It’s been a busy time since the Landis story broke. Just keeping up with all the comments on the previous post has been a challenge. Last I checked, there were 123, and I’m sure that before long the number will be more. I was asked by a major publication to write an Op-Ed piece regarding Landis’ confession, but so far they haven’t published it. In part, that’s why I haven’t posted a follow-up until now. (The publication in question did publish a related Op-Ed piece by a big name in the baseball world, however, so I’m not expecting that mine will see the ink of the presses or the electrons of their web site. C’est la vie. Still flattering to be asked.)
Many stories and reactions to Landis’ confession have been written. Some by writers with a voluminous knowledge of the case, others by writers with a passing knowledge, and still others by writers who have little to no knowledge of Landis, other than the fact that he was banned from cycling for two years after being supposedly caught using testosterone in the 2006 Tour.
Bonnie D. Ford of ESPN.com early on produced what I think is the most cogent story about Landis and the revelations that have come to light, getting the first of so far only two interviews with Landis related to the story. At the time she wrote her original piece, the story was breaking fast. The emails that Landis had sent to various officials were finding their way to various media outlets, including — of all places — the Wall Street Journal.
It’s hard to distill an interview down to the most relevant pieces, especially when working on deadline. You’ve got to get what appear to be the most important points into the story right away. Later, when you’ve had time to fully transcribe an interview, then you can perhaps post a more detailed picture of the questions and answers.
The discussion on this site and many others has focused around two things:
- One, did Landis use testosterone during the 2006 Tour?
- Two, why did he keep quiet and why did he change his story now?
Now that Bonnie Ford has posted more excerpts from on her interview with Landis, we get greater detail as to what Landis said and how he said it. First, on the question of what he did dope with in 2006:
Q: [Y]our case brought to light some flaws in laboratory procedure and testing and so on and so forth — it’s at least going to be a point of curiosity for people whether or not you actually were guilty of that specific offense. I understand you’re not trying to defend yourself … I just want to know if it was true or not. So did you use synthetic testosterone at all during that Tour?
A: No. I had in the past, I had used testosterone in training and I had used it, not in 2002, I don’t believe. In 2003 and ’04, I [took it] in the form of andriol, which is an oral form … and then in 2005 I did I think every third day or so use some a testosterone gel, but I can’t remember the brand name of it now. After I figured out how to use, or got better at using, or figured out the dose of what I needed to use as far as growth hormone is concerned, I used that instead and had better results with that, so I stopped using testosterone in 2006. Pretty much the whole year I didn’t use it.
Seems straight-forward enough. It sounds like Landis found a better way (and though tests for HGH existed at that point, they weren’t widely used yet), which yielded better results than he was getting with testosterone. That should be a lesson to the anti-doping folks. Test more for HGH, and see who gets caught.
Before we get to the second question, why Landis kept quiet for four years, there’s the issue of whether he felt guilty about doping. Here’s more of that exchange:
A: [… paragraph ends with quote seen in Bonnie Ford’s original article …]
I personally performed a blood transfusion on Levi [Leipheimer] in a Tour [2005] where he beat me. It didn’t feel like cheating to me. I don’t feel in any way like I was lying to the guys I was racing against. I lied to the public because that was the party line of the sport … It’s not a matter of, I’m doing this now because I feel like somehow guilt destroyed my life. If I am going to be on this team [Editor’s note: Landis’ team is co-sponsored by the Bahati Foundation, which runs inner-city cycling programs in Los Angeles] where I’m encouraging kids to get into cycling, that’s where I draw the line on my conscience, I can’t tell kids to get involved in this and come from a poor neighborhood with drug problems to even more confusing drug problems. [Link: Response to Landis’ claims about Leipheimer.]
Q: So if someone were to say you’re doing this out of spite and anger, how much of that is there in the equation along with your wanting to clear your conscience?
A: I have no doubt that people will say that … There’s a little bit of guilt that goes along with having to lie. But if I was given the chance to race, I could deal with that little bit of guilt. But there’s no upside for me if I’m not allowed to race and I’m not allowed back into the sport on any level. I’d prefer not to have to deal with the guilt, so I’m going to tell the truth. You can make it out to look like I’m an evil guy, but the fact is, it’s a fairly simple choice for me. Yeah, I wanted to race again. I did what I thought I was supposed to do to make that happen. It didn’t happen, and so I don’t wish to feel guilty anymore.
Q: When you say, “not allowed to race again,” can you elaborate on that? From a public standpoint, you came back.
A: I never ended up on a Pro Tour team, and I called the Pro Tour teams that would have been likely to sign me … The hard races that I do best at are the hard races in Europe, and I need to be on a Pro Tour team for that. And there’s just no chance of that anymore.
Ford also asks Landis about what he’d like to see come of his confession.
Q: What do you want to happen as a result of confessing and giving information about other things that you saw?
A: I feel like the way I was treated, considering what I knew and how widespread doping was, was completely unfair, and I don’t wish this experience I’ve had in the last four years on anybody. I went to USADA first, and I asked if — in vague terms, I told them what I knew, without giving them names, I asked if they would be willing to offer amnesty to riders who came forward. [Editor’s note: USADA will not confirm any details of its discussions with Landis.]
So to answer your question about what I really want out of this, apart from just clearing my conscience, I would hope that just one less person ends up in a situation where they have to make the decision or are faced with the decision that I made, because it’s not a right or wrong thing, it’s a simple decision once you get there. And it’s unfortunate, and if one less person has to make that decision, then some good will have come of it.
Getting to the heart of why he didn’t just come clean at the start of this tragedy, Landis responds to this question from Bonnie Ford:
Q: You’ve already thought about the fact that there might be some collateral damage here, on guys that you’re very fond of, and rode with for a long time and were or are friends with. Is that a hard part of this for you?
A: Yeah, that’s why it took so long. Part of the decision I made in the first place to fight the entire thing was, I have, and maybe it’s a character flaw of mine, but I have a hard time telling a half-truth … How would I go about saying that I, for example, had a program of performing blood transfusions in the race in the years I was on the Postal Service team, but no one else helped me or knew about it? I didn’t know how to tell the story without incriminating the other people. So it might have looked like a simple thing from the outside to just tell the truth, but to tell the truth I was going to hurt a lot of people that I care about and that I don’t feel like are any more guilty of anything than I myself am.
Look, I broke the rules, I’m not trying to downplay that. What I did was against the rules and I’ve served my time and I deserved to. But that doesn’t change the fact that the decisions I made were made under the same circumstances as the decisions that the other guys made to do it, and I know that what they did wasn’t meant in any way to harm anyone else. So I had to think it through. How do I tell the truth about me without anybody at the very least inferring that many other people would have been involved? It would have been absurd for me to say the detail about the things that I knew and then claim that I invented doping. There weren’t any good choices apart from hurting a lot of other people and I knew what it felt like to go through it because I was going through it at the time and I didn’t wish it on anyone. But I guess I hoped over a long period of time that it would get better and it would get fixed, but the foxes are guarding the henhouse, as they say, and it’s never going to change until it all gets exposed.
And, though this is out of sequence to the other quotes, here’s what Landis has to say about apologizing for his actions:
Q: Do you have any plans to apologize or refund any money [to donors to his defense fund]?
A: I absolutely wish I could give it all back. I didn’t keep any of it for myself, and I don’t have the funds to give it back. If I ever come to a place in life where I can, nothing would make me happier than to pay it back. As far as apologizing, I’m absolutely sorry for ever having lied to anybody. There’s no one to blame here but me. But that doesn’t fix it … I don’t expect them to just forget about it because I’m sorry. That is something I’ve thought about long and hard, and my choices are not good either way. On the one hand, I can just keep a secret to myself and let them think they gave money to the truth, or I can tell them the truth and just make them feel really bad and foolish and hope to make it up somehow. Neither one’s good.
Take the time to read all of Bonnie Ford’s excerpts. It paints a more complete picture, I think, than we’ve seen up to now about Landis and his decision to finally come clean.
The RadioShack Emails
Interestingly, Team RadioShack published a set of emails from Landis and Dr. Brent Kay to various individuals. Clearly, they were trying to show that Landis is off his rocker, and perhaps trying to blackmail the team into giving him a position to race. More interestingly, no emails originating from Armstrong, Bruyneel or other Team RadioShack personnel are part of the exchanges.
Why? Hard to say, exactly. Perhaps there were none. But I don’t believe that for a minute. Even if the emails amounted to saying “buzz off,” there must be something. So that raises the question: What? Again, hard to say. It would all be speculation. The fact that those messages aren’t included leaves me wondering if that part of the chain of emails wouldn’t play into the public statements by Armstrong and Bruyneel last Thursday.
Also, in what they published, there were no emails or text messages “going back two years” to corroborate Armstrong’s allusion to blackmail. Do they exist or not? If he and his team are going to use this line for damage control, then the obvious thing would be to produce some of those messages.
Armstrong is clearly protecting the brand that is his name. And, many in the media will take his word (because he is, after all, St. Lance, the patron saint of cancer victims), and cast Landis as an embittered, angry, depressed, down-on-his-luck person hell bent on revenge. Bonnie Ford’s interview, however, contradicts that characterization.
The emails published on the RadioShack site don’t appear to confirm any attempts by Landis to blackmail his way onto the RadioShack team. And, from the one email message sent by Landis to Armstrong, it’s clear there’s no love lost between the two. Floyd doesn’t even address him as Lance, he addresses him as “mr. Armstrong.” Pretty formal, given they were once teammates and that Armstrong defended Landis over the last few years.
And, perhaps the bigger question
If Landis wasn’t the person who forwarded the emails that prompted the Wall Street Journal story and others, who did? What did they want to get out of the leak? Here are my list of people with something to gain:
USADA: Having been thoroughly trashed in the media during the time period leading up to the Malibu hearings, perhaps someone at USADA wanted the story to break as a way of saying, “I told you so.”
WADA: I don’t know if they were on the list of agencies who received Landis’ descriptions of his past, but given that they, too, suffered negative publicity during the whole saga, they might also wish to say, “I told you so.”
UCI: Pat McQuaid has never been one to be gunshy about leaking stories that suit his purpose. He let the cat out of the bag in 2006, with his infamous “worst-case scenario” comment in a post-Tour press conference. While he didn’t name Landis specifically, what would the worst-case scenario be for a doping test at the Tour? The winner, of course. It was as obvious as one can be without saying the name. Not sure what his purpose would be right now, unless he wants to shift the focus away from the UCI. And that’s a possibility, given that Landis suggests there was a payoff to keep an Armstrong EPO positive result quiet at the Tour de Suisse. Update: CyclingNews.com reports that McQuaid admits that the UCI received the $100,000 donation from Armstrong, and while denying that it was to cover up a positive drug test, does admit that it probably wasn’t the brightest idea.
USA Cycling: USA Cycling didn’t take nearly the PR hits that USADA and WADA did during the Landis scandal, so I’m not sure what they have to gain. But Steve Johnson is said to be an Armstrong friend/associate. As such, he might have a reason to leak Landis’ emails describing his years of doping. Or, more likely, he might have passed the information on to Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong: I don’t know if Lance Armstrong had seen Landis’ confession before the story broke last week. But if he had, he would have a reason to get in front of the story, make the source (Landis) look bad, and protect his brand name, along with that of his current and previous sponsors. That’s a time-honored way for dealing with leakers whose stories will put an agency or individual in a bad light. Armstrong is a Zen Master of PR, so this isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
Whoever set this story in motion and what they have to gain from it is a big unanswered question. It goes to the reason for the timing, and what that individual or organization sought to gain. I don’t see any real upside for Landis to get the story out — other than revenge — but the interview with Bonnie Ford seems to suggest otherwise. My hunch is that the leak came from one of the possibilities listed above.
The only way Fraud Piece of Shit Landis can truly “come clean” is if Jack Bauer hunts him down & BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF HIM.
I found reading more of the excerpts of her interview to be very interesting. To me, it sounds mostly like Landis wants the weight of lying off of his shoulders. Yes, there is some bitterness from not getting back into the top world of cycling when he served his time and others have been allowed back in, but I think that’s understandable and not his main reason for coming clean. Certainly to me the emails Lance posted do not portray Landis the way in which Lance has described him. And what appears to me to be a lack of full disclosure of emails by Lance’s camp leaves me questioning their motives, not Floyd’s.
Floyd lied and did things that were wrong. I don’t want to excuse that, but I suspect, like was mentioned earlier, there are rules they tell the fans and then there are the real rules. And if throwing someone under a bus every now and then convinces the fans they’re trying to make sure everyone follows the public rules, then the powers in charge are fine with it.
I do wonder if Floyd had done what was suggested by Lance, and others, to not fight it and serve his time, would he now be back on a top team? And what would everyone think about him?
I’d like to read that op-ed piece Rant, even though it might be a little dated now.
I’m pretty convinced at this point that Landis is somewhat removed from reality.
Quote:
Q: “What do you want to happen as a result of confessing and giving information about other things that you saw?
A: I feel like the way I was treated, considering what I knew and how widespread doping was, was completely unfair, and I don’t wish this experience I’ve had in the last four years on anybody.”
Landis feels that the way HE was treated was completely unfair?
What?
This guy’s moral compass is completely messed up. He has gone to war against WADA and USADA, finally admits to doping, and then expects to BARGAIN???
I’m not trying to beat the guy up but damn, what else is he going to say to make himself look any worse? I’m amazed by his lack of ability to recognize the world around him and see that there are consequences for actions. He’s had four years to figure out what to do. Did he actually expect to be treated with kindness by the powers he has so vehemently fought against all this time?
The Avenger,
Good thing Jack Bauer is a fictional character, eh?
Ken,
At some point, I’ll publish it, even though it may be a bit dated already.
uxbunny,
I think the point he was making, in the context of the interview, is that he feels he was treated unfairly by the teams, etc. The implicit bargain among pro cyclists and in relation to the cyclists and the teams appears to be, “You keep quiet about doping if you’re caught and we’ll take care of you when you come back.” Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think the comment had to do with the mess that his arbitration process became.
Right or wrong, Landis kept his end of that implicit bargain, up until a few days ago. Of course, the way his case played out, he may have been a radioactive property for the Pro Tour teams. And which team would risk being invited to the big events to employ him? Unfortunately for Floyd, none that I can think of.
Rant, I know exactly what you’re saying, and I completely understand the context by which Landis was speaking, and I think ANYONE can understand what Landis is ‘implying’. He’s more or less saying that he had some kind of ‘pact’ with his peers, and had hoped that there was some kind of code of conduct that would be followed by all involved.
I’m moving a step further – remember, Ford is asking him “What do you want to happen as a result of confessing and giving information about other things that you saw?” – He doesn’t answer the question, but instead refers to the fact the he feels that he was mistreated. It’s this consistent focus on himself that is so telling. I would think another person might have hoped to help the cause of anti-doping. Floyd was more concerned with being treated ‘fairly’ (said by someone who didn’t play fair.)
The scariest quote from Ford’s interview:
“Q: Do you feel at any point that you risked your health by taking these drugs?
A: No, not at all. There’s always a risk with a blood transfusion, but it’s small. There are risks in taking anabolics, but in cycling you take extremely small quantities because you don’t want to build muscle mass. I never had any adverse effects.”
…’No, not at all’?
OK, so clearly he either hasn’t read ANY of the data about the dangers of PED’s or other doping, OR, he’s as blind as a high-school football player who’s desperate for that scholarship.
Great, Floyd. Thanks.
Actually uxbunny, he does answer the question. In the paragraph after the one you quoted he says;
“So to answer your question about what I really want out of this, apart from just clearing my conscience, I would hope that just one less person ends up in a situation where they have to make the decision or are faced with the decision that I made, because it’s not a right or wrong thing, it’s a simple decision once you get there. And it’s unfortunate, and if one less person has to make that decision, then some good will have come of it.”
Landis text msg from the new SI article, “big tex is going to jail”.
does that say he knows something on the investigation front? True or not.. Its kinda a snotty msg. and if it were true, no doubt FL will be there to keep LA company.
austincyclist,
Interesting. For the benefit of everyone, here’s the SI.com story.
uxbunny,
I see your points. I think that there was maybe a naïve belief in that implicit bargain, and whether it ever really existed. Makes me wonder how many other riders feel that there is such an unstated understanding between them and their fellow travelers. That could be part of the “omerta” that others have commented on here.
As for not seeing the dangers of doping, it appears he saw and understood some of the dangers, while ignoring or not understanding others. That’s a scary example to set for anyone, especially young riders coming up.
Seems to me that his comment about if one person chooses not to dope after hearing his story acknowledges that he may serve as a better example of what not to do than what to do as a pro cyclist. If he can stay on the Bahati team, and can continue racing (we’ll see what USADA, WADA and USA Cycling have to say about that), he may do more good by being in the thick of the action and telling kids “don’t dope” than any of the self-righteous never done it types ever would. Landis can truthfully say, “Doping cost me everything, and now I have to start over from scratch. Don’t do what I did. It’s not worth it.” In a way, that may give him greater credibility among those he ought to reach with his story.
