Well, the Tour de France is over for another year. Alberto Contador beat Andy Schleck by a pretty narrow margin (39 seconds, in case you hadn’t already heard). Lots of comments have been made around the web noting that Contador won by exactly the amount of time he gained after Schleck’s infamous mechanical difficulty. I won’t bore you with any more of that. Kudos to both Schleck and Contador for having the maturity to be friends off the bike, even if they are enemies during the heat of battle.
Color me unimpressed
Floyd Landis appeared on Nightline (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, print version) last Friday night, in what the show billed as an “exclusive” interview. Supposedly, Neal Karlinsky sat down and interviewed Landis for 90 minutes or thereabouts. Watching the story they put together, I was stunned. Not by any new information — there wasn’t any. I was surprised that ABC News had basically regurgitated the information that has been in the print media for just over two months now. With all the time that’s passed, and all the information that’s been published, I expected that a diligent journalist would try to find some new angle on the story. Or some new tidbit of information that would make the Nightline story stand out from all the others.
The only thing that really stands out about the story is that we can hear Landis speaking for himself. That, and we get to hear from a couple of the usual suspects when it comes to stories of Lance Armstrong and his (alleged) history of doping. Betsey Andreu made an appearance, coming off as calm and well-spoken. Emma O’Reilly makes a cameo, and provides perhaps the most darkly amusing comment of the story. “I was a glorified drug runner,” she told an interviewer.
Landis made a good point during the interview when Karlinsky asked the obvious question about Landis’ credibility.
Nightline: You realize you have serious credibility issues?
Landis: I think that’d be an understatement.
Nightline: You’re an admitted liar and cheat.
Landis: What — what is a person supposed to do when they make the wrong decision? I mean, are you committed to that path for good? Are you — once you tell a lie, are you committed to tell that lie forever?
Once a person goes down a certain path, are they doomed to following that path forever? Or can they change directions? Granted, lying in the past about what he had done and seen wasn’t the best choice for Floyd to make, but can’t a person learn from his mistakes? Seems to me Landis is paying a pretty high price for his choice, and turning things around won’t be easy.
One of Lance’s attorneys, Tim Herman, stands in for his client to rebut Landis’ comments. Herman, by way of trying to prove his client’s innocence, notes that Armstrong has been tested hundreds of times. And that Armstrong has not failed any of those tests. While that’s all true, it doesn’t prove Armstrong is clean. It only proves that the tests didn’t detect anything amiss. It doesn’t even prove whether the tests were accurate or not. Karlinsky could have pointed that out and asked a tough follow-up question or two. But he didn’t.
Landis’ own account (published in stories back in May and early June) of the doping he did from 2002 until 2006 would be a good case in point. While Landis still maintains that he didn’t use testosterone during the 2006 Tour, what’s important to note is that the drugs he does claim to have used weren’t detected. And that goes to show that it was possible to beat the testers at their own game 4 years ago. Someone who learned the ropes, or who had people helping him who had the necessary skills, could game the system. Perhaps that’s still true.
Two months after the original revelations, ABC News should have been able to pull together a story that offered some new insight. Getting Landis to agree with a statement that he’s calling Armstrong a liar is about as good as Karlinksky and company were able to get. That, and the answer to the most obvious question of all: Why come forward now?
It’s about the truth. It’s about me feeling better for having mislead the public. I would like to take this opportunity to just say that I’m sorry for having lied. I’m glad I don’t have to lie. It was hard to do interviews where I was lying. I didn’t feel good about those. (via CyclingNews.com)
No evidence, to my eyes, of Karlinsky asking any follow-up questions of any substance to any of the people shown in the story. Which is a shame, as it could have provided the story with more depth. While Floyd may not come across as smooth, as practiced and as polished as Big Tex, Landis usually provides a few good quips and quotes along the way. Is this all they were able to get? Really? Yawn.
