Lance is terrified that Landis will crack and spill the beans on widespread doping



Floyd's carelessness has already stained pro cycling and reduced the
commerical value of endorsements for everyone, especially Lance
Armstrong. Floyd is a loose canon with neither the brains nor
discipline to keep a lid on the fact that doping is commonplace in
cycling.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Floyd's carelessness has already stained pro cycling and reduced the
> commerical value of endorsements for everyone, especially Lance
> Armstrong. Floyd is a loose canon with neither the brains nor
> discipline to keep a lid on the fact that doping is commonplace in
> cycling.


I think there is a reason that Lance agreed to do Larry King Live with
Froid. He knows darn well that the small-town boy doesn't have thick,
big-city skin like him. I think it was to help keep him from cracking.
It's harder to crack if the guy you'd be ratting-out is right there
with you (even if via satellite).
 
On 3 Aug 2006 13:49:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Floyd is a loose canon with neither the brains nor
>discipline to keep a lid on the fact that doping is commonplace in
>cycling.


They have nothing to worry about. Who could possibly believe that
doping is commonplace in cycling?
 
>
> I think there is a reason that Lance agreed to do Larry King Live with
> Froid. He knows darn well that the small-town boy doesn't have thick,
> big-city skin like him. I think it was to help keep him from cracking.
> It's harder to crack if the guy you'd be ratting-out is right there
> with you (even if via satellite).


sounds exactly like Bush and Cheney insisting that they appear together
before the 911 commission.
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2006 13:49:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Floyd is a loose canon with neither the brains nor
> >discipline to keep a lid on the fact that doping is commonplace in
> >cycling.

>
> They have nothing to worry about. Who could possibly believe that
> doping is commonplace in cycling?


Very well said, I was about to voice the same thing.
 
Good point but I think if Landis came out it would start to sink into
publics consciousness. Larry king is a pretty aggressive interviewer so
i doubt if landis will withstand the questioning without Armstrongs
support.
Andre wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On 3 Aug 2006 13:49:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >Floyd is a loose canon with neither the brains nor
> > >discipline to keep a lid on the fact that doping is commonplace in
> > >cycling.

> >
> > They have nothing to worry about. Who could possibly believe that
> > doping is commonplace in cycling?

>
> Very well said, I was about to voice the same thing.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Good point but I think if Landis came out it would start to sink into
> publics consciousness. Larry king is a pretty aggressive interviewer so
> i doubt if landis will withstand the questioning without Armstrongs
> support.


The public already understands a whole lot more than you give them
credit for.

Here's what one member of the public had to say recently:

(From:
<http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_ylt=AkjAPsu35Ht0OnUvbzbUj_l.grcF?slug=ap-landis-lemond&prov=ap&type=lgns>
)

(TIny: <http://tinyurl.com/rdwqr> )

(Quoting):
<The way three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond sees it, 2006
champion Floyd Landis is already a victim.

<Even if his backup "B" sample comes back negative -- the results are
expected Saturday -- Landis will be tainted by unfounded claims that he
cheated.

<"If it does come back positive, that's even more tragic to me," LeMond
said, because the pressure to compete against those who are cheating
"takes good people and forces them to make tragic decisions.">

There's more. Sounds like Lemond has been doing some thinking. He even
says something that makes sense IRT his relationship with Lance
Armstrong at the end of the article.

When we get 100% perfect testing, this problem will be taken care of.
Until then, the "arms race" between athletes and testers will continue.
The athletes who are caught are scapegoats for an imperfect system that
does not punish those in power who institute the very, very bad rules
that sport, especially cycling, operate under.

The problem is the rules, not the riders. They're just human beings,
like you-- or how much money, or fame and social privilege, or your
name in the record books would it take to "tempt" you?

The lab that returned Landis' positive has a real problem with its
professional reputation after the "Lance EPO" affair, at the very
least. IOW, let's not suppose "the testers" themselves are pure as the
driven snow, OK? --D-y
 
On 3 Aug 2006 20:45:22 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There's more. Sounds like Lemond has been doing some thinking. He even
>says something that makes sense IRT his relationship with Lance
>Armstrong at the end of the article.
>
>When we get 100% perfect testing, this problem will be taken care of.


And when, pray tell, will that be? Cheaters are always ahead of those
trying to catch them and I sure don't see that changing.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com
 
>>When we get 100% perfect testing, this problem will be taken care of.
>
> And when, pray tell, will that be? Cheaters are always ahead of those
> trying to catch them and I sure don't see that changing.
>
> Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
> Home: http://davidclary.com


I don't know, today's dopers have the upperhand but it may change
eventually.

