Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 1:43

Post #226 of 326 (6187 views)

In Reply To:

i have no idea whether lance doped or not...

whilst being some way from 100% sure either way, I bet you have a least an idea. You are definitely an ideas man

Regarding Landis' behaviour and motives for making these accusations. This very typical in the case of whistle blowers. I'll give you another case in point. Mark Whitacre in the landmark ADM anti trust case. He blew the whistle only because he wife forced him to and he persitently lied and to Fed agents, primarily to cover up the millions of $$ he had embezzled from the company. Ultimately he served significantly more time than than the execs involved in the price fixing scandal. A more paranoid, tainted and unreliable witness you could not have wished for... Yet on the issue of the price fixing he was telling the truth all along. The only difference was that he was able to provide nailed down evidence on the issue. He would have been destroyed totally if the case would have rested on him only as a witness.

Landis' motives smack of opportunitism and retribution, yet I still think that his basis of his accusations are true. I am a huge LA fan and am one of that large group who feels that he was/is and exceptional athlete and won in essentially a level playing field (i.e. all the major contendors were crossing the line). I would never bet any money that he has never put a PED in his body.

However, getting back to the OP. The accustation that a positive test was fixed with a pay off to UCI is the most explosive part of the revelations. Almost unbelievable that this could have happened and been covered up, as you have explained and absultely jaw dropping that UCI would have conspired to do this. Yet when I read the statements of the various bodies involved (USADA/WADA saying that this will be investigated, while UCI criticise Landis for harming cycling with his accustations) I just wonder.......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TriRaceBook.com
.
Hawaii Qualification Analysis

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 5:20

Post #227 of 326 (6146 views)

Dan, again your stance on this issue is piss poor. You "dont feel compelled to take a stand" yet you start this thread attacking the accusations of Landis and then throughout the thread attack Landis' character and try to place seeds of doubt into his story. Clearly Landis is a scum bag but that doesnt mean scum bags dont know things. If you are trying to take down a major drug distributor guess who your testimony is gonna come from??? Drug dealers that have lied, stolen, killed, and embezzled money.

Dan either dont take a stand (that would mean no attacking one of the two sides, or giving objective criticism and comments to both sides) or take a stand. This bs spot of attacking one side but not "taking a stand" just rubs the wrong way, and takes any journalistic credibility away from you...

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [Doitagain] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 5:22

Post #228 of 326 (6145 views)

Cry me a river. I would expect you actually address what I say instead of moving on to the next attack point for obsessed haters like you. You talk out of your ass, you get the appropriate response. grow up and deal with it.

I have read through the entire thread and notice that you are the only poster (with the exception of aka Roadhouse) that resorts to personal attacks and both of you are Lance apologists. Co-incidence?

Instead of relying on your personal attacks, why not comment on posts from people like Joe Pappa, who actually have some insight and post comments worthy of debate without name calling and inappropriate language.

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 6:07

Post #229 of 326 (6111 views)

Aside from the money, what a wretched job pro sports are. The pressures you and I and everybody else puts on these athletes is unbearable. Fail my expectations, disappoint your family and friends, invite scorn from the media, risk everything. Oh hell, just take a few stupid pills and get out from under all that weight. Who's to blame? You. Me.

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [rtk] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 6:12

Post #230 of 326 (6100 views)

Yeah, they have it really tough. I mean, I'm sure every day they dream they could be a single parent working 3 jobs, trying to feed and get an education for their kids on $18,000 a year....those poor athletes...

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [Fraussie] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 6:20

Post #231 of 326 (6091 views)

In Reply To:

Yeah, they have it really tough. I mean, I'm sure every day they dream they could be a single parent working 3 jobs, trying to feed and get an education for their kids on $18,000 a year....those poor athletes...

Did I mention Aside from the money? Anyone who makes 18,000 a year from 3 jobs needs some career advice.

