at worst, Lance was like everyone else. This still makes him the best TdF ride ever. And important point: If you hate or disparage Lance, you have absolutely no reason to praise any cyclist of the last 50 years, because you can't prove absolutely that they were clean (very strong odds are that they weren't), because this is probably the dirtiest sport ever.

I am also quite certain that cycling is much cleaner now. Hopefully it is a new era.