“…[i]f he can stay on the Bahati team, and can continue racing (we’ll see what USADA, WADA and USA Cycling have to say about that)…” This is also an interesting problem. Remember that USADA treated Joe Papp’s transgressions as a single offense. No such deal was made for Floyd. I’m not aware of any actual statute of limitations regarding a doping offense (correct me if I’m wrong.) Would this be a “second offense” under the code, prompting a lifetime ban?
Interestingly, a DQ for the 2006 Tour of California would give the win to…Dave Zabriskie.
Oh, NOW I get it! It makes SO much sense, HOW could I NOT have understood!
“The whole reason I’m doing this is because I just WANT TO CLEAR MY CONSCIENCE & I don’t want to lie anymore… I DON’T FEEL GUILTY AT ALL ABOUT HAVING DOPED… I actually don’t regret that at all… There’s a LITTLE BIT OF GUILT that goes along with having to LIE…. But IF I was GIVEN THE CHANCE TO RACE, I COULE DEAL WITH THAT LITTLE BIT OF GUILT…. I took the party line, that’s what I was supposed to do. If I do that, I will be allowed back into cycling… It didn’t happen, AND SO I DON’T WISH TO FEEL GUILTY ANYMORE…I want to tell the truth so that I can feel better about myself…(but)…I DON’T FEEL GUILTY AT ALL ABOUT HAVING DOPED…I feel the way *I* was treated, considering what I knew & how widespread doping was, was COMPLETELY UNFAIR”. (Floyd Landis)
I’m so overwhelmed & inspired I feel the need to confess myself. I’ve kept a journal (on & off) for 30 years. And I need to ease my burden, clear my conscience. For the last decade, George Clooney’s been comin’ to my house (little inside joke for all his aunt Rosemary’s fans…;) & we’ve been doing the WILD THANG. I don’t feel GUILTY AT ALL of course because that’s what EVERYONE does. Anyway, in my journal, I ‘ve written it all down. Every tryst. Every bed-breaking moment. It’s in very complex code of course.
Wow, I feel SO much better. I’m gonna get me some SLEEP tonight! Sorry George. No guilt whatsoever about our times together but I just couldn’t stand lying about it anymore.
Already, “I feel better than I’ve felt in many, many years”.
Susie B,
Glad to see you’ve gotten that whole sordid affair off your chest. I’m sure George doesn’t mind at all. Happy that RYHO could help inspire you. As the saying goes, “The truth shall set you free.”
eightzero,
As far as anti-doping cases goes, WADA’s code has an eight-year statute of limitations. So anything that happened in 2001 can’t be punished as an anti-doping violation anymore. If it happened after today’s date in 2002, it still can. Since most federations (like the UCI) incorporate the WADA code into their own anti-doping rules, the same eight-year limit applies.
I kinda doubt USADA is going to lean on him while he is cooperating; whether he has with will to try racing with Bahati is a different question. A lot will depend on what kind of corroboration turns up, either from his documents, or others coming in from the cold one way or another. I suspect we won’t see much visible action until Sep 20, after the completion of the USPro championships. Then, if there are a bunch of 3-6 month suspensions, we’ll know what deals were struck with USADA.
Federal cases could be quite a long time developing. Remember that Bonds still hasn’t gone to trial. My experience on a federal grand jury resulted in not one indictment of cases we were investigating, just evidence gathering that would get rolled over to the next panel.
More interesting will be how ASO handles people who the UCI is obliged to put under investigation, and how aggressively and transparently the UCI does its investigation. Given they are also implicated, I would look for the film of a whitewash.
On the PR front, I note headlines today claiming the UCI has refuted “Landis’ Charges” about Armstrong paying off the UCI to silence a positive from the 2001 Tour de Suisse. This glosses over the fact that Landis didn’t make the charge, he was passing the story on as hearsay, being what he understood Armstrong to be claiming had happened. It doesn’t affect the veracity of the things he says he saw himself at all.
TBV
I think you’re right, TBV. And from what I’m seeing, it appears the UCI’s whitewashing has already begun. On Versus.com, I saw a short, machine-translated story that suggests that whatever Landis said about John LeLangue, the UCI doesn’t consider the information credible.
Amazing. But not terribly surprising.
Susie B gets it. The rest of us get it in bits and pieces, fits and starts.
What exactly is it that’s been burdening Landis’ soul all these years? That he doped? No, that doesn’t seem to have bothered him a bit. That he lied to us about racing clean? No, that seems not to have bothered him either. That he took our money, abused our trust, manipulated many good people to devote their time in his defense? Nope, that doesn’t even come up in his discussion with Bonnie Ford.
The “truth” that had been weighing heavily on Landis’ soul is what he knows (or claims to know) about others doping in the peleton. That’s it, people. That’s the heavy burden that Landis has been carrying around: he could inform on others, and hadn’t done so.
Listen to Landis’ own words, in response to Bonnie Ford’s question: “Why are you doing this and why are you doing it now?”
Landis: “I’m doing it now because, well, look, with the benefit of hindsight and a somewhat different perspective, I made some misjudgments.”
He’s not saying, I couldn’t stand the lying any more. It was eating me up inside. I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror. He’s saying, with the benefit of hindsight, I made some misjudgments. Geez. That’s not much of a confession.
Here’s more on how Landis feels about his lying:
Landis: “I was put in a position where I had to make a decision on which path I was going to take very quickly, because the information on the positive test [at the 2006 Tour] had been leaked and the public knew about it and I had to make some kind of statement, or at least I felt like I did. Once I did that, it didn’t really matter when I changed my story …”
People, this is not a statement from a man racked with guilt and pain over the lies he told. He’s saying, once the 2006 Tour PED test results were leaked, he had to decide quickly whether to lie or tell the truth. He decided to lie. Once he decided to lie, “it didn’t really matter” whether he continued to lie, or accused his accusers of dishonesty and corruption, or defrauded his accusers of around a million dollars. He’s not saying he’s sorry about these lies, he’s not saying that he was tortured with guilt about these lies. He’s saying that after the first lie (which he was rushed into making), from that point forward (when he was in no way rushed) none of his other lies “really mattered.” People! Where is the guilt, the remorse, the unburdening of an impossible psychological weight? IT ISN’T THERE.
More of Landis’ own words evidencing his lack of remorse:
“I tell you, I don’t feel guilty at all about having doped. I lied to the public because that was the party line of the sport … It’s not a matter of, I’m doing this now because I feel like somehow guilt destroyed my life … There’s a little bit of guilt that goes along with having to lie. But if I was given the chance to race, I could deal with that little bit of guilt. But there’s no upside for me if I’m not allowed to race and I’m not allowed back into the sport on any level.”
People, read the interview. He’s not saying that he couldn’t bear to lie any more. He’s saying that the lying created “a little bit of guilt.” He’s saying that he didn’t want to live with “a little bit of guilt” if there was no upside. Floyd lied because he thought it would benefit him. The BEST spin we can put on his story is that, since the upside did not materialize, he sees no downside in telling the truth.
Yes. Later on in the article, he started saying the things we want to hear. He’s sorry he lied. Lying feels bad. Telling the truth feels better. He’ll tell the whole truth, and let the chips fall where they may. Landis knows this speech. It’s the speech he used when he packaged as truth the lies he told us since 2006.
The amazing thing to me is that he didn’t lead off with this speech. Instead, he led off with the defense that his lies were merely “misjudgments” that can be viewed now only with the benefit of “hindsight”. He followed with the novel idea that a lie can be excused if the liar didn’t have enough time to consider whether lying is wrong, and that no lie matters after the first lie. Finish the story with Landis’ confession that he felt “a little bit of guilt”, which he would have easily lived with if only a pro tour team had invited him to race with them.
Honestly people. The only thing positive you can say about Floyd Landis is that he possesses a strange sort of honesty: he’s laid out for you, in the clearest possible terms, that he is an amoral jerk who will say and do just about anything if he thinks it will benefit him. Most athletes would have given us the so sorry, what was I thinking, I abused the public’s goodwill line of goods. Floyd eventually got to this line of goods, but read the beginning of the interview for the true story.
Exordium et terminus.
http://tinyurl.com/2umktje
“I personally performed a blood transfusion”
I’m not a medical professional of any sort, but is this credible? And if so, why were Basso et al making sketchy visits to spain and why were the germans visiting humanplasma [I think that was the name]? Not really disputing the larger theme, but this falls into the same category as “inserting a catheter into yourself” on the possibility spectrum.
What Larry said.
TBV – Landis states he ONLY gave them 1ST HAND info & yet he “passed on” the info about the TdSuisse? So, he CONTRADICTS himself. Again. As you can read in my excerpts – ALL his own quotes except for the “(but)”, he contradicts himself repeatedly!
And what I find stunning is that some people HERE can NOT see that some of his exact phrasing is EXACTLY some of the stuff he said back when he DENIED he ever doped. Look it up! I read & listened ennough that it is ingrained in my memory. Something along the lines of “I can only tell people what I did or did not do & whether they believe is up to them but I can absolutely say I did not dope in the Tour nor throughout my career”. That’s not an exact quote as I don’t have the time to go back thru all the interviews but I can guarantee he said something to that effect MULTIPLE times.
And for the record, *I* am not Floyd Piece of Shit Landis & *I* do not take money from just anyone for anything. Although, unlike Fraud Landis, *I* at least have PROOF : the book, t-shirt, hat, & 2 signed posters of course ( ;), AND the emails from FFF for each of my Paypal “donations” stating the amounts & the credit card statements. I don’t want the money back from ANYone but Landis. NOT from some group created to “help him out” but money from the sweat of his HIS own work. I don’t care if it takes the rest of his pathetic life, he should be MADE to give back all that money to every single person he STOLE it from.
Previously, I mentioned Landis was the same as Madoff. I was wrong, he is WORSE. People who gave to Madoff were not giving it to “him” for his own use (although that’s what they actually did…) but to make a profit. People who gave to Landis defense did not do so for “monetary profit” in return, but to help him right a wrong. Help him prove he was “innocent”. That he asked for & took that money when he HAD doped throughout that Tour & throughout his career is reprehensible. I do not understand why he has not already been indicted for FRAUD. And even though it was over the internet – wirefraud.
And can somebody here who is a lawyer or judge please clarify something once & for all. Was the Landis Hearing a LEGAL proceeding or not? Is not the FACT that he lied repeatedly under oath PERJURY? Can not the state of California bring perjury charges? Could the Arbitration group?
I, unfortunately, do not have the money to start a class-action suit myself. I will join one though. And WHEN I win meeellions in the lottery, I WILL contact a lawyer if such a suit has not yet been created. That it would take FAR more than my $625 would be inconsequential. It’s the freakin PRINCIPLE. And just like Floyd Piece of Shit Landis, it would help me SLEEP better at night.
“Federal authorities investigating allegations that Lance Armstrong and other top cyclists engaged in doping are considering whether they can expand the investigation beyond traditional drug distribution charges to include ones involving fraud and conspiracy, according to two people briefed on the investigation.”
“Richman added: “The government normally leaves it up to sports leagues to discipline those athletes who may have used performance-enhancing drugs. Fraud is something the government takes quite seriously, particularly where a lot of money is involved and conduct is flagrant.” ”
NYT 5/25/2010
Query: Does the fact that the Feds are investigating put any pressure on the cycling authorities to pursue serious investigations or will they whitewash?
Floyd Landis vs. Kelli White. Are they the same?
As has been mentioned here previously, the Malibu hearing was conducted under the legal authority of the State of California, and as such, anybody who testified could be subject to perjury charges. This would have to brought by the State or perhaps local authorities, not the Arbitration panel or USADA, etc.
Whether or not the State would do so, I don’t know. My understanding is that perjury charges are rather difficult to prosecute, and California has much more to worry about than this. It’s possible the Feds could get into this, on the basis of the interstate commerce clause.
M,
At the US level, I suspect Landis could become cycling’s Kelli White. At the international level, not so much. This statement leads me to think that the whitewash may already have begun.
Of course, Lelangue promises to cooperate fully. Can’t imagine what the outcome will be.
Wow…..GREAT comments! Larry…you said it all and there’s nothing I could add…well done sir!
Susie…remind me to NEVER NEVER NEVER cross you in any way! What’s that old saying about a woman scorned?? YOU GO GIRL! I admit that I am back and forth on this. You obviously donated much more $$ than I to the FFF, which gives you ample reason for being ticked off. I think that if I cut thru all the emotion of betrayall and such (having been a STOLID supporter of Floyd these last 4 years!) I think my own personal feeling is that I honestly don’t car so much that he doped (I do care but that’s not what I’m so angry and hurt about)…it’s the fact that he LIED! I’ve been around the block a time or 2, and LYING to me is just about the worst thing a person can do. When he was caught, it’s time to do what we teach kids: step up, tell the truth and take your medicine. Be a man. He CHOSE not to.
I really don’t give a “Floyd Landis’s” ass (ie: “RAT””!) what his reasons were. He had a chance to own up to what he had done, and decided to lie (repeatedly) to EVERYBODY! And then took our $. And wrote a book…which turns out the only thing we can believe is the title…it describes the content of the book itsself amazingly enough..wonder if that was a little play on words when he wrote it? And we all believed it was the doping accusation/conviction it was titled after. Man I guess my rose colored glasses were on HIGH BEAM all these years. Many people saw thru the smokescreen…I did not.
Where we/he goes from here I’m afraid will be a long and grueling ordeal. For those who need closure (or a pound of flesh for Susie!) I hope you get what you need. I for one am making my OWN decision…to NOT dwell on this or let it interfere or depress me or in ANY other way interfere with my life. I have moved on…I will of course watch with interest the proceedings, whatever they may be. But as Woofdawg said on my blog, I will continue to throw a leg over my bike(s) and relish the feelings of riding. He can’t change that. And I will watch the pro’s with awe and wonder, hopefully keeping the ‘wonder’ part down low as it appears I probably don’t want to REALLY know the deep insiders secrets. Much like national security, I think there’s probably a limit to what us ‘little people’ should know. I will continue to be blissful in my ignorance.
Susie B, your comparison of Landis and Madoff sent chills down my spine. You’re absolutely right.
Interesting, this quote from the article cited by 8-0 and M:
“Federal fraud charges are fairly straightforward; they apply to any scheme to acquire money or property through deceit or misrepresentation,” said Daniel C. Richman, a professor of law at Columbia University and former federal prosecutor. “In this case, the authorities would have to prove that Armstrong was misrepresenting himself to sponsors by saying that he was clean but was actually using performance-enhancing drugs and profiting from it.”
Interesting. In this quote, change the name “Armstrong” to “Landis”. Then change the word “sponsors” to “Floyd Fairness Fund contributors”. I think the conclusion is unmistakable.
How many cyclists have said, I’ve never had a positive test?
That is not the same as “I have never doped”. And please, tell me one professional sport that does not have doping going on. Really, I’d like to know.
Susie,
I can see the comparison between Landis and Madoff, but just on sheer scale, I’m not sure that I’d equate the two. Madoff did promise something in return for the money, but in a sense, Floyd did, too. The something wasn’t tangible like a financial gain, but it was the possibility to see Landis competing again against the best in cycling. That would have been an entertainment benefit, though not anything more direct, like cold hard cash.
Was soliciting money from those of us who believed in him wrong? Knowing what we know now, absolutely. Should he have turned state’s evidence at the start? I wish he had.
Would cycling have been better off had he done so? Maybe, if he was taken seriously and if the powers that be did anything substantive in response (other than banning Landis from the sport until his grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren were retired).
I don’t place much faith in those powers that be, though. I’m guessing that the way it would have played out wouldn’t be all that much different than the way these revelations are playing out today. Much will be said. The appropriate chests will be thumped. Denials will be issued. The appearance of doing something will be made, even though the reality will be quite different. In the end, will anything really change? Call me a pessimist, I guess.
I can understand feeling angry and betrayed, but Madoff’s thievery was staggering, both in scale and audacity, even when compared to what Landis did. The people who fell prey to Madoff wanted to believe it was possible to get outrageous returns year after year, even when the markets didn’t do the same. They wanted to believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Landis may have told the truth about not using testosterone, but he should never have taken it further and said or implied he was totally clean. In our zeal to believe he was wronged (and the evidence sure looked that way), we wanted to believe. And in doing so, we missed the bigger truth. Others tried to warn us. And we didn’t listen. We, too, are to blame.
New article details how they dope and beat the tests from B.Ford
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5222488
austincyclist,
Interesting article. What’s the old saying? “In order to catch a criminal you need to think like a criminal.” Same appears to be true for doping. In order to catch a doper, you need to think like one. Apparently, the dopers are still ahead of those pursuing them.
I gave a significant (to me) amount of money to the FFF, but I don’t feel at all defrauded. Gullible and foolish, yes, but not defrauded. I knew it was possible that Floyd was lying, but I gave anyway. It was my decision alone, and if it was a mistake I can only blame myself.
I don’t know what the legalities are, but I don’t see how a defense fund can ever be fraudulant so long as the money is actually used for defense and not for personal profit. The very fact that someone is charged with a crime or doping offense implies that they just might be guilty. Anyone choosing to give to their defense fund has, IMO, been given fair warning that the accused might be lying. Buyer beware as someone said earlier.