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [rtk] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 6:23

Post #232 of 326 (6088 views)

In Reply To:

Aside from the money, what a wretched job pro sports are. The pressures you and I and everybody else puts on these athletes is unbearable. Fail my expectations, disappoint your family and friends, invite scorn from the media, risk everything. Oh hell, just take a few stupid pills and get out from under all that weight. Who's to blame? You. Me.

I really do feel terrible about this. Do you think I should write notes of apology to Floyd and all the others?

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [rtk] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 6:24

Post #233 of 326 (6088 views)

You need to get out of Beverly Hills every now and then...There are folks out there who are really struggling, because they were born in the wrong place, because of what happened to them in their lives, etc.

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [joe.papp01] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 7:01

Post #234 of 326 (6037 views)

In Reply To:

Hey now...yes, the "real" joe papp here, though I deny being a "celeb" before anyone starts writing angry posts saying the same. lol

celebrity? you should be an inmate.

_________________
Anything is Possible.

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 7:45

Post #235 of 326 (5983 views)

In Reply To:

In Reply To:

All I want are the facts, Rapp.

That's BS, but no matter. You don't even know what you want. I'm not sure why I really bother, since you just want whatever confirms your own biases - as with the aero OR training "argument" where you fail to recognize that it's both and that equipment can indeed make up for or (in some cases) even trump training.

But, since you want facts, here you go:
The nandrolone test - which Dan alluded to - is one of the eariliest tests that WADA - and other anti-doping organizations - conducted. If you don't know what nandrolone is, go look it up. I'm not going to educate you about the very basics. It recently - in 2005 - became apparent that the test that WADA was using on urine samples had serious flaws. A phenomenon known as unstable urine - which is relatively common - could throw a false positive. There is a way to check if urine is unstable - which WADA labs NOW do - and if you have those markers, then you cannot rely on the accuracy of the test. As a result of these findings WADA also increased the nandrolone concentration allowed from 2ng/ml to 10ng/ml. That's a 500% increase. According to estimates, as many as 70% of the positives under the old 2ng nandrolone test without the unstable urine marker check could have been FALSE POSITIVES. So WADA was using a test that was 30% reliable - based off the number of FASLE positives. 30%. That's not even half. That's absurd.

Do you think any of the athletes that got busted by that test got those two years of their life back? Got reimbursed for lost wages? They didn't.

Those are the facts.

The EPO test for urine is relatively new (since 2001) by comparison with the nandrolone test, but there is also significant concern about it's accuracy. If you'd like to read the FACTS about the flaws in that test, read here, which is a cyclingnews.com article that reprints Dr I�igo Mujika, a respected physiologists, analysis of the flaws with that test: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/...005/epotest_problems

There is plenty more out there on the various tests for various PEDs. I'd encourage you to seek the FACTS for yourself. That way, when you speak, maybe I can start thinking it's reasonable to ask YOU to speak factually as opposed to just spouting off...

Jordan:
You left out the most important part! This Quote:

"My name is I�igo Mujika, you tested my father. Prepare to die!" ;-)

http://www.EpixGear.com

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [FJB] [ In reply to ]

Doitagain

May 24, 10 8:05

Post #236 of 326 (5951 views)

In Reply To:

Cry me a river. I would expect you actually address what I say instead of moving on to the next attack point for obsessed haters like you. You talk out of your ass, you get the appropriate response. grow up and deal with it.

I have read through the entire thread and notice that you are the only poster (with the exception of aka Roadhouse) that resorts to personal attacks and both of you are Lance apologists. Co-incidence?

Instead of relying on your personal attacks, why not comment on posts from people like Joe Pappa, who actually have some insight and post comments worthy of debate without name calling and inappropriate language.

I am still waiting for him to actually discuss what I posted first.

