You may accuse me of acting on sound bites but I'm no fool when it comes to "blindly taking faith" when reality is fraud, whatever the business maybe. People have lost dignity and their self respect in the quest for money and glory, be that in cycling, soccer, baseball or the corporate business world.
Sometimes I wonder, is it truly an American phenomena that shady individuals get to write books about their "great victories" or do reality shows on television, and then stand to make unimaginable sums of money by defrauding people? When in trouble, they are able to hire expensive lawyers who are experts by training at poking holes in stories to help their disgraceful clients get away. To cushion against a fall from grace at any time, among their insurance policies are forming relationships with big political names, giving generously to charity and using social media to deliver propaganda.
The die-hard fans who sit blindly and accept such behaviors are arguably immoral themselves or plainly unable to exercise their own brains. Their excuses for continuing to support these idiots are : "there is no proof", "this is hearsay", "he's inspiring", "he's done so much for this cause" and so on. Sadly, common sense is rare and that has been a constant since the Neanderthal man.
RELATED READING : Testimonies In The Lance Armstrong Doping Crisis
* * *
What makes you think WSJ isn't jumping on the Landis bandwagon to attract readers, make profits? The same could be applied to them. I'm not saying Lance didn't dope but to trust tabloid sensationalism is a little overdoing.
ReplyDeleteI knew someone would say that. Well it would be interesting to know how much Floyd made from this interview, isn't it? But why is renumeration being wronged here? What did you expect WSJ to do, give a pat on Floyd's back and say "thank you brother for chatting with us, see you another time" ? Is it hard to trust a man who has been a pathological liar? Sure it can be. But put things into context. Here is a guy who stands little to loose, lives somewhere out in a trailer and has pretty much few to call as friends anymore. History should also be kept in context. What happened at the BALCO affair?
ReplyDeleteNash Equilibrium anyone?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0702-shermer-doping-20100702,0,5483079.story
Although I'm no LA fan and strongly suspects him of using PEDs (in the past and possibly now), I'm tired of hearsay and would require a hard evidence in order to go all out accusing LA of being a fake.
ReplyDeleteLandis' accounts being reported on WSJ, IMO, doesn't add any credibility to the accounts themselves. Hard evidences would. Evidence please!
Until someone produces hard evidences, I refuse to waste my time speculating either way. It's just counterproductive.
The evidence is coming. The answer is in Novitzky.
ReplyDeleteLandis is not the liar he was. This is different. 3 different former Postal riders are confirming his story if you guy read the article well.
ReplyDeleteAs a lawyer I might add something on the subject of evidence. Different types of evidence are usually afforded different probative weights - meaning they they differ in the extent to which they can establish the truth of what they suggest.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the strongest, or weightiest evidence is 'real evidence' - blood bags with dopers names on, syringes etc
In many cases real evidence does not exist or ever surface and investigators / courts etc have to rely on testimony, i.e. what someone says has happened. Just because there is not real evidence to support it, does not mean that testimony can not be weighty evidence. People hearing the evidence have to decide what other facts and circumstances or indeed other witness can support the truth of the testimony. The reliability of both the witness and the evidence have to be considered - just because the witness might not be credible, doesn't mean that the evidence isnt. Every day courts have to make a decision between conflicting testimony and just because a case might be 'one person's word against another's' doesnt mean that one person's testimony might not be far more credible than anothers'.
The main problem with testimony is that, although perhaps credible and reliable, it may not be sufficiently so to discharge the probative standard required for legal sanctions to be imposed - ie in the UK, criminal charges have to be established 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. In the absence of 'real evidence', it may be harder to secure a conviction on testimony alone, but that does not mean that it cannot, does not, or should not happen.
Finally, hearsay evidence is testimony that repeats what the witness has heard from another source. Landis' evidence is not for the most part hearsay - he is not saying that he heard other people talking about doping but rather that he himself saw and experienced it.
Edward,
ReplyDeleteWell said and thank you for weighing in. May I know which firm you work for?
Not at all - I am a member of the self employed Bar in England (UK)(so do not work for a firm).
ReplyDeleteWell done on the blog btw - your articles always make for interesting and informative reading. keep up the good work!
Edward
Calling us immoral for getting fed up with all the claims of a bitter pathalogical liar is one thing.. calling the day Landis lost his appeal 'sad' is, well, sad....
ReplyDeletehttp://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2007/09/landis-officially-not-tour-winner.html
Very nice detective digging Marvin K. Trying to slam me a new one? Back in 2007, I trusted this nitwit that was Floyd Landis. Guess what, back then I was also wearing a Livestrong band and my room had a big Lance Armstrong poster. I sympathised for athletes. I suppose it was shortly after that I saw the incriminating evidence pile up one by one and told my self, okay, something is not right. I read extensive Tour de France histories and learnt that the history of cycling is one of performance enhancement through any means possible. No one is a champion if they lie and fail the code of ethics. You can give up on false heroes anytime.