I don’t know Cub…it’s not like he was in the background, blending in with the woodwork while all the fundraising was being done…he wrote the book and was actively travelling around the country doing booksignings/personal appearances promoting his innocence. The pure audacity for him to be ABLE to do that is what galls me most…especially considering his ‘Mennonite’ upbringing and values (apparently they didn’t take). This was looking someone in the eye after driving for hours to hear him speak, and then shaking his hand during my brief moment…and he was quite able to pull the wool over my eyes, face to face. Sorry Floyd…it’s 4 years too late for me. I don’t see any way you can make this right. Some things just can’t be undone. This is one of them.
Rant, Susie’s point is this: Madoff just STOLE from people. He said he’d do one thing with their money, and he did another. Yes, the scale was large. But it was just a white-collar form of larceny. Landis did exactly what he said he’d do with the money: he spent it on his defense. He didn’t steal the money; Susie B understands very well that her $650 isn’t there any more. But Landis lied about WHY he needed Susie’s money. He lied about his cause.
Look at this way: who is worse, the guy who defrauds investors in a for-profit enterprise, or the guy who defrauds contributors to a charitable enterprise? OK, in a sense, fraud is fraud and there’s no difference. But the Madoffs of the world remind us to invest our money with the utmost of care, which is what we should do anyway. The Landises of the world make us reluctant to help others, to respond to a tale of woe, to help our neighbors when they say they need our help. That’s why Landis’ fraud is worse than Madoff’s.
Larry,
I can see that point. The breach of trust in Landis’ case could very well make people less likely to donate when someone is truly in need. That’s a huge breach of trust.
Where I have trouble seeing Landis as worse than Madoff is this: The people who gave money to Floyd gave according to their ability and desire to help. Madoff defrauded investors big and small, while promising to help their savings grow. And he used their money for his own gain and that of his family. Some of those investors, even some famous names, lost huge parts or all or their life’s savings. For those people, the damage is immense.
I gave a sum slightly larger than Susie B did. I made the choice to give, and I accept the consequences. Landis used it for what he said he would, so in that sense, he was truthful. In the bigger sense, he wasn’t. Will I be a little more leery in the future? You bet. Have I lost my retirement savings and been forced to go back to work? Nope.
This kind of reminds me of Lewis Black’s show “Root of All Evil.” Which is more evil? I’m not sure it’s a fair comparison. But anyone who scams people out of their life’s savings to fund a lavish lifestyle is pretty damn evil.
I see your point. Given how many were affected or would be potentially affected by either, I’d say there may be a rough equivalence, perhaps. The damage Madoff did to a number of people is real. So is the loss of trust in Landis raising money for his defense.
Though we may be chastened, embarrassed or whatever, we didn’t get taken to the cleaners. (Or at least not too badly.) The damage from Landis’ fundraising is more in the future. The damage from Madoff is in the present.
Given the scope and scale of Madoff’s fraud, I lean more towards his as being more evil.
Hello,
I don’t have read all messages about Landis but I hope that he is now on the way to have a more honest behaviour. So now I give him the benefit of doubt.
I just want to point that earlier 2, 3 or 4 years ago, Landis did an interview with French TV, he said something that he should not have follow the advices of some people. If someone (TBV?) can get more informations about it.
Difficult to stay clean and honest when a cyclist is seeing the doping, UCI dishonnesty and corruption and the incencitive to dope. What about the commentators?
Yes, as I had written previously, Madoff was of course on a FAR larger scale (both in money & duration). But, both men were AMORAL. I know some of you gave to the FFF just to ‘bring the anti-doping errors to light’ & some gave money just because of the PRINCIPLE that everyone is guaranteed the right to legally defend oneself, but the huge majority gave that money TO Floyd because HE told/wrote he was INNOCENT. Repeatedly. This belief IN Floyd was then reinforced in their minds by looking at the test data & seeing some sloppy work & also listening to some of the experts at the Hearing testify that the data (supposedly) did not show T. PLUS, the very fact that he went around ASKING for the money BECAUSE he was ‘innocent’, well, I can’t even count the # of people I heard/read that stated he couldn’t “posssibly” be guilty if he was actually doing that. (Of course, this is why con artists are successful). And you know, I don’t remember Landis saying “Hey, give me the money just BECAUSE I have the RIGHT to defend myself”.
(BTW, I read 140 of the letters that some Madoff victims had emailed the sentencing judge & OMG, some just ripped your heart out. The ONE thing I read on letter after letter was these people saying how they had worked hard all their lives & “done the right thing”, i.e. working, investing for the future & not spending frivolously. The letters gave a completely different view of the “average” Madoff victim I’d read about in the media – that they were all VERY rich. Maybe the letters I read were not indicative of the majority of his vicitms, but I thought it was very enlightening.)
Besides the THEFT of the money by Landis, there is one other thing that just enrages me about Landis’ sudden burst of “conscience” – that he is STILL suckering people with LIES. He is NOT trying to “help” cycling in any way, shape, or form & for him to LIE, LIE, LIE about it after all the lies he’s told for the past 4 years makes me want to vomit. It is REVENGE. He is determined to make EVERYONE suffer – why should THEY continue in cycling when HE can not. For crap sake – he ADMITS this in the interview! And he doesn’t ‘want to hurt anyone or have them go through what he did’ (sic) – but he SLANDERS them ANYWAY when he admits he has NO physical proof of other cyclists doing anything. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!
If some of you are absolutely satisfied that “you got what you paid for” then count yourself lucky. But please, please don’t shed any tears for this AMORAL man now & even if you believe any or all of his accusations, PLEASE do NOT believe his stated motives. It’s retribution, pure & simple.
If Landis really wanted to set things right, he would’ve confessed what HE did & not drag others into it. But of course, that was not his AGENDA. Some think the others named are just collateral damage of his confession. WRONG – it’s the opposite. His goal is to DESTROY everyone else, especially Lance Armstrong, & the ONLY way he can achieve that was for him to confess.
Well, I want to thank Rant for letting me, um, RANT ( :), because it does help with the rage & sense of overwhelming betrayal & injustice. And it’s actually pathetically ironic that I feel just as “helpless” now about Landis “situation” as I did back in 2006-2007. Of course, for vastly different reasons.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’d been looking forward to this year’s Tour since BEFORE last year’s ended. And now, all I feel is DREAD. The constant accusations & denials & counter attacks will just be fanned by the media into a frenzy. From now thru the Tour. That the MAIN target is THE biggest star of this sport of the last 2 decades makes the Rasmussen 2008 Tour debacle look like an hor d’oeuvre. And that once again the BIG story in this sport in the mainstream media is NOT what is actually done ON the bike makes me weep.
Susie B, a question for you. Do we approach the appropriate authorities (I think we’d start with the California attorney general) and demand that they begin an investigation into bringing Landis up on criminal fraud charges?
I’ve been thinking about this today. I fully expect that such an investigation has already begun. I think it would be a good thing if the authorities decided to prosecute. I’m not sure if I could be part of a campaign to seek Landis’ prosecution. I don’t exactly know why there’s somethng stomach-churning to me about personally fighting to toss Landis’ butt in jail. He certainly deserves to do time for what he’s done … maybe it’s just that this story needs to BE OVER already.
(Full disclosure: while I devoted many hours to researching and writing on the Landis case, and while I was sympathetic to his cause, I never bought his book or contributed to his “fairness fund”.)
Matt, thanks for the nice words, I like what you wrote, too.
Thanks for the heads-up re. the full Bonnie Ford interview Rant.
Hopefully more revelations are forthcoming.
Ludwig, WHAT revelations? Floyd’s doping exploits tell us nothing about how to cheat and avoid detection under the biological passport — Floyd’s doping days ended (if we believe him) before the passport was put in place. And we’d discussed here years ago how riders could manipulate their blood readings to appear normal under the biological passport.
EPO microdosing? The ADAs have known about this for at least 2 years, see http://bit.ly/b8IdDy. The differences between injecting EPO intravenously rather than subcutaneously? This has been discussed in the scientific literature since at least 1998! http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/339/9/578.pdf.
Landis’ information on how he doped is interesting from a historical perspective — Rant can use it in the next edition of his book. But it’s highly unlikely that Landis’ pre-bio passport doping regimen can shed light on what doping cyclists do today to avoid detection.
Please don’t get me wrong, I do hope something good comes out of Landis’ revelations … other than the good that comes from knowing that Landis himself was a doper, a liar and a fraud.
Larry,
Thanks for the cites. It makes updating the Appendix to the book that much easier. 😀
Perhaps the usefulness of Landis’ comments about microdosing (here) is that the techniques used before the biological passport came into use are still able to beat the biological passport.
To me, that indicates a serious weakness in how the biological passport is conceived or executed. And it was a weakness they knew (or should have known) about going in. Which makes me wonder, is any of this anti-doping stuff real? Or is it meant to be a thin veneer of the attempt to do something, meant to satisfy the demands of the masses while doing precisely nothing to rid sports of doping?
Who was it that said, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”? In this day and age, sport is the opiate of the masses, wouldn’t you say? And those at the top want to keep the cash flowing into their coffers.
Ah, I must be in a cynical mood tonight. Time to read something light and uplifting — like maybe Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment.” 😉
Posting this just so I can hear Larry and Susie B howl even louder:
http://bit.ly/9kRGkd
Ah, Qui Tam litigation. A real PIECE of SHIT law, no doubt.
Actually 8-0 that may be good news because maybe Landis will reimburse his FFF contributors with his financial windfall.
Not a chance that the feds are going to give Landis a penny.
Rant:
The saying about religion is the opiate of the masses was from Marx.
8-0, presumably you cited to this article just to raise my blood pressure. Thanks a lot.
Let’s talk some sense here. The theory behind the Qui Tam theory of the cited article is that Landis could be acting as a “whistleblower” for a False Claims Act suit. The U.S. False Claims Act allows people who are not affiliated with the government to file actions against federal contractors claiming fraud against the government. Persons (“whistleblowers”) filing under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered civil damages (they can’t get a piece of criminal damages). The Act typically is invoked when a company (usually a government contractor or a health care provider seeking reimbursement under Medicare) falsely bills the government for payment.
We are VERY far from a typical “whistleblower” case. First, we’re not talking about a contractor fraudulently billing the government — we’re talking about sponsorship of a cycling team. Second, the odd status of the Postal Service as an independent agency leaves open the question whether it even falls under the scope of the False Claims Act. Third, the Qui Tam rules would require Landis to actually initiate the lawsuit to recover the fraudulently billed-for money — this is not a cheap or easy thing to do. Fourth, most Qui Tam cases succeed or fail based on the government’s decision to join the case — the government may decline to join the case if it thinks the case lacks merit, or it may decline because it is already pursuing the “bad guys” under a different legal theory. Fifth, Landis’ ability to recover anything may depend on a determination that he was the original source of the disclosure of fraud — this may be a sticky point, since there have been allegations of doping by the Postal Service team going back many years (shouldn’t someone like David Walsh get the credit for disclosing any fraud?).
Then there are the two big obstacles: proving that the doping took place, and proving that the doping constitutes a fraud on the government.
Finally, the obstacle that the “whistleblower” in this case (if you believe his story) actively participated in the “fraud” in question by doping along with the rest of his teammates, then lied under oath about it, then perpetuated the lie for four solid years. That is not exactly the typical profile of a whistleblower. It’s more like the typical profile of someone entering the witness protection program.
It’s obvious that the mainstream media is going to circulate a lot of garbage over the next few weeks. My advice is to read carefully, and believe little of what gets printed.
Reading the posts and comments is as close to the group therapy I need to deal with all of this. Thank you.
So how is this all playing out in media in various places? After the first day or so this has disappeared from my local paper (admittedly not a major journal), nor have I seen anything on say the CBS evening news. Are big city papers still running articles on this? I know that various websites are running stuff, but in general you’d have to be specifically looking for articles or editorials on this in order to find those, or at least be an ESPN.com junkie.
My general feeling is that the general public, rightly or wrongly, believes that cycling is dope-ridden and here is just one more reason to not pay attention to it.
Susie B,
You know, I gave this site a somewhat ironic name, back in the day. Now it’s more apt, eh?
Rosemary,
Glad that the rantings and ravings here can help. 🙂
William,
Thanks, I thought it was Karl Marx. As for what papers are following it, outside of the sporting realm at this point, I’ve seen some coverage in The New York Times in the past couple of days. I think there was a story or two in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago. Maybe a bit in the Chicago papers. ESPN.com and the cycling media seem to be following it more closely. Even so, I’m anticipating that it will fall off their charts in the not terribly distant future, except for the occasional reference in articles leading up to the Tour, etc.
For the major dailies and networks, this story is already vanishing, I think. But if there really is some Federal investigation going on, it will burst back into their consciousness whenever something dramatic happens. Which could be a while, given how fast these things tend to move.
Hey Larry – I’ve been thinking non-stop about who to contact about FRAUD charges. If someone here can point us in the right direction, I would be very appreciative. If there’s more than one possibilty – that’s good too. I’ll email them ALL. Repeatedly.
And the very idea that this PIECE OF SHIT could actually PROFIT from his AMORAL & destructive behavior makes my “howling” the least of my reaction. Karma is a BITCH, Fraud Landis, & she’s coming for YOU!
And now, another “song dedication” to that WHITE LIAR of SoCal :
“Your CHEATIN’ heart,
Should make you weep,
I don’t know how
You think you’ll sleep,
But sleep won’t come,
The whole night through,
Your CHEATIN heart,
Done tell on you…”
(with liberties, Hank Williams)
Susie B,
Let me ask this: Would you rather Landis repaid your money, or would you rather he spend time in jail? Given the notoriety he’s achieved, he’s not going to be able to escape the “Oh, you’re the guy who … ” or “Oh, you’re the rat who turned on …” and that kind of stuff. Especially if Lance gets taken down somewhere in the future.
Landis lost his wife, his reputation, his money. He’s pretty much fallen about as far as one can. He can’t even get a decent job on a Pro Tour team as an errand boy — and if USADA doesn’t ban him for life, based on his admissions — he’ll probably never get back to where he was in cycling, ever. And who knows what he’ll do to make a living once his days in cycling are done.
That’s a pretty huge punishment, right there, though it doesn’t qualify as a “legal” punishment. I don’t know the ins and outs of California’s fraud laws, but if there was any fraud, it was in claiming to have never used PEDs and claiming he won the Tour completely clean (which we now know isn’t true).
But … he did use the money for what he said he would. And, while we all wanted to believe his protestations of innocense, there was always the possibility — however remote it seemed to us — that he really was guilty. Even if he didn’t use testosterone, the guy was doping with the best of them.
What’s to be gained, other than a figurative pound of flesh, from Landis being brought up on charges of fraud? He’s pretty much made his own life what it is today, and it will take a long time, if ever, before he can make amends to the fans and to the sport.
He’s got to live with what he did every day of his life. Jail might drive home the impact of that, I suppose, but other than vengeance, what’s the point? If he’s the sociopath that some believe, jail won’t change his ways, I’m afraid.
Bonnie Ford’s interview makes it sound like he would like to try to make amends. Can’t tell his sincerity, because words on a page or words on a computer screen don’t always indicate tone of voice. But if he means it, then hauling him off to the hoosgow won’t do much, other than satisfy that need for vengeance.
Or maybe that is the point. Karma’s a beeoch.
Just off the top of my head, I’m pretty sure I’ve given more money to Livestrong than I did to FFF. I bought more of LA’s books than FLs. My first road bike was a Trek essentially because it was “good enough for Lance.”
Livestrong is a 501c3 organization, and likely is involved in federal funding of research.
Is this benevolent empire proceeds of a fraud? Does it matter? Does the end justify the means?
“The truth. You can’t handle the truth!”
I’m having less and less sympathy for some of you crybabies.
You are angry because you must believe him now when he says he was a doper since 2002. Maybe he isn’t telling all of the truth now. But you know in your heart he is telling way more of the truth than before.
Susie B says the honorable thing to do was to confess but leave Lance and everybody else out of it, because now she won’t have anybody to root for.
Root for Vino. Hooray for Omerta!
Send Landis to Jail? Yeah that will encourage truth telling. Hooray for Omerta!
Do you honestly believe that Landis learned to dope to the max all by his lonesome? I sure hope his allegations and information will be aggressively pursued.
Experts: Landis info could be crucial
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5222488
Maybe I’m not the one that should be lecturing you, since I was the lone voice saying he was guilty on TBV, and I was really put off by his aggressive and vindictive campaign to “defend” himself, which all of you seem to forgive at the time. I recall saying there that I thought he was a “lying sack of sh*t” on some thread.
How much of your anger should be directed at your own gullibility, and need for an American sports hero. “Ok Landis is now shit. But let’s keep Lance and the others.”
Rant –
I spent yesterday considering whether Landis deserves to do jail time. I felt queasy about it yesterday. Today, I see no reason to feel queasy.
One fun exercise is to go through your most recent comment and substitute the name of Bernie Madoff for Floyd Landis. The flow of your narrative works pretty well after the substitution. In fact, some of your arguments work better for Madoff than they do for Landis.