Here we go again
Meanwhile, Armstrong is getting to ride off into the sunset, saying that this was his last Tour, for, like, ever. This next voyage into “retirement” is getting off to the same kind of rocky start as his last one did. Only, the difference is that this time, there are Federal agents and a prosecutor snooping around. Last time, it was just a dustup over lab results. This time, who knows where any of this can lead? As of yesterday, it appears that Federal prosecutors want to look at records from the SCA case, the Wall Street Journal reports. According to the WSJ story:
The documents contain depositions from former teammates and associates of the seven-time Tour de France champion during a period when a promotions company was trying to prove that Mr. Armstrong employed banned drugs and practices—known as doping—during his cycling career.
Jeffrey Tillotson, the attorney who represented the company, SCA Promotions Inc., in the arbitration hearings, said it received a subpoena for the records on July 16. He is preparing to send the files to the federal prosecutors in Los Angeles who are handling the investigation, he said.
One person, GQ correspondent Andrew Corsello, offers up his opinion on what Lance should do in this piece. The headline and subhead give a clue:
Lie Strong
Is Lance Armstrong a doper? At this point, that is officially irrelevant. Lance, you’ve got your story, and even if you’re lying through your teeth, we need you to stick to it
Give Corsello’s essay a look. He makes a rather provocative point about the Lance/Livestrong legend.
Let the bidding wars begin
Three-time Tour champ Contador is set to switch teams next year, leaving Astana all to Alexander Vinokourov and his band of merry men. The BBC and a number of other news organizations are reporting today that Contador rejected Astana’s offer of a contract extension for the coming season. According to the Beeb’s article:
Contador said in a statement that he “will calmly study all of the possibilities on offer for the coming season”, adding that “he hasn’t dismissed any of them”.
However, he did not divulge the offers he was considering.
It will be interesting to see where Contador ends up. One rumor is that Bjarne Riis is courting the Spaniard, because the Schleck brothers will be leaving the Saxo Bank squad. Got to wonder, too, if Team RadioSnack might be in the mix. With Lance gone, they will certainly want to bring on a contender. And Contador is a heavyweight contender for next year, barring illness or injury. Contador has a history with Johan Bruyneel. That said, he’s also proved he can win without Bruyneel’s help. However Alberto Contador decides, I’m guessing that the Contador/Schleck on-the-bike rivalry will be going on for some years to come.
The one comment in the interview I did like.. was when asked if he thought lance was a fraud.. His answer was: “Well, it depends on what your definition of fraud is,” Landis said. “I mean it — look — if he didn’t win the Tour, someone else that was doped would have won the Tour. In every single one of those Tours.”
It was a moment of class/respect for Armstrong..
he certainly didn’t need to say it that way…
Oh, and FL is racing Catskills in NY this weekend..
AC,
Good point about the fraud question. It was a classy way to answer, putting the whole question in the context of what was going on in pro cycling at the time.
I liked that comment, and Floyd was speaking the truth. This Tour showed Lance what most riders go through in the Tour. Crashes in the first week, and battling to get the lost time back.
I think it’s interesting, he had more bad luck this year, but who’s to say he would have gotten on the podium otherwise.
Mick Rogers became fatigued and couldn’t pull out of it….a few years ago his team (not HTC C) would have be tranfusing him.
I liked the Tour cleaner! Human beings out there! And the French winning stages!!!
And I’m sick of all the people that are blaming Floyd for naming names!!! How do we clean up the sport without it? I find it the best thing thats happened in a long time!!!
I think what is most important to remember about the interview is who the audience was. They aren’t knowledgeable racing fans, they are fans of ABC Nightline and perhaps LA. they watch baseball and football, not cycling. This was an introductory story, an introduction to Floyd and a side of cycling they were previously unaware of.
What I found most compelling was listening to Floyd. He is a very likable and appealing guy. He was just that likable and appealing when he did his Town Hall meetings. I don’t know how many of them you went to Rant, but I know you were at the one in Wilmette. When you raised your hand to ask a question, one of the moderators on the stage asked you to identify yourself as a “member of the press”, a blogger on the internet; that was how I first learned about your site. My memory is that you asked him if he had cheated and used PEDs (performance enhancing drugs). He left a pause for emphasis and said in a clear and earnest tone, “no, I haven’t” Not ever, you asked? No, he replied. The question wasn’t about testosterone, but peds, and he said no. I believed him. I believed his Wiki defense. A lot of good people believed him. The analysis ripped apart the labs and the equipment used in France. Maybe that improved things.