(How did I know that you would come running in to defend him)

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [coloradotri] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 8:07

Post #237 of 326 (5943 views)

what i said is that i have no idea of lance doped. i was not in a position to know. the reason i keep reminding readers to consider the source is that the source has taken the affirmative act of accusing another. when you seek to bring great harm on another's person, or family, or reputation, the onus is on the accuser to establish his case.

i think the archetypal case of "jumping to conclusions" was the poor fellow forced to do the perp walk as the atlanta olympics bomber. turned out he was innocent, but he was savaged before the real bomber was uncovered.

so what i've read here a couple of times in this thread is that one of the reasons lance has to be guilty is that now kristin is allied against him, giving damning evidence. but all i've read is that she's "cooperating." what does "cooperating" mean? i don't know. do you know?

so, maybe lanced doped, i don't know. and if i have a suspicion one way or the other, it doesn't matter. i still don't have enough evidence to draw an informed conclusion. nevertheless, when i see a person of highly questionable character clubbing another, whether it's with a baseball bat in the street, or with his mouth or with his pen, the onus is on the one doing the clubbing. if you think i hold a bias, you're right. i'm biased toward a hard analysis of anyone bringing intentional harm to another. it could be that it's a good idea for that intentional harm to be brought. nevertheless, the microscope must always rest on the accuser and his evidence, rather than the accused. i think society often gets it backwards.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Last edited by: Slowman: May 24, 10 8:24

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 8:38

Post #238 of 326 (5899 views)

So is the only evidence you will accept that concludes to Lance doping, is a positive UCI drug test or he actually admits he dopes? I ask because it seems in this age of doping that we have seen many athletes have negative tests, yet later on have we have found out they were actually doping.

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

Last edited by: bad929: May 24, 10 8:42

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:27

Post #239 of 326 (5841 views)

In Reply To:

In Reply To:

i've done a lot of reporting on the process of drug testing, drug labs, the protocols and whatnot, and i've interviewed ad nauseum, at length, officials at USADA, WADA, and various lab managers such as the now retired don catlin at the largest worldwide WADA-approved lab at UCLA.

perhaps the most explosive of landis' accusations is that lance and johann paid the UCI to cover up a drug positive. the problem i have with this is the protocol followed by a drug lab. upon returning a positive test, a WADA lab (there are only three dozen around the world) informs three entities at the same time: the IF (the UCI in this case); the testing authority (which may also be the IF, or, it may not, depending on who ordered and paid for the test); and WADA.

so, not only the UCI would have to be in on this, so would WADA. and, really, so would the lab, presumably, because the lab would know that its positive test is being hushed.

the reason WADA is able to release stats each year detailing how many adverse findings occur, per sport, per lab, is that WADA routinely, by protocol, receives notice of these adverse findings concurrently with the testing authority and the IF.

so, for landis' accusation to ring true, not only would the UCI have to have agreed to this payoff, both the UCI and bruyneel/armstrong would have to count on severe ineptitude by both the testing lab and WADA, each of which would also know about the positive. even if you grant that such ineptitude might exist, it's unimaginable that you could rely upon it, esp when a paper trail would be there for anyone to follow.

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has been discussed yet.

But when did the UCI sign on to the WADA Code? It's my understanding that this was after 2001. If that's the case, would WADA have even been in the loop for a positive test at a UCI sanctioned event back then. Remove WADA from the loop, and it's entirely credible.

If Slowman's problem with Landis' accusation is the necessary involvment of WADA in any wrongdoing by UCI, well that problem never existed, as you correctly understood.

From 2004:

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/...2004/jun04/jun18news

Quote:

UCI to sign anti-doping code
Better late than never, the UCI will sign the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) World Anti-Doping Code, announced WADA president Richard Pound on Thursday. The UCI is the only Olympic federation not have signed the code, which seeks to unify the various sports federations across the globe under one set of rules and procedures in the fight against doping. The UCI is expected to sign the code on July 23.
"The 23rd is a bit late, but it's still before the Olympics," Pound commented. "What's most important is that the UCI has always accepted the principle of the code."
The International Olympic Committee has indicated that the signing of the code by the various sports federations is imperative before the Athens Olympics begin in August

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [bad929] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:34

Post #240 of 326 (5821 views)

but you also never hear too much about the positive tests that are later disregarded.....and if they were, then you just assume that the positive test was accurate, meaning that person doped and just got off on a simple technicality, ie: Rutger Beke.