Here’s what I mean:
“Would you rather Landis repaid your money, or would you rather he spend time in jail?” Answer: this is a false choice, as he’s not going to repay the money. But sure, I’d rather he repay the money. Same with Madoff. But as long as we’re engaging in fantasy, my preference would be for Madoff to repay the money AND spend time in jail. Same with Landis.
“Given the notoriety he’s achieved, he’s not going to be able to escape the “Oh, you’re the guy who … ” or “Oh, you’re the rat who turned on …” and that kind of stuff.” ” True enough. This is also true for Bernie Madoff. By this argument, no notorious criminal should ever do jail time.
“Landis lost his wife, his reputation, his money. He’s pretty much fallen about as far as one can.” Disagree. He can fall further. He can lose his newfound supporters, like M and Ludwig. He can go to jail.
“He’ll probably never get back to where he was in cycling, ever.” Disagree. He will certainly never get back to where he was in cycling, ever. He’s older and he has an artifical hip, plus he won’t have the same benefit of PEDs.
“And who knows what he’ll do to make a living once his days in cycling are done.” He’ll dye his hair, wear brown contact lenses, change his name and sell used cars. He has a singular ability to separate good people from their money. He’ll be just fine.
“That’s a pretty huge punishment, right there.” No Rant, that’s not punishment. Those are the natural consequences of his immoral and illegal actions.
“He did use the money for what he said he would.” Disagree totally. He said he’d use the money to try to prove his innocense. He used the money to hide the fact that he was guilty. Look at it this way: if I raise money to build housing for the poor, and use the money to build a house for myself, it’s no defense to say that I built a house … or that I spent the money at Home Depot, just like I said I would.
“And, while we all wanted to believe his protestations of innocense, there was always the possibility — however remote it seemed to us — that he really was guilty.” True enough. It was also true that there was always the possibility, however remote it seemed at the time, that Bernie Madoff was stealing other people’s money. All criminal activity fits within this description: we don’t know in advance that the particular criminal act will occur, and we can’t claim afterwards that the act falls beyond the range of what was possible.
“What’s to be gained, other than a figurative pound of flesh, from Landis being brought up on charges of fraud?” Ditto for Bernie Madoff. But now you’re questioning why we should have a criminal law system. Off the top of my head, there are three reasons: (1) retribution, (2) to deter others from doing what Landis did, and to deter Landis from doing it again, and (3) to put Landis out of public circulation for a while, so that at least for a time certain he won’t be able to commit any more crimes. Actually, from this standpoint, Landis belongs in jail even more than Madoff: Madoff will never be able to persuade an investor to give him another penny, while Landis can make false claims in a Qui Tam action and potentially make a small fortune (or so they say).
“If he’s the sociopath that some believe, jail won’t change his ways.” Maybe. Note that I did not list “rehabilitation” as something to be gained from throwing Landis in jail.
“It sounds like he would like to try to make amends.” Not to me it doesn’t, unless seeking punishment for other cyclists is your idea of making amends. My idea of making amends is figuring out how to pay back Susie B. If Landis intends to pay back Susie B, he could have started doing so immediately after his interview with Bonnie Ford.
“Karma’s a beeoch.” True, but it’s insufficient. Jail is worse.
8-0: your analogy to Livestrong doesn’t hold up. OK, maybe you gave money to Livestrong because you admired Lance The Cyclist, and maybe Lance The Cyclist cheated and lied about it, and maybe you wouldn’t have given money to Livestrong if you knew then what you know now. So what? If it turns out that Jimmy Carter lied to us when he was President, I would not have a claim for the return of my contributions to Habitat for Humanity. Landis is different. He lied to us about his Fairness Fund, not about something unrelated.
Susie B, I am trying to figure out how to best petition the authorities to open a criminal fraud investigation against Floyd Landis. Along with your $650 of stuff, do you have any information identifying the Floyd Fairness Fund? Was it a California entity? Can you tell if they were registered with the State? Can you find a tax ID number for them? Any identifying information would be helpful.
“Landis lost his wife, his reputation, his money. He’s pretty much fallen about as far as one can.” Disagree. He can fall further. He can lose his newfound supporters, like M and Ludwig. He can go to jail.
Nothing worse than a woman scorned. Or a true believer for that matter.
Honestly. The tests showed he doped. There was always a significant possibility he was guilty, and was lying. Isn’t that the case with any accused. They might be guilty.
**********************
Maybe I’ll start a defense fund for Landis to reward him for telling the truth. LOL!
Interesting, was it not actually set up by Mr. Landis?
– Fund to Fight for Fair Treatment for Floyd Landis and Advocate Advances in Best Practice in Anti-Doping in Sport
Supporters of 2006 Tour de France Champion Floyd Landis today launched the Floyd Fairness Fund (FFF) (www.floydfairnessfund.org), an initiative supporting Landis in his efforts to clear his name of unsubstantiated doping allegations. The FFF will provide Floyd resources focused on attaining a fair and just hearing to retain his 2006 Tour de France title, and to return as soon as possible to his full time career and passion — bicycle racing.
Larry,
Point taken. Floyd can fall further. I’m not sure how prosecuting Landis for fraud helps the bigger picture, in terms of cleaning up the doping problem in sports.
I’d like something useful come his knowledge of how to beat the system (up to Stage 17, that is), though. If the tradeoff were that Landis goes free in exchange for spilling the beans on what Tyler Hamilton once referred to as a “mafia” within American pro cycling, I could be OK with that.
M,
I agree, Landis clearly learned to dope from someone. It’s not like he just experimented with a few things here and there and figured out on his own what worked. The person(s) he learned from also need to be ferreted out and dealt with. If that fails to happen, then we can look forward to more of the same as soon as they figure out how to beat the current tests. And the article you linked to shows all too well that the pros knew how to beat the biological passport even before it was implemented.
Funny thing about sports heroes (or heroes in general), they always seem to let their fans down. There’s a question to answer: Why do we need sports heroes in the first place? Why do we idolize them so much? They’re just humans, like the rest of us, and they are subject the same foibles, character flaws and quirks of personality like we all are.
For me, the anger is about being snookered. And I fully accept my share of the blame for that. Having said that, the outcome of this whole four year journey is that I look at pro cycling and all pro sports a lot differently than I did before. Fool me once …
Rosemary,
I think it was set up by a couple of supporters in New York, to raise money for Landis’ defense. I’m not sure what the entire arrangements were or what his role in setting up the fund was, however.
Ah, “So what?” Indeed.
Fairly, I made no anaolgy at all to Lance. I merely stated some facts and asked a couple of questions. But now that you bring it up…
The allegation is that LA cheated and lied to obtain personal power and influence over others. If true, isn’t this disconcerting?
Jimmy used his existing influence and power to benefit Habitat. I think there is a difference.
m notes “[t]he tests showed [Landis] doped.” I am not convinced that is true. If they in fact did, then we knew (by definition) he was lying. If a person is convinced the tests were accurate and true, that person can hardly be shocked and outraged at Floyd confirming that now.
How many of LA’s past teammates are proven dopers? Heras? Hamilton? Beltrain? Gusev? Andreau? I’m guessing maybe they will be interviewed. We know LAs TdF victories are due at least in part to having a strong team.
So what? Well, if good came out of a lie, then it wasn’t a lie, and they should be rewarded? If someone fundamentally does the same thing for mere personal gain, that person is a PIECE of SHIT and should be in jail?
“So what.” -Alecia Moore (a/k/a “Pink”)
M, I am trying to be sympathetic. But to paraphrase you, I’m having less and less sympathy.
Is Landis telling way more of the truth now than before? Probably. To paraphrase you, Hooray for Landis! He used to lie a lot! Now he lies … somewhat less!
You are distorting what Susie B has said here, and I think you know that.
Send Landis to jail? Yeah, M, I must be an old school kind of lawyer. I was taught that when people commit crimes, they ought to go to jail. I guess law school has changed since I went to law school. Have they repealed the laws against perjury? The perjury laws certainly discourage perjurers from confessing that they’ve perjured themselves. Come to think of it, doesn’t every criminal law discourage people from turning themselves in?
Sure, I hope that Landis’ version of PEDs in the peloton 2002-2006 adds to the rich historic record of doping in cycling. That is, if we can separate the truths from the half-truths and the outright lies. Too bad he waited so long that none of his information is current. Too bad he has nothing to say about the doping he saw (or didn’t see) since 2006. Or am I to believe that Rock Racing rode clean? Free Kayle Leogrande!
As for Landis’ information being crucial, please see my prior comment. His information may turn out to be important, as there are reasons to doubt the effectiveness of the biological passport program. But Landis’ confessions end before the bio passport was put into place.
M, I also hope that Landis’ confessions will be aggressively pursued. Again, it’s too bad that Landis did not destroy his credibility before making his confessions. He would be torn to pieces on cross-examination.
As for your being the “lone voice” on TBV, I’ll grant you that. You were the lone voice on TBV saying that Landis took exogenous testosterone, that the French lab got the results right, that the WADA procedures were fair. and so forth. That is, after all, 95% of what we were discussing over at TBV. Landis has confessed to none of this; in fact, he still says the things you said at TBV are wrong. In other words, if he was a “lying sack” before, he still a “lying sack” today. If not, then you were wrong back then. You’re trying to have it both ways, and you can’t.
M, where you are really off base, where you have really and truly gone off the deep end, is your statement about gullibility. You know better than to blame the crime on the crime victim. I suggest you go to NY and suggest that Madoff’s victims should direct their anger at their own gullibility. Madoff’s victims SHOULD have demanded better transparency from Madoff — no question. But what should Landis’ victims have done? They could not demand that Landis prove his innocence before providing Landis with money — Landis would require the money to prove his innocence.
What you should be saying instead is that it’s important, probably essential, that we respond to our neighbor’s plea for help, even at the risk of being proven “gullible” later on. If we’re “crybabies”, it’s not because we’re angry about having been lied to, it’s because being cheated is a risk that goes along with the human virtures of kindness, compassion and charity. But if that’s what you mean, then SAY SO — don’t make us feel stupid for trying to help a guy who seemed like he needed help.
As for the need for an American sports hero? On that one, you’ve got me. GROAN! Shot right in the heart of my humanity. So, you’re saying in essence that our anger at Floyd is in part of a result of our learning that our hero has “feet of clay”? True enough. In this sense, Floyd is a victim of a sort of hero worship backlash. I don’t feel badly about this, since Floyd exploited our hero worship to raise money in the first place.
On Lance … I’ve said it many times, I cannot talk rationally about Lance. Lance’s example of overcoming cancer helped get me through a very difficult time in my life. Lance is an inspirational figure for many other people. If it emerges that Lance is a liar and a cheat like Landis, I will be sorely disappointed. Also, the world will lose one of its most important warriors in the fight against cancer. It would be a huge loss. I hope it doesn’t happen.
In response to your snarky remarks about people scorned. My statement was a statement in fact. Landis CAN fall further.
As for your statement that it was always possible that Landis was guilty, I will congratulate you. Of all the novel theories of law you’ve ever advanced, this one takes the cake: it’s not fraudulent to make a false statement if at the time the statement was made, there’s a “significant possibility” that the statement was indeed false! Free Bernie Madoff! Let’s redefine fraud to cases where someone makes a statement that could not possibly be false.
I’ll give you credit for this much: if you start your own version of the FFF (which in 2010 would stand for “Floyd Feels F*****”), it would only be my own fault if I made a contribution.
Sadly Rant, I think you may have said it best with this comment earlier “Which makes me wonder, is any of this anti-doping stuff real? Or is it meant to be a thin veneer of the attempt to do something, meant to satisfy the demands of the masses while doing precisely nothing to rid sports of doping?” I’m really starting to think it’s just like Pro Wrestling – all arranged (a hoax) to make more money. I’m so jaded at this point I really wonder if they all get together and pick the winners before the race starts!
To me, a hero is someone who rescues you from a burning building, etc., not someone who can throw a ball farther or pedal a bike faster. I’ve never understood the concept of athlete being “heroes”. There is, to me, nothing heroic about what they do. It can be vastly entertaining to watch, but that’s it.
Regarding the FFF (to which I contributed $200, in addition to buying his book), it was said at the time it was set up, and also recently by Dr. Kay, that Floyd had to be dragged into that “kicking and screaming.” He wanted nothing to do with it and had to be talked into it. He should not have listened to his advisors, he should have refused it, told the truth, etc. I’m not disputing that at all. And I don’t feel sorry for myself that I’m out the money. Floyd has ruined his life, hurt family and friends close to him (they are the ones who really matter) and he could have avoided all this a long time ago by owning up. Rant is right: Floyd has to live with this for the rest of his life. What he did was incredibly wrong. But he didn’t murder anyone. What’s getting to be truly disturbing is the vengeance that that some of you are planning. You have every right to be angry, but your level of anger is beyond reason. And comparing him to Madoff? Floyd has not ruined your lives–made you mad as hell, yes, absolutely, but you’re still surviving okay every day aren’t you? Madoff ruined many lives, took people’s life savings, and deserves to be prison. Maybe the authorities will decide Floyd deserves that, and maybe he’s is prepared for that possibility. But I don’t think it’s worth it, either.
8-0, what can I say? I really, REALLY hope that Lance raced clean, and is currently racing clean. It’s not about cycling. It’s about cancer. Livestrong does important work, and Lance is an inspiration to millions who are cancer victims, or people supporting cancer victims.
If it turned out that Lance doped, would I be shocked. No. How could I be? Isn’t that sad, though?
If it turned out that Lance doped, would I continue to support Livestrong? Probably not. That would be sad, too.
If it turned out that Lance doped, and that he’d been lying about it, could we fairly say that those lies helped induce people to contribute to Livestrong? Sure. I just admitted that. If Lance has been lying, could the lies be justified by the fact that the lying induced people to support a worthy cause? No. Not in my book. I was taught that the ends do not justify the means.
Does the connection between Lance and Livestrong mean that I hope Lance is NOT lying? Yes. Does it mean that even if Lance is lying, I hope it’s never proven that Lance lied? Yes, though I understand that reasonable people could disagree with me. I was also taught that the truth will set us free, but I no longer believe it.
Does the connection between Lance and Livestrong mean that the government should not go after Lance unless they are DAMN sure they have a case? That’s what I think. I think the government should not destroy Lance’s reputation and his ability to fight cancer as part of a witch hunt, or a fishing expedition, or (as appears to be the case with their investigation of Barry Bonds) to pursue arguable proof of criminal activity to a dead end. Again, reasonable minds may differ. What I think here, admittedly, smacks of selective prosecution. It’s a small step between not investigating a guy because he runs a great charity, and not investigating a guy because he makes large contributions to the ruling political party. But it’s what I think.
Do I hope that the government simply decides not to investigate Lance Armstrong? Yes. But I admit this is indefensible.
Do I think that Lance doped? No. Why not? My reason has nothing to do with hero-worship, or admiration for Lance’s work. I also think that Hincapie did not dope, and that Zabriskie did not dope. Why not? Because it’s wrong to move from a general rule to a specific case. Unless you can prove the general rule that EVERYONE doped, you cannot move from the general rule to a particular statement that any particular person doped. This goes for any other general statement you can make. Even if most riders dope, and most Tour winners dope, and most American riders dope, the general rule does not prove a specific case, and it’s wrong to move from the general to the specific.
It’s hard for me to talk about Lance. This is probably the last time I’ll do it.
OK?
m – either QUOTE me or do not reference my comments as your references are inaccurate. Also, as far as I know, ‘LARRY’ is a guy. (The person you DID just quote). And FTR, I can’t stand Vino. And if he didn’t PAY BACK THE YEAR’S SALARY for 2007 his ass shouldn’t be in the peloton NOW.
One of the many problems I have with Landis’ “confessions” is why should ANYthing he says be believed? COULD some of his accusations be true? Of course. BUT HE HAS NO PROOF. He knows he has no proof, but wants to DESTROY Lance & the rest of American cycling anyway, so he throws it out there. And for ANYONE to actually believe he is doing it to HELP cycling or USADA & WADA! I mean, good GOD! Do you have NO memory of what he said in 2006-2007? Over & over & over. Plus, he doesn’t give a shit about “helping” young athletes stay away from PEDS. He’s said it now several times – he feels NO GUILT whatsoever for having doped.
The other reason I am upset & angry is that these UNSUBSTANTIATED smears will only hurt the ENTIRE sport. Not “having someone to root for”? Really?! I ACTUALLY worry that the entire SPORT may crumble under this if Lance’s achievements are thrown out due to unsubstantiated doping. Whether you like him or not, he IS the BIGGEST star in this sport of the last 2 decades. And not just in the USA. Professional sports only exist because some people make MONEY on holding the competitions &/or sponsoring/owning the teams. If any of those people/groups think there is no more money in it because the sport’s image is too damaged, they will pull out. Much like Tiger’s sponsors couldn’t bail out fast enough once the shit hit THAT particular fan. Sure, cycling is an old sport in Europe. But not in the rest of the world. Some form would probably continue in Europe but just because a particular pro sport exists now does NOT mean it will 20-40 years from now. Just look at pro-track cycling from last century. It was huge. HUGE! Those stars made FAR more money than in almost any other sport/entertainment. Look at it now.