Ms T (Teresa Hanssen) and I have written and talked to each other about this; we don’t hate Floyd. We supported him and contributed to his fund. We are both sorry this is the way it turned out, very sorry. that being said, perhaps this will help turn the sport towards a better future. Perhaps.
Personally, I think as long as there is money involved, there will be cheating. The bigger the money, the bigger the cheating.
I wondered during this tour, as I have in others, how the riders could get back in the saddle after hitting the ground so hard, ride with fractures, serious injuries without something to help the recovery, even ibuprofen for Pete’s sake. I also wondered if maybe the reason Lance crashed, fell and generally underperformed from even last year’s level was because it was his first clean Tour. Carmichael talks about recovery time and what a huge impact spring injuries have on summer racing (and Lance has some), but still ya gotta wonder.
When you’re young, you can bounce back quickly from a lot of things. I used to party hardy on Friday night, get a few hours sleep and get up and put 5 or 6 hours in the saddle. Get back, clean up, catch dinner and then go out again. And I took a few spills here and there, never broke anything, but got enough stitches here and there to do Frankenstein proud. Most time I ever took off was about a week, then mostly because the doctor didn’t want me to get the stitches wet; impossible to do when you ride and sweat.
Let’s face it, LA is past his prime. From the point of view of results, he probably rode one too many tours, maybe two. Maybe he had other goals in mind, like publicity for his cancer thing, and maybe he accomplished that.
Checking on Floyd racing in the Catskills, after the prologue and first stage, he’s 34 seconds behind, in 6th place. And being very warmly received by the public, say the news reports. I also had read that when he raced last weekend in Bend, Oregon, Greg Lemond traveled to Bend to see Floyd and give him support.
I know I had said (when Floyd admitted doping) that I didn’t care if I saw him race again, but I have to admit now it would have been good to see him race in the Nature Valley Grand Prix. I only saw the crit in downtown St. Paul this year–the race was directly behind the building where I work and my parking ramp was blocked off, so there wasn’t much choice of me not seeing the race, but it was still great fun.
While watching the Nightline interveiw with Floyd and also thinking the reporter could have asked better questions, I remembered the interveiw that Floyd had with Bryant Gumbel two or three years ago. At one point Floyd told Gumbel that he had looked into doping and read alot about it on the internet, checking it out, and Floyd almost seemed like he wanted to talk more about it, but Gumbel ignored it. Totally ignored it! And didn’t question Floyd at all about what he had just said. Watching that, I couldn’t believe that Gumbel would be so stupid to miss that opportunity, but he was.
The Nightline interview was a 90 minute conversation and we only got to see a few minutes of it. It would be extremely interesting to see the entire interview.
Wow Barbara, I’ve never seen Floyd race in person.
cat, In 2009 Floyd raced with the OUCH team in the Nature Valley GP here in Minnesota and I was able to see the three criteriums (out of 5 stages). I never dreamed I’d get to see him race either, so it was alot of fun. This year Nature Valley was held only a couple of weeks after his emails were leaked and the allegations came out, and not being on a team, no surprise, he wasn’t here this year.
Floyd placed tied for 11th in the Catskills this weekend, 69 seconds behind the winner. There was a climb in the 2nd stage called Devil’s Kitchen, 3 miles in length, with an almost 20 degree grade. OUCH indeed.
cat,
You raise a good point. The Nightline interview wasn’t really aimed at people who’ve been following the story — even casual fans who’ve paid attention occasionally over the last couple of months. But if that’s the case (and I believe it probably is), then the timing of the story is, well, odd.
If this had been put out in the first days/weeks after the story broke, their approach would make much more sense to me. Two months later, I think they should have covered the basics (which they did) but also provide some new tidbit or a new angle on the story. With 90 minutes of material from a conversation with Landis, I’m left wondering what was left out — and whether it might actually have been more interesting than the sound bytes they provided.
I went to several of Floyd’s appearances in the Chicago area — a book signing, the appearance at the Wilmette Theatre, and a ride held several months later. He’s a very personable guy, very likable. I’d have to check my notes, but that sounds like a question I asked (along with one on whether Jack Daniels would be a sponsor after he returned to racing 🙂 ).
I’m sorry to see things work out the way they did, but like you, I hope that this will help move the sport in a better direction.
I watched Floyd race at the Tour of Missouri opening stage in St. Louis last year. Shame that the race got shut down this year due to a spat over whether to release already budgeted and appropriated funds. Maybe the organizers will be able to bring it back in years to come, without needing any funding from the state. I’m afraid, though, that may be more in the realm of pipedream than reality.
The ONLY person who committed FRAUD was Floyd Piece of Shit Landis.
As for “naming names” & cleaning up cycling”, you can NOT be serious?!
OP had how many cyclists’ BLOOD EVIDENCE & next to nothing happens, but the smearing of all the top pro cyclists with NO REAL EVIDENCE in a country where the sport is FRINGE at best is gonna clean it up?!
Of course, maybe we’ll be like Germany. Kohl couldn’t name names fast & long enough & what did that do? Oh, let’s see, there is NO more Tour of Germany & the last top pro German team (Milram) is about to go under. But hey, at least there’s no more ‘dirty cycling’ in Germany thanks to Saint Bernard! Woof-woof!
It would be interesting to see what got edited out, whether it was something interesting but deemed to “hot” for some reason; or was it the other way: redux of stuff already said in the interview, or perhaps a bunch of “no comments”. I’d expect that Novitsky might have some things he’d rather FL not comment on in public.
LA’s lawyers are claiming that USADA is offering deals to riders who testify or produce evidence that LA doped.
http://nbcsports.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/02/4802960-armstrong-lawyers-say-usada-offering-riders-deals?category=sports
IFL,
Um, If I recall correctly, Bernard Kohl is Austrian. 😉
Operacion Puerto has been a clusterf*&k since the beginning. (The biggest problem being that what Fuentes did wasn’t illegal when he did it, other than potentially “endangering public health.”) All those rumors about athletes in other sports, and yet none were ever named. Who were the footballers, rugby players, tennis players caught up in the whole scheme, anyway? If the sports media are going to smear peoples names with OP insinuations, shouldn’t they at least be equal opportunity?
One more piece of the puzzle…maybe?
Hans-Michael Holczer accuses Leipheimer of blood manipulation
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hans-michael-holczer-accuses-leipheimer-of-blood-manipulation
I just wish they would hurry up and put the puzzle together so we can finally see the picture it creates!
There is an attached article to the one about Leipheimer about the parliament in Austria going for 10 year prison terms for convicted sports dopers. That’s a bit long, to say the least. If it passes, it would be retroactive to Jan 1, 2010.
They should be concentrating at least as much on the drug suppliers, et al.
Ex-US Postal riders seems to have supported Landis’ claims about Lance’s doping program:
From NYT : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/sports/cycling/05armstrong.html
and
Aren’t we dancing around this a bit? Just exactly what will LA himself say to a grand jury? Oh, I’d volunteer for that civic duty just for that one moment.
People have a right to know whether or not LA is a crook. What did he know, and when did he know it?
He might not say much. I believe that he still has 5th amendment rights and can refuse to answer any question which he feels might tend to incriminate him.
Of course, if he did take the 5th, people might interpret that as evidence of guilt. In any legal proceeding, it can’t be taken as such, but that doesn’t stop the general public from so interpreting things. One might want to plead the 5th even if innocent to avoid getting trapped by a clever attorney or because a truthful answer to a peripheral question might be consistent with guilt as well as innocence. Since I don’t think he will be the beneficiary of any deals, there is little incentive for him to be particularly forthcoming, and I think if I was his lawyer, I’d advise him to say as little as possible.
Question for our legal eagles: Would the target of an investigation have to be called before a grand jury to give his/her side? Or, can a grand jury indict without taking testimony from the person indicted?
