Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 76
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart

    Greg V. Lance (or Floyd)... s'all the same...

    Real quick, the conversation between Greg and Floyd seems eerily similar to the conversation that Greg supposedly had with Lance. How can that be? How can it be that these two dopers came clean to a guy who clearly feels animosity towards them, and yet denied the truth to everyone else?

    C'mon.

    I will say, however, that this business of the threating phone call from Floyd's manager is disgusting and does not paint the camp in a flattering light. However, if you read about the reactions in court, it certainley appears that he acted on his own without the knowledge of, at the very least, Landis' attorneys.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Lemond has been angry and jealous of Lance since Lance grew to fame. Lemond could not handle the idea that any American could be better than he was (and he was great in his day) without doping.

    I lost all respect for Lemond a long time ago. The notion that Landis confessed to him is ludicrous.

    -Jason "I think Lemond wanted Armstrong to acknowledge Greg's contribution to making cycling bigger in the US but Lance was not interested in that-- the two of them do not get along from what I hear" Evans
    Last edited by muggee; 05-18-2007 at 09:58 AM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California

    You can rub it on your chest?

    Yesterday, a lesser cyclist named Joe Papp testified that he had been suspended for using synthetic testosterone and that he used a gel to apply it after having cleared the drug control stand. He had been called to demonstrate how cyclists got away with beating drug control.

    Reaching into his jacket pocket to show a packet of the testosterone gel he used, Papp refuted both Landis theories _ saying it was easy to stay below the threshold of a positive test with the gel, and claiming the gel helped him greatly in recovering between stages.

    "You can compete in UCI-sanctioned stage races like a 2,000-kilometer-long race with drug testing every day, and you can race and win and be on drugs and not test positive," Papp said in interviews after his testimony.

    He said it was easy to get away with having allowed amounts of testosterone in his system if he timed it right. After leaving doping control, he could simply go to a private place and rub the gel into his chest.
    http://www.lompocrecord.com/articles.../d8p7a5oo0.txt
    (scroll down for report on Papp's testimony)

    This testimony seems odd to me. I've never heard of a drug that can be successfully entered into the body via the skin. Sure, there are some pain and muscle relaxers that can be affected by skin application, but I'm not aware of any stimulants. Moreover, testosterone is not regarded as a restorative that I'm aware of (given my lay background in the field).

    Any hormone specialists out there that can intelligently comment on this guy's claim? Assuming Papp did such a thing, why would it serve to refresh strength?

    Besides, what was it that Papp was showing the reporter? Does anyone know for sure that the packet of gel was testosterone? It sounds like a commercial product if it comes in its own packet. Can it be obtained from a health food or vitamin retailer? And if so, maybe there is literature on its efficacy.

    And, of course, there is always the question of whether the product can be tied to Landis.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    Any hormone specialists out there that can intelligently comment on this guy's claim? Assuming Papp did such a thing, why would it serve to refresh strength?
    Answering only this question specifically, the answer is yes. There are a number of hormone / steroid treatments that are applied topically in order to treat various conditions. A number are used to treat skin conditions that invovle hyperactive inflamatory response. Usually the steroid is contained in a petrolium jelly or something of the sort.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California

    LA Times Headline: 'Procedures at Paris drug lab assailed in Landis case'

    The story on Monday's testimony is mainly about Landis's expert attacking the French labs procedures.

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympi...,5621382.story

    [The expert said] the laboratory work underlying the doping charge against the cyclist was so poor that the lab's findings amounted to "speculation."
    * * *
    Dr. Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, an associate professor at Queen's University, Belfast, precisely outlined all the errors and false assumptions he said were made by the Paris-based Laboratoire Nationale de Depistage du Dopage, or LNDD, in examining Landis' urine sample from a late stage of the 2006 race.