According to this article "Cheating In The Tour de France"; :
http://www.byjamesraia.com/article.php?articleID=104, the first documented
instance of a cheater getting caught was in the 2nd TDF in 1904. He was
repeatedly caught trying to gain an advantage by drafting cars. I presume
other riders drafted cars as well but weren't seen doing it. Today it would
be very difficult for a rider to blatently draft a car without being
noticed. The car drafting rules are now fully enforced (except for *wink
wink* crashes or mechanical probs) and no rider has an advantage over
another, everybody's equal.

Who knows, in 100 years dope detection may advance as well to make doping
not worth the risk.
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2006 19:18:22 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Larry king is a pretty aggressive interviewer

>
> LOL.




Dumbass -


Ditto.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
Dave Clary wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2006 20:45:22 -0700, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >There's more. Sounds like Lemond has been doing some thinking. He even
> >says something that makes sense IRT his relationship with Lance
> >Armstrong at the end of the article.
> >
> >When we get 100% perfect testing, this problem will be taken care of.

>
> And when, pray tell, will that be? Cheaters are always ahead of those
> trying to catch them and I sure don't see that changing.





Dumbass -


There will *never* be an end to cheating (trying to get an edge). It's
endemic to our culture, as is the use of drugs (birth control hormones,
ADD drugs, caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, Viagra, pain killers,
anti-depressives, the list goes on . . . )

When our culture changes, so will the sport. Until then . . .


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> There will *never* be an end to cheating (trying to get an edge). It's
> endemic to our culture, as is the use of drugs (birth control hormones,
> ADD drugs, caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, Viagra, pain killers,
> anti-depressives, the list goes on . . . )
>
> When our culture changes, so will the sport. Until then . . .


Its not our culture, its us. We evolved that way, if we hadn't learnt how
to 'cheat' we'd still be living in caves.
 
>Good point but I think if Landis came out it would start to sink into
>publics consciousness. Larry king is a pretty aggressive interviewer so
>i doubt if landis will withstand the questioning without Armstrongs
>support.


Larry King is a puffball interviewer. Otherwise he couldn't get all
those big name political figures on his show.

--
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
 
JessicaG wrote:
> >>When we get 100% perfect testing, this problem will be taken care of.

> >
> > And when, pray tell, will that be? Cheaters are always ahead of those
> > trying to catch them and I sure don't see that changing.
> >
> > Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
> > Home: http://davidclary.com

>
> I don't know, today's dopers have the upperhand but it may change
> eventually.
>
> According to this article "Cheating In The Tour de France"; :
> http://www.byjamesraia.com/article.php?articleID=104, the first documented
> instance of a cheater getting caught was in the 2nd TDF in 1904. He was
> repeatedly caught trying to gain an advantage by drafting cars. I presume
> other riders drafted cars as well but weren't seen doing it. Today it would
> be very difficult for a rider to blatently draft a car without being
> noticed. The car drafting rules are now fully enforced (except for *wink
> wink* crashes or mechanical probs) and no rider has an advantage over
> another, everybody's equal.
>
> Who knows, in 100 years dope detection may advance as well to make doping
> not worth the risk.


Your trimming, quoting is lacking.

Yes, that 1904 example is poor, as you tacitly admit. Drafting is
"100%" enforced now? I don't think so. The accepted practices IRT
catching the peloton after mishap are "accepted"; there is no *wink
wink* per se. Abuse is punished.

Shall we have true Big Brother 24/7/365 spying on riders? Who is going
to pay for that?

How many sponsors do you think will remain in 100 years?

How about some rules and regulations that are functional in the real
world? --D-y
 
> >Good point but I think if Landis came out it would start to sink into
> >publics consciousness. Larry king is a pretty aggressive interviewer so
> >i doubt if landis will withstand the questioning without Armstrongs
> >support.

>
> Larry King is a puffball interviewer. Otherwise he couldn't get all
> those big name political figures on his show.
>

I've always thought of him as a puffball, and I'm always surprised at
the number of people who think of him as a tough guy. Maybe they are
comparing him to Jay Leno.
 
On 4 Aug 2006 10:43:22 -0700, "Bob Dole" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Good point but I think if Landis came out it would start to sink into
>> >publics consciousness. Larry king is a pretty aggressive interviewer so
>> >i doubt if landis will withstand the questioning without Armstrongs
>> >support.

>>
>> Larry King is a puffball interviewer. Otherwise he couldn't get all
>> those big name political figures on his show.
>>

>I've always thought of him as a puffball, and I'm always surprised at
>the number of people who think of him as a tough guy. Maybe they are
>comparing him to Jay Leno.


The thing about Larry King is that he's good at pretending he's asking
tough questions -- making the sort of gestures that make it look like
he's digging.. So actually it's even better for the interviewee than
someone who is obviously being soft.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 

Similar threads