*** SPOILER *** Interesting facts from Landis' book

One other interesting thing: Don Catlin, the founder of the UCLA lab, has said that doping was obviously going on. Charlotte Ayotte shot down Landis' claim that other labs would not found Landis' samples positive.

The fact is this: Landis now has a long and well documented history of lying about his case. Heck, I wanted him to get off so I see him race again; but there has been much of Landis' defense that is laughable.

 

+1 best idea I've read so far

 

And what about the people who were cheated, abused by Landis?

If Landis is guilty, it's better that he would not be exonerated, the reverse it's like to steal his victims once again! Victims are not responsible how the case were handled, and Landis' case is far to be clearly flawed so there is no reason to exonerate him.

 

Read Lances book. You'll finish it thinking he's a great guy too. In fact read anyone's authorised story and you'll wonder why they only let saints publish their story.

 

Other juicy tidbits:

The first year Landis was on the USPS Tour squad, he was in debt, and his share of the team's Tour earnings was $50K. LA gave Landis a "Lance bonus" of $40K.

One year when Landis couldn't pace LA up a climb and Chechu had to do it instead (during one of the earlier years Landis rode the Tour), both LA and Bruyneel were pretty stern with him afterwards. Bruyneel said something like "this is unacceptable".

Landis writes that LA is a paranoid, detail-oriented person.

Landis makes it sound like Bruyneel didn't really care too much whether Landis' hip was injured, in terms of Landis' personal well-being. It sounded like Bruyneel was focused on getting good domestiques for LA.

Unless one is LA, one does not get one's requests readily fulfilled. Landis wanted a time trial bike at home for practice, and was repeatedly denied. One of the excuses given to explain why Landis couldn't have that was that even George didn't have one.

The domestiques, except for Landis, are all very deferential to Bruyneel and LA.

 

Just goes to show that Armstrong is an asshole, Hincapie is a putz for staying, and Landis was the only domestique with balls.

 

Musette is still awaiting her "Lance boning.." I mean bonus...

 

I think keeping a tight hold on one's domestiques, even ones that are strong climbers or otherwise strong themselves, is an art for a team leader and DS. There has to be a certain level, in my book, of combination of carrots and sticks -- a blend of a desire to do well for one's team leader, as well as a certain fear of consequences if one disappoints or tries to have personal ambitions. At least that's necessary in my mind for a team that tries to win the Tour.

see the 2007 Astana Kloden/Vino situation (before the team was pulled)
see the various T-Mobile situations

It is not being a bad person to have developed, along with one's DS (who is very much like oneself) an effective system to induce domestiques to only think of one's well-being (team ownership participation and the team leader also being the boss of the European peloton also help).

Bruyneel has not made it a secret that he picks domestiques not only for "pure" ability, but also for fit. In the case of a domestique, that requires a certain selfless type.

 

the antics of TM/Astana added an element of interest to le tour as opposed to the maniacal, robotic racing of blue train.

 

Agreed. I'm amazed more teams do not see this. This was the winning formula for Eddy M, Hinault,Indurain, and LA. Total of 22 TDFs. Then we looka t peter Post's team of Ti-Raleigh and it could be argued that it was the most dominant team of the past 40 years. It had a problem with winning the TDF.

 

You misread the "Lance Bonus." He gave him the 50K AND the 40K on top of it. He says he got 90K and that the 40K was from lance's own pocket.

 

Theres is no way McQuaid would have said some of the things Landis seems to claim, but Landis can tell any lies he likes about a telephone conversation - unless it was recorded no one can prove him wrong. Also ridiculous to imagine the UCI wanted to "get" Landis - over the years, there have been dozens of guys who lost wages when teams went bust, or had some other argument with officialdom.

Its the sort of stuff uneducated, "patriotic" Americans will believe, and I guess that the market for Floyd's book. Plenty of them on this thread!

Incidentally, Landis did have the option of requesting his B samples to tested at another lab - why didnt he take that option?? Because the other lab would have confirmed LNDD's findings and destroyed Landis' conspiracy theory defence - which is all he has.

 

I did not misread that. That's what I said.
You misread my post.

 

Interesting.

Cyclesport Magazine did an entire edition on Merckx : unlike Armstrong, Merckx retains the friendship of his team colleagues.
For example, Patrick Sercu does publicity work for Merckx team.
Two of Merckx former riders are employed at his factory in production work.

I can tell you that a similar situation exists between Indurain and his former team mates : Gerard Rue for example still works with BigMig.

Guys like Merckx and Indurain have managed to retain friendships with their team collegues.
They never operated an employer/employee relationship.
And they were more successful on the bike.

 

About Merckx, when I saw what was a hearing, I have understood why he didn't want to come. I think he would have done some damages to Floyd or to his friends with his answers.
- "Mr Eddy, how widespread is doping in cyclling?"
If he had lied , he would have lost a lot of credibility around him. Without lying his testimony became bad for Floyd.

Answering to the question "did you dope?" was probably a smaller problem.

 

That's completely irrelevant emotionalism. Either the lab did screw up the labeling three times or it didn't. Either they did have a 200% test variation or they didn't. Doesn't matter who wrote the book.

The lab has to follow standards. And whether Landis doped or not, if their rules were not followed, then they don't have a positive.

 

Once again saluki confirms her absolutely mind boggling stupidity.

Landis sure is not going to write a book that says his defense is largely spin control and misrepresentation. The testing issues are complex and it is easy to distort if you only present one side of the case.

 

Hi again BB brain. What part of "samples mislabled 3 times" don't you understand? What part of "200% variation in test results" don't you understand. These are verifiable facts. Do you understand the difference between facts and spin; or have you been spinning so long that it's no longer possible. What the hell do you think "the other side" of 200% variation is - "Close enough for government work"? What the hell do you think the other side of "samples mislabled 3 times is"? "Tom, Dick, Harry, what the hell, it had to belong to Landis"? Sometimes I think that you've exposed yourself as the biggest moron in the world, and then the next day you top yourself.

 

Jesus Christ, you stupid fuck. Instead of relying upon what Landis tells you, go over to the DP forums, where there is a full discussion in excruciating detail of all the lab work and the science.

 

You need a rest mate, you are starting to sound like Musette.