Plus, how does DESTROYING everything about the sport of the past 2 decades help it NOW? This sport has never been anything but a niche sport in this country & has had the erroneous reputation as “the dirtiest sport” as it is. When Lance had his (1st) Comeback, THAT made it a mainstream story in the USA. When he kept winning, it brought even more attention AND the bigger money. For HIM to get sued for fraud when he was responsible for the half-way decent money to begin with is just freakin PRICELESS.
I’ll admit I am selfish in wanting the sport to continue & GROW. But, can ANYONE explain precisly how destroying the ONE true international star the sport has had with UNSUBSTANTIATED charges actually HELP the sport evolve away from its anti-doping culture? You think THAT would clean it up? Did keeping Johan’s team out of the Tour in 2008 make it any more dope-free? Let’s ask Kohl, Schumacher, & Ricco!
And who knows, maybe Garmin is really the biggest lie of all – “the CLEAN team”. Right? Landis throws the shit at their top DS – Matt White & 1 of their star riders (his ‘friend”) Zabriskie. Apparently, Landis must not think they are doing anything to ride clean now, otherwise, why throw these guys, some of the people in the sport vocally campaigning the loudest for anti-doping, into the mess. I am not the biggest Vaughters fan, but I do respect what this team is about. And think getting MORE riders & teams to think the same way & by increasing & refining the dope tests is actually HOW you clean up the sport. And for the record, Landis REPEATEDLY disparaged the Garmin team during the 2 years I read/listened to every friggin thing he said in interviews.
And oh yeah, I was “talking” to George (y’know, my not-so-secret-anymore-love) about marriage a few years back. Sure, sure, I have no video/photographic/recorded PROOF of that & its quite well known George is a non-marrying kinda guy these days, but hey, I SAY it happened! Isn’t that PROOF enough?
Anyway, if Lance test positive, he should be subject to the rules no matter how many millions of fans would be disappointed. If not & if there is no CREDIBLE other proof that he doped, then that’s all. Done. Move ON.
As for paying back the money OR his ass in prison? Susie’s Choice! (Loved that book/movie). Why can’t we have both? 1st the prison & then the payback. OR, maybe he can work IN the prison. Start that payback a little sooner! 😉
Larry,
1. “Is Landis telling way more of the truth now than before? Probably. To paraphrase you, Hooray for Landis! He used to lie a lot! Now he lies … somewhat less!”
“Probably”? That’s a grudgingly small concession, for one who is so angry because he admitted doping. You must believe him now when he says he doped, otherwise why are you calling him such a fraud and liar for his past statements.
You should be applauding him more, otherwise Omerta will continue to rule.
2. “If we’re “crybabies”, it’s not because we’re angry about having been lied to,”
I think that is exactly why you are angry. And it’s because he was your and Susie’s hero.
3. As to criminal fraud re the FFF. I haven’t researched that. But what precisely is the false statements that would be the basis for this. He’s still maintaining that he didn’t take testoserone.
4. As to everybody going to jail for potentially violating the criminal law. Just let me mention 2 considerations: prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining for cooperating with law enforcement. I think both of these considerations should come into play here. And now we are comparing Landis to Madoff – give me a break.
5. As to having it both ways. No way. I think he is telling more of the truth now, when he wasn’t before. So of course I’m applauding and supporting him in making these risky and painful disclosures.
Yes I believe he is probably still lying about not taking testosterone in the 2006 tdf. What about you? I gather you think he is lying about that also. But that doesn’t mean that he isn’t telling far more of the truth now, than before.
And whatever the arguments about whether the tests were accurate or not, I always believed that the French Lab worked in good faith, and, unlike many of the Landis defenders, were not some evil conspiracy to nail innocent riders. They were just ordinary and fallible people trying to do a job. I believe they got the results right, but even if they didn’t it wasn’t because they were corrupt.
3.
Barbara, great comment! I disagree with you, but great comment nonetheless.
It’s probably pointless to engage in debate over whose crime is worse. I bring up Madoff because everyone believes that his crime is terrible and that he hurt a lot of people very badly. There IS no sentiment that Madoff should be free, or that it wasn’t worth it to prosecute Madoff. I bring up Madoff because many of the excuses we might use to excuse prosecuting Landis would also justify our not prosecuting Madoff.
You bring up the only distinction I can think of why Madoff deserves prosecution and Landis (maybe) does not: Madoff stole a lot of money (in many cases, all the money that an investor had), while Landis stole only a little bit of money from each of his victims (in every case, money that his victims could probably afford to lose).
But you must acknowledge that Landis stole a great deal of money in the aggregate: around $1 million, by all accounts. Yes, $1 million is not a great deal of money by Madoff standards, but it is a HUGE amount of money compared to what most thieves are able to steal. I can promise you that if we looked at the people in prison for stealing, very few have stolen anything close to $1 million. You cannot fairly say that Landis did not steal enough to merit prosecution — at least, not unless you’re willing to free thousands of prisoners who stole less than Landis did.
I understand that you feel no desire for retribution. Good for you! That probably says volumes about your character, your capacity to forgive, and your generosity of spirit. But it does not say anything negative about the character of those who may feel differently. We live under the rule of law, where all of us have the right to expect that people who violate the law will suffer the consequences of doing so. There is nothing wrong with expecting the law to be enforced.
Also, we cannot fairly limit criminal prosecutions to those criminals against whom we feel a desire for retribution. No fair system of law can work that way. It looks to me like Floyd stole $1 million. If I’m right, then it doesn’t matter whether Floyd has already suffered, or whether this is something he has to live with. You can make the same excuse for any criminal with whom you feel sympathy.
Finally, I think it’s truly awful for someone to ask for help under false pretenses. I don’t think it’s “beyond reason” to point out what a rotten, evil thing it is to take advantage of our charitable impulse, and by so doing erode this impulse. Just read through the comments on this post! The contributors to the FFF were “gullible”, they should have known better, they deserve the blame for believing Floyd. Nice!
Now, imagine for a second saying these sort of things to Madoff’s victims. Some of Madoff’s victims gave all their money to Madoff, and you can fairly argue that people should be more cautious when they give away money that they cannot afford to lose. But would you ever tolerate people making the same kind of “blame the victim” statements to the people who were ripped off by Madoff? Of course not!
Floyd stole a cool million because he was able to make people feel sorry for him. He may avoid prosecution because he’s still able to make people feel sorry for him. I understand that this doesn’t make you angry, but it makes me furious, and I think you can understand this also.
Susie B,
“I’ll admit I am selfish in wanting the sport to continue & GROW. But, can ANYONE explain precisly how destroying the ONE true international star the sport has had with UNSUBSTANTIATED charges actually HELP the sport evolve away from its anti-doping culture?”
Lance comes from a tainted generation of cyclists. I don’t see how protecting him, especially when allegations of his past doping are multiple, helps the sport to move to a more anti-doping culture. I happen to be one of those who think those 1999 epo positive tests carry some weight, despite the whitewash report commissioned by Verbruggen.
And maybe the sport should shrink, if it is based on doping and looking the other way.
As to these allegations being unsubstantiated. Yes. Just Landis’s testimony right now. But that type of testimony was enough to convict Tim Montgomery of doping. Kelly White, his accuser, also lied about her doping first. The difference is she didn’t do that under oath as Landis did. Would that be enough for the big fish Lance. Probably not, but I believe there’s more there. Should we look away as you say, or go after the big fish.
I say go after the big fish.
Susie B,
Destroying anyone with unsubstantiated rumors is not something I can sign on to, whether it’s the big kahuna, Lance Armstrong, or a nobody named Strong Lancearm. If it can be proven that Lance violated anti-doping rules, then he deserves whatever punishment he gets.
I might take any pronouncements from Pat McQuaid and the UCI with a grain of salt. (I’m expecting they will only do a perfunctory investigation and their report will be a whitewash. Call me cynical.) But if Novitzky said he couldn’t find anything on Lance, I’d be inclined to believe him.
If US cycling is rotten to the core, it will take some time before it recovers. But eventually, it will. Taylor Phinney and some of the riders a bit older may actually be competing drug free. I hope that’s true, and I hope it stays that way. As the younger riders fill out the ranks, doping may — perhaps — become less of a problem in the world of cycling.
Larry – your analysis of Floyd’s ‘confession’ was very interesting and reflected a lot of my feelings as well.
M: “I always believed that the French Lab worked in good faith, and, unlike many of the Landis defenders, were not some evil conspiracy to nail innocent riders. They were just ordinary and fallible people trying to do a job. I believe they got the results right, but even if they didn’t it wasn’t because they were corrupt.”
This was ALWAYS my stance, and I got shouted down a number of times on TBV for laughing off the idea of a conspiracy. (You are incorrect in saying you were the only one who thought Landis was guilty. The only difference is that I thought that the people on TBV raised thought-provoking questions about the case.) I think the reason that my points were not taken so seriously is because I am not a lawyer or a scientist (many of the major contributors to TBV and Rant were/are involved in law and cycling, with exceptions of course.) I was particularly annoyed with Landis’ stance, quotes, characterization of other people (I recall with embarrassment when he referred to one of the French lab workers as a ‘girl’… jeez, even a second-grader knows that you refer to a woman as a woman.)
I have never found Landis to be credible, likable, or even very interesting. My interest in the case began with his appearance on David Letterman, and the hysterical ‘Top 10’ list of reasons that Landis got a positive test result. It was ‘bread and circus’ and, let’s face it, it created a pretty fascinating cast of online contributors on these and other blogs.
What DID happen (which was unfortunate, and I did comment on profusely) was that Landis became a kind of lightening rod for judicial/ethical/sportsman’s freedom. Do some google searches and check out the ridiculous lauding that was heaped on Landis, people referring to him as an ‘American Hero’, ‘underdog’, etc.
There doesn’t seem to be a consensus about whether Landis is lying now or not… I don’t see why he’d be lying now, although he’s probably only telling some half-truths where it concerns legal issues.
So, dropping the lies, truths, sport, etc… I’m not sure why anyone ever really liked this guy…? Just for his cycling abilities? He always came across to me as embittered, vindictive, ‘victimized’, in the New York Times Magazine article in 2008, he even went so far as to imply that the ‘powers that be’ (read: evil conspiracy) helped to bring about the tragic loss of his father-in-law. I don’t have the exact quote (and I’ve searched for the story for online and can’t locate it,) but he says something to the extent that he’ll never forgive the loss of his best friend. Whatever the reason, he clearly wanted readers to take away the idea that the system had contributed to his death. We know now that his friend was PART OF the doping project. (Nice.) How can any of you persist in thinking that Landis was or is in any way a remarkable man in light of all this?
uxbunny,
Actually, I think the New York Times’ Play Magazine ran the story that you’re referring to in August 2007. I believe the writer’s name was Sara Corbett, and the title was The Outcast.
And Larry – besides the stuff, all I have is the email confirmations from Paypal & my credit card statements. I DID already email back to the Michael Henson listed (as Executive in charge of the FFF) but of course, that email address no longer exists. Rant &/or TBV would know more than I about where the FFF may have been set up. I THINK it may have been New York City as I called the FFF a couple times back then & a guy said that’s where they were located.
And Barbara – ABSOLUTELY I am comparing Landis to Madoff as they BOTH committed FRAUD. On differerent scales? Sure. Did Landis’ fraud destroy a life? I don’t know, but doubtful. But you know what, Landis is ATTEMPTING to destroy careers & lives RIGHT NOW. And from everything I’ve read on the Madoff case (quite a lot actually), that was NOT a goal of his – he just wanted the MONEY. The destruction of lives was collateral damage. And he cared about those people as much as Landis cared abut the people he ripped off. Which was NOT at all. And as for Landis kicking & screaming? Really? Floyd “One Tough Bitch” Landis? The guy who threatened LeMond on the DP chat room with secret revelations? Did he kick or scream lying to his MOTHER all these years & then dragging her all that way to sit at that excruciating Hearing?
And MY anger & disgust at Floyd Landis is MINE. I’m just sick & tired of people getting away with stuff like this. I’ve HAD ENOUGH. Oh poor Floyd, didn’t he “pay” enough already. NO. If he would pay back the money (to all those who want it) & complete whatever jail time the authorities may actually give him, then fine, he can live out the rest of his life without me cursing his name. Maybe.
Most people I know who supported Landis the past 4 years are actually NOT angry but heartbroken. Crushed. Some feel embarrassed or humiliated. Some feel the complete fool. I REFUSE to LET this FRAUD make me feel hurt when I & all those other people were just trying to do a GOOD THING. Which is more than Floyd Landis can even comprehend let alone DO.
One more time. Floyd did not steal money from me. I gave it to him of my own free will and with the knowledge that he might not be telling the truth. The only thing he promised in exchange for my donation was that he would use the money in his defense, which is exactly what he did (as far as I know).
There are real frauds who never get prosecuted. TV preachers who sell prayers, Silvia Browne, the people who make magnetic bracelets. Put them in jail first, then get back to me about Floyd.
uxbunny,
“He always came across to me as embittered, vindictive, ‘victimized’”
That was my view also. I felt then, like Larry feels now, that he was a fighter and would do anything to win, including smearing the anti-doping establishment. That’s why I could see how he could in his own mind say “I won it fair and square”, because he had – he didn’t do anything his competitors weren’t doing also.
I’m not that surprised that he doesn’t feel guilty about doping because everybody else was doing it and you had to do it to compete at that level. I think he is being brutally honest (yeah I know he’s a liar) and it’s consistent with the doping culture. Someone pointed out on Daily Peloton that while he didn’t feel guilty about doping, he did feel guilty about lying about the doping. It’s an interesting distinction, but makes a little sense to me.
He was willing to play by the OMERTA rules, until he was no longer part of the competitive and commercial cycling game. I don’t find this surprising. I said so in my first post here. When there was no economic gain, he told some of the truth.
Certainly there’s a little bit of doubt in my mind whether vindictiveness and bitterness is leading him to accuse others falsely of doping with him. But on the other hand, I know he didn’t dope alone.
Cue George Thorogood:
“I dope alone,
All by myself…”
🙂
M –
1. If someone is an admitted liar, and we suspect (as you do) that he is continuing to lie, then it’s difficult to confidently perform a comparative analysis of the past versus the present state of the lying. I think that the word “probably” accurately describes the level of confidence we can feel that Landis is now lying less than he used to. As for “applauding him more”, I’ll do so when he stops lying.
2. Sure, I’m angry that Floyd lied. That’s what I said. I also said that my being angry about being lied to doesn’t make me a “crybaby”. I said that maybe, maybe, there’s an argument that being lied to is a risk inherent in the charitable impulse, and that maybe, maybe we’re “crybabies” if we fail to see our anger in this context. In this regard, thanks much for calling us “gullible”. This should certainly help us in the process of finding the right context.
3. If there’s a technical defense to what Landis did, I don’t know about it. Have I done the research required to support a criminal complaint against Landis? No, of course not. But Landis told his supporters that he’d never doped, knowing it wasn’t true, in order to induce his supporters to give him money. It would take quite a lot to convince me that this is not a criminal act.
4. Landis induced people to give him $1 million, based on false statements that he repeated for 4 years, sometimes under oath. He’s not a typical candidate for prosecutorial discretion. As for plea bargaining, he’s welcome to try … but generally the authorities plea bargain to get the criminals that are higher up in the chain. When it comes to Landis’ fraudulently raising $1 million, there’s no one higher up on the chain than Landis. As for my comparison between Landis and Madoff … they both stole big money. Madoff stole more money. But in the annals of crime, stealing $1 million puts you in the upper percentile of thieves.
5. You’re having it both ways if you’re saying that Landis is telling the truth now, and that you were right on TBV when you said that Landis took exogenous testosterone. Landis is still saying that the ADA system is a fraud and that the AAF was false.
What do I think? Yes, I think he is lying about not taking exogenous testosterone. It seems wildly improbable to me that Landis doped his way through five years of tour racing, that he used exogenous testosterone on many occasions, but that the authorities somehow managed to accuse him of using the drug at a time when he was doing nearly everything else but not that. Of course, he’s admitted to lying back in the day, and we think he’s lying somewhat less now, so I don’t exactly find myself in a position to make strong statements of fact based on anything that Landis says.
I think he did take exogenous testosterone, and that the ADAs were not able to prove it to the standards required under the WADA rules. I’m not sure if the lab and the ADAs stretched their rules to bust a rider they knew to be doping, or whether the lab just screwed up but got “lucky” and managed (without proof) to accuse a doper of doping. I don’t know. Maybe accusing the average cyclist of doping is like shooting fish in a barrel. You don’t have to be a particularly good shot to shoot the fish. Of course, it would be helpful if Landis would actually tell us the truth about this.
I don’t know what to make of the French lab, to be honest. I didn’t think they were evil guys, or that they were corrupt, or that they knew Landis was innocent. As I wrote above, maybe they suspected Landis (with good reason, apparently) of doping, and maybe they stretched the rules to nab him when they thought they had the chance to prevent a doper from winning the maillot jaune. As for the rest, it’s hard to say. The lab’s not exactly telling us everything, either. I remain concerned that the ADA system is not what it should be, that they cannot catch the dopers and that there’s a significant risk of false positive AAFs. The risk of false positives is mitigated to the extent that there seem to be a lot of doping cyclists.