Why isn't it okay for some of us to simply accept WADA and the UCI as the governing bodies and let them do their jobs and ignore all the bullshit speculation? Why do people like Slowman need to be admonished for taking that approach? Ridiculous.

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [Gandalf] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:36

Post #241 of 326 (5823 views)

The only difference was that he was able to provide nailed down evidence on the issue.

That's a pretty big friggin difference!!

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:41

Post #242 of 326 (5806 views)

"if i have a suspicion one way or the other, it doesn't matter. i still don't have enough evidence to draw an informed conclusion"

Again, just say you dont want to comment. I admire your long winded responses but seriously, you have an opinion. If you never wanted to share it you shouldnt have started this thread in the first place going after one side of the he said/she said.

Staying out of the debate is fine, but you cant get in the debate, attack one side, then say "I am holier than thou and I reserve all judgement until I have clear testable evidence".

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [coloradotri] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:42

Post #243 of 326 (5802 views)

Are you Floyd?

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [saltman] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:43

Post #244 of 326 (5798 views)

I never said he was wrong for taking that stance. I simply asked what evidence he needs in order to conclude that Lance doped or did not dope. Thus I was wondering if it will take an actual positive test or admission for him to come to said conclusion.

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [bad929] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:50

Post #245 of 326 (5775 views)

"So is the only evidence you will accept that concludes to Lance doping, is a positive UCI drug test or he actually admits he dopes?"

no. i'll look at any evidence, i'll consider it all. just, it's good to remember that lance is one of the world's premier athletic public figures. he's not just another cyclist. a lot of folks feel and have felt snubbed as they went from being in lance's circle to out of it. some of these make up the detritus, the road kill, left in the wake of lance's public rise.

if floyd makes an accusation, that's evidence. we ought to consider the evidence. but we ought to analyze it against the backdrop of the messenger, the messenger's track record, and the extraordinary knowledge (if true) that floyd's accusation came as a result of his team not getting a ToC slot. if this is true (and i'm waiting for AEG to independently confirm this), you can rule out any acceptable motive for floyd's accusation.

now, let's say johann bruyneel made the very same accusations against lance that floyd makes. or let's say hincapie does. or levi. then i think you have to give those revelations much more weight. i don't require a positive test to prove guilt. and i don't dismiss floyd's accusations out of hand. rather, i cannot think of a more damaged, less credible, source among those proximate to lance over the years.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [bad929] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:50

Post #246 of 326 (5771 views)

I can say that it would take a WADA ruling for me, but I am not Slowman. I don't think that requires a positive test. I simply choose to watch sports, trust the governing bodies judgment and move on. Why get bent over it?

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [saltman] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:53

Post #247 of 326 (5760 views)

haha, no Im not Floyd. I think he is a dirt bag but sadly a dirt bag telling the truth...

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [saltman] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:56

Post #248 of 326 (5749 views)

In Reply To:

I can say that it would take a WADA ruling for me, but I am not Slowman. I don't think that requires a positive test. I simply choose to watch sports, trust the governing bodies judgment and move on. Why get bent over it?

I'm not getting bent over anything, you seem to be getting bent out of shape over me questioning Slowman's take on this issue. I simply wondered what type of evidence it would take in order for Slowman to make an informed conclusion, thats it. Your the one reading more into it than which is there.

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [coloradotri] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 9:59

Post #249 of 326 (5741 views)

In Reply To:

haha, no Im not Floyd. I think he is a dirt bag but sadly a dirt bag telling the truth...

While he may be telling the truth, will the truth be able to be seen through the dirt bag part? I'm not so sure, with his track record.

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

Re: The problem with Landis' accusation [bad929] [ In reply to ]

May 24, 10 10:00

Post #250 of 326 (5734 views)

I didn't suggest you were getting bent, nor am I. I think others on this thread are unfairly baiting Dan and frankly its unwarranted. Many of his share an opinion very similar to his. I don't see why that shouldn't be okay.

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.