ReplyDeleteMarvinK's comment is no different than others I have seen in forums. If a person speaks against doping, he's "bitter", "angry", "jealous"...[SUBSTITUTE FAVORITE ADJECTIVE HERE]. Why not listen to the content of his bitterness? Joe Papp wrote recently about this fallacious state of mind describing it as a "Ad Hominum Abuse". http://joepapp.blogspot.com/ What is interesting is that no one has commented yet on how Team Radioshack sought to cover up the WSJ article through a court injuction. Who's more credible? The speaker or the one who's trying to shut him up? Blah.
ReplyDeleteI gave up on the Lance Armstrong fandom def. after hearing an audio clip you put up here, where Greg Lemond recorded a phone conversation with Oakley's Stephanie Mcllavain. It maybe a bit hard to believe Floyd, but how on earth can someone lie when they don't know they're being "exposed". That did it for me. You do a fantastic job with the blog. It is public service!
ReplyDeleteThis story doesn't gel, still...
ReplyDeleteSo in the story, according to Floyd, a non doping Landis destroyed all comers at the 2002 Dauphine, save for a doped up Armstrong, and finished 2nd. That's quite a feat for a clean cyclist who at that point in his career had only hinted to JB that he would be willing to dope to make the squad, but claims to have not doped yet. If he could do 2nd overall in an event like the DL, then, I'd imagine that if he started sticking testosterone patches on his tummy he'd be able to clean the floor with everyone including Lance.
Not only that, but back in 2002 Lance wasn't nearly the god he is now, and if I were a team manager, in JB's shoes, and I was relying on a doped up Armstrong to win my tours, and then I found this little menonite beast that could shred the field and finish 2nd while riding clean, then I'm telling you straight up, JB would have dumped Lance and began pumping Landis with all kinds of illegal crap in hopes of winning 10 tours.
Think about it, if everyone is dirty, and the doping is systematic, then a kid who comes out of nowhere and cranks out a 2nd place finish in one of the most prestigious events in cycling, while riding clean, would truly be THE new star of the show.
Or, he's just full of it. Again.
Linking to a story in the WSJ isn't what it used to be...remember that Rupert and his goons run the show now, and the truth is likely heading out the window.
I guess it helps that I've never really been much of a fan towards specific athletes nor teams. Never had the emotional energy for that sort of behaviour to be honest.
ReplyDeletePeople have invested so much emotional and moral loyalty into these people that they simply cannot bear any of the ugly drama that surrounds daily life, let alone high profile high stakes life. The egg is on the face of people who hold such high standards at odds with of all experience and history to the contrary with regards to human nature. Strikes me as being really naive and fundamentally immature.
As to the doping issue, can anyone name me a time where pro-cycling has been clean? There is documentation of all forms of base cheating as well as doping since basically the very first races. They started with stimulants and worked up in complexity as drug technology improved.
It's par for the course as established from the very beginning, people who are shocked about it now are again fundamentally naive.
@Utahdog!
I'm pretty confident there is truth to some of the Landis story. It's also almost guaranteed he's also lying through his teeth in other parts, but it's all very entertaining isn't it?
I'm not sure what to think of Landis, but one thing that puts credibility to his claims is the story of the missing bikes. I never realized this, but dope costs generous amounts of money, so how does a team finance such a program? Well, selling bikes certainly is an option that can land you enough cash.
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable story. The biggest rubbish onto which Lance fanboys are still holding onto is the credibility issue. I went through the comments for the two WSJ articles and 90% out of 100 not one is ready to discuss the issues this sport has to deal with. Instead, poor toddlers are all deeply worried about getting their minds hurt by "pathological lies". Poor guys. They need a massage eh? Where were these feelings when many of ex-Postal teammates came out caught for doping? Or these sentiments when Betsy Andreu, Lemond, Mcllavain, Kimmage, Walsh etc exposed the real stories behind the unbelievable performances? Back then they all said "There's no proof" Time has passed and proof of LA's actions have accumulated like an unattended landfill. The last bit of fanboy hope to hang onto is that Landis lied once, he cheated lots of people, so great, they should be excused from believing him. Does this automatically make Lance clean? I certainly don't think so.
ReplyDeleteI can only marvel at the amazing shift of opinion that the Lance doping saga has bought, atleast here in America. People with the last bit of intelligence are now taking Velonews down because of their biased, unremarkable journalism. Its slowly going from fandom to suspicion. Its only a matter of time before the Feds squeeze the truth out of the corrupted world of cycling. I just can't wait for the cleansing. Thank you for being part of this. Its huge.
ReplyDeleteI'm more alarmed that this is a federal issue than by anything else surrounding doping TBH.
ReplyDeleteEdward H :
ReplyDeleteThank you for replaying back to me. I was also curious about another aspect. When high profile figures find their names in scandals like this, what standard instruction do the lawyers they hire tell them to follow when quizzed by the press? Obviously the client could be a true liar, murderer, or a financial conman, so what is the common "script" used that can cover up personal guilt in public? Am I correct in saying its the lawyer who masterminds this operation?
For those who lose sleep over Landis' lies, now recanted...
ReplyDeleteDo you realize that Lance ( & his people) have built a mountain of lies which dwarf FL's. (they use the mountain to bury all who try to bring the truth to light)
Floyd lied to try to save his career, not unlike people in all aspects of life.
Jeez...yeah, he took money from people in the pursuit to save his career...wrong?... Yup... understandable...I see it everyday in politics.
but, Guess what, so has Lance...do you think Lance's books are anymore truthful than Floyd's ???
Lance lives in an increasingly expanding glass house...not only is Floyd throwing rocks...there's a friggin hailstorm on the horizon.... You can always send out security to chase Floyd away...but the storm is gonna be out of Lance's control.
Floyd has brought in a new level of scrutiny to Lance's world. A world to which until recently Armstrong & his people have had expert control over.
Once the lie is exposed...
Are people going to pepper forums with lame threats of class action lawsuits once Armstrong is finally exposed as a cheat too???
Lance Armstrong is my hero. And he's such a hero I don't know where to begin. He bad mouths journalists with grace, harasses athletes by chasing after them, Twitters taking a dump in the toilet, visits strip clubs while he's married and knows how to coverup lies for years. He's a master tactician cum cancer surviving money launderer who can wear a 15000 dollar helmet and ride a 12000 bike because he's Lance. I devour all his books and watch his Larry King shows without fail. I will show my children the great things he hath done. I hope they will exactly be like him. This we have decided is also what other families should do. America is great. C'mon America! Follow me!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHe may or may not doped. It is clear throughout his career the circumstantial evidence of such is overwhelming. The problem I have though is why does he get special attention just because he is Lance. Many cyclists have had their careers ruined because of such allegations. the rule was, if you were even suspected to be involved in doping, you are not allowed to start the Tour. Yet, lance gets a pass just because he is Lance.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying he cheated by doping, but rather he should get the same treatment as every other cyclist on the pro tour.
Landis is a POS who lied, denied and than said to spied...puleeze...
ReplyDeleteLet the Fed's handle it, that is even more of a joke than this whole spectacle doping.
lets not let a good story get in the way of truth..
cycling has been dirty since it's inception, like any other sport. if you do not believe it than you very niave...
the dopers are always ahead of the game, that does not mean they agencies who test won't bag more than a few along the way...sorry for the pun.lol
All you have to do is look at Lance's marathon times when he took three years off from cycling - the times were all below average - very unusual for a man that has an astounding VO2 Max. I know he is not a runner - but he was a tri-athlete before he started bike racing.
ReplyDeleteI have also raced on the US Cycling Team and can tell you that most members blood-doped starting with the 1984 Olympics and that continued after Carmichael became national road coach leading up to the Lance Armstrong era.
I have not even the smallest doubt what Floyd Landis is alleging!
Ted are you on drugs? "the times were below average".
ReplyDeleteFYI...LA ran a 2hr. 46min. marathon in '07 (finishing 214th out of 30,000+). The AVERAGE men's marathon time is 4hr. 32min & the world best is 2hr. 3min. 59sec. I doubt any knowledgeable runner would characterize a sub 3hr. time for such an inexperienced runner as below average.
What average are you talking about...elite class marathon runners?
If you are trying to build a "case" at least don't make obvious stupid errors that are easily disproven. You'd no doubt believe he cheated on an 8th grade english test if you heard it, I assume.
You don't have even the smallest doubt..sad, I hope you are never called to jury duty. All I've heard is (alot) of heresay.
PS. I believe he's dirty; but using his marathon time as "proof" is foolish.
heresay: an archaic legal argument developed from the theory that the best defense is a good offense. It was famously used by Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman:
ReplyDeletethis whole courtroom is out of order.
Modern jurisprudence tends to treat this defense as a call for anarchy and rebellion. It is an oft-stated critique of such a system that the inability to suffer fools causes passionate and opionated blind men to face penalties for contempt.