    Most critically, he stated that LNDD's measurement of certain key metabolic ratios in the sample violated standards of accuracy laid down by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in technical specifications.
    \

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California

    And the Velo News report enhances the experts' issues

    citing a U Dub prof and doctor who says he is puzzled by the results of the 17th stage urine tests, asserting they make no sense. He is also dubious about testosterone as a performance enhancing drug, casting doubt on Joe Papp's testiomony from last week.

    http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12293.0.html

    "It doesn't look like anything we've seen in men who have been administered exogenous testosterone," explained Amory, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle who works with testosterone deficient patients. "I don't think [Landis's test results] confirm that doping occurred. I can't say there is a physiological process that would give these results. It's quite puzzling to me what exactly is going on here."

    Amory wasn't being paid for his time (40-50 hours, he estimated). And for the last two and a half years, he's been a member of USADA's independent anti-doping board, a panel of experts that decides whether there is enough evidence to move forward with individual doping cases. He was recently reappointed for two additional years on the board.

    Amory also questioned testosterone's legitimacy as a performance-enhancing drug for endurance athletes, saying that the kind of micro-dosing pro cyclist Joe Papp described in earlier testimony might allow an athlete to elude detection, but it wouldn't provide any noticeable benefit.

    "There's no evidence that testosterone plays a role in augmenting endurance," Amory said, pointing to one scientific study that found testosterone had no more benefit than a placebo and that it did not aid in recovery.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    And, the 'threat' against LeMond looks like a severely misguided manager (not uncle) who got himself fired over it. Part of a dishonest culture? Excessive loyalty? Or just stupid? Well, maybe all three...

    However, Landis was fully aware of the call... Even if he didn't condone it, why wait until the next day to deal with the issue? He obviously did not take responsibility in this particular episode, so why should I assume that he would take responsibility when it comes to saying no to doping?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by g_olaf View Post
    However, Landis was fully aware of the call... Even if he didn't condone it, why wait until the next day to deal with the issue? He obviously did not take responsibility in this particular episode, so why should I assume that he would take responsibility when it comes to saying no to doping?
    I think Landis agrees that he was in the room when Geoghegan made the call, but occupied with something else. He says he only heard a portion of the call and didn't quite understand the context until the blow-up. I could chase a link for this, but I think Landis already testified about it on direct.

    Cross was held until today. Awaiting the reports.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by g_olaf View Post
    However, Landis was fully aware of the call... Even if he didn't condone it, why wait until the next day to deal with the issue? He obviously did not take responsibility in this particular episode, so why should I assume that he would take responsibility when it comes to saying no to doping?
    There is absolutely no reason to assume that Landis would take responsibility for not doping.

    However, the decision regarding Floyd's doping will be based on the whether the discrepancies pointed out by his lawyers can be shown to be irrelevant to the positive finding. If the arbitration committee thinks the discrepancies didn't matter then they hopefully rule him guilty. If they think that the discrepancies are large enough then they hopefully find him not guilty. I see no reason that the arbitration committee should care about Floyd's character. A good decision in this case has to be based on the presented facts, not on how responsible Floyd is.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California

    LAT on cross examination of Landis

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...,6832982.story

    If the LAT story is accurate, then I think the USADA attorneys have made a mistake. Concentrating on the Geoghegan matter is worthless as attempting to discredit Landis. Why did you wait? Why did you wear black? All dopy questions and somewhat insulting to the intelligence of the arbitration panel.

    The panel is not a bunch of yokels and probably don't care a whit about what Geoghegan did or didn't do, now. They already know and Landis is not defending Geoghegan's conduct. Plus, in the final analysis, it means nothing, because the issue which makes or breaks this case is the validity of the tests run by the French doping lab.

    The fact is, however, that the USADA lawyers don't have all that much to work with concerning Landis's credibility. He told his story, denied the doping, claiming he would never have done anything illegal and that's that. Cross-examination can't crack that if they have no evidence to counter his testimony. It appears they don't. Relying on the Geoghegan incident is a dead end for them in a case where they can't crack Landis's fundamental denials. They should have let well enough alone.