I think Landis received rough justice. Even if he was accused of taking a PED he never took, and even if the case against Landis was never proven, he got what he deserved. That is one good that has come out of Landis’ recent revelations: no one has to feel sorry for Floyd Landis.
I understand your hope that Landis will now tell some truth, do some good, and as a result some heads will roll. I understand your argument that in order to encourage Landis to act in this way, we may need to cut him some slack and forgive some of his past wrongdoing. I can go along with this, to an extent. For example, I’m fine with not sanctioning Landis for any of his newly admitted PED use. I think I could even be persuaded to forget about his perjury (and please don’t ask, I don’t know if lying under oath at an ADA arbitration is technically perjury).
But I don’t think it is right to forgive Landis’ fraudulently raising $1 million. We have two separate problems: doping in cycling, and fraudulently raising money. You can fairly say that we might most effectively fight doping in cycling by not prosecuting Landis for doping, but it’s also important to take a stance against criminal fraud. Arguably, Landis’ fraud is a much more serious matter than anything he might have done as a doper.
Not to deny anyone their frustration or anger, but the FFF was named and billed a “fairness” fund, not an “innocence fund”, and all the promotional material I recall focused on that. To the extent that funds collected were spent on what they said they would be spent on, I’m not sure that I see fraud in the legal sense. One might even think, in retrospect, that the positioning by the FFF was very carefully prepared for this eventuality. That doesn’t mean anyone needs to like it.
TBV
Just some thoughts:
Who had the idea of the FFF? Floyd or others?
( I had no doubt that Floyd doped even without a positive test, and I have much more less doubt that Lance doped. Maybe Lance coul use the money stolen of his TDF prices to reimburse the people who gave to the FFF ;D , or the $2M of fee he got for riding TDU and GIRO (without doping he never would have deserved that money too )
Larry,
1. “5. You’re having it both ways if you’re saying that Landis is telling the truth now, and that you were right on TBV when you said that Landis took exogenous testosterone. Landis is still saying that the ADA system is a fraud and that the AAF was false. ”
Really we are going around in circles here.
I said he is probably still lying about not taking testosterone. This is consistent with my position on TBV. But he has admitted other doping which I believe is the truth and is to be commended. Not having it both ways there. I’ve never claimed everything he says is a lie or true.
You’ve taken the position that since he lied about not doping, we can’t believe anything he says. Except you must believe him when he says he doped.
2. “I think he did take exogenous testosterone, and that the ADAs were not able to prove it to the standards required under the WADA rules. I’m not sure if the lab and the ADAs stretched their rules to bust a rider they knew to be doping, or whether the lab just screwed up but got “lucky” and managed (without proof) to accuse a doper of doping.”
Not sure what you are saying here. The arbitrators and CAS found that the testosterone doping finding against Landis was supported by the evidence and was appropriate. He had his hearings and lost.
Are you saying you still think they are wrong, even though you believe Landis was in fact taking testosterone?
To change topics a bit, it’s official now: the Tour of Missouri has been cancelled. This has nothing to do with doping; rather it was a victim of the budgetary problems the state is facing. Perhaps there was also a bit of politics thrown in: the ToM was a per project of the Republican Lt. Gov., and since 2009 the Gov is a Democrat.
The fact that ANYONE who is not in Landis’ immediate family feels “betrayed” amuses me. The truth is some people feel duped or stupid because they totally believed in Floyd without question. I might be a cynic but I discussed this exact possibility with a number of people right after it happened. It’s wrong to lie OF COURSE , it’s wrong to judge others too, period. I choose to do neither….
strbuk
“LET this FRAUD make me feel hurt.”
Sorry, Susie B, I cannot allow this comment to go unchallenged. A basic rule of human responsibility goes against this comment. It is unfortunately my pet peeve. No one and I mean no one makes you feel anything. Feelings are each persons natural response to what has occured, but no one makes you feel anything. You are responsible for your own feelings and what you do with them. Clearly you are angry. You feel what you feel, but quit trying to tell us someone is making you feel that way. It just ain’t so.
It is also mentioned that Floyd drug his mother to the hearing. I am not sure that would be an accurate characterization.
Also, I am surprised that Floyd has not been accused of being a threat to our way of life, like Hitler, Stalin and Obama’s socialist agenda.
TBV, if I understand the law correctly, it doesn’t matter if the purpose of the FFF was narrow, or if the funds were spent for the right services. What matters is if Landis intentionally lied to induce people to make contributions to the fund. I admit, this is not my area of law, but the case against Landis looks about as simple and straightforward as I could imagine.
M, I’m taking the position that since Landis lied and (we believe) is continuing to lie, I’m going to approach anything he says with great caution. Is it possible that raced 100% clean and now is lying when he says he’s doping? In theory, yes. But his admission appears to be an “admission against interest”. It’s almost certainly true. Would I collapse in a faint if it turned out that Landis was lying when he said he was doping? No, of course not.
I’m sorry if I’m not being clear enough. I don’t think the lab proved an AAF under the WADA rules based on its testing of the S17 sample. I think the arbitrators reached the wrong decision, based on the evidence presented and the governing law. The fact that (in my opinion) the case was not proven against Landis does not mean that Landis rode clean in 2006. I now think that Landis DID dope with exogenous testosterone during the 2006 Tour, simply based on the sheer unlikeliness that the lab could have missed all the PEDs he WAS using and managed to find a PED he WASN’T using (or viewed in another way, that the lab managed to accuse Landis of using exogenous testosterone during the one Tour he didn’t use it, and missed his use of the same PED during the Tours when he did use it). It’s one thing to think (as I do) that the lab could screw up a test, another to imagine that they screwed up just about every test they ever ran on Landis. The greater likelihood, I think, is that Landis is lying. But I cannot rule out that the French lab might be incompetent beyond my imagination.
strbuk, I understand the natural tendency we all have to blame ourselves when someone dupes us. Taking personal responsibility is a great thing. But we DO have a personal responsibility to be truthful to others, even those outside of our immediate family. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is a command that applies to our neighbor, not just our mother. It’s no excuse for Landis to say that we should not have trusted him, and it’s no excuse for Landis to say that we did not fully believe in him anyway. I hate to point this out, but the “T” in TBV is the word “trust”. The whole stinking shooting match breaks down if we can’t trust each other. True enough, the “V” stands for “verify”. But do you really think that we didn’t try hard enough to verify?
strbuk, I never believed in Landis without question. Ask anyone. I feel betrayed. You’ll need another theory to explain me! Here’s my theory: I subscribe to TBV, and also to TBHA (trust but hold accountable).
Cal, I personally admire your radical philosophy of personal responsibility. We live in a society of finger-pointers and blame-finders. Good for you to try and resist this! But in your comments to Susie B, you’ve gone too far in the other direction, and I have to take issue.
If someone acts by hitting me in the gut, I’m going to feel nausea. The act of the other makes me experience the feeling. I can take personally responsibility if I like — maybe I could have avoided the punch, or maybe I could have done more crunches (or any crunches) so that I could do a better job of taking the punch. Y’know, like we could have avoided feeling betrayed by Landis, if we’d only just ignored his plea for help. But the point is: if not for the punch, I would not be feeling the nausea. This is causation.
Of course we can make other people feel things. Mozart can make me feel moved, and the Marx Brothers can make me laugh. I can take responsibility for my feelings, and cry my way through “Night At The Opera” if I want, but that would be borderline insane.
It’s also borderline insane for me to say that I am angry without a cause. If I’m angry, how did I get this way? You are making emotions sound like personal choices, and that’s just not the way things work. You cannot choose not to grieve, or not to love, or not to laugh.
We ARE responsible for our choices. When someone wounds us, we can choose to forgive, or to seek revenge. We can choose to do what we can to heal the wound, or we can let it fester. We are responsible for this choice. But we are not responsible for the pain we feel.
Just a gentle reminder, everyone. We may be ranting our heads off here, but let’s be sure to be respectful of each other’s points of view. If you’re getting worked up by someone’s comments, take a few moments to chill before you respond.
And now for something completely different…
William,
It sure looks like a whole lot of political wrangling went on over the ToMO. I can imagine if it had been Gov. Nixon’s idea, that there would be no problem releasing the funds. It’s a shame that the race won’t go on this year, as it’s a great showcase for the state. And it’s a great race. Wish I could have seen more of it last year. With luck, maybe it will be like a phoenix and rise from the ashes.
Yeah, it’s too bad the ToM is dead, at least for now. But although I think there was some politics involved, I can’t fault Nixon too much: the state is short of funds and cuts do have to be made.
And you don’t know how freaky it is for me to be supporting a politician named Nixon!
I can imagine. Seems like every state is in the same boat.
And, yeah, I can actually imagine how freaky it is to support a Democrat named Nixon. That would be a bit bizarre.
Larry,
I appreciate your thoughts. However, I do not think we are that far apart. I suggested our feelings are a natural response to the events that occur around us. We are responsible for what we do with those feelings. I never suggested you or Susie B feel anger without cause. I simply have stated that to give Landis such power to create such anger gives him way too much power. It is the intensity of anger I do not understand. The feeling of anger is natural, but to carry it to an extreme that I have not chosen to take it to, does not make sense to me. I guess it does not need to make sense to me. I do disagree with your comment that we are not responsible for the pain we feel. At some point, we do become responsible. We feel naturally, but at some point we face a decision about what we are going to do with this pain. At some point, we decide how we are going to respond and choose to let go of the pain. Many folks decide to hold onto pain, anger and disappointment not realizing it adversely effects their lives. One could use your argument to say, “My wife betrayed me, I hurt and will never let go of the hurt.” In fact it is her fault my life is in a shambles. I hurt and it is her fault because her actions caused this hurt.
Let us discuss something you mentioned earlier, “The Landises of the world make us reluctant to help others, to respond to a tale of woe, to help our neighbors when they say they need our help. That’s why Landis’ fraud is worse than Madoff’s.”
I believe this statement definitely gives way too much power to Landis and his wrong actions. If you are unwilling to help your neighbor due to this incident, then I definitely do not understand this. As disappointed as I am with what Floyd has done, it has in no way diminished my willingness to help others. Let me give you some context to this. I spent 22 years of my life as a pastor. On countless times I was snookered. I generously gave funds from Church accounts to help “poor souls.” I would later discover that most of these poor souls were folks who habitually went from church to church or had spent many, many years living off this kind of charity. I had to come to grips with human nature and the understanding that this happened. In later years, our ministerium developed a system to share who we were helping with one another. This helped us develop a system to prevent this. This was a good thing and it was because we never gave up on helping folks in spite of being snookered. The congregation where I was pastor also developed a fund which would help a person one time a year without question. We were willing to help with rent or paying electric bills, etc. The fact that some people took advantage of this never detered this effort. It may be because of my extensive experience with these kinds of experiences that I have this viewpoint. It makes absolutely no sense to me to not help others because you got burned trying to help Floyd.
Susie B, I must come back to your comments about Floyd’s mother, “Did he kick or scream lying to his MOTHER all these years & then dragging her all that way to sit at that excruciating Hearing?”
I understand this comment was intended towards Floyd. It, however, in an unintended way is quite derogatory towards Floyd’s mother. Do you know her? Maybe you do, but I doubt it because you would never make this comment if you did. To believe she was drug all that way to the hearing does not do justice to her own thought processes, her own honor and her own choices. I have yet to meet anyone who does not have respect for this woman and her own energy and determination. BTW, I do not know her well, but I do know her and I respect her immensely.
Dave: Everybody cheats. I just didn’t know.
Dad: Well…now you know.
I enjoy cycling and I probably always will. I have fond memories of Pantani climbing, Riis throwing his time trial bike, Lance doing some off-roading, etc. Yes I’m disappointed that some of them, most of them?, have taken or probably taken at least at one point some PEDs. But at the end of the day it’s an entertainment business, and I’ve been entertained.
I’ve been to part of all the past three ToMs. Made some good friends and had lot of fun. I think it would be worth it to keep it going, but nobody asked me.
Cal, what an outstanding response! Kudos, my friend. Beautifully said, the whole thing.
I agree, we are not very far apart. OUr feelings are a natural reaction to the world around us. These feelings should be experienced for a duration that is appropriate — we shouldn’t dwell on these feelings, nor should we dismiss them too quickly. Some feelings, like grief, take a while to get over. With a feeling like anger, it’s probably best to let go relatively quickly. There isn’t any formula for this, nor is what’s right for me going to be the right thing for anyone else. But you are right: at some point it’s my choice to continue to hold onto the feeling I have today about Landis, or to let it go.
You’re also right, at some point it’s self-destructive to hold onto our anger. It’s one of the reasons why I typically counsel my clients against litigation. Litigation can be an overly long anger-fest. You often see it: the litigation finally ends, and the participants cannot let go of their anger. It has become ingrained. In fact, this may be what has happened to Landis. He just can’t let go of the fight.
Landis DOES have considerable power, and it’s OK to acknowledge this. He is a public figure with considerable charm and influence. He had the ability to get people to do things for him. He lied to our faces and we gave him $1 million because he said he needed it. There aren’t many people on the planet who could do this. It would be strange for me to say, this man does not have the power to make me angry, when he clearly had the power to make me care and to spend time on his behalf.
I think it is fact to say that when a person is defrauded by another asking for help, the helper will tend to be reluctant to help the next guy who asks. I think this is human nature. Yes, we should resist this aspect of our nature, and understand (as you stated so well) that being snookered is a risk you run when you try to do good. We should be encouraging each other here to acknowledge that this risk exists, and that while we should try to direct our charity to those who deserve it, there’s no shame in getting snookered every now and again.
This is part of the problem I had with your philosophy of personal responsibility, as it implied (at least I thought it implied) that the fault for Landis’ fraud lay with us and not with Landis. To me, it is essential to say, as loudly as I can, that the fault lies with Landis. Landis is NOT the normal case of what happens when we respond to a cry for help. He is an exception. In fact, he’s such an exception that he deserves punishment.
This is why I’m holding onto my anger, for a little longer than might otherwise be necessary. I think it’s important to make a statement that Landis’ behavior is NOT acceptable. It’s wrong to “cry wolf”. It’s wrong to take money under false pretenses. It’s wrong enough that we need to actively discourage the practice. We need to make the statement that if you screw around with the charitable impulse, you’re going to be punished. I mean, we talk here all the time about what kind of sanctions are necessary to deter doping — why should we shy away from the sanctions required to deter charitable fraud?
By making this statement, we’re also stating that it’s good to help people who say they’re in need. We’re saying, if someone says they’re in need, you can believe them, because it’s a violation of our social norm to ask for help under false pretenses. We’re saying that if someone says they’re in need, it’s OK to help first and verify the need later. We’re saying that it’s a duty to help the needy, and it’s also a duty to be truthful and honest when you ask for help. I think that this process and these duties are worth fighting for. Otherwise, we’re effectively encouraging people to ignore their fellow men and women, with the excuse: “how could I have known that he really needed my help?”
Larry,
My understanding of your intentions is growing and I greatly appreciate your comments. I will respond to two of your comments.
“To me, it is essential to say, as loudly as I can, that the fault lies with Landis.”
“I think it’s important to make a statement that Landis’ behavior is NOT acceptable.”
I agree 100% with these comments. What Floyd has done here is wrong. I am not trying to exhonerate him. He is responsible for his actions. Not one of us here is responsible for his actions.
I subscribe to the theory that 10% of our lives are made up by the events that occur in our lives and 90% is how we respond to those events. I am simply challenging you to accept what Landis has done as fact. Do not give this occurence anymore power over your life. Develop an action plan for how you are going to respond and get to it.
I love Dan and Rant your head off. But at some point if your action plan is simply to rant your head off about this, it becomes pointless. My overall point is, “Yes, what Floyd did is wrong.” I am not even arguing this. In fact, I do not think anyone is arguing about this. We are arguing about our own responses. M is arguing that we should be grateful Floyd is finally telling the truth. I am grateful. I do not think Floyd holds one degree of responsibility for your life at this point in time. You are responsible for your life. That is my point. He has no power from this point forward to make you feel anything unless you give him that power over your life. I am simply suggesting you do not give him that power.
It is a noble and worthy cause to develop an action plan on declaring what Floyd has done as wrong. It is wrong. Just do not conflate what he has done with your own responses.
Thanks Larry. Good discussion because it has challenged me to think and try to bring some clarity to my own thoughts. I am grateful you have engaged in this discussion.
Larry,
Well said.
Cal,
I agree that just ranting our heads off (venting our heads off?) may make us feel better, but to go on indefinitely does become pointless. Once people get past the anger and their other feelings (betrayal, hurt, shame, humiliation, etc.) the question becomes, “Where do we go from here?”
Do we give up on sports like cycling, and just walk away? Or, do we try to find ways to make something good come of what’s happened?
Me, I’d like to work towards making something good happen. I’ve already got a second book in mind, with a catchy title that’s a play on words. We’ll have to see if I can get my subjects to talk to me. There are lessons to be learned here, for certain. But that’s a comment or post for another day (gotta get to work pretty soon).
One thing this whole discussion brings to mind is this lyric, from the song “Bruised Orange” by John Prine:
If I understand your point correctly, I think you’re saying the same thing.
Rant, Thanks very much for posting the link to the story ‘The Outcast’ (2007) from NYT Magazine. I remember many of us read the story back when it was published and pretty much agreed that it was a very good piece of journalism.
About the ongoing discussion above: Let’s face the fact that the Landis case was something that many people became personally involved in. I was just looking back at Rant’s archives and the TBV site, and was amazed at the sheer volume of work done by strbck, the reams and reams of writing by larry, M, TBV, Mr. ‘rant’ Rosen; all the contributors and readers as well. This was personal, or, it BECAME personal in the sense that for some it was about justice, and for others about exposing a fraud. For some, it was anywhere in between. But ANYTHING that takes up a great deal of your time becomes personal.
I think that’s why the reactions about the news are as they are. People feel as though they lost time, effort, trust – others feel slightly vindicated. I’m trying to look at a bright side (although I know there aren’t many), but personally I think this process is natural. Clearly ALL of us like to write 🙂 So it’s through writing that the feelings are coming out.
Agreed. We all like to write, and through writing our feelings come out. Nothing wrong with that. Now, if we’re still ranting and raving a year about what we’re feeling today, that could be another issue. 😉
Also, I agree that for many (all?) of us, it became personal. That, I think explains the responses people have to the latest twist in the long-running Landis saga.
Sara Corbet’s article was well done, and even foreshadowed some things that eventually came to pass. Truly an excellent personality profile.
I have chosen not to get involved in all this discussion re Landis’ character, psyche, etc. With the possible exception of whether or not his acts constitute some criminal offense for which he could be charged, it is all a matter of opinion. My drill sergeant had a saying about opinions. To paraphrase: “We all have’m and they all stink”. Well, actually we all have them and for each of us individually, our opinions are “right”. So even though various people have expressed somewhat conflicting opinions about Landis and his words and deeds, each person’s opinion is what, in some sense, is right for him or her. We can argue endlessly whether or not Landis is a POS, or a victim of his circumstances, or whatever.
In many ways, the Landis saga ended for me when the final verdict was handed down by CAS. Some of us argued here and at TBV that the evidence didn’t show he was guilty, but those officially empowered to reach the decision saw it differently. There was nothing more to do but to see what, if anything, could come from this regarding how to improve the anti-doping system. And even there, to a large extent, we all were just blowing hot air, because there is little to nothing we can do about that. Yeah, I had a bit of interest on how Landis fared once he resumed racing, but I didn’t make a point of following him other than what cropped up here.
I will continue to visit Rant’s site and will at least browse through all the comments. It is interesting to see the different reactions.
Cal, at least half of what I write is in response to what others have written. I respond strongly to the writing that strikes me as honest, direct and from the heart, and Susie B is writing that way. Her sense of outrage speaks to me and for me. I understand the importance of getting over and past this episode, but that isn’t going to happen (not for me, at least) until this episode is fully and properly experienced. That cannot always happen quickly.
My sense of things is that some people here have turned their anger inward, and have blamed themselves for their decision to support Landis. I know that for me at least, this would not be a healthy reaction. Anger turned inwards (for me, at least) becomes depression. You and others have asked, what is the point of ranting? My answer in part is that ranting is better than depression. Before I turn my anger inwards, I’m going to blunt the force of its fury.
I fully understand what you’ve said about letting other people control our lives. At the same time we cannot and should not deny the power we hold over each other. As I grow old I appreciate the fact that being connected to other people is a royal pain — they DO cause me to feel things I’d rather not feel. It’s also true that those connections and those feelings are essential to a life worth living. The “royal pain” of it all is part of what keeps me going. The people I know who stay most connected may be most vulnerable to shocks caused from without, but they are also the most vital and valuable people I know.
In any event …. I am always attracted to balance. The overall response here seems to me to be muted and resigned, so I want to scream “this sucks!” Susie says it much better than I can; she is filled with the healthiest possible outrage, I am just a scold.
One part of the more radical version of the personal responsibility movement is to take responsibility for everything that happens to you, and not just to your response to the things that happen. I don’t think you’re this radical! But it’s a natural tendency for people to blame themselves when bad things happen, as it’s often easier to accept this blame than to realize the extent to which we are affected by events we cannot control. In response to this, I am trying to say that the fault here does not lie with us, but with Landis. I see no good that can come out of self-blame here.
For me, the way to let go is to realize that Landis violated basic rules of human decency. He lied to us about his need for our help. That was a truly low and rotten thing to do. I think that very, VERY few people are capable of acting in such a disgusting way. If we react to Landis by blaming ourselves and trying to be less “gullible” in the future (for “gullible” you might substitute the word “trusting”, or “charitable”), I think that would be a mistake.
I heard a story once (I’m sure it’s not a true story) about a gullible guy who’d give money to anyone with a good tale of need. One time the guy was approached by an old woman who described how she was dying and needed $500 to pay for an operation that might save her life. The guy (being gullible) gave the woman the $500. When he got home, the guy was taken to task by his wife and son — how could he be so gullible, the woman was lying, etc., etc. Sure enough, in the next day’s newspaper, the guy read that the old woman was arrested, that she was a phony, just another scam artist. What was the guy’s reaction? “THANK GOD! The old woman isn’t going to die!”
Somehow, the idea here is to walk away from the Landis incident with an intact generosity of spirit. In any way that we can.
I haven’t had the chance to do more than skim over most of the comments since I was here yesterday, but I decided last night I was pretty much done for now. I’ve vented (very therapeutic, thanks, Rant) & just like those people 3-4 years ago on this site, TBV, & Daily Peloton, I hoped to at least get some people to not believe every single thing Landis says because he sounds “sincere”. ESPECIALLY his motives. But, then & now, we will all think & feel the way we want to & few can be persuaded otherwise.
Even though there were quite a few here & at TBV, there was one guy I remember vividly at the DP. I’d thought him quite obnoxious & rude even if I was impressed with his most extensive knowledge of riders & races of the last 30 years. The guy not only fervently believed Landis doped but was positively APOPLECTIC that he was taking money from “civilians” & tried quite vociferously to talk us out of contributing. Ah, if I’d only listened, eh? 😉
Well, from what I’ve scanned this morning, the sport seems ready to immolate itself. Riders & others ready to NOW “tell the truth” to of course save their own asses. Like lawbreaking “gangs” since time began. Yes, yes, guns were apparently at their heads when THEY doped & they were just wittle innocent young-uns. If possible, Lance, Johan & maybe a few other powers may take the full fall & WOW, the future will be SO CLEAN & bright, I’ll have to wear shades.
I won’t be wearing them watching cycling though, because it would be too damn painful. It is quite interesting that after years of the sport’s FANS fighting each other over who’s clean, who’s a dopin’ cheat, & especially about Lance – hero or scum of the earth (God, can ANYone go on to a cycling blog/chat room/message board & not walk into THAT argument?!), that the actual participants in the sport will now do the same. To watch any of these guys try to finger someone else as guiltier than themselves for doing the exact same thing, well, won’t it make you sick?
Just a couple things. Cal – I don’t know Landis mother, but I did grow up on a farm in MD & knew quite a few Mennonites. In fact, one of my best friends in high school was a Mennonite. I can tell you I personally never knew ANY that took vacation, so to leave their work unattended for an entire week would have been unthinkable unless prevented by tragedy or utter disaster. I was responding to the comment that Landis was somehow FORCED into the FRAUD. From everything I’ve ever read or heard, by Landis himself & those who’ve known him for decades, the man does NOT seem to be a guy who could be coerced into anything he didn’t really want to do. And hey, maybe SHE actually enjoyed sitting there day after day. In what was ‘sure’ a comfy chair. Listening to those people drone on & on. I watched several hours on the web & I thought at the time that forcing someone to sit thru that was almost punishment enough for doping. But, that was me. Anyway, if you believe what Landis is saying now – she did NOT know he doped. Possibly his parents would have been there anyway, but again, from what *I’ve* experienced with the Mennonites I’ve known, lying to the media or anyone else if asked if they thought their son had ever doped? Can’t see it. And I can’t imagine them standing beside a son (figuratively & literally) as he LIED to ANYone let alone in a legal proceeding. So, to me, his lying to his parents is the equivalent of “dragging” them to his Hearing as they wanted to support their son in what they understood was to help correct a misjustice.
And speaking of Dr Kay & the other advisers “forcing” Landis into the FFF, well, a legal person here would know better, but I think that’s putting themselves into the jackpot known as CONSPIRACY to DEFRAUD. So, they are all going to need their own attorneys.
TBV – Here is a quote by Michael Henson (FFF Executive Director) that I found yesterday in Rant’s archives (1/4/07) about the FFF : “We have clear publicly available evidence that PROVES Floyd won CLEAN. The FFF is committed to provide the professional resources to ensure that science, fact & due process decry their unsubstantiated allegations”. (CAPS emphasis mine). And in smaller print, which I think is taken directly from the FFF website : “The Floyd Fairness Fund was established to support Floyd Landis against unsubstantiated doping allegations, provide the means to attain fairness for Floyd and bring JUSTICE to those RESPONSIBLE for MISCONDUCT in this case”. (Again, CAPS emphasis mine but that last part is my favorite 😉 ).
Anyway, I want to thank Rant again & all who took the time to discuss the current situation. Whether it was with me (thanks Larry, I was quite impressed with all your comments as you elaborated on things much better than I ever could. I also appreciate your having my back, so to speak. 🙂 ), or to me or to each other. I haven’t done this in a while & it was not only nostalgic but quite energizing. But, I think I’ve bonked. Need rest. Maybe a transfusion. 😉
Susie,
Enjoy the rest. If you need a “transfusion,” might I recommend Peets? Caffeine has always helped revive me when I needed, and Peets is the best I’ve ever had. 😉
(Full disclosure: I like their coffee so much that we own stock in the company.)
Of course, I never, ever drank coffee before a bike race. Or, at least never in large quantities. 🙂
Landis is doing exactly what cycling fans have been demanding for years. He is naming names, exposing doping networks, and coming forward with full disclosure.
Unless one is favorably disposed to doping and cheating in cycling, what is the problem here? He’s doing WAY MORE than we could reasonably expect from him. Compared to the peloton still practicing omerta, Landis’ honesty and self-sacrifice quotients have gone way up. Suddenly Landis is the hero, and it’s a strange and radical inversion.
Landis’ campaign to fight the positive did not happen in a vacuum, but within the larger context of omerta within the sport, and had many precedents (eg Lance and Tyler). Plus, all of his supporters acted of their own free will and had ample warning they were being lied to. The vast majority of educated observers and cycling fans believed Landis was not telling the truth–nobody can dispute that. Support for Landis was confined to echo-chambers like this blog.
Now, Landis fandom will make a comeback.
No doubt a big reason to confess was to end the lies and be able to look fans in the eye with good conscience. It’s an act of courage and deserves kudos.
The testosterone from 2006 is (for Landis) a dead issue. He probably took T in the 06 Tour. It doesn’t really matter if he did or didn’t. He may not want to admit it to salvage the feelings of his supporters, or he may not want to admit for fear of lawsuits or other legal retaliations. Within the context of his larger revelations it’s a non-issue.
Susie found “The Floyd Fairness Fund was established to support Floyd Landis against unsubstantiated doping allegations, provide the means to attain fairness for Floyd and bring JUSTICE to those RESPONSIBLE for MISCONDUCT in this case”
To the degree they were talking about the T charge, that might not be incorrect.
The Henson statement, “We have clear publicly available evidence that PROVES Floyd won CLEAN. The FFF is committed to provide the professional resources to ensure that science, fact & due process decry their unsubstantiated allegations”
Is problematic in the first sentence, but the second is consistent with the T charge disputability. To the extent CLEAN can be tied to “did not do the T of the charge”, it’s not incorrect.
To the extent that the FFF was separate, and not for whatever is narrowly construed to be Landis’ personal benefit, I’m not sure where potential legal fraud may be. I’m pretty sure Larry will disagree, though, which is illuminating.
TBV
Garm-Slip press release really make it seem like DZ is going to say something, I dunno..
If you find the old IM conversation from 2005 between Frankie A and Vaughters, it would appear even V did the hot-sauce, as he stated it.. if that conversation is real, which… after the recent Floyd outage, the comments made do seem to jive alot more.. back when I read it originally… I had a hard time believing it to be authentic.. especially from the GH comment.
Amazing how things change over time…
Read it again.. its so much more interesting now: An instant message between Frankie Andreu (FDREU) and Jonathan Vaughters (Cyclevaughters) the morning of July 26, 2005.
Cyclevaughters: frankie – hey – thanks for talking the other day
FDREU: no problem, where are you
Cyclevaughters: back in CO
FDREU: nice, I just got home, isnt’ it like 5AM
Cyclevaughters: sometimes i think i’m going to go nuts
Cyclevaughters: yeah
Cyclevaughters: it’s 5am
FDREU: I agree, I came home and the air conditioning is broken
Cyclevaughters: ouch
FDREU: did your kid grow twice it’s size in the two weeks you were gone
Cyclevaughters: yeah, his feet look bigger for some eason
FDREU: funny
Cyclevaughters: anyhow, i never can quite figure out why i don’t just play along with the lance crowd – i mean shit it would make my life easier, eh? it’s not like i never played with hotsauce, eh?
FDREU: I know, but in the end i don’t think it comes back to bite you
FDREU: I play along, my wife does not, and Lance hates us both
FDREU: it’s a no win situation, you know how he is. Once you leave the team or do soemthing wrong you forever banned
Cyclevaughters: i suppose – you know he tried to hire me back in 2001… he was nice to me… i just couldn’t deal with that whole world
FDREU: I did not know that
FDREU: look at why everyone leaves, it’s way to controlling
Cyclevaughters: once I went to CA and saw that now all the teams got 25 injections every day
Cyclevaughters: hell, CA was ZERO
FDREU: you mean all the riders
Cyclevaughters: Credit Agricole
FDREU: it’s crazy
Cyclevaughters: So, I realized lance was full of shit when he’d say everyone was doing it
FDREU: You may read stuff that i say to radio or press, praising the Tour and lance but it’s just playing the game
Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds – Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%
FDREU: when in 2000-2001
Cyclevaughters: so, that’s when you start thinking… hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%— yeah moreau in 2000-2001
Cyclevaughters: anyhow – whtever
FDREU: After 1999, you know many things changed. lance did not
FDREU: I believe that’s part of whey kevin left, he was tired of the stuff
Cyclevaughters: yeah, i could explain the whole way lance dupes everyone
FDREU: what abut GH climbing the mountains better than azevedo and the entire group
Cyclevaughters: from how floyd described it, i know exactly the methos
FDREU: explain that, classics to climber
FDREU: when did you talk with floyd
Cyclevaughters: i don’t know – i want to trust George
Cyclevaughters: but the thing is on that team, you think it’s normal
Cyclevaughters: or at least i did
FDREU: i guess. anything with blodd is not normal
Cyclevaughters: yeah, it’s very complex how the avoid all the controls now, but it’s not any new drug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull of a well devised plan
Cyclevaughters: it’s why they all got dropped on stage 9 – no refill yet – then on the rest day – boom 800ml of packed cells
FDREU: they have it mastered. good point
Cyclevaughters: they draw the blood right after the dauphine
FDREU: how do they sneak it in, or keep it until needed
FDREU: i’m sure it’s not with the truck in the frig
Cyclevaughters: motorcycle – refridgerated panniers
Cyclevaughters: on the rest day
Cyclevaughters: floyd has a photo of the thing
FDREU: crazy! it’ just keep going to new levels
Cyclevaughters: yeah, it’s complicated, but with enough money you can do it
FDREU: they have enough money. Floyd was so pissed at them this entire tour
Cyclevaughters: anyhow – i just feel sorry for floyd and some of the other guys
Cyclevaughters: why would lance keep doing the shit when he clearly has nothing to prove – it’s weird
FDREU: I know. me to. they all get ripped into for no reason
FDREU: he’s done now, thank god. but they will prove next year for Johan’s sake that they are the greatest
Cyclevaughters: and then lance says ” this guy and that guys are pussies”
FDREU: they won’t stop
FDREU: I agree
Oh… and on twitter.. new buzz that the feds are going to ask LA to return to US..
Bahati dropping FL, Ouch pulling out.. bum deal for BF, but is the right move for them.. Steve Owens I believe is also out..
Unfortunately, we haven’t really reached a catalyst/tipping point in this ordeal that we know LA is going down.. if and when that comes.. FL opinion discussions will be gone.. the focus will be LA.. and public persona of FL may actually change for the better.. he may have that second chance afterall.. or it may not work out and go downhill…
TBV – if all the money went to Landis defense, how is that not his “personal benefit”?
Also, Henson did not say they had evidence that showed Landis did not use Testosterone but “PROVES that Floyd won CLEAN”. Put those statements before a jury & I think they’ll agree the FFF stated Landis was innocent of DOPING in the Tour period & the FFF was set up to finance the attempt to prove it.
And M – Landis was not my “hero”. I was a fan (not the same thing) since 2002 when I 1st became aware of him on US Postal & especially because he was on the Tour team. I also read his web rider diaries over the years, interviews, etc. I’ve tended to do that of almost all American riders & occasionally some others in the pro-peloton. Currently, I enjoy IAMTEDKING’s entries, Michael Barry (also read his book) & since last year – Andy Schleck. I will confess to being extremely impressed with Landis pulling on that mt stage for LA in the 2004 Tour & rooted/hoped like crazy for him to win it. And most of all, I will unequivocably state that Stage 17 in the 2006 TDF brought tears to my eyes. Partly because of what had happened the day before & partly because of the sheer determination & strength, I thought it was one of the most astounding things I’d ever seen in sports & I’ve participated &/or watched multiple sports all my life. Of course, I get choked up watching almost any day in the Tour & have since I 1st chanced across TV coverage in 1984. (I was, um, 5 at the time, yeah, 5…)
And in FULL disclosure, I would PAY Fabian to get into that leather gladiator outfit Boonen wore in the ad a few years ago. LEATHER UP, Spartacus!
I’ve loved being thrilled & amazed by athletes in competition. And most of all, I’ve loved being inspired. And while I will never again feel “sorry” for Floyd Landis, I do feel sorry for all the athletes whose achievements are now immediately suspect by an increasing disillusioned audience. And most of all, I feel sorry for that audience who no longer allows themselves to BE thrilled or inspired as they no longer “trust” what they’re seeing. Compared to saving lives or inventing things that can improve or change lives, sports don’t matter that much. But I think the world can always use inspiration. Or, hell, even just a thrill!
austincyclist,
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. The last week casts that conversation in a whole new light, doesn’t it? Seems more believable now.
I figured it was only a matter of time before the Bahati team would let Floyd go, and the Ouch sponsorship, too. Shame to see it happen. Seems like a natural outgrowth of the turn of events, though.
If LA has to come back from Europe, I’m sure there will be some convenient reason. If it’s clear the Feds asked/strongly suggested/subpoena’d him, then you’ll know the real sh*t is hitting the fan.
Susie B,
I thought you had a thing with George Clooney. Won’t he get jealous of you and Spartacus? 😉
Susie b,
I’m a fan of leather too. I just like it on woman with whips!
Hmm…. Any dark fantasies about Landis, handcuffs and whips?
-)
TBV, LOL! Illuminating, how?
My days of doing extensive legal research on the Landis case are long over. I did try to figure out how and where the FFF was organized, and failed. The small amount of FFF literature I could find on-line list a New York address, but I could not find the FFF listed in the web site of the NY Department of State.
My assumption is that the FFF was organized as a not-for-profit organization. Again, this is not an area of expertise for me. I am assuming without a great deal of support that the following statements represent the law in most U.S. jurisdictions: (1) a not-for-profit cannot misrepresent the purpose of its organization when soliciting funds, and (2) a not-for-profit cannot engage in fraudulent conduct, or commit unfair or deceptive acts, in its solicitation of funds
I’m not focused much on point (1). The FFF did say that it intended to try and help other athletes in Landis’ position, but that might have been a true statement when it was made.
I am focused on point (2).
As far as I know, there is no recorded instance of Landis saying: “I never ever took a PED, so please give me your money.” But I don’t read the prohibition of the law to apply only to an outright lie tied directly to a request for funds.
At the same time, I don’t think that Landis was required to tell the full truth to his contributors. I don’t think Landis had to say “I doped, but I’m asking for your money so that I can present the best defense that I can.”
I do think that Landis had a duty not to mislead people when he asked for their money. If you start a “fairness” fund to fight “unfair” charges brought by a “corrupt” ADA regime, the fair and reasonable implication is that the charges are false and that the athlete has done nothing wrong. If in fact the athlete in question was doping and the authorities failed to get their accusation right, I would argue that the FFF needed to do some major work to avoid misleading the public. I have no idea what they might have done — if I had been advising the FFF and knew all the facts we know now, I would have advised them not to raise money from the public.
But the FFF might have tried saying something like: “We’re not telling you that Landis is innocent or guilty of the charges against him, and we’re not telling you what Landis might or might not have done during his career. We’re just saying that Landis is entitled to a defense, whether he’s innocent or guilty, and we’d like you to help us pay for that defense.” I have no idea if this kind of statement would have been enough under the law, particularly when Landis knew he had doped in 2006. But obviously, if this is what Landis had said, no one would have given him a dime.
Of course, what Landis did was misleading to a considerable degree. First, he said flat out that he had never doped. You can find that statement in “Positively False”. He said it in a more round-about way at the first news conference after the news broke in July 2006. I’m sure you can find other statements. Perhaps he never said any such thing on a FFF flyer, or during an FFF fundraising event, but he never took the opportunity through FFF to correct the false impression that he’d given us elsewhere.
Second, Landis engaged in a pattern of conduct that, in light of his current admissions, is clearly false and deceptive. For example, he said in “Positively False” that he had no evidence that Lance ever doped, and that he and Lance had never discussed doping.
Finally, I’m reasonably certain that there are FFF materials saying that Landis won the 2006 Tour “clean”. Landis now admits that this was a lie.
TBV, I’m not going to write a 40-page memo on this (I’m laughing, of course, since I’m the guy who wrote 40-page memos back in the day). Landis engaged in false and misleading conduct in his raising of money for FFF. I don’t think there’s any doubt he violated the law.
The link to the eBook “The Wiki Defense” at Arnie Baker’s web site is now inoperative. I have my copy downloaded, of course.
I don’t think I’ve seen a comment from Dr. Baker. The S17 explanation for S17 from Dr. Allen Lim is still on the Saris site. And Dr. Lim works for a certain well-know cyclist from TX now – not sure I’ve seen a comment from him. Floyd had a personal trainer/coach at the 2006 TdF as welll…can’t remember his name tho…but haven’t seen a comment.
Would any of these people have something to say? Can they speak freely?
8-0, I’ve seen nothing from Arnie Baker. But you DO know that Landis accused Lim of masterminding his blood doping … don’t you?
I had forgotten about that – I see it in the news stories and emails now.
Why oh why didn’t I take the BLUE pill?
Landis coach – Robbie Ventura. Who was also on US Postal & has been 1 of the commentators on Versus doing the Tour since 2007. In 2006, he was brought on during several stages to give insight as Landis coach.
Rant – George is very understanding. He really is the “perfect boyfriend”. But, Spartacus in the full-on Gladiator get-up?Aaaahhh. Of course, watching him wear it while on the bike tearing up a Time Trial would be the best, but it would be so damn heavy even his wondrous thighs probably couldn’t keep going for long. Pity.
TBV, while looking for something else (the way of the internet), I found a videotape of Landis’ appearance in Wilmette, Illinois on March 10, 2007. Rant himself was there and reported on the event here on the blog.
During the event, there was the following question and answer:
“Q: I’d love to go home and tell my family that you looked at all of us and said ‘I didn’t cheat’ and that would be enough for me, and I would not care what anyone else said.
Landis: I didn’t cheat, and I’ve said that from the beginning and I think it’s my responsibility at this point in the position I’m in to explain it in more detail than that, but if that were good enough for the panel of arbitrators, that would be wonderful.” [LOUD APPLAUSE]
Rant reported that Landis raised around $15,000 at this event.
Can you summarize this state of facts without using the word “fraud”?
“The element of fraud which tends to stymie successful prosecution is the obligation to investigate. It falls on potential investors or customers to fully investigate a proposal before any money exchanges hands. Failure to take appropriate measures at the time of the proposal can seriously weaken a fraud case in court later. The accused can claim that the alleged victim had every opportunity to discover the potential for fraud and failed to investigate the matter thoroughly. Once a party enters into a legally binding contract, remorse over the terms of the deal is not the same as fraud.
If you suspect you are a victim of fraud, consult a legal professional and collect all tangible evidence of damages. Keep in mind that fraud is not easily proven in a court of law, although the court of public opinion may be squarely on your side.”
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-fraud.htm
I won’t claim to speak for anyone else. We’re nominally out mumblety-thousand dollars, plus months of our lives over this, and I wouldn’t claim fraud — I got my entertainment dollars’ worth, and that’s the budget it came out of. If there’s anyone with a claim, it’s probably Brent Kay, so I’d wait for him to throw a stone.
TBV
TBV,
I look at the whole adventure as though I got a Master’s degree in doping/anti-doping studies. The money I paid into the FFF was my tuition. The time spent, my classes and homework. It’s certainly been, and continues to be, an education. That’s true for all of us who participated, on either side of the Landis debate. Although — the people on the other side didn’t pay “tuition.”
Too bad the FFF can’t confer a real degree, because that would have been one cheap Master’s. If only I’d known, I would have signed up in a real Master’s program back in 2006 or 2007. I’ve even got a thesis complete — my book. 😉
C’est la vie.
Mmm-hmm. Good thing most people aren’t as forgiving as you two! There wouldn’t be much to deter the Landises of the world from ripping people off.
TBV, I have no desire to turn you into a lawyer. Caveat emptor applies to the purchase of a bill of goods? OK. I guess next time we should do everything possible to investigate the doper we try to help. Maybe start a blog?
Larry,
I’m not sure forgiving is exactly the right word to describe what I’ve been thinking and feeling about Floyd’s confession. I think that in the feelings department, “numb” would be better, actually. (See Bill Hue’s update to his Comfortably Numb article at TBV in the next post, by the way.) Maybe some day I’ll be as angry about this as you and Susie B. Who knows?
As for what I get out of this and where we go from here, there’s a part of me that wants to figure out how some good comes from all that’s happened, too. It’s an ongoing education, that’s for sure. There’s a book in all of this (and not the one I’ve already written), too.
Retribution, I’ll leave that for other people. I’m guessing that the Feds have cut a deal with Floyd or vice-versa, and that in exchange for his complete cooperation, he may receive some consideration (like no prosecution for his actions, for example). But I would stress that I have no inside knowledge of that. Haven’t spoken with Floyd since the news broke.
What “good”, if any, comes from all of this is hard to say. On the personal level, answers can depend on the nature and extent of our own individual involvement in this affair. I do think that all of us that have been more or less regulars here and other sites that delved into this case have learned more about WADA, UCI, etc. than we did prior to 2006. I know I have.
As far as whether or not there will be improvements to the anti-doping system, the jury is still out on that one. I, for one, am not holding my breath. WADA and its minions have for too long and hard put forth the idea that theirs is the best of all possible systems. They are not going to noticeably admit that there was anything wrong. It is possible that changes have and will be made under cover, so to speak.
Whether any legal charges will result, either against Landis, or others based in part on whatever info he can provide, remains to be seen.
If Landis has cut a deal with the feds, I hope for his sake that the deal preempts prosecution by State officials. Landis collected money from many people in many States after telling them many lies. Prosecution for fraud is usually a matter left open to the State Attorney General.
Like Deep Throat told us long ago, “follow the money.” Do we really expect the alphabets to suddenly say, “yeah, we were really afraid of this. We don’t have any way to catch this stuff.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/landis-revelations-do-not-nullify-blood-passport-anti-doping-expert-says
There’s gold in them thar sport hills, and the dopers want it like Sauron wants the Ring. Remember those days when we were younger? There were the jocks that were stupid as hell, but got all the girls. Then there were the rest of us nerds that went to science class, and lived in our parents basement reading chemistry textbooks. Well, we discovered something in those textbooks that the jocks thought might get them more girls, and they were willing to cut us in on some of the action if we’d “explain it to them.” We’d discovered a way to to Lead to Gold, and the girls were so appreciative.
Sport is about the *money* not about what is right. And the money doesn’t always go to the athletes.
What site is Bill Hue’s article? I thought TBV was shut down in 08.
Cal,
The Bill’s article is here, actually. Next post over.
And the TBV site is still up, although TBV stopped making posts in December of 2008. Unfortunately, I don’t see any way of doing a search on it.
Never read Frankie’s and Vaughter’s text exchange, but in context of FL’s revelation’s the conversation reveals a lot about USPS/Disco years. I have not heard anyone mention that the private jet that LA travels in makes a convenient place to blood dope without witnesses.
The whole Blue Armada in the mtns hammering the field to pieces always seemed to me to be suspect. Especially after many of the cars in that train got pinched for doping after leaving for other pastures.
My own thoughts are that USPS/Disco was just more organized, cautious, and better at hiding the bodies than other teams.
Of course you can laugh at the French investigators testing medical waste, when you know the incriminating evidence is buried somewhere else.
Again, these are only my suspicions, and for what its worth I enjoyed the hell out of the Tours.
R,
The events of the last week cast a number of things in a different light, to be sure. I still watch races from time to time, and I’m sure I’ll watch at least part of the Tour on a certain cable channel. Knowing the secrets of how the performance is achieved may take some of the magic out of it, but the races are filled with drama and excitement, all the same.
As I commented in Rant’s “Pass the Crow” blog post, sorry I’m late to the game, but I only check in here every couple months or so and I don’t follow the Landis issue all that closely any longer.
Here are few choice bits from these comments and my thoughts:
——
By Larry on May 27, 2010 at 6:29 pm: “I’m sorry if I’m not being clear enough. I don’t think the lab proved an AAF under the WADA rules based on its testing of the S17 sample. I think the arbitrators reached the wrong decision, based on the evidence presented and the governing law. The fact that (in my opinion) the case was not proven against Landis does not mean that Landis rode clean in 2006. I now think that Landis DID dope with exogenous testosterone during the 2006 Tour, simply based on the sheer unlikeliness that the lab could have missed all the PEDs he WAS using and managed to find a PED he WASN’T using (or viewed in another way, that the lab managed to accuse Landis of using exogenous testosterone during the one Tour he didn’t use it, and missed his use of the same PED during the Tours when he did use it). It’s one thing to think (as I do) that the lab could screw up a test, another to imagine that they screwed up just about every test they ever ran on Landis. The greater likelihood, I think, is that Landis is lying. But I cannot rule out that the French lab might be incompetent beyond my imagination.”
—-
Landis may be lying, but I also believe that the French lab was incompetent beyond your wildest imagination. The lab should have been shut down and its technicians fired.
My primary philosophy on the whole case has been and still is the first part of Larry’s comment here. Once I became informed of the facts, I came to believe the results of the S17 sample needed to be thrown out because fundamental flaws in process made them entirely unreliable. There was a broken chain of custody; the science behind the tests was not peer reviewed; there was a conflict of interest as the same testing laboratory tested both the A and B samples; and the lab technicians were inadequately trained and did not have proper SOP manuals. It wasn’t malfeasance per say, it was gross incompetence combined with a system that created unacceptable conflict of interests and opportunities for mistakes to happen.
Personally it was the fact that I saw the system as corrupt and unaccountable that led me to donate to the FFF more so than because I believe Landis to be innocent. I believe in innocent until proven guilt and I believe in proving a case beyond reasonable doubt. I also believe that a person should have the right to a fair hearing and due process. I firmly believe that the alphabet soup has created a system that not only violates the basic tenets of fair play and due justice. Their use of flawed science and systems is also a stain on science and drug testing in general. The system is set up to make it impossible for riders to have a fair hearing without an extraordinary source of funding and the drug testing procedures were so flawed and opaque that there was no way to know for certain that innocent athletes weren’t falsely accused/convicted.
The only way to keep the system honest is for athletes to have a real chance at a fair hearing and for the “prosecutor” to have to prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. This also means that the labs procedures and science must be exposed to the full light of the day.
—-
By Cal on May 27, 2010 at 8:17 pm: “I never suggested you or Susie B feel anger without cause. I simply have stated that to give Landis such power to create such anger gives him way too much power. It is the intensity of anger I do not understand. The feeling of anger is natural, but to carry it to an extreme that I have not chosen to take it to, does not make sense to me.”
—-
I also don’t understand the extreme intensity of anger, it is not healthy. I am disappointed in Landis and feel he let us all down, but I’m not going to lose sleep over having donated to the FFF, nor am I going to expend negative energy fussing and fuming over how I was “lied to”. The anger wouldn’t solve anything it would only make me feel bitter and bring misery upon myself. When I donated to the FFF, I knew there was a possibility that Floyd was guilty and that he was lying. The reason I donated was I wanted there to be a chance for a fair and open hearing as I felt the system was set up to railroad athletes and provided them no legitimate chance to have their cases heard fairly. This creates a system where the labs and investigators are not themselves held accountable to the most rigorous standards and thus creates an environment where the innocent could be wrongly accused.
—
By Cal on May 27, 2010 at 8:17 pm: “Let us discuss something you mentioned earlier, “The Landises of the world make us reluctant to help others, to respond to a tale of woe, to help our neighbors when they say they need our help. That’s why Landis’ fraud is worse than Madoff’s.”
“I believe this statement definitely gives way too much power to Landis and his wrong actions. If you are unwilling to help your neighbor due to this incident, then I definitely do not understand this. As disappointed as I am with what Floyd has done, it has in no way diminished my willingness to help others.”
—
EXACTLY!! Landis having lied to us in no way will affect my willingness to come to the aid of someone else in need. If it lessens your willingness to help others, maybe you need to do some soul searching of your own. People will lie, cheat, and steal. We can not allow our fear of being taken advantage of override our willingness to come to the aid of others. We don’t need to be suckers who give to everyone who has their hand out, but we are still part of society and we should still help our fellow human being as we can when the need arises.