If it’s the latter, will Lance even be called to testify?
As the old song goes, “Can I get a witness … ?”
😉
LA has a 5th amendment privilege to remain silent. The federal system requires an indictment by grand jury to proceed with a criminal case. An indictment can be issued by the grand jury for anyone, regardless of their appearance before them.
That said, any decent prosecutor should be able to indict a ham sandwich.
So, if Lance is not a ham sandwich, he’s not a witch, which means … he won’t be indicted, right?
I’m still waiting for evidence of significant criminal activity by Lance. The only crime I see so far is that he probably obtained some prescription drugs without a prescription, and he may have shared them with others. If the FDA really wants to prevent that kind of activity they should start by raiding retirement communities in Yuma, where the residents make regular trips to Mexico to score drugs for themselves and their friends. I could name a couple of names.
Except for the fact that he won the TdF multiple times, it doesn’t appear at this point that Lance did anything that the other dopers, including Floyd, didn’t do. I don’t think anybody should go to jail because they doped in a sport where doping was necessary to be competitive. But if anybody goes to jail, they all should. It offends me to see Lance singled out.
At first I didn’t have a problem with Floyd ratting out Lance and others, but I’ve changed my mind and now think it was a chicken shit thing to do. Except for the anger, I’m finding myself more and more in agreement with Susie B / Indict Floyd Landis.
Well, if that person that talked is Chad Gerlach.. he was on the show intervention.. aka Crack-head.. so its definitely another person that LA lawyers can easily discredit..
The thing that interests me, is that LA’s lawyer said 100 other former riders/teammates will vouch for LA’s innocence… honestly, if he could get 30 of those 100 to state that message under oath (with fear of perjury/jail time by making said claims) then I would actually side a bit more with team LA.. but we all know that is just another diversion tactic..
Also, to be clear.. when I say Team LA.. I mean legal team.. from a cycling standpoint, I’m a fan of both LA and FL.. that idea would break most folks brains in two.. also a fan of GL too
My understanding is that a suspect does not have to testify at a GJ but may request to do so. Since a suspect can take the 5th and clam up, there is little reason for a prosecutor to call a suspect to testify, in fact it may very well be that a prosecutor cannot compel a suspect to so testify; the prosecutor cannot call the defendant to testify at trial. So if LA is in anyway a “suspect” here, I doubt we’ll see him in front of the GJ, unless he wants it.
Whether this is a “witch hunt” I think rather depends on Novitsky’s motivations and goals: if he is merely looking to see if there is any creditability to the accusations and thus if there are any violations of federal law, letting the chips fall where they may, then this is not a witch hunt. If he is out to bring LA down no matter what, then I think we are approaching Salem territory. There are people in the UCI/WADA/ASO world who would like to have LA’s head mounted above their mantle, no matter how it got there.
Gonzo? Fred.. aka the Phoenix.. strikes again..
http://www.youtube.com/user/fredmauneythephoenix#p/a/u/0/7Mway0jDMCQ
http://goo.gl/MhO5
If you haven’t seen the first two vids, they are also on his site.. this guy reminds me of my conspiracy theory neighbor Will..
whoa, THIS is an interesting read.. http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf
AustinC,
Old stuff but good to rediscover it with a new spirit, you can read too the abstract there
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/News-Center/Press-release/WADA-Completely-Rejects-Vrijman-Report/
containing
“The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical.”
Pfft. Pot calling the kettle black? Tit for tat. The same can accurately be said of both sides. The alphabet soup is funny, especially when one acronym is railing against another. (Emphasis on professionalism and objectivity, and it does not border on farcical, it is farcical and contemptible)
Let’s just stick to the summary:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrongs-tour-de-france-career,17814/
Velo Vortmax claims: “Floyd Landis rides with a racing license issued in Canada.”