    Moreover, in the morning, accoring to the SF Chron, Landis found another witness to trash the lab's performance. (Scroll down)

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...s180917D68.DTL

    LAB WORKERS GONE WILD: Davis ripped lab technicians Cynthia Mongongu and Claire Frelat, saying they "clearly did not understand the instrument" they used to manually reprocess data and claiming that some of their testimony "shows a complete lack of understanding of the instrument."

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California

    OK, it's over for now.


  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California

    And the LA Times' summation of the end


  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Does anyone think Landis is guilty?

    Does anyone think the panel will find him innocent though?

    -Jason "I thik Floyd conducted a horrid PR campaign in all this-- he could have a lot more public opinion on his side" Evans

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Does anyone think Landis is guilty?
    Yeah. I haven't followed this closely, and it wouldn't really matter if I did, because I don't know anything about the technical side. But Landis sure acted like he was guilty, and absent further evidence, that's enough for me.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Yeah. I haven't followed this closely, and it wouldn't really matter if I did, because I don't know anything about the technical side. But Landis sure acted like he was guilty, and absent further evidence, that's enough for me.
    OK, so they have this big hearing where they present a bunch of evidence but because Landis "acted" guilty he's guilty. How about posting something useful to the thread, rather than bogging it down with naive comments.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Does anyone think Landis is guilty?

    Does anyone think the panel will find him innocent though?

    -Jason "I thik Floyd conducted a horrid PR campaign in all this-- he could have a lot more public opinion on his side" Evans
    I don't know if Landis is guilty, but given what's been reported I don't think USADA has shown the burden of proof necessary to say Landis doped. I think it will be quite interesting to see the arbitration committee report. Which "facts" were seen as credible, etc.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by hughgs View Post
    OK, so they have this big hearing where they present a bunch of evidence but because Landis "acted" guilty he's guilty. How about posting something useful to the thread, rather than bogging it down with naive comments.
    Ah. Back to the welcoming arms of DBR, where a simple answer to the question, "how many people think Landis is guilty" is met with a condescending and belittling post from someone who thinks he's an expert, and wishes the unwashed masses wouldn't mess up his nice little thread. It is nice to have a reminder of one of the reasons that the boards are so much less interesting than they were 5 years ago. Thank you, hughgs.

    I've probably already spent too much time responding to your pot shot, but would you care to share whether you think he's guilty or not? And why? I'm not asking whether you think that the burden of proof has been satisfied. The arbitration panel can decide that.

    I'm asking you whether you think that Landis is telling the truth.

    Call me naive all you want, but in everyday situations, when I'm trying to figure out if someone is telling the truth, I look at their actions. Someone who starts spouting excuses that make no sense immediately after being accused of cheating is, well, acting like they cheated. And someone who sits by idly (at best) while a key member of their team engages in the most despicable type of intimidation is, well, acting like they cheated. How would you characterize those actions, hughgs?

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    It is nice to have a reminder of one of the reasons that the boards are so much less interesting than they were 5 years ago.
    You are correct, but in all fairness, the boards (OT and PPB) are certainly more interesting than they were two years ago, so we've got that going for us.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by feldspar View Post
    You are correct, but in all fairness, the boards (OT and PPB) are certainly more interesting than they were two years ago, so we've got that going for us.
    Ah, but the main board. How the mighty have fallen. Oh for the bygone days of game previews by Carlos, analysis by stickdog . . .

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Ah, but the main board. How the mighty have fallen. Oh for the bygone days of game previews by Carlos, analysis by stickdog . . .
    Cruel...you're just cruel for bringing that up.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 184
    Last Post: 07-16-2008, 04:50 PM
  2. Cycling Advice
    By Exiled_Devil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-06-2008, 10:53 PM
  3. Drug testing in NASCAR?
    By Bluedawg in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 09:33 AM
  4. Tim Floyd/O.J. Mayo
    By CMS2478 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 12-08-2007, 09:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •