I wouldn't place any faith on anything Floyd says even now. Just because you find some of his statements more credible now than you did before doesn't mean you should extend that credibility to things you can't verify. The guy has proven he will say anything if he thinks it is in his interest. He does come up with some good one-liners though!

Floyd really reminds me of Canseco in baseball. No one likes them but they keep talking and the things they say end up being true.

Care to point out anything Landis has said since he decided to come clean that you think is a lie?

I'd love to believe that endurance sports are clean, but every time I see a great performance I always get the same feeling that I did when Nina Kraft blew the field away at Kona. That just ain't right.

.

It is pretty easy to point the finger at Kraft when the evidence proves she doped, but how come no one ever questions Chrissie's dominance?

That's a good question. I can't think of a specific recent statement that I think of as an outright falsehood. However, Floyd has definitely manipulated the truth to suit his purpose, and I think that behavior continues. He lied back then when it suited him: his legal defense fund, the book he wrote are good examples. A lot of people might lie a bit in such a situation, but these are extraordinary lengths to go to. I had dinner with him back around 2009, when he was just starting riding again. He was definitely not anti-doping at that time. On the contrary, he was lashing out against all the anti-doping forces trying to keep people like him out of the sport. (Remember Rock Racing?) Fast forward one year after that and suddenly he has to "clear my conscience" and "no longer wants to be part of the problem". I don't believe that crap for one second. Floyd does what's best for Floyd. Just because telling the truth happens to be convenient sometimes doesn't mean he won't change tune when it's not. But yeah I don't know if any of the stories he's peddling these days are true, half-true, or false. I just don't trust him.

Dang, more good stuff from floyd, this time about lemond:

“I would never pretend to know what I'd do in Greg's shoes. Nor do I know all of what went on between him and Armstrong,” Landis told Cyclingnews. “I can certainly empathize with his personal distaste for Armstrong. However, his inconsistent treatment of riders who doped is troubling and undercuts his argument that Armstrong should be banned for life.”

Landis points to an episode from last year in which LeMond was seen at the Tour de France with former winners Miguel Indurain and Bernard Hinault.

“For example just last year he was seen waiving to crowds from a VIP car at the Tour along with Indurain and Hinault. Greg himself claims to have quit racing in the early 90s because EPO showed up and that is exactly when Indurain began winning. If clean riders were a victim of doping in the Armstrong era and he was a victim of doping in the early 90s then it defies reason why those two should be treated so differently,” Landis said.

“And for those who still have faith in the Indurain years, consider LeMond's comments last year that Pantani was one of the greatest ever. I think that should speak for itself. His wildly varying positions on different dopers are bizarre and indefensible. Greg needs to decide if he’s anti-doping or anti-Lance.”

Direct link:http://www.cyclingnews.com/...ng-lacks-consistency[/quote[/url]]


[b][u]Greg needs to decide if he’s anti-doping or anti-Lance.”[/u][/b]

this!!!!

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

That's a good question. I can't think of a specific recent statement that I think of as an outright falsehood. However, Floyd has definitely manipulated the truth to suit his purpose, and I think that behavior continues. He lied back then when it suited him: his legal defense fund, the book he wrote are good examples. A lot of people might lie a bit in such a situation, but these are extraordinary lengths to go to. I had dinner with him back around 2009, when he was just starting riding again. He was definitely not anti-doping at that time. On the contrary, he was lashing out against all the anti-doping forces trying to keep people like him out of the sport. (Remember Rock Racing?) Fast forward one year after that and suddenly he has to "clear my conscience" and "no longer wants to be part of the problem". I don't believe that crap for one second. Floyd does what's best for Floyd. Just because telling the truth happens to be convenient sometimes doesn't mean he won't change tune when it's not. But yeah I don't know if any of the stories he's peddling these days are true, half-true, or false. I just don't trust him.

Just curious....did you say "that just ain't right" when Chrissie shattered PNF's (once) course record @ Roth, or when she then shattered her own record the following year? Or when she arrived essentially out of nowhere and dominated IM distance races?

It is pretty easy to point the finger at Kraft when the evidence proves she doped, but how come no one ever questions Chrissie's dominance?

and no, I am not saying CW doped.....but people love to look at performances and say "DOPE!!" but for some reason Chrissie avoids this accusation. I find the difference interesting.

"He was lying to save his job or what was left of it"

Like we all would (or have ) to save your lively-hood.....and Floyd is a nice guy with sense of humor.

Yeah, Olympic Gold Medalist and World Champion pursuiters are generally poor time trialers. I'm not saying Wiggins is clean but at least take some time to be informed about his background.

do you think he'll use whistleblower winnings to repay those debts?

nslckevin wrote:

Things that prove doping include, a positive test, a confession, testimony from somebody who has witnessed the doping. Things that do not prove doping. "Wow, look how fast he's climbing."

I've said this before on ST and I'll say it again. Here are three things that we've been told that can't all be true:

• "...the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen." (USADA)
• EPO can provide up to "...a 20 percent power gain!" (Vaughters)
• The current top riders are clean. (not sure if you are saying this or not but some are)

Why can't they all be true? Because hill climb times are about the same. Sure, it matters what the wind was, where in the race, stage, etc the climb appeared, but there are too many observations to fall back on those explanations now. Day in and day out, no matter where the climb falls, on average climb speeds are in the same ball park as they were before. Certainly they are nowhere near 20% slower. The peloton slowed bit for a year or two, but they are now back to about where they were before.


So at least one of the bullets above is false. I actually think they're all false.

I would say it more like a trap animal fighting for he's life at one point. I'll give him a pass....

as I do to, Levi, Tyler, Etc. Etc......

He won smaller stage races and placed high in prologues and TTs before his first switch to track, then more stage wins and top 10s at worlds TT prior to joining Garmin. That he had had a steady rise and progression of results all the way until 2012 when he basically won everything--with a dominant TT and surviving in the mountains--isn't a huge leap.

20% power is a very different thing than 20% speed. Just saying. You'd have to do some math using the gradient, estimate rider weight, estimated power, etc, to calculate difference in speed. The difference in speed will be considerably smaller in magnitude than the difference in power.

It's difficult to find data on the benefits of EPO on power. There is one study that showed a 13% increase in power. Though it wasn't a perfect study because the test subjects weren't blinded - they knew they were taking EPO.

20%, I'd speculate, is a bit of an exaggeration, but possibly by not all that much.

The first statement is a judgment call. Though I think the "successful" claim is probably definitively true if you measure success by major wins.

For the last, I think the top riders are what I call "cleanish." Which is to say, dopers, but at a significantly reduced level from the 90's. It's more of a state of regulated doping vs. a free-for-all.

Alp d'huez is only around 8%, and the 20ish MPH speeds are certainly enough for significant aero drag, so I bet the relationship isn't quite linear for those guys.

They are riding at ~20km/h, not mph.

.