ORLY?
eightzero,
I like The Onion’s article. Pretty much dead-on. As for Floyd riding with a Canadian license, that seems like a stretch, but I suppose anything is possible. Rasmussen rode with a Mexican license for at least one or two seasons, and that’s much further afield from his homeland that Canada is from the US. (Although, to be fair to Rasmussen, his wife is from Mexico. So at least there’s some connection…)
As for the Vrijman report, that’s an oldie, but goodie, innit? To me, WADA’s comments have the ring of the pot calling the kettle black. I’ll have to give both WADA’s statements and the full Vrijman report a thorough read one of these days to refresh my memory.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/post/Bike-bought-for-5-at-yard-sale-belonged-to-Tour?urn=top-262060
That $5 bike article is realy, really sad. Was that the Leadville bike?
One wonders, if indeed this was FL’s bike, how it came to be on the side of the freeway in Kain-tuck. Did he toss it on one of his book tours, like he did the Tour trophy?
Interesting story. I, too, wonder how someone figured out that it was the bike Floyd rode in Leadville — unless it’s got his name on it or something obvious like that. On the other hand, there was a story about a mishap on the way to one of those other 100-mile MTB races in 2008. IIRC, his bike flew off the car rack on the way to a race in Ohio and was trashed. It’s possible someone found it by the roadside, but I would think it would be more damaged than just broken pedals. Never know, though. Truth is stranger than fiction. If it’s really Floyd’s bike, it would be nice to see it get back to him. BMC just started selling their bikes here about a year ago, so there weren’t very many around in 2007 or 2008.
Finally, a story about law and cycing that might end happily. I don’t think Greg Estes has good title to that bicycle. If the lawyer Floyd borrowed from Greg Lemond is onto his job, a courteous but firmly-worded letter should go out no later than Monday morning asking for the return of the lost property and offering to arrange and pay for the shipping of the bike to Mr. Landis.
Yeah, I’d think that a bike which fell off a rack while driving on a freeway would get pretty trashed. But the comment on broken pedals seems to be more the seller wasn’t familiar with modern clipless pedals than the pedals were really broken.
I’d imagine that, assuming there’s a serial number on the frame, it wouldn’t be much of a problem tracking down its pedigree. Name on the frame might be suggestive, but heck, in 5 minutes, I could have anybody’s name on my frame.
So there’s a bit of a problem here for Mr. Estes: if indeed it bike is FL’s and it can be proven, he well may have to cough it up; on the other hand, if ownership can’t be proven, then he might have a valid claim, although far less valuable. Still, it sounds like it was a pretty high-end model and still a good deal, even if there is no history involved.
The puzzle is solved:
http://deadspin.com/5614039/solving-the-mystery-of-the-5-floyd-landis-yard-sale-bike
Barbara,
I’m a bit confused by the article. Did the shop they mention actually own the bike Floyd was riding in 2008, or did it just happen to be there for a tune-up and got lost on the way to the race in Ohio?
Either way, it adds a bit more detail to how the bike got lost. Thanks for posting the link.
The asking price is $5,000, but don’t forget the $400 shipping fee.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Floyd-Landis-Leadville-100-4stroke-02BMC-mountain-bike-/250685357053?pt=Mountain_Bikes
Thanks for the link. Too bad the bike is the wrong size for me. (Not that I have 5 grand to spend on a new mountain bike, anyway.) 😉
I’m curious as to whether the seller really has — for lack of a better term — “clear title” to the bike, or whether legally, it belongs to Landis or the people who built it up for him.
I looked this up in my old Property casebook. Black-letter law is that the finder has better title than anyone except the rightful owner. So the person who found the bike along the side of the road has a better right to it than you or me, but not a better right than the owner. And the current offeror steps into the shoes of the finder, who can’t convey more of a property right than he had. So it would be extremely unwise for anyone to buy this bike, because the owner (there’s an owner, I know we’re not sure who that is) can take steps at any moment to retrieve it from whoever has it in his possession.
Now relisted at $3500 + shipping:
http://cgi.ebay.com/4stroke-02BMC-mountain-bike-/250689860685?pt=Mountain_Bikes&hash=item3a5e47b44d
— and the provenance seems to have been altered.
That’s a pretty hefty profit on a $5 investment — if anybody actually buys the bike, that is.